US Full Disclosure About Animal Products

[Hog]

I like the warnings labels about the health hazards of smoking cigarets on the boxes. It sends a powerful message to people about the risks of smoking. Despite my avatar, I do not use tobacco in real life because the health risks are too high.

Why not put a similar warning on meat? It could read as follows. "Farming is psychologically and physically abusive to animals." I am not suggesting that we make the abuse of farm animals illegal. I am only suggesting that consumers see a bright red label with less than ten words on it. Everybody has the freedom to eat what they want. But, in the back of their minds, they will know that there is a problem with farm animal abuse.

I can imagine little kids crying when Mom brings home the bacon from the grocery store. Even little kids understand that if you can abuse an animal, then you can abuse a human.

“Murderers … very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids,” says Robert K. Ressler, who developed profiles of serial killers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
- https://www.peta.org/issues/animal-...eets/animal-abuse-human-abuse-partners-crime/

 

[Poppy]

I can't say that I don't think that's a great idea, but it'll never happen. Bit Ag has too much of a grip on govt. to allow anything that might hurt its business.

 

[Hog]

I can't say that I don't think that's a great idea, but it'll never happen. Bit Ag has too much of a grip on govt. to allow anything that might hurt its business.

Poppy - Maybe I should make donations to political action committees that understand the value all the lives that God created.

I do not know how God created life. I adore creation stories. I also believe that stories of evolution are completely compatable with creationism.

I could make donations to animal shelters. But, I believe that too many politicians are cheap wh0res. I just wanna be the pimp who calls the shots. It seems like an inexpensive way to get the job done.

If anyone says that my ideas are insane, I would not be offended in the slightest.

 

[Lou]

I too think that is a great idea. But I see a problem.

Why should the warning label be limited to just animal abuse.? What about health risks?

The label could say that "Consumption of this product has been associated with heart disease, stroke, diabetes, Alzheimer's, and lung disease." But that is just the top 5. We might want to include "Allergic, autoimmune, and inflammatory disorders. Cancer, Cataracts, Cellulite, Dementia, Diabetes: Type 2 diabetes, prediabetes, and gestational diabetes, Life-threatening reactions to E. coli toxins, Gallstones, Recurrent gout attacks, Neurological diseases, Prepuberty, Prostatic hyperplasia. Rheumatoid arthritis and Declining sperm counts"

Then one could argue we should also include environmental damage.
The label could also include this warning:
The production of this product contributes to global warming, land degradation, air and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity.





- Could Eating Animal Products Be What Is Making Us Sick? - Nature's Path
- animal products | Health Topics | NutritionFacts.org
- Spotlight: Livestock impacts on the environment

 

[Emma JC]

Earthling Ed addressed this very topic in a recent video as Europe is trying to pass a bill that will forbid plant-based products from using the terms milk, burger, sausage etc. Well worth watching and he addresses the "truth" in labeling.

Emma JC