Free Range Vegetarian

[Anthony Butcher]

Originally Posted by Astrocat

If you were compelled to live in similar conditions with no means of escape, for your entire life.... then, would you find that to be okay or acceptable ?

Many people live in far worse conditions.

In my eyes the free range specification is self-evidently much better than battery farming. You disagree, and I accept that. Let's agree to disagree and leave it there.

This campaign is here to welcome everyone who wants to know what's in their food and where it comes from, whatever their motivations. That means that we have to be accepting of varying ethical standpoints.

The campaign is about giving information to consumers so that they can make up their own minds, not pre-judging the information. If you don't think that 'free range' means anything, then you are free to ignore it and look for differing standards that will also be suggested to busineses to aim for.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

Show people a picture of an animal and the condition it lives in, and only the most mentally damaged of them (or blind people) would be unable to discern from that what sort of conditions the animal is living in.

I like the fact that you are thinking outside the box, but in this case, I think that it isn't a practical solution that we could convince restaurants to adopt. No restaurant is going to post a picture of an animal on the menu unless it is an animal looking happy in a field. The photos would be so easily manipulated anyway as to make them completely useless anyway I suspect.

On reading the idea, my natural assumption is that it's main purpose is to put people off their food and turn them all vegan. Obviously if we want businesses to take the campaign seriously, we can't be seen as operating a propaganda or animal welfare education exercise.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

People will rarely make the effort to read the free range guidelines before forming opinions about how they believe that free range animals are being treated.

Well, it pretty much matches what I expected it to be, so I imagine other people would have the same reaction.

[Anthony Butcher]

Originally Posted by Astrocat

These are free range hens -

That picture looks very much like it is breaching the 'free range' legal limitations and in fact they are barn hens. Where are the associated pictures of the same chickens in their 'open-air runs, comprising an area mainly covered by vegetation' if they are free range birds? They clearly don't have 1m² per chicken in there either.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

These are free range turkeys -

Clearly they aren't free range turkeys if they are actually cramped in like that, or the picture has been doctored and just shows a bunch of chicks huddled together for warmth as they do.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

People can look at these pictures and can clearly see what the conditions are like, and from there would be able to make an educated decision about whether they regard those conditions as acceptable, altruistic, humane, etc..... or not.

How many restaurants are going to use that picture on their menus to encourage people to eat there?

I really don't think that this is a workable solution.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

But if there are no pictures, and people are merely being told 'these are freedom food free range eggs' , or 'these are RSPCA certified free range eggs' .... then what information do they really have to go on, there ?

What you are essentially arguing it that all labelling is subject to a level of trust. Of course you are right, but most people are happy with that compromise I think.

[Calum]

If we are not going to use 'free range' as an 'approved' label for restaurants, then we would need something appropriate to replace it with - and that means a credible alternative farming standard that is widely recognised.

yes! i completely agree.

by the way, here's a simple solution for products which have labels (for supermarkets etc), they could just put the pictures of free range animals onto the label of the "food". You know they're going to do this with tobacco products? they're apparently going to start having photos of people with cancerous tumours in their throats etc on cigarette packets in an effort to stop people smoking, well why not photos of animals on packaging which are kept in the conditions that the grade of meat being bought would be kept in? This way, instead of misleading terms like "free range", they could make a decision which level of animal treatment they want to endorse and pay for.

[Anthony Butcher]

Originally Posted by Calum

well why not photos of animals on packaging which are kept in the conditions that the grade of meat being bought would be kept in? This way, instead of misleading terms like "free range", they could make a decision which level of animal treatment they want to endorse and pay for.

As I mentioned above, I can't see any restaurants ever doing this voluntarily because it will just put people off their food. The only way it could be implemented would be through mandatory labelling laws passed in the EU. Frankly I think that the chances of that are zero because the entire food industry would be against it from the bottom to the top.

What we might be able to do is come up with a traffic light system of icons with three levels of animal welfare - battery, free range and super-free range. The top category would incorporate all of the schemes that enforce standards higher than 'free-range'.

