Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Watching several documentation and seeing chicken farms, I Never buy USD 5 chickens anymore. I buy only organic (more time to grow) and if available from my preferred supplier from the farmer’s market (she only slaughters 5 times a year and grows different breeds). My nephew from the US came over and was shocked at the taste (I didn’t tell him about the price as he would probably not eat it). Food prices are not a concern for me and I prefer to increase quality instead of quantity. I should anyway eat less.



Yeah I personally stopped buy chicken years ago for mostly ethical reasons but I think Costco getting into the chicken game will probably be a net positive.

Reason being that for one, Costco was one of the first grocers to start replacing items with Organic alternatives, and in general, they usually demands higher quality goods than other grocers. For example, compare the ingredient list for Delimex taquitos from Costco to your supermarket and it's basically half the size... or Campbell's "Simply" Chicken Noodle soup to what's sold at the grocer - again about half the ingredients. Even those $5 chickens Costco sells are antibiotic/hormone/steroid-free humane-certified Foster-Farms chickens.

Then there's employee treatment. Costco has a long history of being one of the better employers in the country. They pay their employees well, pay for people to attend college, don't require a lot of interaction with irate customers thanks to their no deadline any reason return policy and generally promote internally rather than hiring outsiders to leadership roles.

Compare that to the average chicken farmer who has to buy all of their own equipment that the big companies are constantly requiring them to update at their own expense, raise chickens they don't own like a horrific daycare center at very low return, all while being exposed to chemicals/drugs they're being forced to use and it's kind of a nightmare.

Costco cares about their brand image, their customers and their employees... I expect this will end up being a good thing.


If you eat meat, the most ethical thing you can do is eat Perdue chicken (assuming you're not going sustainable aquaculture seafood). Not organic, just regular. Because long before everyone else, they decided to do what they could to weed antibiotics out of their entire production chain.

https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/05/perdue-antib...

As someone who grew up in the poultry pathology industry, there are three important metrics for commercial chicken meat production: (1) mortality rate (how many chickens die), (2) feed conversion ratio (how efficiently incoming feed is turned into usable meat), & (3) time to slaughter.

Everything else (price, environment impact) is a consequence of those figures or optimizations made to target them.

Perdue, long before it was trendy (~2002) decided for market and moral reasons they were going to reorganize their operations, and those of their suppliers, to apply pre-antibiotic husbandry best practices and limit antibiotic use.

It didn't save them money. Pre-emptive dosing with antibiotics is done precisely because it makes money (by decreasing loss / all cause mortality) -- if it didn't, no one would do it in the first place.

They didn't have to do this. Hell, most people didn't even care about antibiotics in animal production then.

But they did it because they thought there would be a market for it, because they thought it was possible, and because they thought it was the right thing to do.

Costco may be an ethical company, and they may be doing this for the right reasons, but they're following.

I'd rather reward someone who chose to lead in making the world a better place.

PS: There are other ecological reasons to prefer chicken if you're eating terrestrial meat, but I didn't want to ramble on. Suffice to say, the feed conversion ratio on chicken is incredible.


Just small correction it’s Perdue. I know common error here.


Fixed! Thanks for pointing it out.


If you eat meat and aren't willing to stop, you should eat cows instead of chickens.

1. Eating beef is far more ethical than eating chicken.

1a) There's some (non-zero) probability that meat cows have net positive lives, while I don't think anybody I respect ever suggested that the current conditions of broiler chickens are potentially positive.

1b) Cows are way over 100x heavier than chickens, which means you need 2+ orders of magnitude more suffering/dead chickens to supply the same amount of calories from eating chickens as eating (potentially even net positive) cows. 1c) The environmental harms of different meat animals is far smaller than either the direct ethical costs or the financial costs. You can look into carbon offsetting for example.

2.You might think that you have no moral imperative to create net positive lives, only to avoid really bad cases of animal abuse. I assure you that really bad cases of animal abuse do in fact happen. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/opinion/nicholas-kristof-...

3. You might believe that chickens are not sentient and do not have morally relevant experiences. This is a complicated topic but I would argue that even if you only have a 10% chance of chickens having morally relevant experiences (and 90+% that they don't is far from justified given the state of current evidence), not eating chicken is still the right thing to do under most reasonable models of uncertainty.

