Guest blogger Glenn Gaetz: Understanding "cruelty-free" eggs

Since I will be continuing to eat eggs and I know that all means of obtaining eggs for profit involve the death of animals, I was hoping to hear facts about which would be the MOST humane system to support. In other words, which type of farming treats the chickens with the least cruelty during their lifetime? It is admirable that this writer doesn't want anything to die young, but this article just isn't useful.

It's worth adding that there runs a parallel to this article in the dairy industry. Current meat prices are such that it is often not worth it for dairy farmers to keep newborn male calves alive. As the cows are artificially inseminated, the males aren't used for breeding, either. They are killed before taking their first steps and the cow is impregnated again as soon as she is able.

Hope the policy that allow backyard chickens in Vancouver come true asap, so we can eat the healthy chicken that contain good calories.
Thanks,
how many calories

Eastern Shore Sanctuary recently posted a blog post that speaks to the issues of backyard chickens:
http://blog.bravebirds.org/archives/52

and a follow up post by Julian Sanchez (a libertarian blogger and sometimes writer for Reason):

http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/05/13/sour-grapes/

Money quote:

"faced with moral demands that we’re not prepared to fully meet—or even to meet to the extent we might be capable of—we find ways of convincing ourselves that the purported value is no value at all. So instead of doing something—not all we ought in princple to do, perhaps, but something—we conclude we’d better not do anything.
[...]
[On the argument] that people who profess to care about animal welfare are just looking for an excuse to engage in moral preening: I see this attitude directed, with surprising frequency, not just to hectoring evangelical vegans, but ethical vegetarians as a class. One possible reason is that ... we’re less comfortable saying that we simply lack the time or inclination to think seriously about the proposition that some widespead behavior is morally problematic. But if a significant number of reasonable people have come to this conclusion, then thinking seriously about the question carries a real risk of being persuaded—and perhaps of feeling obligated to change one’s behavior."

Anon2 - I don't really understand this statement: "as if there's only one view on sustainability...". When was this claimed by anyone here?

Look, like I said - I'm not Lib BC and I really don't care about your ongoing internet war with them. I told you its a waste of my time. If that is all you are interested in discussing, then I'll leave well enough alone. I care about discussing issues, and your entire reason for being on this thread seems to be to argue that ideas themselves are not worth discussing.

Anon - So lets get this straight. You are offended by Glenn and Lib BC because they take political positions and then try to convince people of the validity of their political positions. Huh? Thats one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. Everyone who has any opinion or political position and engages people in the public sphere is, by the very nature of public debate in a democracy, trying to convert people to their way of thinking. That is the way our political system works. One could extend that "argument" to say that no one should ever advocate for any position - including any position on sustainability - because that would involve "trying to convert everyone else to his way of thinking". Should we reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Nope - that would involve trying to convert people to a different way of thinking. Should we be advocate for consumers to make more environmentally friendly choices in the products and services they choose - Nope, that would necessarily involve trying to convert people to a certain way of thinking. If you are offended because people have different points of view than you and you have to encounter those different points of view in your life, well then you must get offended pretty easily. You should probably be offended by this entire magazine, and the very premise of democratic debate. So do you really want to discuss how eating meat is an energy drain? Would that not involve trying to convince you that changing your lifestyle to consume less energy intensive foods would be beneficial for the goal of sustainability? That might offend you to hear.

Secondly, the article was not about the fact that eating eggs is cruel. The article was about the various designations used in egg packages and looking at what they mean. Is this information you already knew? I certainly didn't. Did you already know what it means when egg packages are marked as "free-range" or "free-run"? What bodies or organizations certify such labels? If you did, great. Thats very impressive. If you didn't, then you learned something. Thought when I talked about animal rights organizations "educating" people, I was mostly refering to Lib BC's other activities. I don't know if you were one of the people posting earlier, but I followed those links and did a little reading. Apparently those people started their little flame war with Glenn after he was out protesting fois gras at Vancouver restautants. That is a way of educating people about an issue that some people would not otherwise know about. Does everyone in the world know how fois gras is produced? Far from it. I didn't. And I wouldnt eat at a restaurant that would serve it after finding out. That is education. Does everyone in the world care whether or not their food is produced by horribly mistreating animals? Obviously not. But some do. And you seem to be calling into question the general validity of people who care about animal welfare advocating that position. And saying that pointing out to people that their food choices contribute to mistreating animals is, in itself, offensive. I couldnt possibly disagree stronger. We already have laws in this country to protect animals. Laws against mistreating house pets, laws against dog fighting. Do you consider these laws unjust and unncessary restrictions on peoples freedom? Should we be able to train dogs to fight each other. Are you offended that some people out there want to tell you what to do by prohibiting dog fighting? Obviously you arent. So you would likely agree that there should be some regulations out there that prevent animal cruelty. Now you and I, and Glenn and Lib BC probably all have different views on how far those regulations should go. I don't think Glenn or Lib BC would support a blanket law banning meat eating. I know I wouldn't. But I would certainly support a law that promoted better treatment of egg chickens. Lots of people would. Apparently, you arent one of them. None of this is any reason to be offended by other peoples opinions. Promoting animal welfare laws has nothing to do with telling anyone how to life their life, and everything to do with education and building political coalitions to promote your preferred public policy views. So please, enough with the faux outrage.

So should an article in a sustainability magazine have focused more on the energy-intensiveness of meat and dairy eating, over the cruelty aspect? Maybe. Would that have offended you any less? From what you have written, I doubt it. That would still be "telling you how to live your life" by advocating a position you disagree with. You seem to already know that eating meat and dairy is more energy intensive and worse for the environment. Does this convince you to eat less meat and dairy? How have you moderated your meat consumption as you have learned this over time? At all? I'd be curious to know. In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of sustainability is learning to live in a way that reduces our carbon footprint. not eating meat is an easy and effective way to do this. Now, are you willing to change any part of your lifestyle to move our economy towards sustainability? Or is that very idea offensive to you?

This is to all of the author's antagonists on this thread: I'm not sure if you guys noticed, but this is a website about sustainability. I can assure you that nobody cares the slightest bit about your internet comment thread flame war. If you have anything all at intelligent or relevant to contribute towards the discussion about sustainability, please do so. We would be happy to hear it. Otherwise, you are just wasting your time. There are thousands, if not millions, of other vegetarians and vegan in the world, who choose that lifestyle for diverse reasons, such as animal welfare, health or environmental reasons. There are many intelligent arguments both for and against eating meat, or even moderating your diet to consume less meat. But you are not making these arguments, or any other arguments. You are just wasting everyone else on this website's time how actually care to engage in relevant discussions about sustainability.

So here we go - I am a vegan. I am not an animal rights activist in any way. I don't know Glenn and I've never heard of Liberation BC until now. I am a vegan because I am concerned about animal welfare and I view veganism as an efficient way to decrease my carbon footprint. I don't expect anyone else to follow my views and I don't think the state should legislate prohibitions on eating meat in any way. However, I do think it is perfectly acceptable in a democracy to attempt to educate people in a respectful manner about the consequences of their decisions as consumers.

There we go, an argument for veganism from someone other than Glenn. If you have anything intelligent or relevant to add to this conversation, please engage me. I'm happy to discuss and debate this topic respectfully with anyone who wants to.

I can't help but see a lot of immature personal attacks from the people commenting here. Are you guys tied to the industry in some way that you feel threatened by what the author has to say? If there is no such thing as "cruelty-free" eggs then why is it not okay to say it? Do you really have to label eggs as "cruelty-free" in order to sell it? You can call these people fanatics, post links about everything they've ever done that you don't approve of. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no such thing as "cruelty-free" eggs.

Speaking if "sustainability"...it is impossible to eat sustainably and consume eggs or meat or any animal products at our current rate. In order to be truly sustainable, we must all reduce our consumption of animal products. Animal agriculture is the number one contributor to greenhouse gases. Whereas all the transportation in the world combined (planes, cars, ships, trucks etc) contributes 13% to global greenhouse gasses and animal agriculture contributes a whooping 18%! You cannot have "sustainability" without significantly reducing the number of animals we farm on this planet. 60 billion land animals are raised each year to feed 6 billion people. Just imagine how much blood and feces is being dumped into our rivers and oceans. How is that sustainable?

