879
Boiling lobsters alive to be banned in UK animal cruelty crackdown (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 8 months ago by to c/world@lemmy.world
418 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Boiling lobsters while they are alive and conscious will be banned as part of a government strategy to improve animal welfare in England.

Government ministers say that “live boiling is not an acceptable killing method” for crustaceans and alternative guidance will be published.

The practice is already illegal in Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand. Animal welfare charities say that stunning lobsters with an electric gun or chilling them in cold air or ice before boiling them is more humane.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 39 points 8 months ago (4 children)

Most killing involves pain, all meat requires killing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (4 children)

    all meat requires killing.

    Technically not true... You could amputate and eat part of an animal without killing it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 8 months ago

    A TV reporter became lost on the back roads and stopped at a farm to get directions. As he was talking to the farmer he noticed a pig with a wooden leg. “This could be a great story for the Six O’Clock News.  How did that pig lose his leg?” he asked the farmer. “Well”, said the farmer, “that’s a very special pig. One night not too long ago we had a fire start in the barn, and that pig squealed so loud and long that he woke everyone, and by the time we got there he had herded all the other animals out of the barn. Saved them all.”

    “And that was when he hurt his leg?” asked the journalist anxious for a story.  “Nope, he pulled through that just fine.” said the farmer. “Though a while later, I was back in the woods when a bear attacked me. Well, sir, that pig was nearby and he came running and rammed that bear from behind and then chased him off. He saved me for sure.”

    “Wow! So the bear injured his leg then?” questioned the reporter.  “No. He came away without a scratch. Though a few days later, my tractor turned over in a ditch and I was knocked unconscious. Well, that pig dove into the ditch and pulled me out before I got cut up in the machinery.”  “Ahh! So his leg got caught under the tactor?” asked the journalist.  “Noooo. We both walked away from that one.” says the farmer.

    “So how did he get the wooden leg?” asked the journalist.  “Well”, the farmer replied, “A pig that good you don't eat all at once!"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -9 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Not true.

    As at least one commenter said already, meat can be extracted without killing.

    And further, you can wait for something to die of natural causes, and then you get the meat.

    And now, arguably, "meat" can be made in a lab. Perhaps suppressed secret tech already has star-trek style replicators.

    At least 3 distinct ways of meat without killing.

    At a stretch... seeds and mushrooms can be considered/called "meat".

    Probably more ways yet I've not thought of.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -28 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    all plant eating is killing too

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Correct. Scientists have done studies on vibrations from plants and they have a reaction to being cut and pulled that could be equated to a "pain" response.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    Let's suppose that you actually genuinely care about reducing the amount of plant suffering in the world. If this is the case, surely you would be vegan, because 3/4 of our total agricultural land is used to grow plants to support animal agriculture. (Since grass feels pain just like soybeans do, this includes pasture land.) So far fewer plants would be killed if everyone was vegan.

    Of course, you don't actually live your life in a manner consistent with believing plants feel pain. I don't think anyone would think twice about swerving into some flowers to avoid a dog in the street for fear of causing suffering to the flowers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Do you have any idea how many animals and bugs suffer at the hands of your monocultures in to produce soybeans and tofu? They destroy the habitat, poison the ground and the water, and make it impossible for most things to live on vast tracks of land. They interrupt migration patterns of larger animals.

    You guys must all be small scale organic farmers like me! Surely if you cared about all life so much, you would be doing more of your personal space to accommodate? Shall we analyze your diet Friend? Let us discuss what you were eating and how you are acquiring it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (4 children)

    Cmon let's be real, again this is a very simple trophic levels thing. If you truly care about the suffering of all the field mice and bugs and whatever being killed in soybean monocultures, and their other various environmental harms, then surely you would be vegan, because 75% of all soybeans grown globally are used as animal feed. (Source)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    a soybean is about 20% oil. about 85% of all soybeans are pressed for oil, that leaves about 69% of the total soybean crop as industrial waste if it's not fed to animals. another 7% is fed directly to livestock. only 7% of all soybeans are grown for animals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    I understand the core of your argument: "animals can eat parts of the plant that humans can't, so it's most efficient to use those as animal feed instead of wasting them." But this is not really engaging with the source I posted above, showing that, indeed, farmed animals are directly fed only 7% of all raw soybeans produced in the world, but 69% of all soybeans are specifically produced to be turned into high-protein processed animal feed, for a total of 76%.

    From your previous comments though, it doesn't really seem like you're engaging in good faith. Feel free to have the last word, have a great day

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago)

    69% of all soybeans are specifically produced to be turned into high-protein processed animal feed

    no. 85% are pressed for oil, and the waste product is 69% of the soybean crop. that is fed to animals.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago

    I truly care about the health of the planet and our many diverse eco-systems. I truly believe in the mountain of science on the subject. I truly believe in the laws of nature. The cycle of life and death that forms the eco-system. I think your vegan farming is just as bad as the meat farmers. Vast tracks of land poisoned to produce soy protein, fuel corn, palm oil and what ever else you need to create such an unnatural diet. I truly believe that eating food you produce and that is local to you is the real ethical choice. A healthy cow farm benefits the neighboring veggie farm, macro fauna increase biodiversity and manage plants. There's a lot going on in the natural world, I'd rather not see it all get replaced by ignorance, self righteousness and Soylent.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    75% of the weight of the crop is fed to animals, but 69% of the crop weight would be industrial waste if it wasn't fed to animals. that's a conservation of resources

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    United States Department of Agriculture. PSD Online. Available at: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/advQuery.{/ref}

    The majority (77%) of the world’s soy is fed to livestock for meat and dairy production. 7% is fed directly to animals as soybeans, but the remainder is first processed into soybean ‘cake’.{ref}Soybean cake (sometimes referred to as soybean meal) is a high-protein feed made from the pressurization, heat treatment, and extraction processing of soybeans. The oil is extracted from the soybeans to leave a protein-rich product.

    Per the source above, although it's fair if you missed it because it's in the footnotes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -12 points 8 months ago (3 children)

    far fewer plants would be killed if everyone was vegan.

    I doubt this

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    How so? Have you seen the energy pyramid diagram?

    The one I am referring to is specifically figure 2

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -10 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    much of what animals eat are parts of plants people can't or won't eat. I don't actually believe any fewer plants would be harmed if people were vegan.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 8 months ago (1 child)

    Because instead of having to feed one creature, you have two creatures to feed. Still not clear?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 8 months ago (2 children)

    if I grow a plant like corn, and I eat the kernels, and feed the cobs, stalk and ruffage to a cow, only one plant is harmed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    While this likely pans out with historical methods of meat production, alongside historical quantities of meat consumption, it breaks down when scaled up.

    This would signal towards a reduced meat consumption across a population. On an individual level, removing meat from the diet would be beneficial to offset those who aren't reducing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    On an individual level, removing meat from the diet would be beneficial to offset those who aren't reducing.

    maybe it would be if the industry changed it's production based on consumption. I don't think that happens though

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    They aren't producing for funsies. If people are buying less, they're going to produce less in order to maximize their profit. If they don't ramp down production in response to reduced consumption, they are losing money.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    If people are buying less, they're going to produce less

    that has never happened and there is no reason to believe it would

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    Lots of businesses have scaled down production when demand for their product has declined. Lines literally get discontinued if demand drops low enough.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    oh. I thought the discussion was about meat

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 8 months ago* (1 child)

    Yes, because demand is increasing.

    If demand were decreasing, then the chart would look different.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 8 months ago (1 child)

    there is no way to prove or disprove this claim. it's pure storytelling.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •