My tastebuds. Feedlots efficiently produce good tasting fat cattle (marbling). Anti-biotics actually keep them well. Hormones help weight gain process; they get tastier faster. Stress is actually advoided on the way to slaughter because it decreases meat quality. You can see evidence of stress in the coloring of the lean on the ribeye (at least that’s what Graders have told me). A range fed steer won’t taste the same and even the steers that I raised as a youth weren’t the tastiest beef that I’ve tasted.
I understood what you were saying the first time around, and I understand that a significant amount of waste is still produced. However, I am saying that modern factory processes cause less waste PER ANIMAL than Native American methods.
I’m no fan of modern practices - they’re often cruel, unnatural and disgusting, but above all, modern factory farming is efficient, adn less wasteful than other methods.
You understand that you will get better responses if you provide cites, right? Links to academic papers and newspaper articles that discuss your assertions. Surely you got this stuff about chimps on heroin from somewhere?
Well it’s known that if you eat meat that contains hormones and antibiotics, they will get into your system. It is also known that consuming growth and other hormones can cause an imbalance in your body. Consuming antibiotics may cause bacteria to develop resistance to that antibiotic. Resistant bacteria are dangerous. This is all pretty obvious.
People that have been led to believe that vivisection is beneficial could be upset if it is discontinued. They may think that a drug is dangerous if it’s not tested on animals (even though it’s been proven safe in people) or they may think that curing cancer in mice will somehow help their sick relatives (it hasn’t).
Why does vivisection continue if there is so much evidence against it? Researchers recieve grants and an opportunity to publish their work through vivisection. It’s a hard habit to break and some think its necessary to test on live animals to see how a drug affects a whole system and not just tissue. However, that’s not reliable because as we know animal systems are not like ours. Even different species or genders of lab animals produce different ressults. “…the extrapolative relevance of the mouse sex difference to human remains to be established”. And with regards to copper: male rats are more susceptible to copper poisoning than females, who are immune to it. “To what extent these findings are relevant to the human situation is unknown”. Dr Edward J Calabrese of the University of Massachusetts (Toxic Susceptibility: Male/Female Differences, 1985. Even the same species can have different results. Croner’s Substances Hazardous to Health, February 1987, on the LD50 poisoning test: “Many problems exist with this method, including the fact that all animals, even within a species (eg different strains of rats), have variable metabolic pathways and different susceptibility to the effects of the same chemical. Therefore, different laboratories working with the same breed of animal produce different LD50 results”
But back to why vivisection continues. Animal experiments provide a medium via which various companies can produce specific results. For example, pharmaceutical companies can prove or disprove the safety of their products depending upon which species they use. working with the same breed of animal produce different LD50 results".
The pharmaceutical industry performs one animal experiment after the next, as such research will not yield real cures but instead keep us dependent on their product. Also if a product proves defective and a consumer sues, animal testing provides an excuse: “Our animal tests showed no reason to question the safety of the product.” ‘Animal studies are done for legal reasons and not for scientific reasons. The predictive value of such studies for man is often meaningless.’ - Dr James Gallagher, Director of Medical Research Lederle Laboratories
As for the heroin, there are women out there that are already heroin users and could be pregnant as well. If paid, they could consent to being examined for research purposes.
Taste does not equal quality or health benefit. I think burgers taste great and yet I also know that a lot of ground meat comes from exausted (unhealthy, full of antibiotics and hormones)factory dairy cows and who knows what else.
I don’t know where you got the notion that Native Americans produced more animal related pollution than the factory farms today. Cite?
Most waste from factory farms comes from manure and not the actual bodies of animals. “Between 1995 and 1998, one billion fish were killed from manure runoff in estuaries and coastal areas in North Carolina, and the Maryland and Virginia tributaries leading into the Chesapeake Bay. These deaths can be attributed to the 10 million hogs currently being raised in North Carolina and the 620 million chickens on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay.” EPA, 1998. “The pollution from animal waste causes respiratory problems, skin infections, nausea, depression and even death for people who live near factory farms. Livestock waste has been linked to six miscarriages in women living near a hog factory in Indiana.” Centers for Disease Control, Mortality Weekly Report, July 5, 1996.
