On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:14:48 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" > wrote:

> This months RSPCA Newsletter contains some info on battery eggs used in
>supermarket products.
> Perhaps e-mailing your supermarket may provoke some response.
>
>Legally there is no problem, but do fancy eating veggie products containing
>battery eggs?
>
>
>1/ Battery eggs
>2/ Hunting ban
>3/ Primate research
>
>1/ BATTERY EGGS IN VEGGIE PRODUCTS
>A new RSPCA survey has revealed that 80 per cent of supermarkets, including
>Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco, use battery eggs in their own-brand products
>labelled 'suitable for vegetarians'.
>
>The RSPCA believes this could come as a shock to the estimated four million
>vegetarians living in the UK - many will have chosen a vegetarian diet
>because they do not want to eat foods derived from cruel farming methods.
[...]

Yeah, there ya go... If you veg*ns bought stuff like cage free eggs, then
you would be promoting that method. (I know there's a difference between cage
free and free range, and I believe both provide decent lives for the vast majority
of the birds.) It seems that at least half the stuff like vegetarian chicken and other
things besides tofu have egg whites in them, and of course those are from
battery hens here in the US. I noticed it a couple of years ago, and have been
thinking ever since that it's too bad there isn't a significantly large group of
people who would like to provide decent lives for animals with their diets. But
there don't appear to be. In fact, from what I've seen in these news groups
there not only aren't people who want to do that, but everyone (to quote the
Gonad) on both sides is OPPOSED to seeing anyone want to do that...or at
least opposed to suggesting people consider that alternative when contemplating
what they could do to achieve a more ethical lifestyle.
And to make it even stranger, the people who pretend to be the most ethically
solid with their choice of diets (that means the veg*ns for the most part), and who
certainly appear to be most convinced that theirs' is the most ethically solid (again
that be the veg*ns for the most part), and who most pretend to be interested in
animals (...veg*ns...), are the same people who want to see future farm animals
prevented and NOT provided with better lives.
So the people who pretend to want them to have better lives realy want "them"
to have none, and both they and the people who do want them to have lives are
opposed to other people trying to promote decent lives for them with their diet.
Both sides are on common ground there. So maybe someone from one or both
sides can explain why you agree that it would be a bad thing if more (if any!) people
began trying to contribute to decent lives for food animals with their diet?

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:14:48 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" >
wrote:
>
> > This months RSPCA Newsletter contains some info on battery eggs used in
> >supermarket products.
> > Perhaps e-mailing your supermarket may provoke some response.
> >
> >Legally there is no problem, but do fancy eating veggie products
containing
> >battery eggs?
> >
> >
> >1/ Battery eggs
> >2/ Hunting ban
> >3/ Primate research
> >
> >1/ BATTERY EGGS IN VEGGIE PRODUCTS
> >A new RSPCA survey has revealed that 80 per cent of supermarkets,
including
> >Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco, use battery eggs in their own-brand products
> >labelled 'suitable for vegetarians'.
> >
> >The RSPCA believes this could come as a shock to the estimated four
million
> >vegetarians living in the UK - many will have chosen a vegetarian diet
> >because they do not want to eat foods derived from cruel farming methods.
> [...]
>
I'm glad to see the RSPCA's taking a stand against use of battery eggs
in "vegetarian" food. Although it's not fraudulent, it's a breach of trust
between the customer and the supplier.
> Yeah, there ya go... If you veg*ns bought stuff like cage free eggs,
then
> you would be promoting that method. (I know there's a difference between
cage
> free and free range, and I believe both provide decent lives for the vast
majority
> of the birds.)
So-called "free range" and "cage free" eggs are from birds raised the
same way broiler chickens are. They're not confined to cages so small the
birds can't move side to side, but they're still living on wire mesh nets in
close quarters. That's better than most layers live, but it's still a far
cry from a decent life.
It seems that at least half the stuff like vegetarian chicken and other
> things besides tofu have egg whites in them, and of course those are from
> battery hens here in the US. I noticed it a couple of years ago, and have
been
> thinking ever since that it's too bad there isn't a significantly large
group of
> people who would like to provide decent lives for animals with their
diets. But
> there don't appear to be. In fact, from what I've seen in these news
groups
> there not only aren't people who want to do that, but everyone (to quote
the
> Gonad) on both sides is OPPOSED to seeing anyone want to do that...or at
> least opposed to suggesting people consider that alternative when
contemplating
> what they could do to achieve a more ethical lifestyle.
Vegans aren't as fatalistic as you are.
> And to make it even stranger, the people who pretend to be the most
ethically
> solid with their choice of diets (that means the veg*ns for the most
part), and who
> certainly appear to be most convinced that theirs' is the most ethically
solid (again
> that be the veg*ns for the most part), and who most pretend to be
interested in
> animals (...veg*ns...), are the same people who want to see future farm
animals
> prevented
That's right. For the same reason humans have no obligation to
reproduce, there's no moral obligation to inseminate chickens, turkeys,
cows, and pigs. The living have rights, but those humans and farm animals
who have not yet been conceived have no rights.
and NOT provided with better lives.
We do want them provided with better lives. That's why we're not
subsidizing the current abuse.
> So the people who pretend to want them to have better lives realy want
"them"
> to have none,
The ends don't justify the means.
and both they and the people who do want them to have lives are
> opposed to other people trying to promote decent lives for them with their
diet.
> Both sides are on common ground there. So maybe someone from one or both
> sides can explain why you agree that it would be a bad thing if more (if
any!) people
> began trying to contribute to decent lives for food animals with their
diet?
That's what vegans are already doing.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:45:50 -0500, "sgdunn" > wrote:

>
> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:14:48 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" >
>wrote:
>>
>> > This months RSPCA Newsletter contains some info on battery eggs used in
>> >supermarket products.
>> > Perhaps e-mailing your supermarket may provoke some response.
>> >
>> >Legally there is no problem, but do fancy eating veggie products
>containing
>> >battery eggs?
>> >
>> >
>> >1/ Battery eggs
>> >2/ Hunting ban
>> >3/ Primate research
>> >
>> >1/ BATTERY EGGS IN VEGGIE PRODUCTS
>> >A new RSPCA survey has revealed that 80 per cent of supermarkets,
>including
>> >Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco, use battery eggs in their own-brand products
>> >labelled 'suitable for vegetarians'.
>> >
>> >The RSPCA believes this could come as a shock to the estimated four
>million
>> >vegetarians living in the UK - many will have chosen a vegetarian diet
>> >because they do not want to eat foods derived from cruel farming methods.
>> [...]
>>
> I'm glad to see the RSPCA's taking a stand against use of battery eggs
>in "vegetarian" food.

I thought the UK has or is phasing out all battery farming, and several other
European countries are as well.

>Although it's not fraudulent, it's a breach of trust
>between the customer and the supplier.
>> Yeah, there ya go... If you veg*ns bought stuff like cage free eggs,
>then
>> you would be promoting that method. (I know there's a difference between
>cage
>> free and free range, and I believe both provide decent lives for the vast
>majority
>> of the birds.)
> So-called "free range" and "cage free" eggs are from birds raised the
>same way broiler chickens are. They're not confined to cages so small the
>birds can't move side to side, but they're still living on wire mesh nets in
>close quarters.

None of the broiler houses I've been in or heard about keep the birds
on wire, nor are their parents kept that way.

>That's better than most layers live, but it's still a far
>cry from a decent life.

The broilers and their parents that I've seen have had decent lives.

>It seems that at least half the stuff like vegetarian chicken and other
>> things besides tofu have egg whites in them, and of course those are from
>> battery hens here in the US. I noticed it a couple of years ago, and have
>been
>> thinking ever since that it's too bad there isn't a significantly large
>group of
>> people who would like to provide decent lives for animals with their
>diets. But
>> there don't appear to be. In fact, from what I've seen in these news
>groups
>> there not only aren't people who want to do that, but everyone (to quote
>the
>> Gonad) on both sides is OPPOSED to seeing anyone want to do that...or at
>> least opposed to suggesting people consider that alternative when
>contemplating
>> what they could do to achieve a more ethical lifestyle.
> Vegans aren't as fatalistic as you are.

Veg*ns suggest we make a change. I suggest we make a different change.

>> And to make it even stranger, the people who pretend to be the most
>ethically
>> solid with their choice of diets (that means the veg*ns for the most
>part), and who
>> certainly appear to be most convinced that theirs' is the most ethically
>solid (again
>> that be the veg*ns for the most part), and who most pretend to be
>interested in
>> animals (...veg*ns...), are the same people who want to see future farm
>animals
>> prevented
> That's right. For the same reason humans have no obligation to
>reproduce, there's no moral obligation to inseminate chickens, turkeys,
>cows, and pigs.

It has nothing to do with moral obligation afaik.

>The living have rights, but those humans and farm animals
>who have not yet been conceived have no rights.
> and NOT provided with better lives.
> We do want them provided with better lives. That's why we're not
>subsidizing the current abuse.

You want them to have no lives, not better lives.

>> So the people who pretend to want them to have better lives realy want
>"them"
>> to have none,
> The ends don't justify the means.
> and both they and the people who do want them to have lives are
>> opposed to other people trying to promote decent lives for them with their
>diet.
>> Both sides are on common ground there. So maybe someone from one or both
>> sides can explain why you agree that it would be a bad thing if more (if
>any!) people
>> began trying to contribute to decent lives for food animals with their
>diet?
> That's what vegans are already doing.

