On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 08:58:52 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 20:11:51 +1000, Bruce >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >About the health and animal welfare aspects of duck fat:
>> >
>> >http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/heal...nutrition/the-
>> >darker-side-of-duck-fat-20160918-grj5nw.html
>> >
>> >Or:
>> >http://tinyurl.com/jy56hz9
>>
>> <shrug>. All intensively farmed animals are treated poorly to some
>> extent. The article says the treatment of ducks has been ignored, I
>> know that isn't true because in Australia there has been a couple of
>> major producers who have been penalised and absolutely caned when it
>> comes to negative publicity.
>
>Good, although I've never heard about it.

Actually, I was wrong about what the issue really was:

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-releas...eptive-conduct

http://www.smartcompany.com.au/busin...eading-claims/

>I also didn't know ducks were
>treated even worse than chickens.
>
>> Rosemary Stanton is also very conservative when it comes to nutrition.
>
>I guess it's the old "Is saturated fat bad for you or not" discussion
>again.

Yes, although I'd argue that in of itself is a flawed argument, as all
saturated fats get lumped together as though they are all the same...
usually.