Bananas are ridiculously cheap even up here in Canada, and they aren't grown anywhere near here. Yet a banana can grow, be harvested, be shipped, be stocked, and then be purchased by me for less than it'd cost to mail a letter across town. (Well, if I could buy a single banana maybe...or maybe that's not the best comparison, but I think you get my point)

Along the banana's journey, the farmer, the harvester, the shipper, the grocer, the clerk, and the cashier all (presumably) get paid. Yet a single banana is mere cents. If you didn't know any better, you might think a single banana should cost $10!

I'm presuming that this is because of some sort of exploitation somewhere down the line, or possibly loss-leading on the grocery store's side of things.

I'm wondering what other products like bananas are a lot cheaper than they "should" be (e.g., based on how far they have to travel, or how difficult they are to produce, or how much money we're saving "unethically").

I've heard that this applies to coffee and chocolate to varying extents, but I'm not certain.

Anyone know any others?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 35 points 2 years ago (53 children)

I agree with you but there are more ethical ways to eat meat while also saving money. Last year my wife and I purchased 1/4 of an entire cow from a farm about 35 miles north of us (friends and family bought the other 3/4). This cow was responsibly raised, grass fed, on a small, local farm. We received 200 pounds of meat with probably a dozen different cuts of meat. This includes dozens of pounds of excellent steak and the meat is simply amazing. We will definitely be going this route moving forward as we averaged the price per pound to ~$4/lb which is far less than the local grocery.

I understand this isn't possible for everyone as we also had to purchase a chest freezer which requires space but has made our grocery bill far smaller and the meat we are eating much better in many ways.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 53 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    The problem is that you are still contributing to demand for meat. It would be impossible to meet all of the current demand by "ethical" means, so the only way for meat to become more ethical across the whole industry is for the demand for meat to go down massively (or the supply is reduced by legislation). And I don't see that legislation being likely if people are still so invested in eating meat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    the only way for meat to become more ethical across the whole industry is for the demand for meat to go down massively (or the supply is reduced by legislation).

    this presupposes that ethical production is not the norm despite animal welfare laws and humane slaughter being the norm in the entire developed world, and also shows a great lack of imagination and a misunderstanding of economic theories.

    industry creates is own demand. you aren't going to stop big meat by buying beans. there use no amount of beans you can buy that will change how many head of cattle a rancher keeps.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Factory farming is indeed legal. You seem to be suggesting that it is ethically defensible as well. That's a serious stretch if you know what it really looks like, even in the most restrictive jurisdictions, i.e. Western Europe. The only charitable explanation is that you have not looked into the subject very deeply.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    what I said is that animal welfare laws and humane slaughter laws are the norm in the western world. I said nothing about legality of factory farming implying morality. I'm saying there are legal restrictions to ensure it is humane.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, and I am saying that you clearly do not understand the reality of what goes on in the average factory farm. Or do not care. But I prefer to imagine that it's ignorance, that is less disturbing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (44 children)

    Even if the cow is responsibly raised, there's still the question of how it was conceived. No farmer simply let's a bull on top of a cow, since our modern cows are too big to safely mate. So usually a cow is artificially inseminated, which is an inherently violent procedure. The milk industry could simply not exist without this institutionalized rape

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (35 children)

    As you said, they can’t mate… so what’s your solution? Let them go extinct and we lose not only a beautiful creature but a significant part of our species food source and history? We’ve been drinking milk and eating beef since the dawn of animal husbandry

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 35 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (34 children)

    Wait you're saying it's better to be genetically experimented on, caged, forced to breed, and be killed in your early adulthood than not have children?

    That's it's actually more ethical to make a creature who you later kill for your own pleasure than not to do that? because the alternative is only wild cows and cowlike creatures existing?

    They're living beings, not museum exhibits ffs. Species don't have preferences, individuals do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (11 children)

    they didn't say any of what you said.

    you are arguing with a strawman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    That's what a farm is. They're saying we should keep farming them or else they would go extinct and that would be worse than continuing to farm them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (9 children)

    they did not say what you said. you are putting words in their mouth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (8 children)

    What did they say then? What are the implications? what are they arguing against?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (7 children)
  • [+] 1 point 2 years ago (6 children)
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    you are putting words in their mouth and arguing with a strawman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (4 children)

    you should read a book about subtext and implication. I think you're probably very young and have a mind that takes things very literally. When we say things, it implies things.

    They are not arguing for the establishment of cow sanctuaries and global veganism they are putting forward a disingenuous and nonsensical defense of their own eating of meat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Point out the wild bovine to me bruh, they don’t exist, they’re one of the many species dépendant upon humans for their survival.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (5 children)
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Very frustrating to argue with people who claim to have no concern for living creatures when in fact they probably love their dog or cat and would find it just as hard as anyone else to watch a video of what goes on in factory farms. Food choices are such a fundamental part of human culture that most people just cannot stand having them questioned, it's as if you are questioning their religion. Alas.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    this reads like an appeal to ridicule, not a rebuttal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Ok you should Google wild bovine. Aurochs are extinct, cows aren't really a distinct species, and bovine specifically covers everything from wilderbeasts to yaks which all exist in the wild. So it's worth ridiculing people so ignorant of the world and so unwilling to even do a Google search.

    Hell there are wild escaped domestic cows a day's drive from me lmao.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    this is better, but it amounts to handwaving and anecdotes. surely you can address the logic of what they said and cite a source instead of saying "look it up"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago

    no, there is no point in investing effort in a discussion when the other party wont. The commenter does not actually care whether there are or aren't, if they cared they would look it up.

    They want to waste my time arguing against a position they have no investment in. There is literally a Wikipedia page on wild bovines, that's how low effort this is.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (15 replies)
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    artificial insemination isn't rape. it's a veterinary procedure

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    If I artificially inseminated you would you feel raped?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    I'm not a cow and I somehow doubt you are a veterinarian

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    So it would be abhorrent right? What makes it ok to do to a cow then? Is it the prop stethoscope? the certificate of graduation on the wall? Do cows just not matter? if so why not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments