Why Don't More Vegans Support Clean Meat?

[VGnizm]

The effects of nutrition on our bodies is a multi-layered process. And the relationship of food with resulting energy levels is also multi-layered.

I think the previous analogy to a car engine can take us further if we add the elements of RPM and Transmission.

The immediate energy level would act on RPM whereas the longterm metabolic effect would result in changing transmission (speeds).

My personal opinion about the fullness effects of protein is NOT based on meat directly. I observe that by consuming vegan meals that have a protein density equivalent to meat i have the same satiety feeling but without the heaviness which might be due to meat muscle and collagene digestion which is not directly related to the protein content.

I deduce that the protein, due to it's long breakdown process, reduces my feeling of hunger whereas at the same time it increases my metabolic activity (raises RPM) which draws on stored energy sources to process the protein giving me more energy regardless of the amount of fats or carbohydrates.

[carnap]

Does this mean that you (like vegans) temporarily boycott the industry until you can find ethically sourced meat, or that you sit back and let the horribly underfunded branch of the USDA attempt to enforce protection, all the while continuing to purchase the product?

I don't think boycotting is a useful way of changing a practice that is systematic in nature, current practices will continue regardless of what some individual purchases. I'm more interested in changing regulations and addressing other systematic issues than my own personal behavior.

Spot the irony? Some polls reveal that 50% of American consumers prefer not to eat factory farmed meat, yet factory farms raise and sell 99% of chickens, 99% of turkeys, 95% of pigs, and 78% of cows to the American public.

I don't think that is ironic but more likely a statement that consumers are being misled by hallow marketing gimmicks (e.g., "Natural chicken") and perhaps some just aren't willing or cannot afford to purchase other meats. You'd have to survey people to get a good idea about what is going on.

The page you linked discusses antibiotic use mainly for its chicken. Tyson Foods still injects its cattle with growth hormones to stimulate milk production and feeds them antibiotics to help them survive crowded, unsanitary factory farm conditions.

Tyson food doesn't own any cattle operations so they aren't injecting anything. And while still used the use of bST in dairy cows has been declining in the US for awhile now and so has antibiotic use.

Tyson Foods, like many other food companies, normalizes and legalizes abuses like debeaking, and removal of teeth, tails, horns and genitalia without anesthetics. Are you aware of these practices, or just hopelessly apathetic? Or do you delude yourself to the reality of the industry?

Tyson foods doesn't raise their own chickens, they have independent farmers do it so the practices are going to vary. Tyson has certain standards that they require and many of the things you mentioned aren't allowed. Of course due to the large number of chickens being raised their ability to regulate all the independent farms is limited so violations do occur and I'm sure they occur with some frequency. I imagine as well that part of the reason they out-source all the raising of chickens is to shield them from what happens, that is, they can always blame the contractor.

But generally speaking standards for poultry are rather poor, but there has been a move towards improved welfare standards.

The goal is for researchers to produce a product that has a similar (or even better) in taste and texture as meat. Genetically, clean meat is identical to the muscle cells growing "naturally" in the cow.

Yes that is the goal but they are very far from the goal which is just the issue. And as I've pointed out previously, the fact that the muscle cells are the same doesn't make it equivalent to meat. Meat isn't just a mass of muscle cells and the muscle cells in meat are structured as well.

My point here has never been that its "impossible", but instead that creating a true alternative to whole meats is similar to growing organs which is something we cannot do at any cost despite billions in investment. But lab-meat has the burden of also needing to be rather cheap.

In contrast, right now you can produce tasty plant-based meats with familiar ingredients at costs similar to meat. In fact, costs could likely be cheaper if the demand (and hence volume) for the products was higher. So why invest in a futuristic technology when there is already one that has proven itself?

[carnap]

In terms of digestion, fiber isn't an energy source of course so it's a non issue. In terms of getting past the fiber to the energy containing substances... that's complicated, and an area of study. Breaking things down in digestion is a topic we're still learning about dealing with solubility and enzyme availability, stomach acid, etc.

Actually fiber is an energy source because its fermented into fatty acids that get absorbed and utilized for energy. At least in the US food labeling counts 1 gram of fiber as 2 calories of energy which is the estimated energy derived from a gram of fiber.

[brimstoneSalad]

Actually fiber is an energy source because its fermented into fatty acids that get absorbed and utilized for energy.

Certain types of soluble fibers are, that's true. Insoluble fiber as I understand it is broken down virtually not at all, and most of the fiber we eat is insoluble (unless we're eating some very specific foods), so it's probably less than a calorie per gram overall.

Considering recommendations to get 8 grams of soluble fiber a day for a whopping 16 calories, fiber in general (and in the amounts to see a significant positive effect) have in practice virtually no calories at effective (and realistic) doses.

[Lay Vegan]

I don't think boycotting is a useful way of changing a practice that is systematic in nature, current practices will continue regardless of what some individual purchases. I'm more interested in changing regulations and addressing other systematic issues than my own personal behavior.

The purpose of vegans boycotting animal agriculture long-term is not solely to change practice, but to decrease demand in animal products, thus decreasing supply and future harm done to animals. The decisions for vegans to boycott animal agriculture eventually leads to a decrease in the production of animals to be breed into the industry. I recognize that significantly less harm can also be done by hunting animals yourself or purchasing meat from small family-owned farms. I wouldn't necessarily consider this ethical, but it contributes to far less harm than purchasing products from the animal ag industry.

Besides purchasing the product (which funds the industry) harms animals, and permits factory farms to continue committing abuses to animals, what are you doing to change regulations?

I don't think that is ironic but more likely a statement that consumers are being misled by hallow marketing gimmicks (e.g., "Natural chicken") and perhaps some just aren't willing or cannot afford to purchase other meats. You'd have to survey people to get a good idea about what is going on.

The irony is that their actions contradict their concerns. Delusional or not, their actions harm animals, and by extension, the environment and other humans. People should be made aware of this. This is the message vegan activists are trying to deliver to non vegans. Ceasing to purchase the product, or even purchasing less meat reduces demand in the product and produces less harm.

Tyson food doesn't own any cattle operations so they aren't injecting anything. And while still used the use of bST in dairy cows has been declining in the US for awhile now and so has antibiotic use.

Sure, Tyson doesn't technically own the cattle operations. The independent factory farmers usually enter contracts with Tyson in which their animals are to be raised for the company. The farmers do still inject their cattle with bovine hormones and feed them antibiotics through feedlots. Most of this is simply to prevent their animals from succumbing to illness. When you have over 400 animals packed into one farm, antibiotic usage seems convenient.

Tyson has certain standards that they require and many of the things you mentioned aren't allowed.

Antibiotic use on its chicken is prohibited.

Of course due to the large number of chickens being raised their ability to regulate all the independent farms is limited so violations do occur and I'm sure they occur with some frequency.

Sure, slip-ups are inevitable. The problem is that harmful abuses like debeaking, docking of tails, removal of genitalia without anesthetics etc. are not occasional slit-ups, they're industry standard practices. The animals supplied for Tyson's processing plants undergo these brutal practices.

I imagine as well that part of the reason they out-source all the raising of chickens is to shield them from what happens, that is, they can always blame the contractor.

I blame the contractor, as well as Tyson, for profiting the famers by purchasing animals who were subjected to such abuse. The consumer, who ultimately purchases the animal product from Tyson is also to blame.

But generally speaking standards for poultry are rather poor, but there has been a move towards improved welfare standards.

I agree that *some* improvements have been made. However, Animals (especially poultry) are still subjected to tight living quarters and barred from the outside. Chicks' beaks are painfully clipped to prevent them from pecking other animals. And the way animals are slaughtered, often by electric baths, bolt guns, or knives across their throats, is rarely ever effective and usually just prolongs their suffering. This is why raising animals for food is really never humane. "Changing" practices rarely ever improves animal well-being.

Yes that is the goal but they are very far from the goal which is just the issue.

Do you have a way of verifying this? You could be right, but I wouldn't know how to verify this one way or the other.

And as I've pointed out previously, the fact that the muscle cells are the same doesn't make it equivalent to meat. Meat isn't just a mass of muscle cells and the muscle cells in meat are structured as well.

Yes, researchers are still trying to prefect the taste and texture of clean meat. Start-ups claim they're 3-5 years away from entering the market. Hopefully they have perfected the taste and texture, and learned to grow fat/plant-based fat molecules along with the muscle cells.

In contrast, right now you can produce tasty plant-based meats with familiar ingredients at costs similar to meat. In fact, costs could likely be cheaper if the demand (and hence volume) for the products was higher. So why invest in a futuristic technology when there is already one that has proven itself?

The target market of plant-based alternatives has been vegetarians/vegans. Those who have already given up or significantly reduced their meat consumption. Clean meat's goal is to convince staunch meat-lovers and those who cannot give up meat for medical concerns to opt for their product over raising animals for meat. I'm confident that plant-based alternatives to meat will improve in taste enough to keep those who've already transitioned into a vegetarian lifestyle away from meat. I've been a vegan for 3 years and still occasionally crave meat. The Beyond Burger easily satisfies my craving.

[brimstoneSalad]

My personal opinion about the fullness effects of protein is NOT based on meat directly. I observe that by consuming vegan meals that have a protein density equivalent to meat i have the same satiety feeling but without the heaviness which might be due to meat muscle and collagene digestion which is not directly related to the protein content.

That's an interesting thought, it would be amazing if somebody would do some studies on this. This seems to be a common anecdotal report.

Does this mean that you (like vegans) temporarily boycott the industry until you can find ethically sourced meat, or that you sit back and let the horribly underfunded branch of the USDA attempt to enforce protection, all the while continuing to purchase the product?

I don't think boycotting is a useful way of changing a practice that is systematic in nature, current practices will continue regardless of what some individual purchases. I'm more interested in changing regulations and addressing other systematic issues than my own personal behavior.

Unorganized "boycott" is not necessarily very effective in changing the industry as a whole as it affects the entire market (it can be by providing evidence for demand for alternatives, through surveys, etc. though it's weak communication), BUT it doesn't continue exactly as it is: statistically, it is reduced by the very amount you are no longer purchasing (or slightly more).

Fewer animals are being raised in confinement, treated horribly, and dying, less environmental damage is being done, and the risk of plagues and antibiotic resistant superbugs originating from those conditions is reduced slightly.

Much as how not personally engaging in serial killing won't change the behavior of other serial killers, but it still means that many fewer people are killed.

Consumers are removed from meat production by a few layers of suppliers, so the effect is more statistical, but it's no less real.

I'm more interested in changing regulations and addressing other systematic issues than my own personal behavior.

That's great, but unless these are mutually exclusive, there's no reason to not change your personal behavior too, because it also has an effect.

If you're meeting with industry board members to try to convince them to adopt some policy, and you eat the same thing they do and show that you're not a strict vegan or vegetarian, it's plausible that they'd be more likely to listen to you and do what you recommend because they'll be more likely believe you're not driven by blind ideology.

But if you're at home and not under the watchful eye of somebody very critical you're trying to influence, there's no good reason not to eat vegan where it's practical to do so.

Modeling better behavior can also influence those around us; things like one step and reducetarianism in particular, since people are much more open to those, but also flexible-veganism and vegetarianism, ostroveganism, etc.
Modeling very rigid veganism may be less effective.

[carnap]

The purpose of vegans boycotting animal agriculture long-term is not solely to change practice, but to decrease demand in animal products, thus decreasing supply and future harm done to animals. The decisions for vegans to boycott animal agriculture eventually leads to a decrease in the production of animals to be breed into the industry.

An individual boycotting animal products has no measurable impact on demand and the relationship between demand and supply is more complex then the idea that reduced demand -> reduced supply. That is to say, the relationship between demand and supply is indirect. The primarily consequence of a reduction in demand will be downward price pleasure and this may or may not result in reduced supply, just depends on the details. The ability to export further complicates matters.

So this change in focus doesn't really change much, in both cases its systematic change that results in noticeably shifts and what I consume as an individual has no clear impact on systematic change.

Besides purchasing the product (which funds the industry) harms animals, and permits factory farms to continue committing abuses to animals, what are you doing to change regulations?

I support political and cultural changes which is yet another reason I'm not a fan of "lab meat", lab meat keeps the focus on eating meat and if the technology doesn't prove viable then all you've done is emphasize the importance of meat in human diets.

The irony is that their actions contradict their concerns. Delusional or not, their actions harm animals, and by extension, the environment and other humans. People should be made aware of this.

There is no contradiction when a person disagrees with a practice but doesn't boycott it. You're importing a hidden premise here, namely, the idea that if someone disagrees with a practice they are some how morally obligated to boycott the practice.

Sure, Tyson doesn't technically own the cattle operations. The independent factory farmers usually enter contracts with Tyson in which their animals are to be raised for the company. The farmers do still inject their cattle with bovine hormones and feed them antibiotics through feedlots.

Some farms do this but they have been moving away from these practices. Not sure what Tyson's standards are for cattle.

Sure, slip-ups are inevitable. The problem is that harmful abuses like debeaking, docking of tails, removal of genitalia without anesthetics etc. are not occasional slit-ups, they're industry standard practices. The animals supplied for Tyson's processing plants undergo these brutal practices.

Tyson doesn't allow most of the practices you've mentioned so they aren't "standard practices" for them.

I agree that *some* improvements have been made. However, Animals (especially poultry) are still subjected to tight living quarters and barred from the outside. Chicks' beaks are painfully clipped to prevent them from pecking other animals. And the way animals are slaughtered, often by electric baths, bolt guns, or knives across their throats, is rarely ever effective and usually just prolongs their suffering. This is why raising animals for food is really never humane.

Because some current practices aren't humane now does it follow that raising animals for food is "never humane"?

Yes, researchers are still trying to prefect the taste and texture of clean meat. Start-ups claim they're 3-5 years away from entering the market. Hopefully they have perfected the taste and texture, and learned to grow fat/plant-based fat molecules along with the muscle cells.

Start-ups claim all sorts of things all of which you should be very skeptical about, that is because a start-ups existence hinges on attracting investors and as such there are strong incentives to hype and bullshit.

Being able to produce "meat" as people understand it today is far beyond current technology, it similar to growing human organs. Now perhaps some company will figure out how to make a processed product made from cultured muscle tissue that tastes reasonable but that product is going to be far removed from "meat" as people understand it and the ingredients label will reflect that fact. As I said earlier in this thread, much of the support for clean meat seems to be based on the idea that companies will produce "meat" as people know it. But that isn't what anybody is creating right now and doing that is very similar, biologically speaking, to growing human organs which is something we still cannot do despite large amounts of funding and decades of research.

The target market of plant-based alternatives has been vegetarians/vegans. Those who have already given up or significantly reduced their meat consumption.

That isn't true, the target market is the general population. Products like morning star are mainstream and purchased by a variety of people for a variety of reasons. Its the specialty products like salad dressing that are more oriented around the vegan market, but even here the market for non-vegans is actually larger. For example around 8~10 million people in the US have an allergy to dairy or eggs.

[brimstoneSalad]

An individual boycotting animal products has no measurable impact on demand and the relationship between demand and supply is more complex then the idea that reduced demand -> reduced supply.

I already covered this in my reply to you above.
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3819&start=40#p37414

There's also a thread on this issue exploring it in more depth:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=2806

And entire papers have been written on the subject. Margaret linked one recently, although I can't find it right now. I'll tag her in and maybe she can link it.

...

This kind of defeatist argument appealing to immeasurable consequence is in no way rational, and it doesn't map to any reasonable moral system.

As a closely related argument, it's MUCH more reasonable to talk about the psychological effects of green purchasing, in that people have a tendency to offset their good behavior by doing more harm; particularly relevant to more superficial actions like recycling (I've given the example of pet adoption before). Monbiot gives an example of a couple using their vouchers from recycling to fly to the Caribbean here:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/06/green-consumerism

Is it a risk that vegans may justify not feeling guilt for other environmentally harmful actions because they're vegan? Yes. We tend to be more critical of that here. On a personal level, I try to do a little better every year, because I don't assume that veganism is the moral baseline.
The counter-argument would be: Are YOU planning to overcompensate for a vegan diet by doing more harm elsewhere? If not, then it's not an argument against going vegan yourself. It just may temper our expectations for consumer change.