[Astrocat]

Many people live in far worse conditions.

Clearly so, but that doesn't seem relevant to this discussion, and doesn;t answer the question one way or the other.

In my eyes the free range specification is self-evidently much better than battery farming. You disagree, and I accept that. Let's agree to disagree and leave it there.

Then, if you are unable to explain to somebody who disagrees, why you feel that treating animals in those ways is a great deal better than identical conditions where the animals are also in cages (even though in both cases they can not move much at all, so to my mind it makes a small difference, but not much of one), then they are unlikely to agree with you.

It seems irrelevant anyway, like I said before, it is not an either / or choice between buying battery farmed products or free range ones, with a compulsory choice being expected of people....
They can opt to go for neither - which seems to be obviously the better option out of the 3, to my mind.

So, if people say things like 'battery farming is worse than free range farming, so that means that free range farming is ok' , then that's illogical.....
It's like if i were to say "I don't have a problem with child slavery where the kids wear shoes, I think that is commendable, ethical, acceptable and not horrific at all..... this is because it would be much worse if they didn;t get to wear shoes, and I think it is self-evident that them having shoes is a great deal better than them not having shoes"

My point there about the shoes does not explain why i view child slavery as acceptable etc, it's just me commenting that i would find it less acceptable if the kids had no shoes on, than if they did.

Which would surely be neither here nor there, if there were no need for me to support child slavery, at all.

Where are the associated pictures of the same chickens in their 'open-air runs, comprising an area mainly covered by vegetation' if they are free range birds?

Well.... you tell me...

I imagine that the open air runs were outside the warehouse, as is usually the case. There are little doors at regular intervals , as detailed in the DEFRA guidelines, which i imagine were being obscured in the photo, by all of the hens who were packed into the building.

Or, the photo might just not be of one of the sections which had a door to begin with.... we see very little of the outside wall in the photo, after all.

That picture looks very much like it is breaching the 'free range' legal limitations and in fact they are barn hens.
...
Clearly they aren't free range turkeys if they are actually cramped in like that, or the picture has been doctored and just shows a bunch of chicks huddled together for warmth as they do.

Then, you must not have read the guidelines properly.

Barn: Maximum stocking density 9 birds per square metre and there must be at least 250cm square of litter area/bird. Perches for the birds must be installed to allow 15 cm of perch per hen. There must be one nest for every 7 birds or 1 square metre of nest space for every 120 birds.

Free-range: Free-range birds are housed as described in the Barn system above. In addition birds must have continuous daytime access to open runs which are mainly covered with vegetation and with a maximum stocking density of 2,500 birds per hectare [10,000 square metres, which equates to 4 square metres each approximately].


DEFRA clearly state that the birds are not out in the open runs all the time, which is what the 1m squared refers to.

You can tell yourself, and others, that 'clearly' they aren't really free range birds, or decide to believe that they're fake pictures, you can ask others to prove what they are saying about free range conditions then simply declare them to be incorrect without backing up such a claim......
But since you already have said that you view those conditions as totally okay for others to be kept in, I'm not sure why you're having such a knee-jerk reaction to the pictures, or maintain such scepticism towards them.


So.... if, as the guidelines state, there can be 4-9 of them packed into a metre squares in those pictures - surely that's a bit more believable ?

And from there, it's a lot less easy to simply declare that I'm spreading falsehoods and dismiss the situation with a shrug of scepticism, i think.

Well, it pretty much matches what I expected it to be, so I imagine other people would have the same reaction.

Yes, even people who read the guidelines will typically misread bits, meaning that they sound better than they really are, or will choose to be sceptical when faced with pictures of the guidelines in full effect in free range factories.

If there were nothing which could be misread, and people were accustomed to seeing pictures like that so didn't feel inclined to have a 'this is new to me, so i don't believe it, I will tell myself and others that these pictures are fake' approach, then I reckon that things would be better.

