148

These California and Colorado ballot measures are terrifying the meat industry (www.vox.com)

submitted 6 days ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/politics@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 20 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 69 points 6 days ago

Its time to shut down the factory farms folks.

[-] Myxomatosis@lemmy.world 57 points 6 days ago

I’m a meat-eater and I support this. Even if it means paying more for meat and not having it cheap and plentiful anymore.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago

I'm a meat eater who's raised pigs for meat and I support this. Factory farming's monoculture practices have ruined pork.

[-] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 29 points 5 days ago

Another meat eater who's down. Let it be an unsubsidized delicacy.

[-] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 28 points 6 days ago

The yes on Measure J campaign is more cash strapped compared to the mostly meat industry funded opposition. They are more of a grassroots campaign. If you have the means, they can use donations or volunteers to help out

https://www.endfactoryfarming.vote/

[-] Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago

I really hope the Denver one doesn't pass. It's basically targeting one small employee-owned meat processor (the one local chefs go to for higher quality meat products), trying to force them to close. And that will shunt all their business to the huge industrial slaughterhouse up north in Greely.

City Cast Denver interviewed the supposed whistle blower that the campaign to shut the place down are holding up as an example of how awful the place is supposed to be, and it turns out the parts which aren't untrue are wildly exaggerated. The whole thing feels kind of sleezy, in bad faith, and a gift to the giant corporate meat packers. I hope people see through it.

[-] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

I have not heard anyone saying in Denver they support that measure for the simple reason it targets just one business. What’s next making the Purina dog/cat food plant illegal that’s been in Denver for a most a 100 years

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

Not just chefs, but also immigrant communities who use goat meat. The place that processed my pigs, despite having a massive Trump sign out front, was frequented by Middle Eastern and South Asian immigrants. Big meat processors are primarily set up for cows and pigs and possibly sheep so their alternative is imported goat meat at significantly higher prices.

[+] HelixDab2@lemm.ee -15 points 5 days ago

Here's another way to summarize this: Wealthy 'liberal' elites want to make groceries even more expensive when food prices have been rising faster than the CPI.

Factory farms, as distasteful as they may be to many, keep food prices lower through economies of scale. Once you start shutting that down, food gets sharply more expensive, especially for the people that can least afford it. Energy would be better directed, IMO, towards improving conditions in industrial farming, rather than trying to eliminate it.

[-] whynotzoidberg@lemmy.world 11 points 5 days ago

It’s theoretically possible to reduce cost of food and reduce factory farming if we convert feed fields to other human-consumable options. Additionally, water is conserved, and greenhouse gasses (methane) are further limited.

It’s my opinion that we should not stick with and try to iterate on a bad, unjust, and unfavorable system for the sake of keeping prices low with our current dietary preferences.

I am a current meat eater and former 6 year vegetarian.

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee -3 points 5 days ago

It’s my opinion that we should not stick with and try to iterate on a bad, unjust, and unfavorable system for the sake of keeping prices low with our current dietary preferences.

My issue is that you're trying to legislate changes to diet, and you're doing it by eliminating options. Or by making it unaffordable to anyone without significant disposable income. If you change 'preferences', then the issue goes away on it's own; factory farms exist because there's a demand.

If it wasn't for the unavoidable fact that eliminating farm subsidies would increase food insecurity, I'd say do that. But there's no good way to do that in a way that won't also increase risks of farms going bankrupt and poor people not being able to afford food.

If you're finding that people don't want to change their diets with the messaging that you're using, then you need to change your messaging.

[-] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago

A whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper and healthier.

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 days ago

for individuals who pay retail price for all their food. people who get free meat or dairy or harvest their own are not a party of that study. it applies to almost none of the poor people in the world, including the UK and Europe

[+] deegeese@sopuli.xyz -42 points 6 days ago

Oh man J is fucked up, they’re going to shut down the dairy farms that have been a part of rural Sonoma for generations.

Bunch of city people want to destroy rural people’s lifestyles.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 62 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Please justify this point of view, because Measure J only applies to large CAFOs (as defined by federal regulation). This will only impact the operations of large corporations like Perdue, not "rural people". Your post reads like corporate propaganda.

This would apply to 21 facilities in Sonoma County, none of them small family businesses.

[-] massive_bereavement@fedia.io 29 points 5 days ago

In fact these massive farms are actively killing smaller ones using any means necessary.

[-] Archer@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago

I mean if they want to run a few Trump-supporting farms out of business on the way out I’ll give them a few months lol

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee -5 points 5 days ago

CAFOs apply to dairy farms with >700 mature cows. So you're saying that it's not going to affect any dairies?

They said nothing about them being small family businesses; they said that they'd been a part of rural Sonoma for generations.

And I have noticed that there's a strong trend of city people moving to rural areas, and then complaining about the things that have been there for decades before they moved in. It's a little ridiculous. I moved out of a city because I wanted to be closer to farms and forests, live off a dirt road with spotty cell connection and power that goes out if Mother Nature sneezes, and have bears that go rooting through my composting. Bitching about people that have been there since long before I showed up seems... Shitty. And trying to run them out when it's pretty damn likely that I'm personally benefitting from their business seems even worse.

[-] evasive_chimpanzee@lemmy.world 8 points 5 days ago

Bunch of city people want to destroy rural people’s lifestyles.

CAFOs are not "rural people's lifestyle". They are a relatively modern invention to create the largest amount of meat while employing the fewest people possible. Trying to defend them as "rural people's lifestyle" is very disingenuous. If you want to defend them, there are reasonable arguments to make, like the price of food, the land use, water use, etc, compared to meat produced other ways.

Even if somehow having a corporation own 100,000 chickens that they raise down the road from you was an important part of your lifestyle, I cannot stand the constant argument that somehow, rural folks' way of life is more important to preserve than urban folks'. As we make the climate worse, and pump out more pollution, and have more kids, and create more technology, everyone's life is going to change. Rural folks have significantly more kids than urban folks and they produce more burden on the environment, yet somehow, it's on people who live it cities who are supposed to bear the costs because we can't possibly do anything that affects people who live rurally?

I, and most people, want small, family run operations to succeed. There's no reason we have to protect Big Ag to keep small operations. Big Ag is the biggest threat to the little guys.

this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024

148 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19043 readers

4033 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News