4) You may believe that sentience is not a morally relevant criteria, and that there's a form of Human Exceptionalism where morality is defined to be about humans. Perhaps you only care about the environment for its effect on humans. If this is the case, I will be shocked if personal diet for ecology reasons is "the most ethical thing you can do" to preserve the future of humanity.

___

In general, while I applaud attempts to do moral reasoning in taboo tradeoffs, I find reasoning that ignores the highest number of beings suspect. (I feel the same way when economists debate the cost-effectiveness of immigration while entirely skipping the impact on immigrants).

I don't go on HN often, so apologies if I don't respond to comments too quickly. Good luck with thinking this through clearly! :)


1ab) Based on my experiences, I am prepared to discount the mental suffering of broiler chickens. I would not do the same for cows (or pigs). This is based on my beliefs about their intelligence, coupled with their lifespans.

Would it impact your moral calculus if we artificially retarded broiler chicken's intelligence?

1c) To me, the carbon and land use impacts dominate the direct ethical costs. With a ~1:4 carbon footprint ratio of chicken:beef, and taking into account my (1ab) opinion, that's enough to offset the individual mind count concern.

2) I value animal life conditions in a net utilitarian manner. Providing humans sustenance and pleasure in the form of edible protein is weighed against animal conditions.

3) What are the consequences of making an incorrect decision that cause you to weigh the 10% so heavily?

4) Including the qualifying "if you eat meat" phrase in my quote and the context of the comment thread (organic, chemical / drug use), I think my statement is pretty clear. To expand, "If you eat meat, the most ethical thing you can do is support a chicken producer who attempted to eliminate mass-dosing with antibiotics from their entire production chain."

--

You'd probably be interested in Peter Singer (see updated copies of Animal Liberation) and the debate between absolute, preference, and hedonistic varieties of utilitarianism.


Is this the Perdue that just recalled chicken for having wood in it?

https://www.foxnews.com/health/perdue-recalls-gluten-free-ch...

ColanR 4 months ago [flagged]

This feels a lot like an ad for Perdue (apologies if it isn't).


You've got me.

I've surreptitiously built a HN identity for years so that I could finally cash in on that sweet poultry guerilla marketing cash.


I got a similar hit on Wikipedia when I tried to start the article on a company, which happens to be a YC alum. I was just comparing VPS providers, I knew this company was in the space because of HN, and noted the hole in Wikipedia, so I started the article as a way to fill in my own knowledge. Ho. Lee. Sheeeit. There were some admins looking to grind serious axes about "commercial influence". Yet I was behaving more like Consumer Reports. Job got done, but wow.


I tried to limit the snark, because parent's not wrong. There's a ridiculous amount of astroturfing out there.

I haven't had too much experience with Wikipedia, but I absolutely believe your story. Their hierarchy is... interesting.


Do you remember when the world wasn't consumed with ads?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.


Costco does all these pro-consumer, pro-sustainability, and pro labor things while still undercutting everyone else on price. And they still make money hand over fist. It proves that every other company mistreating their livestock, filling their preserved goods with god-knows-what, or underpaying their staff is doing it out of pure profit motive rather than out of necessity to remain competitive.


Well, maybe -- Costco benefits from economies of scale and negotiation that don't exist for those smaller vendors. It doesn't cost everyone the same price to produce the same product.


Costco earns almost all of their profit from the membership fees and tries to keep all the product sales at break even pricing. Which makes their future precarious as the average member age is 50+, explaining the missing technology focus compared to say WalMart Labs or Amazon. They send Costco employees out to the farms to inspect every stage of the meat process, from raising the animals to the slaughter and packaging to ensure the quality. Disclosure: former IT employee at Costco HQ.


> And they still make money hand over fist.

That's a lot easier to do when you only carry a fraction of the UPCs that say, Walmart does.


Surely most retailers only carry a fraction of the UPCs as Walmart does. Amazon beats Walmart, but who else? Wikipedia estimates 120,000 items per Walmart location and 35 million sold by Walmarts online. In comparison, McMaster-Carr has 570,000 products. Walmart is huge.


The number of different SKUs is totally absurd.

