- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- politics
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- politics
You must log in or register to comment.
Its time to shut down the factory farms folks.
I’m a meat-eater and I support this. Even if it means paying more for meat and not having it cheap and plentiful anymore.
I’m a meat eater who’s raised pigs for meat and I support this. Factory farming’s monoculture practices have ruined pork.
Another meat eater who’s down. Let it be an unsubsidized delicacy.
The yes on Measure J campaign is more cash strapped compared to the mostly meat industry funded opposition. They are more of a grassroots campaign. If you have the means, they can use donations or volunteers to help out
I really hope the Denver one doesn’t pass. It’s basically targeting one small employee-owned meat processor (the one local chefs go to for higher quality meat products), trying to force them to close. And that will shunt all their business to the huge industrial slaughterhouse up north in Greely.
City Cast Denver interviewed the supposed whistle blower that the campaign to shut the place down are holding up as an example of how awful the place is supposed to be, and it turns out the parts which aren’t untrue are wildly exaggerated. The whole thing feels kind of sleezy, in bad faith, and a gift to the giant corporate meat packers. I hope people see through it.
Not just chefs, but also immigrant communities who use goat meat. The place that processed my pigs, despite having a massive Trump sign out front, was frequented by Middle Eastern and South Asian immigrants. Big meat processors are primarily set up for cows and pigs and possibly sheep so their alternative is imported goat meat at significantly higher prices.
I have not heard anyone saying in Denver they support that measure for the simple reason it targets just one business. What’s next making the Purina dog/cat food plant illegal that’s been in Denver for a most a 100 years
Vox - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Vox:
MBFC: Left - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Here’s another way to summarize this: Wealthy ‘liberal’ elites want to make groceries even more expensive when food prices have been rising faster than the CPI.
Factory farms, as distasteful as they may be to many, keep food prices lower through economies of scale. Once you start shutting that down, food gets sharply more expensive, especially for the people that can least afford it. Energy would be better directed, IMO, towards improving conditions in industrial farming, rather than trying to eliminate it.
It’s theoretically possible to reduce cost of food and reduce factory farming if we convert feed fields to other human-consumable options. Additionally, water is conserved, and greenhouse gasses (methane) are further limited.
It’s my opinion that we should not stick with and try to iterate on a bad, unjust, and unfavorable system for the sake of keeping prices low with our current dietary preferences.
I am a current meat eater and former 6 year vegetarian.
It’s my opinion that we should not stick with and try to iterate on a bad, unjust, and unfavorable system for the sake of keeping prices low with our current dietary preferences.
My issue is that you’re trying to legislate changes to diet, and you’re doing it by eliminating options. Or by making it unaffordable to anyone without significant disposable income. If you change ‘preferences’, then the issue goes away on it’s own; factory farms exist because there’s a demand.
If it wasn’t for the unavoidable fact that eliminating farm subsidies would increase food insecurity, I’d say do that. But there’s no good way to do that in a way that won’t also increase risks of farms going bankrupt and poor people not being able to afford food.
If you’re finding that people don’t want to change their diets with the messaging that you’re using, then you need to change your messaging.
for individuals who pay retail price for all their food. people who get free meat or dairy or harvest their own are not a party of that study. it applies to almost none of the poor people in the world, including the UK and Europe
Oh man J is fucked up, they’re going to shut down the dairy farms that have been a part of rural Sonoma for generations.
Bunch of city people want to destroy rural people’s lifestyles.
Please justify this point of view, because Measure J only applies to large CAFOs (as defined by federal regulation). This will only impact the operations of large corporations like Perdue, not “rural people”. Your post reads like corporate propaganda.
This would apply to 21 facilities in Sonoma County, none of them small family businesses.
In fact these massive farms are actively killing smaller ones using any means necessary.
I mean if they want to run a few Trump-supporting farms out of business on the way out I’ll give them a few months lol
CAFOs apply to dairy farms with >700 mature cows. So you’re saying that it’s not going to affect any dairies?
They said nothing about them being small family businesses; they said that they’d been a part of rural Sonoma for generations.
And I have noticed that there’s a strong trend of city people moving to rural areas, and then complaining about the things that have been there for decades before they moved in. It’s a little ridiculous. I moved out of a city because I wanted to be closer to farms and forests, live off a dirt road with spotty cell connection and power that goes out if Mother Nature sneezes, and have bears that go rooting through my composting. Bitching about people that have been there since long before I showed up seems… Shitty. And trying to run them out when it’s pretty damn likely that I’m personally benefitting from their business seems even worse.
Bunch of city people want to destroy rural people’s lifestyles.
CAFOs are not “rural people’s lifestyle”. They are a relatively modern invention to create the largest amount of meat while employing the fewest people possible. Trying to defend them as “rural people’s lifestyle” is very disingenuous. If you want to defend them, there are reasonable arguments to make, like the price of food, the land use, water use, etc, compared to meat produced other ways.
Even if somehow having a corporation own 100,000 chickens that they raise down the road from you was an important part of your lifestyle, I cannot stand the constant argument that somehow, rural folks’ way of life is more important to preserve than urban folks’. As we make the climate worse, and pump out more pollution, and have more kids, and create more technology, everyone’s life is going to change. Rural folks have significantly more kids than urban folks and they produce more burden on the environment, yet somehow, it’s on people who live it cities who are supposed to bear the costs because we can’t possibly do anything that affects people who live rurally?
I, and most people, want small, family run operations to succeed. There’s no reason we have to protect Big Ag to keep small operations. Big Ag is the biggest threat to the little guys.