What you are essentially arguing it that all labelling is subject to a level of trust. Of course you are right, but most people are happy with that compromise I think.

Yes, most people would prefer it if their free range products did not come with clear pictures depicting the true conditions the animals have been kept in.

Then, should we be encouraging keeping people in the dark about consumerism, as long as they personally are happy with it ?

I think that it isn't a practical solution that we could convince restaurants to adopt. No restaurant is going to post a picture of an animal on the menu unless it is an animal looking happy in a field.

What about if the propietor were going to be taken to court, if they didn't comply ? I reckon they would be pretty eager to do it, then. (^-~)

The photos would be so easily manipulated anyway as to make them completely useless anyway I suspect.

Then, you would assume that those responsible for producing the photos would necessarily be corrupt ?

Part of the idea would be for non-corrupt people to be in charge of that.

On reading the idea, my natural assumption is that it's main purpose is to put people off their food and turn them all vegan.

No doubt, this is because deep down you do appreciate that the free range conditions portrayed would not be acceptable to most people who go for free range products specifically, seemingly including yourself... since you came to such a conclusion rather than the opposite ( which would have been, that upon seeing the wholesome, acceptable, ethical conditions in the pictures people would be reassured and happy in their more knowledgeable consumerism)

Obviously if we want businesses to take the campaign seriously, we can't be seen as operating a propaganda or animal welfare education exercise.

But, this campaign is obviously already partially a propaganda excercise.
This is most clearly shown in this topic -
8 reasons to buy British food

I agree with you, that this does diminish the credibility of the campaign....
But, you don't seem to have a problem with that.

It is also clearly already an animal welfare excercise, as demonstrated by your repeated discussion of battery and free range farming.

here's a simple solution for products which have labels (for supermarkets etc), they could just put the pictures of free range animals onto the label of the "food".

This is what i have been suggesting, and what Anthony seems to take great issue with. Apparently, that has no place in this campaign about labelling.

The only way it could be implemented would be through mandatory labelling laws passed in the EU. Frankly I think that the chances of that are zero because the entire food industry would be against it from the bottom to the top.

People who didn't care about battery farming conditions said the same thing about campaigning for the European abolition of battery farming......
Even so , people decided to campaign for that to happen anyway.
And, look where it got them ! Total success in their quest !
Where would they be if they had taken a defeatist approach like yours , about it all ?

[Anthony Butcher]

Originally Posted by Astrocat

I imagine that the open air runs were outside the warehouse, as is usually the case. There are little doors at regular intervals , as detailed in the DEFRA guidelines, which i imagine were being obscured in the photo, by all of the hens who were packed into the building.

That just proves my point - the photo only shows part of the conditions and leaves out the very large open are that the hens have access to. It is a deceptive photo that really shows only half the story.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

So.... if, as the guidelines state, there can be 4-9 of them packed into a metre squares in those pictures - surely that's a bit more believable ?

As I said, the picture doesn't show enough to make a judgment at all; it is a propaganda photo.

Even looking at it, the conditions don't actually look that bad - the birds are free to roam around, they aren't cramped together, they have a large area to explore.... and if it is a proper free range area, they have a further much larger outside to go and explore that the photographer accidently forgot to snap.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

What about if the propietor were going to be taken to court, if they didn't comply ? I reckon they would be pretty eager to do it, then. (^-~)
Then, you would assume that those responsible for producing the photos would necessarily be corrupt ?
Part of the idea would be for non-corrupt people to be in charge of that.

I honestly think that the chances of this ever becoming law are zero. I also think that as soon as we presented it anywhere in the food industry we would become a laughing stock. I would rather that we campaign for labelling that is acceptable and meaningful to restaurants and consumers alike.

