So it would reduce the risk of antibiotic resistant diseases, the risk of the next zoonosis that turns into pandemic, the certainty that climate change will destroy agriculture, the risk of heart diseases and cancer but it will not eliminate the chance of a stomach flue so it is not worth perusing?
For smaller animals heat suffocation has worked well, takes a few days but no extra work.
And unless everyone is willing to go 100% vegan tomorrow
And no, I don’t belive 100% tommorow is the only way to avoid that, that was your wording. But it has to and will change.
Don’t mess with animals. This is not a Texas problem, outbreaks have been all over the world and the animal agriculture is the perfect breeding ground. The only question is where will it develop the human to human infection feature. When it happens you can only blame others if your state or country has no animal agriculture as it could happen anywhere.
Now we know better:
https://feddit.de/post/10666309
But hey, still not human to human. Lets give it another week?
All of the animal industries the report examines are far less regulated than they should be and far less than the public believes they currently are. Today, wide regulatory gaps exist through which pathogens can spillover and spread, leaving the public constantly vulnerable to zoonotic disease.
https://animal.law.harvard.edu/news-article/animal-markets-and-zoonotic-disease/
Is just one study. Many say the animal industry is the breeding ground for the next pandemic. Not only in the US but everywhere. The question is not “if” but “when”
You think that after 99% of the US population decided to stop supporting climate change by not buying meat from billionaires, those 99% would still allow them to continue? Not for their own taste and convenience but for some billionaires profits?
They would sell $165 billion worth of meat, 22% of all meat products consumed in the US to a handful of billionaires and the US government? Ignoring the international business.
Billionaires would never touch that meat. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/jan/10/zuckerberg-cattle-hawaii-beef-environment
Take a look at the Cargill family, 14 billionaires. From the wiki about the current CEO:
In 2019, former U.S. Congressman Henry A. Waxman, in a report by Mighty Earth, called Cargill “the worst company in the world” and noted that it drives “the most important problems facing our world” (deforestation, pollution, climate change, exploitation) “at a scale that dwarfs their closest competitors.”
Do you think that is because they use every cent to burn coal and oil in their backyard, or
do you think it is because they produce and sell products to consumers which can not be produced without harm to the environment?
99% of the planet could produce zero pollution for the rest of our lives and it wouldn’t even make a dent in the amount of pollution created by the billionaire class.
How do you think they would create that damage to the environment if nobody would buy their products?
I too eat in the dark.
Some people even support the industries fight for animal cruelty, climate change and new zoonosis
As long as people give money to the animal industry no government on earth will do shit
the wording was a bit of, it should spell “carcasses raised with their own shit”
A section of the A24 was limited to 130 kmph for 20 years to reduce accidents. Because the reduction the speed limit was lifted early this year. Now there are 8% more accidents with injury and 42% more injured. Politicians call now to make it possible to limit the section again.
We ded
Most likely outcome (high confidence)
still letting this here: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba7357
Animal products. No, it was not worth it.
No, I am against the prohibition of common terms, I advocate for a stricter declaration of ingredients. “Milk” alone could be milk from any mammal, cow, goat, human. Steak could be a cut from any animal, that is why a the animal it is from is declared. Oat milk is called milk since centuries but now the industry fears competition and is publishing propaganda and pays lobbyism for restrictive laws.
Right, but ‘steak’ does mean a little more than that. It also would indicate a particular kind of cut of meat, which would generally indicate minimal connective tissue, tenderness, location, etc.
So as long as it has “steak” written on it you just care that is any animal with those properties?
Would you like ‘meat-free’ labels allowed on foods that had absolutely no muscle-tissue content, but did contain animal organ, bone, and fat content?
I want a strong indicator that a product contains any animal products. There are already many labels for plant based products but none are required by any law.
I am in strong favor a big prominent “contains animal products” label. It would make live so much easier.
Do you buy “steak” as in a generic description for something from any animal, or do you buy bison, camel, goat or horse steak? I have only seen plant based steaks or schnitzel where it has it in the name. “Plant based product” or “product based on soy/pea”
It was already, but not from another mamal. Birds infecting individuals is not the problem, we kill a few millions (58 since 2022 in the states alone) birds to prevent the spread, a few hundred humans get sick, all is well. From mamal to another mamal is the problem, once it goes from human to human its over.