As of right now my local supermarket (subsidiary of Kroger) has the following:

   Cheerios 12 oz
   Cheerios 18 oz family size
   Cheerios 20 oz giant size
I'm not talking about "honey nut", or "multi grain", or "cinnamon oat crunch", those three are just the basic Cheerios.

It's way beyond stupid. This idiocy is the fault of both the manufacturers and retailers.


I wonder if there would be a market for cereals in plain plastic bags kinda like rice and beans...

Just the same bag as the inside of that cheerios box in 3oz increments with a plain label.


They do. But people never look down at the bottom shelf of the grocery story.


My experience buying off-brand Cheerios is that the texture is very different: much crunchier. They're one of the few products where I don't just buy the cheap store brand version.


All the ethical and taste concerns aside, is that $5 chicken worse, better or about the same for feeding a hungry person? I am thinking of calories intake, potential medium/long term health advantages/disadvantages?

edit: was pointed to this Reuters[0] article which seems like a reasonable starting point.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-money-chicken-organic/is-...


My understanding (no sources) is that better treated chickens have:

- Fewer hormones for growth

- Fewer antibiotics (diseases spread rapidly in confined spaces)

- Higher quality meat (Chicken gets more exercise and movement, as well as increased quality of feed)

- Higher nutritional value (increased exercise and sunlight, potentially)

In terms of calories though, it's probably a wash, and more inefficient from calories/money.

edit: formatting


>Fewer hormones for growth

>Chicken gets more exercise and movement

Having raised chickens for meat on a small scale (30-40 at a time), I can tell you that chickens used for meat ("Broiler" chickens) are selectively bred to grow as big as possible as quickly as possible. There is no need for growth hormones, they grow so quickly that their bone structure cannot keep up, to the point that they are barely able to walk 8-12 weeks from hatching. If they are not slaughtered on time, they die from heart failure.


> If they are not slaughtered on time, they die from heart failure.

Wow, you weren't kidding. [1] I am not surprised that chickens have been bred to grow fast, but I've never heard of an animal that implodes because it grows so fast.

[1]


Similarly: industrial turkeys of the type that Americans buy for Thanksgiving are so heavy and their breasts are so large that they're physically no longer able to reproduce. (They use artificial insemination now.)


Modern Cornish crosses are a miracle of selective breeding (aka genetic engineering).

At this point, they're not far away from muscle growing machines with just enough brain attached to partially handle themselves.


Heh if you haven't heard you should check out Mike the headless chicken. That shows you how little brain chickens need.


Wow -- that is very fascinating !


Andre the Giant died of heart failure because he grew too fast


>- Fewer hormones for growth

The FDA bans hormones in all poultry production, companies advertising it are trying to fool you into thinking the opposite is possible, it isn't.

>- Fewer antibiotics

Zero antibiotics is very common among producers


The move to fungal sources is happening but zero antibiotics isn't common

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/09/chicken-...


The article doesn't really say one way or another whether it is uncommon. It also lazily veers back and forth between references to the poultry industry, and animal farms generally so I don't even think you make an inference.


Chickens are given neither hormones nor antibiotics.

It's been illegal to give chickens growth hormones for a long time. Most major chicken brands (Tyson and Purdue, who are #1 and 2 in terms of production) do not give chickens antibiotics, unless the flock gets sick. In that case, the flock is treated and then sold as a different product- usually either as pet food or an off brand.

I don't know why we use hormones and antibiotics for pork and beef but not chicken.


> - Fewer hormones for growth

This is a urban legend. Not sure if it was true at any point, but it is not the case.

Chickens were selectively bred to grow fast enough as it is, to the point that some breeds have a percentage of offspring lost. Try to make them grow any faster and more will die.

> - Higher quality meat (Chicken gets more exercise and movement, as well as increased quality of feed)

At least for cows (and most game), you don't want them to exercise too much or the meat won't be as tender. Is it different for chickens?


American preference for tenderness is marketing induced for economic reasons. Younger animals have more tenderness/less flavor and the faster meat grows, the younger you slaughter at. Also, marbling is prized because corn fed beef exhibits greater marbling than grass fed beef. By elevating tenderness & marbling above all else, even flavor, American manufacturers can align what consumers prize with what's cheaper to produce.

If you go to other beef obsessed countries in the world in South America, Europe and especially Asia, a certain degree of chew is considered desirable. Take Picanha from Brazil, Bistecca alla Fiorentina from Florence of Kalbi Short Ribs from Korea.


Marbling is prized because the fat gives a buttery flavor that people like. Look at Kobe beef in Japan, it is the most expensive, prized beef because the extreme marbling shows the highest fat content.


"At least for cows (and most game), you don't want them to exercise too much or the meat won't be as tender. Is it different for chickens?"

There tends to be a flavour/tenderness tradeoff. So you'll tend to get more flavour from more used muscles. (eg chicken breast v thigh)

That said, the average battery hen could do a hell of a lot more exercise and still not be tough.


[flagged]


This is the saddest comment I've ever read on HN.


It's just the reality of eating something - you're not doing them or their species any favor by eating them and selectively breeding them to make the ones that taste best or produce the most meat. These are both the case no matter how you approach it, all "ethics" are at best a stretch here, if you don't like it, don't eat meat, it's a much better solution than paying some company to call you a good person.

I know I'm not winning any brownie points here, but I think it's important to be realistic in your moral assessments.


It's disingenuous to say that if one cares about animals they must not eat them.

> it's a much better solution than paying some company to call you a good person.

If you can afford to and understand the terrible conditions of battery chicken, but wish to still eat meat, then one choice is morally better. It's unrealistic to think otherwise. Signaling intention with your purchase decisions is real. Not eating meat is of course the better solution, but is again an unrealistic expectation to have for many people.

You seem unable to tolerate incremental improvement. Why is that?


.


Antibiotics are used to make animals grow faster and bigger not to make them well.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16142667/


The antibiotics are needed because they're so poorly treated. The chickens wouldn't get sick if they weren't packed into battery farms. The antibiotics aren't always necessary either, it's just more profitable to have the animal spend less energy fighting illness that it would otherwise have survived.


In the dairy industry, for example, organic milk would mean you have to either let the cow die if they get sick, or give it antibiotics, cure it, and then send it to the slaughterhouse as you can't milk that cow anymore, worse still you give the cow antibiotics and continue to milk it thereby making the milk worse than "normal milk", because you don't want to lose money.

That's why organic isn't always the most ideal.


The slaughterhouse is hardly the only option.

https://www.fooddialogues.com/happens-farm-animals-raised-no...

> On an organic farm, once that animal receives antibiotics, she is no longer considered an organic animal. Rather than rejoining her organic herd, she will join a traditional herd of cows that may have received antibiotics during their lives.


Traditional herds exist because there remains a large non-organic market.

The more popular the organic religious dietary code becomes, the least viable traditional herds are.


Where did you get the idea that the regulation of "organic" labeling prevents treating sick animals? To my knowledge it is not true.


It does not prevent treatment, but if treated with antibiotics, that animals milk will never there after be organic. Thems the rules.


That is insane that that is the case here in the US. ( and I just checked as I could not believe it).

In Europe it’s different - https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/eu-policy/eu-rules-...

“When the animals are ill, chemically synthesised allopathic veterinary medicinal products including antibiotics may be used where necessary and under strict conditions. This is only allowed when the use of phytotherapeutic, homeopathic and other products is inappropriate.”


Aside from the growth hormones which can be avoided, chickens suffer ftom contagious transmissible diseases even in exurban settings (few chickens, lots of space), so they must ne administered antibiotics to fend of diseases and collapse of the brood.


The issue with antibiotics in farming is that they may be used to contrast unhealthy conditions.

If your chicken don't get sick because they have free roaming space and don't peck each other and so on you don't need antibiotics.


> they have free roaming space and don't peck each other and so on

Chickens are assholes no matter the square footage.


I think that's a bit unfair, just because we haven't bred all of their instinctual behaviour out of them.


chicken contact lenses (to reduce aggression) was one of my favorite business case studies: https://gohighbrow.com/optical-distortion-aka-the-chicken-co...

i won't spoil the punchline (it's not obvious from first blush).