There are all sorts of problems with a photo system. Would every single poducer have to have their own set of photos?
Would restaurants then have to update and reprint their menus every time they changed a single supplier?
Or would there be a generic 'free-range' photo? If so, couldn't different suppliers legitimately argue that this doesn't represent their specific conditions?
And as we have seen, a single photo can't show the whole picture, so there would need to be multiple photos for every bit of animal produce used on a menu.
What would the minimum resolution and size of the photos be? Blurry and small photos aren't of much use, so restaurants could end up with a glossy magazine instead of a menu.
What about the massively increased printing costs? Small businesses simply won't be able to afford to keep on printing full colour multi-page menus.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

But, this campaign is obviously already partially a propaganda excercise.
This is most clearly shown in this topic -
8 reasons to buy British food

That's just a news item that I posted out of interest.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

It is also clearly already an animal welfare excercise, as demonstrated by your repeated discussion of battery and free range farming.

No, it really isn't. Any such discussions are my personal preferences.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

This is what i have been suggesting, and what Anthony seems to take great issue with. Apparently, that has no place in this campaign about labelling.

I said that it was unworkable and that no one in the industry would support it. It is an appropriate idea for discussion, and one that has led to a further idea of a traffic light system.

Originally Posted by Astrocat

People who didn't care about battery farming conditions said the same thing about campaigning for the European abolition of battery farming......
Even so , people decided to campaign for that to happen anyway.
And, look where it got them ! Total success in their quest !
Where would they be if they had taken a defeatist approach like yours , about it all ?

But you could say that about anything - "someone achieved something, so anything is possible". It doesn't mean that it really is possible, nor desirable. As your photo above shows, it can be incredibly deceptive by only showing half the story. On the other hand a stated standard of animal welfare carries a certain promise of a minimum level of care.

For anyone interested:
BBC News | UK | EU bans battery hen cages

[Astrocat]

That just proves my point - the photo only shows part of the conditions and leaves out the very large open are that the hens have access to.

What I said doesn't prove your point.

As i said, maybe those ones were in a section of the warehouse without a door.

You seem very sure that these guys have a vast expanse of green pasture to frolic in , and all have easy access to it.

If the guidelines are anything to by, that seems to be a very abstracted and incorrect belief.

They could include a picture of whatever 'open area' there is (typically they will be a little strip of concrete with a bit of muddy grass on it), and could note how long the hens spend there (6 months in every year) , how many actually manage to get out there for that full length of time (ie 0.01% of the flock) , how many get out there at all (for example, 8% of the flock) ... and then it would be clear.

The most pressing question just now for me, would be the one regarding how you would feel if this treatment were given out to other species, for example cats, dogs, horses, bears, humans, etc.... and whether you would find this treatment acceptable for yourself, or only for those on the receiving end (who are not you)

it is a propaganda photo.

Propaganda is information which is spread to promote a cause.
If you have a problem with propaganda in and of itself, your campaign seems to surely be doomed !

Even looking at it, the conditions don't actually look that bad - the birds are free to roam around, they aren't cramped together, they have a large area to explore....

Right... they're free to roam around... in all of the masses of wide open areas there are..... I must just not be able to see the wide open spaces because of all of those birds in the way.
:P

and if it is a proper free range area, they have a further much larger outside to go and explore that the photographer accidently forgot to snap.

Have you ever been in a mosh pit at a festival ?

Imagine going from one side to the other, to get out of one door in the side of a large arena.... while everyone else is trying to do the same thing.

Then imagine doing it while everyone else is going crazy and trying to eat each other and stuff (as is common in animal agriculture, including free range farming) because of being held captive in there for years.

Does that sound like a gentle and easy stroll outside, to you ?

Or does it sound downright impossible for many people who tried it, and certainly for anyone in less than absolute optimal condition ?

Where are pictures of the luxurious and decadent areas , with the vast easily accessable doors which free range birds can easily get through to roam widely outside ?

They don;t even get to do that for half of the year anyway, according to DEFRA free range guidelines..... so why you feel that they're forever frolicing and roaming outside, I really don't know.

There are all sorts of problems with a photo system.