And one last thing people, unless you're 12 years old, name calling and personal attacks are not compelling ways to win an argument.

Whether or not you are preaching the truth and facts is irrelevant, Glenn. It's not so much the facts, but who is telling them that is important, and what exactly that person ultimately stands for. There still remains the fact that you and your wife Joanne are animal-rights fanatics, focusing on the elimination of eating meat (etc, etc, etc), through articles like the one above, rather than on more environmentally friendly methods of production. But for you that can't be your focus as people would still be eating your animal buddies, despite a happy environment. Yes, you are fanatics, as who else but fanatics would engage in child exploitation for ideological gain:

http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=3b4f6a45-9360-4de...

...And compare human struggles and tragedy with the "plight" of farm animals (someone else already posted the link but here it is. See Glenn's "displaced Africans" comment in this blog, link below, in addition to his slavery comment):

http://butterontheendive.ca/2008/08/02/protesting-the-protest/

...And get arrested for "mischief" and obstructing an officer (link below, but see "Endive" link again, because it's more funny):

http://www.asianpacificpost.com/portal2/c1ee8c441b9923e1011b9e23562200a7...

...And lie, and harass people on the street. (See above "Endive" link again: Joanne falsely accusing someone of "assault" and calling him a "rapist"; Joanne pretending to be someone else on this blog and trying to defend herself anonymously as "Lex". Damn, you guys liked posting on that blog.)

And subject yourself to constant falling at the Agrifair during a rodeo protest (watch it, Glenn, you might break a bone there, with your vegan diet). When you were standing stubbornly there, with your far-away gaze, were you feeling all heroic? I can just see what was going through your head, along with some dramatic theme music, no doubt. (And nice pet chicken there. Did you really look at a chicken and see something akin to a human slave?)

I dunno. I seem to have all my facts. Maybe I should write an article on ARAs for Hillary, to explain the significant differences between animals rights (ie, the tactics they use, goals, etc) and animal welfare. And then you, Glenn, can comment on it. :)

Yet Another Sour Grape

I am a regular Granville reader and a vegan, and am deeply offended by RTM's contemptuous dismissal of my views. Just because you don't agree with a viewpoint, RTM, doesn't mean it should be supressed from the conversation on sustainability. By arguing that only viewpoints you already agree with should have a voice in the converstaion about sustainability, you have revealed your small, narrow minded view of the world.

Hi Hilary, Eds. et al.,

In my opinion, which admittedly holds little credence, this article was a step in the wrong direction for Granville Online right from the start if this publication's goal is to foster discussions surrounding realistic, achievable "sustainable city living" (your tagline) solutions. There was virtually no point to this article other than for Glenn to express his opinion on animal cruelty...and do his best to make anyone who is not vegan feel culpable.

Is being Vegan more sustainable and closer to cruelty-free? I'm quite convinced that it is while being equally certain that I'll never be vegan with absolutely no remorse. Glenn holds the right to his views; it's simply unfortunate that he was given space in this forum as there exists no shortage of sites out there to give voice to the margins. Certainly, there are those in this discussion board banging pots and pans in admiration of what Glenn had to say but I hazard to assume this is symptomatic of squeaky wheels.

I will grant the discussion on raising chickens in an urban setting was valuable but being preached to about animal cruelty from some marginal guy who adopts foul and calls them intelligent, sentient beings gives me increasingly less reason to read this publication...which is a shame because it is needed in this city. You've done an excellent job with Granville Online and I will be a continued supporter. This is simply feedback from one reader who would like to read articles of value. Sustainability is not about cheerleading for far-left, vegan, foul adopters; that is a zero sum game, no progress...there's only change when moderates find it increasingly relevant and easy to implement into their lives.

What people like Glenn fail to see is that history is filled with people like him and they've made absolutely no impact since the first industrial smokestack was raised.

JR