Whole Foods Market is preparing to roll out a line of meat that will carry labels saying animal compassionate, indicating the animals were raised in a humane manner until they were slaughtered, the NYT reported last week. Food marketers and restaurants report they can sell more meat at higher prices if they can prove the animals have been treated decently.
“The labeling trend has even been embraced by the restaurant industry, where a handful of high-end restaurants are now carrying ‘certified humane’ meat. The Chipotle Mexican Grill, meanwhile, trumpets its humanely raised pork in an ad campaign that appears on the companys Web site and on billboards. … When the natural pork was added to the menu six years ago, sales of the pork burrito quickly doubled, though the price jumped by $1,” the article continues.
“At one grocery outlet, at least, ‘certified humane’ meat is selling briskly. DAgostino, a small grocery chain in New York, said sales of meat jumped 25 percent since it added the ‘certified humane’ logo, though the products cost, on average, 30 to 40 percent more,” the Times added.
A welter of competing standards, some valid and some makeweights by factory farm industry marketing representatives, risks confusing the market and retarding the spread of “animal compassionate” meats.
“The federal government generally does not regulate how farm animals are treated. It has a voluntary program that, for a fee, audits organizations in order to verify their certification programs and their product labels,” according to the Times.
Massachusetts should support the trend toward “animal compassionate” meats. The shift can play to the strengths of our relatively small-scale farmers. We should institute state standards for such meats and certify local producers. We can create jobs, support an important domestic industry, help to preserve agricultural land, and help to improve the lives, however long or short they may be, of countless animals.
And it’s the first I’ve heard of it. My only question would be about how would this work in practice. It seems these restaurants/supermarkets are doing what they’re doing as a private business decision. Would it help them that much to get a “state certification” when they can just label it themselves (for no additional fees) or simply go through the already existing federal certification system? If it is similar to the organics labelling, it might create more confusion than good (though this probably has more to do with the existing poorly constructed organics standards than the idea itself).
For “made in Massachusetts” meats. I don’t think corporate “self-regulating” quality assurance programs have much, if any, credibility with the public. Maybe the WholeFoods program will be an exception, but if so likely only on a limited scale. But the FDA, USDA, and state Departments of Health do have some credibility (“USDA approved”). Massachusetts can give its producers an edge over their competitors, maybe even a national reputation, for a very minimal investment. That means jobs.
Just like with “Organic”, the value of the certification is somewhat proportional to how much people think it means. If it’s a corporate free-for-all, people won’t trust it, and it won’t have as much value even for those who do use it well. If there’s a state standard, well, then it depends on how good the state standard is, and how well it’s promoted – but at least people can find out what the standard means, and trust that when they see the label on something in a store, it means what they think it does.
So, here it goes. I understand that my beliefs are neither the most compassionate nor the least, and that they may not jibe with yours.
<
p>
I believe that animals are on Earth to serve humans. This belief comes from my Roman Catholic upbringing. Animals aren’t equals, and their needs aren’t as important as ours. Man is under no obligation to treat animals well. Animals are property, plain and simple.
<
p>
Now, that does not mean it’s OK to kick a dog, even if you do own it. Since animals do feel pain, causing them harm with no reasonable gain for man is sinful. Kicking a dog for fun isn’t OK. Doing experiments on animals for medical science is just fine. Eating them is A-OK too. Cosmetic testing? That’s much greyer an area.
<
p>
So, what does this have to do with factory farms? At first glance, it would appear that my beliefs side with Con Agra et al. However, upon closer inspection, it would appear that my ethics imply that factory farms aren’t OK at all. Why not? After all, they provide more meat per dollar. Trouble is, they also: * result in much higher risk of disease, from e. coli to Mad Cow, and lots of others. * require far more petroleum per pound of meat produced, which isn’t a good thing. * pollute the air, land, and groundwater with the pesticides, fertilizer, etc.
<
p>
The trade off simply isn’t a good one. Since we’re not in a position of requiring factory farms to prevent starvation, there’s simply no reason for them to exist within my ethical system.
<
p>
That’s why I (a) try to eat substantially less meat than I used to, and (b) try to eat the meat of smaller animals, since they generally require fewer non-renewable resources per pound of meat than the larger animals. I eat very little beef, and very little pork. Some turkey, a fair bit of chicken, and tofu every chance I can come up with a tasty way to prepare it. Sometimes I’ll buy meat from the farmers market, from a “free range” ranch.
<
p>
If meat was labeled “humane”, I’d be more likely to buy it, but I’d still try to stick to fresh fruit and veg.
I always buy humane or at least free range meats. I don’t think there needs to be a government process for labeling as such. It seems it would be cumbersome. I think it’s going to rely on trust between the seller and the consumer.
I guess the only question then would be what standards could be used to determine whether a company was falsely claiming that their meat is “humane”. After all, a company could change nothing but their labelling (as opposed to their manufacturing processes) and claim on the packaging that they are “humane”.
<
p>
As demand increases for this type of thing, it seems clear that at some point standards will be necessary for consumer protection purposes, as it became for organics.
<
p>
And yes, I realize this comment somewhat contradicts my comment above 10 minutes earlier.