All of your points are just as relevant regarding similar phrases such as 'free range' , yet you seem to think that's fine to campaign in favour of.

It is an appropriate idea for discussion, and one that has led to a further idea of a traffic light system.

The traffic light suggestion you made appears to be like a pictoral version of your 'free range' label approach, rather than an extension of what I was saying.

For example, instead of the ambiguous term 'free range' people are told 'orange', instead of 'non-industrial free range' they are told 'green' , instead of barn shed they get told 'yellow' and instead of 'battery' they're told 'red' (or whatever) .... it has most of the same problems which the word-based labelling has, except for that it is at least useable globally rather than only by english speakers.
But, that was never the real problem though.

[Astrocat]

I also think that as soon as we presented it anywhere in the food industry we would become a laughing stock.

As we have already discussed, they are resistant to this because they perceive that consumer knowledge is a threat to their business, which relies on people being misguided and ignorant.

So, it is obvious why they choose to be bigoted and laugh - rather than to behave in a more mature and reasonable manner.

So, should we pander to the desires of those who laugh at others as a means of trying to conceal a guilty conscience, while profitting through misguiding others ?

There are all sorts of problems with a photo system. Would every single poducer have to have their own set of photos?
Would restaurants then have to update and reprint their menus every time they changed a single supplier?
Or would there be a generic 'free-range' photo? If so, couldn't different suppliers legitimately argue that this doesn't represent their specific conditions?
And as we have seen, a single photo can't show the whole picture, so there would need to be multiple photos for every bit of animal produce used on a menu.
What would the minimum resolution and size of the photos be? Blurry and small photos aren't of much use, so restaurants could end up with a glossy magazine instead of a menu.
What about the massively increased printing costs? Small businesses simply won't be able to afford to keep on printing full colour multi-page menus.

I've so far been advocating from a supermarket perspective rather than from a restaurant perspective, but while some of your points are not relevant to supermarkets, some still are and others can be adapted.

They're good points to raise, so I'll try to comment to the extent that I can just now.

Your idea is good, to make the suppliers of animal flesh and fluids responsible for supplying realistic photos depicting the conditions which their animals were raised in.
There could be spot checks made by government officials - but unlike present inspections , they would be done with no prior warning - so that there is no opportunity to 'tart up' the conditions in order to put on a good show for the authorities.

I'm not entirely sure what to say about the restaurants and the menus....
My main thought though, is that however cheap a supermarket, shop or other food-vendor may be , it could literally cost absolutely nothing to set up and run a website.... as demonstrated by myself ! (^-~) ... and from there, poster-quality pictures can easily be displayed - with lower-quality (but still pin-prick perfect to look at) pictures available for those with non-broadband connections..... and can be displayed in quantity.

That way, supermarkets who complied would be providing information within their means, rather than attempting to conceal it enthusiastically.

And those who did not do at least that much, would honestly not have a leg to stand on in making excuses of the sort which you mentioned.

It is true though, your comments regarding menus.
:P but, as i said before they are as relevant to the text terms as well.

For example, would every supplier have to produce extensive and detailed compilations of the conditions their animals are kept in, detailed enough to leave no uncertainty in the reader's mind as to the conditions.

Would restaurants etc have to get a new set of details from the supplier then, every time they changed one ?

If there were some kind of generic 'free-range' conditions set out, then no doubt different suppliers could legitimately argue that this was not representative of their own specific conditions ?

And, there would need to be individual sets of detail for each specific item of animal produce on the menu, since free range conditions are so enormously variable.

What would the minimum font size have to be ?
There are people with reading difficulties, but obviously the larger the font size - the more paper is used and the larger the resultant sheaf would be.... and with that many different sets of descriptions, that could make quite a big difference to the end size.

Ultimately, restaurants in that situation would end up handing people out a little book along with the menu, with different free range conditions detailed in each seperate chapter for each menu item.

Some of the smaller businesses simply would not be able to afford to keep on printing these sizeable books out, in addition to their menus.