Wären Warnbilder, wie auf Tabakwaren, auch auf Fleischwaren angebracht?
Ist ja etwas, was man gerne verdrängt, wenn man Fleisch im Discounter/Supermarkt kauft, aber bei der Massentierhaltung eigentlich allgemein bekannt ist.
Die Werbung zeichnet gerne dieses Bild, wenn es um unsere Nahrung geht:
Aber das ist es, was oftmals auf dem Teller landet:
Sollte man solche Bilder ab einer bestimmten Haltungsform einführen, die optisch darauf aufmerksam machen?
PS: Es geht mir nicht um vegan/vegetarisch, sondern um ein schärferes Bewusstsein für Ernährung.
(9 votes)
Loading...
Absolutely!
For the least know what certain animal welfare seals or classifications really mean. People also usually have quite wrong ideas about it. Let’s take the four stances:
Some terms must even be regarded as deliberately misleading, e.g. Freelanding & Bio:
This mash then covers itself with the tendency of man to believe what one wants to believe.
In this respect, it would only be honest with the consumer to print these packs with meaningful pictures!
Hello,
Yes, I really think it would be good if there was something like that, depending on the attitude.
I think that’s funny, especially in meat substitutes, because the manufacturing processes are really interesting.
In the case of plants, the harvesting and processing methods are often also real
I doubt whether it would change anything. Then you’d have to make some pictures on everything. Alcohol, fast food, fast cars, etc.
Yes, then the pictures should be real and come from the farm.
That the valleys look like this and the hens have come down so you can see a picture on this one. “Save the chicken” – they’re not neutral.
There should be no scandalous images to make the mood, but to show real conditions. Then I would agree.
Vllt then actually encourages me to buy from a better farm.
In addition, it would also encourage businesses to make it look better.
“But this is what often lands on the plate:”
These are cage chickens. An attitude that is prohibited in Germany.
You would have to close the limits so that the stuff cannot be imported from abroad.
But because the food traders can make a lot of profit, and the meat can still offer cheap, politics will not forbid this.
It could come to popular uprisings when the money goes on for food, and is no longer enough for vacation.
No, of course not.
Just like tobacco, I wouldn’t look here either.
No need to be.
In principle, I understand the concerns of persons who dispense with meat or even completely with animal products such as eggs or milk, and also respect this. Everyone should feed himself as he would like as long as it is within the legal framework. I would also have no problem cooking for a vegan guest and have already tried vegan substitutes.
But for one, I have no understanding here: why do you want to impose something on others as they are supposed to feed themselves and then provoke someone with such pictures, I say, almost already?! You can live and live your diet, I hope and respect you. But if your neighbour is 1 kg of meat every day, then you should also accept it and is also the thing of the person, for which nobody has to justify themselves.
So please: If you prefer to buy high-quality meat or possibly. want to do without meat completely, then do it. But then wanting to reconcile others with such pictures and wanting to make a bad conscience to someone with the intention of buying children, I would find something macabre.
We must not forget that everything has become more expensive, and not everyone has a big wallet. Therefore, it is also necessary to have cheaper discounter meat, that these people can afford it. No one has to say, “It’s less meat!” or something. Everyone should be allowed to decide.
Yes, it should be clear that the animals are slaughtered and from me it could also be unbiased to the people how they are slaughtered. Especially people who have slaughtered themselves will certainly appreciate their meat.
Only with such pictures you can hardly change people in my opinion. Besides, when you speak of morality, people also had no problem looking at or looking at the World Cup in Qatar. to play footballers there. These are often the ones who swing the moral lobe in other things and choke around. Tolerable.
I strongly deceive that this would bring (like the TAbakwaren)
But it can also not hurt, but also in the passage of the upper picture – if it corresponds to the truth. Then what we have the rehearsal: can this really be controlled?
And what is my unpacked meat?
But then on so many WArnbilder
I think that’s pointless. Just as on cigarette boxes the pictures do not interfere or only very few will be the same for meat products.
What lands on my plate I have often seen, do not close from you (or your propaganda if vegan) to others. I don’t need a picture, the reality isn’t 5km away.
Everyone can get information, everyone can drive out to nem operation and watch it. “Warnbilchchen” also bring on the tilting nix except the non-smoker to the cash registers occasionally disgust.
Better mass animal husbandry sometimes regulate as to print on even more products such troubled pictures.
Right, of course, would be the best.
No, because between the pictures above and below there are still lots of postures and what if the chickens were actually held as above?
If you don’t mind, who are the pictures on tobacco? Why should this be different in animal products?
Text in my question:
Because it’s a treat and the other food. There are more people…
What is that argument? It just doesn’t scare anyone, consumers simply don’t care. People are not completely brazed, they already know what stables mean and that is usually far from vegan propaganda.
On the packaging for meat, sausage, eggs, milk is always a small imprint with posture. 1 is bad, 5 is the best.
I could have mentioned this with the attitudes in the question – ah nee, yes…
Just look after when you read a question the next time 😉
ach nee, did you…????? You just wrote mass animal husbandry. There are, however, quite differences 🙁
Stands down – far away from the headline ….
Yes. Or how poor animals are weakened
It would be better to ban cheap meat…
Even better would finally be to enforce animal welfare consistently in animal husbandry.
And it would be even more consistent to introduce animal rights and punish the exploitation of animals.
You only need to prohibit the import of goods that were not produced according to our standards. Then it’s a cheap end because then the hunger breaks out:)
And you two wouldn’t hurt thinking…
I find the idea very good and think it would definitely provide more consciousness
No – also use cigarettes ix!
I would rather wish that the sneaking images and sounding company names will disappear on the animal product packs :
DAS is a lot more “consumed disappointment” than vegan options…
Nowadays all know so-called. “Consumers,” which derives from mass animal husbandry – almost 98% of the animal products still come from this!
This phenomenon is also called “cognitive dissonance” = displacement…
I have already written on the question, but why
?
There are also enough people who want to feed consciously and responsibly and who are not vegans/vegetarians (like me).
You don’t agree whether it’s really like that… and nutrition is also something completely different than a drug/drug. An optical memory may already cause something.
You are free to see this differently – I have no problem with it!
No, but in plants
https://youtu.be/KsK-TWrR8Xg?si=dQklgfOODfQg_elo
What is the difference to densely squeezed cereal straws on the field in monocultures?
Grain has no consciousness & no need to move. In addition, the lack of space is not the only problem in these animal factories.
No!
…and I have nothing against better conditions for animals, but I have something against linking morality and nutrition.
Nutrition takes life, animal life or plant life but nutrition takes life, always!
Also you do this in your answer….
Good argumentation – thank you!
But the knowledge did not come from the animal! And that’s crucial. Because the tests on the animal were no longer basic research.
You must also see that Alexander Fleming lived at a time when there were not the great alternatives to animal experiments that exist today.
…and has tested humans in other stages of research? I’m sure it’s not for sick animals.
Alexander Fleming didn’t test this on animals. He used bacteria cultures for this.
But actually I didn’t want to talk about animal experiments. This should be just an example of how absurd our animal welfare law is. And that’s not just about animal testing. Have you read through our animal welfare law and watched how it has its effect in practice?
You are aware that Penicillin is a product of basic research? Fleming examined the dirt after his holiday….Aspirin was developed from the extract of the fever bark tree which has been used for a long time.
If in your perception man is a normally usable food squad, then you should have your perception checked therapeutically or you have seen “Soylent Green” too often.
I don’t even deny that. But that still confirms that under certain circumstances, you combine food with morality.
What does an animal have for you, what the human being does not have to exploit it and torment it?
There are other possibilities. Bio-chips, epidemiological research, microdosing, cell cultures and and and.
You cannot transfer the human organism to the animal. If animal testing had been declared a standard as today, you would never have discovered valuable medicines such as penicillin or aspirin.
Nope, I use a moral behavior to humans that I do not use to animals.
That’s how it’s right and your way is the wrong way!
Without basic research, there can be no targeted research. You always need to know what the world holds together before you can answer new questions.
In basic research, there’s almost never something interesting coming out. But that’s not the subject. I just wanted to show you how absurd our animal welfare law is.
You apply morality to your eating behavior if you think it’s wrong to eat people.
Circular logic there we were at the beginning!
If I do not use human morality on nutrition, it does not mean in the (unreliable) inversion that I do not use morality to humans and accept it as a source of food.
It’s very easy to separate….
BTW: Basic research is never targeted as it should enable the foundations for new objectives to be named. But she’s not pointless.
Paragraph 7a of the Animal Protection Act, where eight points may be mentioned under which animal experiments may take place. The first of these eight points regulates basic research, including the points I mentioned.
Nutrition and morality are not to be separated from each other, otherwise one should eat a person. One thing you didn’t contradict.
He doesn’t need it, because now we come back to the beginning “It’s nutrition and not morality”
….and with that I am more moral than the lion, I have adopted the patchwork child and not eaten.
But you can name the paragraphs on your pet followers.
A lion is mentally inexorable, which is why other standards apply here. And above all, your lion is not a moral model. For example, the lion kills the children of his rival when he takes over his territory. We cannot justify such behaviour with the reference to the lion.
Our animal welfare law is a joke. For example, our animal welfare law regulates the fact that, from pure scientific interest, animals are allowed to break their legs without a specific objective on request, to pour them over with hot water, or that certain parts of the body are allowed to operate them.
That’s why we also have animal welfare laws that regulate the killing of animals….are you judging a lion or a wolf because he kills an animal or the wolf in the blood rush a half herd?
So you doubt that animals want to have pain and live?
It may be that they are more valuable throughout the whole (I would also agree with myself). But this is relevant for the subject of slaughter and attitude, as it is about pain and will to live. Other aspects play no role in this context.
It may be your truth……for me it is not just a legal level, for me people are more valuable than animals, every human being
Okay, but in principle you can’t say that morality and nutrition are to be separated.
Animals and people are not equal at certain levels. For example, at a legal level, since facts simply speak against it. But facts also state that animals want to feel and live just as much pain. There is no difference and that is why you should not do one in this particular relationship.
Only if you like moral behavior among people with moral behavior towards animals and then the question arises whether this form of moral behavior is not pathological.
After all, equality of the morality of people and animals would also mean that I can decide whether I have to override the dog, rabbits, wild boar, deer or not the toddler or his mother.
But you cannot deny the theory that, for reasons of morality, cannibalism is not allowed. So moral & nutrition can correlate with each other in certain situations. Whether the comparison is appropriate for veganism is another question.
So, for example, how to renounce morality in nutrition in the life form of cannibalism.
Who your grandparents have made a bathing picture of your three-year-old mother in the zinc tub is then punishable child pornography with minimum penalty 24 months in prison….
This is the distance of my answer and your comment….
Classic reaction if someone has no argument…
…and bye! I had hoped intelligence but not found……
We wouldn’t have the area to offer all animals an optimal area and good conditions…
So if you think that you should always separate morality and nutrition, would you also be eating people?
It wouldn’t do anything like tobacco.
At the end of the day meat is still eaten.
Yes and on water too, because if you drink six liters of water, you’re dead.
You can choose what meat you eat and how much water you want to drink…
Food and health is something else than to force water in.
Of water you can drink little, but the animals are no less dead when you eat them. And an animal for itself does not suffer less, only if you buy a little from mass livestock.
No! People who buy so cheapmeat already know where what and DAS comes from …
This is just as unnecessary as to write on cigarette packs: “Smoking is unhealthy!” or on beer: “Can get drunk!”
In fact, mass animal husbandry begins with bio, which many actually do not know.