To be clear, there's no reason to think vegans would as a group do worse than other consumers, and given correlations with minimalism they probably do a lot better, but it's an argument you could make as a possibility in terms of the limited effect of consumer outreach.

Arguing that we can't measure the precise effects of a single consumer is not an argument against moral responsibility.

You're also completely missing the notion of shared culpability:

Ten people simultaneously shoot a victim. If we assume that the victim would still have died with nine gunshot wounds, then if any one of them didn't shoot it wouldn't make any difference. Then are they each completely innocent, and is nobody in any way to blame for the murder?

This "if only I stop it won't have any effect" mentality is common, and it's a major impediment to social change. It's a bad mentality. If you regard with any credibility models of ethics which examine actions as universifiable rules that would have good outcomes, or participating in accordance with a moral game theory, you have to recognize that you're doing a significant wrong by participating in such systems according to such a rule consequentialism.

I support political and cultural changes

That's great, but what does that mean?

It is within your power to do more. We don't know how or if culture will change (it's much less likely to happen with that defeatist mentality to personal change), but we all have control over our own behavior.
Do you, or have you ever, made any effort at reduction?

There is no contradiction when a person disagrees with a practice but doesn't boycott it. You're importing a hidden premise here, namely, the idea that if someone disagrees with a practice they are some how morally obligated to boycott the practice.

The contradiction becomes apparent with a more robust understanding of statistical consequence; I don't think that requires any imported premises.

However, a practice we disagree with may not be avoided if doing so comes at the cost of doing some other more urgent good. Think aid workers who live in developing countries and have limited access to adequate vegan diets or have to rely on canteens or provided food.

There are legitimate reasons to not be vegan (or whatever comparable reduction heuristic you prefer) because of the costs of doing it in some circumstances, but otherwise there is a moral pressure there.

Yes, researchers are still trying to prefect the taste and texture of clean meat. Start-ups claim they're 3-5 years away from entering the market. Hopefully they have perfected the taste and texture, and learned to grow fat/plant-based fat molecules along with the muscle cells.

Start-ups claim all sorts of things all of which you should be very skeptical about, that is because a start-ups existence hinges on attracting investors and as such there are strong incentives to hype and bullshit.

This is a good point.

[Lay Vegan]

An individual boycotting animal products has no measurable impact on demand and the relationship between demand and supply is more complex then the idea that reduced demand -> reduced supply.

Certainly no one person can have significant impact on demand. Yet the amount once contributed to demand in transactions is the same amount reduced when one no longer purchases meat products. However insignificant, there is an impact on demand. Have you heard of the term "vote with your dollars?" Products that each consumer buys influences future production choices. If enough people boycott the animal agriculture industry by going vegan, the drop in demand of meat and dairy products will force companies to breed less animals, which produces less harm to environment and prevents further unnecessary suffering for factory farmed animals.

That is to say, the relationship between demand and supply is indirect. The primarily consequence of a reduction in demand will be downward price pleasure and this may or may not result in reduced supply, just depends on the details.

Should the demand decrease, but the supply remain the same, this would undoubtedly produce a surplus of animal products. Given that meat and dairy products perish easily, how would this profit the animal ag industry to ignore a fall in demand, continue breed animals at a steady rate and turn them into food, only to have grocery stores throw their products out? This would most certainly lead to a decline in prices and supply.

I support political and cultural changes

Good to hear Though I don't know what this means. One doesn't exactly motivate corporate change by voicing mild disagreements on internet forums, all the while continuing to purchase the products.

There is no contradiction when a person disagrees with a practice but doesn't boycott it. You're importing a hidden premise here, namely, the idea that if someone disagrees with a practice they are some how morally obligated to boycott the practice.

This "hidden premise" doesn't exist. If you find it morally abhorrent to raise and subject animals to the abuses in factory farms, yet purchase animals raised and subjected and abuses in factory farms, there is a contradiction in that person's principles and behaviors.

Some polls reveal that nearly 50% of Americans prefer not to eat factory farmed meat due to the inhumane treatment animals face. Yet factory farms sell the majority of all animal products in the country (99% for poultry). There is a contradiction between beliefs and behavior, because purchasing these products profits the industry and enables them to continue abusing animals.

Some farms do this but they have been moving away from these practices. Not sure what Tyson's standards are for cattle.

Tyson Foods purchases animals from farmers who inject hormones into their cattle. The hormones are used to stimulate growth and increase weight-gain. Cows are also given hormones to increase milk production.

https://www.tysonfoods.com/news/viewpoints/hormones-and-steroids

Their chickens and pigs have no hormones, but this is prohibited by US federal law, so that's nothing special from Tyson.

Tyson doesn't allow most of the practices you've mentioned so they aren't "standard practices" for them.

Most of the practices I mentioned are already considered "humane slaughter." Tyson's regulations align with the U.S. Humane Slaughter Act, in which the animal must be rendered unconscious before slaughter. Slaughter houses will often dunk poultry into "electric baths" to stun them before having their throats slit via machine, and being thrown into boiling vats. Often, the voltage is turned down as not to render the meat inedible, but this occasionally leaves partially conscious birds to have their throats slit open and even boiled alive.

Fortunately, their turkeys are only subjected to controlled atmosphere stunning, so there may be less suffering in that aspect.

Tyson's cattle and pigs are killed in the same conventional ways (bolt-gunning and gassing).

https://www.tysonfoods.com/sustainability/animal-well-being/humane-handling

Because some current practices aren't humane now does it follow that raising animals for food is "never humane"?

Slaughter can be humane, if you are preventing prolonged suffering. However, it is neither humane nor compassionate to slaughter animals unnecessarily. I think you're asking if we will ever develop a way to kill animals completely painlessly and without causing them fear. Perhaps?

Start-ups claim all sorts of things all of which you should be very skeptical about, that is because a start-ups existence hinges on attracting investors and as such there are strong incentives to hype and bullshit.

Fair enough.

that product is going to be far removed from "meat" as people understand it and the ingredients label will reflect that fact. As I said earlier in this thread, much of the support for clean meat seems to be based on the idea that companies will produce "meat" as people know it.

I feel we're arguing semantics again, but I understand your point. If the meat is genetically identical to conventional meat (the muscle cells from the cow) and the product looks, tastes, and has the same texture, and is as affordable as conventional meat, rest assured that consumers will purchase the product and except it as meat (so long as they can overcome the ick-factor).

[carnap]

Unorganized "boycott" is not necessarily very effective in changing the industry as a whole as it affects the entire market (it can be by providing evidence for demand for alternatives, through surveys, etc. though it's weak communication), BUT it doesn't continue exactly as it is: statistically, it is reduced by the very amount you are no longer purchasing (or slightly more).

The issue is that the markets for meat, dairy, etc are huge and the relationships between supply and consumption are indirect, as such what we do as an individual has no measurable impact on production. Though obviously at some point if sufficient numbers of people boycott a product it will put downward pressure on demand but that doesn't mean a step-wise reduction in supply will occur, in fact, we know that won't happen and the precise result depends on the nature of the market.

Much as how not personally engaging in serial killing won't change the behavior of other serial killers, but it still means that many fewer people are killed.
Consumers are removed from meat production by a few layers of suppliers, so the effect is more statistical, but it's no less real.

Its more than just a "few layers of supplies", but instead a huge market economy. Unlike your analogy, there is no direct relationship between a purchase for meat and what happens on some farm since the animals were dead well before you purchased the meat. The number of animals raised by farmers is based on pricing signals and various market data....but its always a projection of future demand.

That's great, but unless these are mutually exclusive, there's no reason to not change your personal behavior too, because it also has an effect.

I've never argued that someone shouldn't boycott meat, etc....just that I don't think it achieves much of anything.

Modeling better behavior can also influence those around us; things like one step and reducetarianism in particular, since people are much more open to those, but also flexible-veganism and vegetarianism, ostroveganism, etc.
Modeling very rigid veganism may be less effective.

I think modeling behavior is a value, its just a hard to measure value and is going to hinge on your social influence. But I don't see this an argument for someone to adhere to veganism, just for them to model some sort of step towards what they believe.