LOL!!! Uh...I mean: Oh, and how are they doing that?

How can you prevent a farm animal? By eliminating farms or eliminating an
animal?

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 16:14:48 +0000 (UTC), "Ray" >
wrote:
>
> > This months RSPCA Newsletter contains some info on battery eggs used in
> >supermarket products.
> > Perhaps e-mailing your supermarket may provoke some response.
> >
> >Legally there is no problem, but do fancy eating veggie products
containing
> >battery eggs?
> >
> >
> >1/ Battery eggs
> >2/ Hunting ban
> >3/ Primate research
> >
> >1/ BATTERY EGGS IN VEGGIE PRODUCTS
> >A new RSPCA survey has revealed that 80 per cent of supermarkets,
including
> >Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco, use battery eggs in their own-brand products
> >labelled 'suitable for vegetarians'.
> >
> >The RSPCA believes this could come as a shock to the estimated four
million
> >vegetarians living in the UK - many will have chosen a vegetarian diet
> >because they do not want to eat foods derived from cruel farming methods.
> [...]
>
> Yeah, there ya go... If you veg*ns bought stuff like cage free eggs,
then
> you would be promoting that method. (I know there's a difference between
cage
> free and free range, and I believe both provide decent lives for the vast
majority
> of the birds.) It seems that at least half the stuff like vegetarian
chicken and other
> things besides tofu have egg whites in them, and of course those are from
> battery hens here in the US. I noticed it a couple of years ago, and have
been
> thinking ever since that it's too bad there isn't a significantly large
group of
> people who would like to provide decent lives for animals with their
diets. But
> there don't appear to be. In fact, from what I've seen in these news
groups
> there not only aren't people who want to do that, but everyone (to quote
the
> Gonad) on both sides is OPPOSED to seeing anyone want to do that...or at
> least opposed to suggesting people consider that alternative when
contemplating
> what they could do to achieve a more ethical lifestyle.
> And to make it even stranger, the people who pretend to be the most
ethically
> solid with their choice of diets (that means the veg*ns for the most
part), and who
> certainly appear to be most convinced that theirs' is the most ethically
solid (again
> that be the veg*ns for the most part), and who most pretend to be
interested in
> animals (...veg*ns...), are the same people who want to see future farm
animals
> prevented and NOT provided with better lives.
> So the people who pretend to want them to have better lives realy want
"them"
> to have none, and both they and the people who do want them to have lives
are
> opposed to other people trying to promote decent lives for them with their
diet.
> Both sides are on common ground there. So maybe someone from one or both
> sides can explain why you agree that it would be a bad thing if more (if
any!) people
> began trying to contribute to decent lives for food animals with their
diet?

John Jones wrote:

> How can you prevent a farm animal? By eliminating farms or eliminating an
> animal?

****wit - , nee David Harrison - is
ensnaring you in his quagmire. He uses that kind of
deliberately murky, weird language as a debate tactic.

Here's what ****wit is talking about, in plain English,
as opposed to his gobbledygook: if "vegans" succeed in
getting everyone to stop eating meat and other animal
products, there will be no demand for farm animals of
any kind, and farmers will stop breeding. Today,
however, because the overwhelming majority of people
*do* consume animal products, the expectation is that
billions upon billions of farm animals will be bred,
raised and slaughtered.

****wit considers the mere, empty fact of farm animals'
"getting to experience life" to be a very good thing,
morally. As a necessary consequence, he therefore
believes that "vegans", by wanting to "prevent" these
farm animals from "getting to experience life", are
doing something morally bad.

"vegans" do, in fact, want to "prevent" farm animals,
by getting people to stop demanding products made from
them. To "vegans", the fact that humans deliberately
kill the animals is a very bad thing, morally. I
happen to disagree with them - I consume animal
products with a clear conscience - but their position
at least makes some sense, given their values.

****wit's position makes no sense at all.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> John Jones wrote:
>
> > How can you prevent a farm animal? By eliminating farms or eliminating
an
> > animal?
>
> ****wit - , nee David Harrison - is
> ensnaring you in his quagmire. He uses that kind of
> deliberately murky, weird language as a debate tactic.
>
> Here's what ****wit is talking about, in plain English,
> as opposed to his gobbledygook: if "vegans" succeed in
> getting everyone to stop eating meat and other animal
> products, there will be no demand for farm animals of
> any kind, and farmers will stop breeding. Today,
> however, because the overwhelming majority of people
> *do* consume animal products, the expectation is that
> billions upon billions of farm animals will be bred,
> raised and slaughtered.
>
> ****wit considers the mere, empty fact of farm animals'
> "getting to experience life" to be a very good thing,
> morally. As a necessary consequence, he therefore
> believes that "vegans", by wanting to "prevent" these
> farm animals from "getting to experience life", are
> doing something morally bad.
>
> "vegans" do, in fact, want to "prevent" farm animals,
> by getting people to stop demanding products made from
> them. To "vegans", the fact that humans deliberately
> kill the animals is a very bad thing, morally. I
> happen to disagree with them - I consume animal
> products with a clear conscience - but their position
> at least makes some sense, given their values.
>
> ****wit's position makes no sense at all.

As a person who was raised on an all purpose farm, which included the
raising of animals for meat and other product, this issue presents many
thoughts. Initially, of course, I think about the fact that there are many
farmers and corporations out there that depend on the income form raising,
processing, and selling animals and animal products. This would be a major
facotr in the eonomy of an area of the USA like the Midwest farm area. This
is where I was born and raised and to be "meatless" causes real horror for a
huge number of people.

To add to this though, I have to admit that I eat very little meat, but I
have eliminated those things that affect my health and well being. Many are
eliminating meat altogether and making great efforts to make that a goal for
our society. This has caused me some "pause" personally and for my family
and those from the communities of the farm states. Dairy is another story.
As ahealth care professional, I can tell you that many who do dairy farming
have been much relieved with the recent research that shows that butter is
every bit as good as oleo and just as healthy in the diet.

The can of worms that is opened only begins with the things in the text
above. As we chose our life styles and how we view the world and the
creatures in it, there will certainly be some interesting developments. The
drift away from meat may very well reverse itself in time and supplies of
meat and animal products will be in great demand.

Certainly one does not have to eat the animal products to get great
benefits--ex. porcine skin, heart valves, etc.. Ther are no easy answers,
and until one is faced with the "things" that happen in life, one cannot say
what products will be useful for them or their family and friends. Norma
>

Norma wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>
>>John Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>>How can you prevent a farm animal? By eliminating farms or eliminating
>
> an
>
>>>animal?
>>
>>****wit - , nee David Harrison - is
>>ensnaring you in his quagmire. He uses that kind of
>>deliberately murky, weird language as a debate tactic.
>>
>>Here's what ****wit is talking about, in plain English,
>>as opposed to his gobbledygook: if "vegans" succeed in
>>getting everyone to stop eating meat and other animal
>>products, there will be no demand for farm animals of
>>any kind, and farmers will stop breeding. Today,
>>however, because the overwhelming majority of people
>>*do* consume animal products, the expectation is that
>>billions upon billions of farm animals will be bred,
>>raised and slaughtered.
>>
>>****wit considers the mere, empty fact of farm animals'
>>"getting to experience life" to be a very good thing,
>>morally. As a necessary consequence, he therefore
>>believes that "vegans", by wanting to "prevent" these
>>farm animals from "getting to experience life", are
>>doing something morally bad.
>>
>>"vegans" do, in fact, want to "prevent" farm animals,
>>by getting people to stop demanding products made from
>>them. To "vegans", the fact that humans deliberately
>>kill the animals is a very bad thing, morally. I
>>happen to disagree with them - I consume animal
>>products with a clear conscience - but their position
>>at least makes some sense, given their values.
>>
>>****wit's position makes no sense at all.
>
>
> As a person who was raised on an all purpose farm, which included the
> raising of animals for meat and other product, this issue presents many
> thoughts. Initially, of course, I think about the fact that there are many
> farmers and corporations out there that depend on the income form raising,
> processing, and selling animals and animal products. This would be a major
> facotr in the eonomy of an area of the USA like the Midwest farm area. This
> is where I was born and raised and to be "meatless" causes real horror for a
> huge number of people.

That's not important. Products come into and go out of
fashion all the time. If people are persuaded, not
compelled, to give something up, that's just too damned
bad for those who manufacture the product.

> To add to this though, I have to admit that I eat very little meat, but I
> have eliminated those things that affect my health and well being. Many are
> eliminating meat altogether and making great efforts to make that a goal for
> our society. This has caused me some "pause" personally and for my family
> and those from the communities of the farm states. Dairy is another story.
> As ahealth care professional, I can tell you that many who do dairy farming
> have been much relieved with the recent research that shows that butter is
> every bit as good as oleo and just as healthy in the diet.

It's a heavily saturated fat. No one should eat very
much of it. Vegetable based substitutes *may* be much
lower in saturated fat.

> The can of worms that is opened only begins with the things in the text
> above. As we chose our life styles and how we view the world and the
> creatures in it, there will certainly be some interesting developments. The
> drift away from meat may very well reverse itself in time and supplies of
> meat and animal products will be in great demand.

Time will tell.

> Certainly one does not have to eat the animal products to get great
> benefits--ex. porcine skin, heart valves, etc.. Ther are no easy answers,
> and until one is faced with the "things" that happen in life, one cannot say
> what products will be useful for them or their family and friends. Norma
>
>
>