heywood on 27/6/2011 at 13:23
Quote Posted by Vasquez
In Finland things are going the right way, fortunately, and it seems that generally people tend to vote with their wallets for the more humane conditions of animals.
But are they getting what they paid for? In the US at least, "free range" and "cage free" don't necessarily equate to better living conditions for the animals. I don't think it's really possible to farm poultry on a large scale if you're going to allocate enough forage-able land per bird to make it like a natural habitat and avoid population stress. And due to Finnish weather, you can't really provide freedom to roam for much of the year anyway.
Boxsmith on 27/6/2011 at 15:16
Quote Posted by CCCToad
However, this trend may be arrested due to an emerging pattern of the FDA launching armed raids targeted against natural food producers.
Waiiit. What? Care to elaborate?
demagogue on 27/6/2011 at 15:42
Natural foods like unpasteurized milk or certain eggs are riskier to health, and you can guarantee a certain amount of illnesses associated with it (including miscarriages & infant deaths...). And the regulators feel a certain responsibility to respond to health first.
It's interesting France has almost exactly the opposite attitude. The regulators in some cases privilege the "natural" culture over health, so they'll officially ban or tariff the importation of pasteurized cheese (something like that) as "unnatural" knowing it will cause more illness... Like it's their first responsibility, their reason for regulating food at all, to protect a certain food culture in France, and the health of its population is a secondary concern.
It's funny the different attitudes to what the fundamental job of food regulation is even for.
dj_ivocha on 27/6/2011 at 15:47
Quote Posted by demagogue
The regulators in some cases privilege the "natural" culture over health, so they'll officially ban the importation of unpasteurized cheese knowing it will cause more illness...
Either I've had a brainfart or there's something not quite right with that sentence. :confused:
demagogue on 27/6/2011 at 16:06
The brainfart was mine. I corrected it to pasteurized before I even read your post, otherwise yeah it doesn't make any sense.
Briareos H on 27/6/2011 at 16:09
Quote Posted by demagogue
The regulators in some cases privilege the "natural" culture over health, so they'll officially ban or tariff the importation of pasteurized cheese (something like that)
[citation needed]
I call bullshit on bans or taxes over imported pasteurised products. Until proven otherwise, the more boring truth is that health authorities treat both as the same.
demagogue on 27/6/2011 at 17:01
Well the real controversy was the restrictions / tariffs on French unpasteurized cheese being imported in the US because of the FDA regulations. On the French side, it's more of a cultural thing; American cheese isn't going to be very successful, regulated or not, beside traditional French cheese that has been made the same way for 100s of years and because of the general distaste with processed cheese, but reading a few articles now it seems pasteurized cheese is becoming more common.
I did read an article talking about official resistance or bias against pasteurization in France. But what it might have been talking about was resistance to compulsory pasteurization, since I believe you that there aren't border controls ... (Everyone probably remembers that because it makes the US tariffs look more unfair.)
Edit: Actually I remember where I read it now, and yeah, it was talking about regulatory resistance to compulsory pasteurization & I made the mistake of remembering it talking about imports (which it wasn't; I was probably mixing it up with the US tariffs in my mind. So your bullshit call stands).
The point I was making and the point of the article still stands though: that the regulatory agency saw it as part of its task to take into account the traditional cheese culture in France on the issue of pasteurization as a requirement. It was not merely a matter of what the epid. studies on pasteurization said alone, and that would definitively answer the question of what the regulators should do (as in the US, where for context people also think of Kraft slices as really "cheese"). It's not even that surprising of a conclusion, if anyone knows anything about food regulation & food culture in France. So many case studies I read were about regulators protecting traditional food practices and food "natural"-ness -- anti-additives, anti-GMO, pro-unpasturization; these are cultural stands about protecting a food culture, not really about what scientific studies are saying about food risk if we take them at face value (=there would be the same regulation however the science came out). But it's true one has to get the facts right about it to make the point.
Vasquez on 27/6/2011 at 17:13
Quote Posted by heywood
But are they getting what they paid for? In the US at least, "free range" and "cage free" don't necessarily equate to better living conditions for the animals.
Obviously I can't go around checking every farm whether or not the free range chicken/cows/whatever actually live as promised - I'll have to trust the food and animal authority control works, and knowing how humans are, there probably will always be those who try and sometimes also do abuse the system. Nevertheless, I'll still rather pay a bit more for free range & ecological food than buy meat or eggs I KNOW come from the worst conditions.
And of course you can't let any animals literally "roam free" outdoors all year round in Finland -
that would be cruelty - but there's a big difference whether you stuff 1000 hens in 1 square meter metal cage or if they're in a large space with soft floor, perches etc.
demagogue on 27/6/2011 at 17:41
By the way, just as a general response to some of the trend on this last page, I've always felt the core moral case on eating meat shouldn't turn on what is and isn't healthy for humans. It's about what is or isn't proper treatment of animals, and consumer utility (what's more healthy than another thing) is a completely separate issue you deal with after you've addressed that.
SubJeff on 27/6/2011 at 19:57
I thought it was obvious to everyone that the moral issue is completely detached from the health issue. Veggie loonies like to link the two but they're loonies and can't think straight anyway.