Here is a detailed report on the environmental impact of factory farm manure from the USDA. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib771/
Factory farming may be efficient when it comes to money but it’s at the expense of quality. “As much as 8% of the weight of supermarket chicken is not meat, but a “fecal soup” from water used in processing chickens into meat. If the USDA were to repeal the 8% rule, Tyson alone would lose about $40 million in annual gross profits.” Time Magazine, October 17, 1994.
Here’s one such source. http://opioids.com/heroin/squirrel.html Not chimps though.
Taste does equal quality. The best hamburger is fresh from right after the kill before its frozen. Still the ‘unhealthy’ bit is just opininon.
I’d like to see an unbiased study on what antibiotics and hormones actually end up in hamburger.
BTW who makes factory cows? Nissan? LOL
Here’s a report from the US General Accounting Office about the dangers of antibiotics passed to us through meat. It says that they have contributed to the rise of antibiotic resistant strains of Salmonella, Campylobacter, E. Coli, and more. http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/rc99074.pdf
Here are some more sources.
Food Animal Concerns Trust
PBS Frontline
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/
National Research Council
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309054346/html/index.html
If you need more…
USDA/FDA
http://peaches.nal.usda.gov/foodborne/fbindex/Animal_Health.asp
Factory farms make factory meat.
And on hormones…
Overview
http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/27/rbgh.htm
Consumers Union
http://www.consumersunion.org/food/98ny699.htm
http://www.consumersunion.org/food/bgh-codex.htm
Good tasting and affordable factory meat. 
Any of those reports show where there is a human danger? And then is that danger that damn important to quit eating meat entirely or eat the expensive speciality stuff that most normal, hard working Americans really can’t afford?
I think that I’m going to have some factory milk with slice of cake (factory sugar, factory eggs, factory grains, factory oil mill, etc.) from Wal-Mart (oh the horors) for breakfast. I just shiver at the thought of where the cocoa and vanilla came from. LOL I wonder how much money and time it would cost to get maniacally politically correct milk and cake?
If you actually read them you’d see that they show that antibiotics cause strains of resistant bacteria to evolve which is obvioiusly dangerous. And although rBGH is not active in the humam system, milk from rBGH injected cows contains substantially higher amounts of a potent cancer tumor promoter called IGF-1 and higher levels of pus, bacteria, and antibiotics. No wonder every industrialized country in the world, except for the US, has banned the drug. Only 15% of USA’s dairy cows are being injected with rBGH but most of the nation’s dairy companies are allowing the mixing of rBGH and non-rBGH milk, thereby contaminating 80-90% of the nation’s milk and dairy supply. Again, if you read the sources you’d see that.
I think these risks are “damn important” considering our dependence on antibiotics to fight deseases and considering the fact that we give milk to babies and young children.
If you switch to organic/free range and reduce your intake of meat by a little bit you’ll be spending and equal amount of money while at the same time sparing your health and that of the earth. Americans get about double their protien requirements anyway. It’s not that hard. There’s lots of organic stores and farmers’ markets around. You can even find organic at the supermarket.
There’s nothing wrong with factory vegetable oil or grain or anything veg’an. It’s not like they produce huge amounts of waste or have products laced with hormones and antibiotics. Although it’s probably good to eat organic everything as much as you can afford it to avoid pesticides.
So we’ve established that leather (usually) comes from factory farms that cause substantial environmental damage, produce unhealthy meat, and abuse animals. So if you live in an area where the climate permits you to wear non-leather shoes (temperature doesn’t go below like 15 F), why would you opt for leather? Or if you live in a cold place, why would you wear leather sandles in the summer?
Woah. I never knew that. That sucks, thanks for enlightening me though. I guess you have to look for labels that say “pesticide-free” or something.