Someone made a website for it too: https://www.opticaldistortion.com/


awesome but how do I learn more about this? Both links from that page are dead -_-


if you want the punchline, this quora answer has it (SPOILER ALERT): https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-useful-Harvard-Busine...

otherwise you can search for “ODI optical distortion business case” to find sites that have the setup and various attempts at analyzing/answering the case.


Tyson doesn’t use any antibiotics, Purdue says they used less than 5%, and most of the rest don’t use them.


Anecdotally, those $5 Costco chickens are bigger than competitors' $6.49 rotisserie chickens


Costco sells its rotisserie chickens at a loss.


Organic food is negligibly different from non-organic food and is generally worse for the environment because of the additional resources required for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PmM6SUn7Es


If you're optimizing for caloric intake and health advantages, I'd recommend looking into eating plants (and fungi). Plants are always more efficient than animals for caloric and nutrient intake because animals burn the calories they eat before you eat the animals.

You may be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio


This is simply not true and one of the many lies vegan activists tell. If you are optimizing for calorie and health, you eat a mix of meat, vegetables, fruits, etc ( aka a balanced diet ). Plants require far more effort for the same amount of energy.

http://time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/

If plant diet was optimizing for caloric intake and health advantages, most human societies would have been vegan. But no human society throughout human existence and pre-human existence were vegan because plant diet isn't optimal.

It's also why vegans tend to be lethargic, lose bone mass, teeth rot, joint pains, have trouble concentrating, etc. It's why vegans have to take tons of supplements to even stay alive and while doing so do long term damage to their bodies.

Balanced diet folks. It's something humans have been designed to eat since human existence. Not only does your body need it, it also helps with your gut biodiversity which helps prevent anxiety, depression, etc.

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/anxiety-head-gut/story?id=2022...


>If plant diet was optimizing for caloric intake and health advantages, most human societies would have been vegan. But no human society throughout human existence and pre-human existence were vegan because plant diet isn't optimal.

Caveat: I'm a huge meat eater. Love the stuff. Can't stop won't stop.

BUUUTTTT the natural fallacy has to die. Just because we did something for the last N millennia doesn't make it worthy of continuation.


You might be falling for the "fallacy fallacy" (I'm assuming it's called that!). Just because something is a fallacy didn't mean the fallacious conclusion is false. So, the Natural[istic] fallacy says "it's natural, this is better", but whilst that reasoning is fallacious it doesn't mean that the specific natural thing (in the current focus "eating a balanced diet") isn't nonetheless better, despite the unsound argument.

Just in case. Many people think that a fallacy existing is proof of the contrary position, or at least they speak/argue/type as if that is the case.

The corollary of course is that despite the apparent fallacious reasoning you could be right.


So... we'll call it a draw?


You misread my comment. The natural fallacy is the one vegans claim. Not me. The vegan claim is that we are naturally vegans and have been duped into being meat eaters. And I'm debunking it.

And my point wasn't that we should do something just because it's been done before. My point is that if veganism was "natural and optimal", then why hasn't any human society in history adopted it? Because humans cannot survive on a vegan diet without supplements.

In other words, my point is that if the vegan assertion that "veganism is the optimal natural human diet" ( aka what humans were meant to eat ), why has no human society ever adopted it and why can't humans survive on a vegan diet in nature.


> My point is that if veganism was "natural and optimal", then why hasn't any human society in history adopted it? Because humans cannot survive on a vegan diet without supplements.

I don't know if that's true. We may not have been able to supply the amount of vegetation required to keep a human being upright and functional a millennia ago, but now that we live in the age of abundance, with food diversity that's unprecedented that may not be an issue at all. We can artificially create a complete diet of strictly plant matter with intelligent choices.


> We can artificially create a complete diet of strictly plant matter with intelligent choices.

That's very hard to distinguish from supplements. Some nutrients are hard to find in useful quantities in plants, so you need a ton of them. The most practical approach is to extract and put them in a pill. Supplements. Nothing wrong with it.


> The natural fallacy is the one vegans claim. Not me. The vegan claim is that we are naturally vegans and have been duped into being meat eaters.

I think when somebody asserts x is the best diet because x is what we have been doing for thousands of years, x most often includes eating meat. There is a whole diet based around this idea called the Paleo diet. It may very well be the most popular diet of the last 5 years.

The only time I can recall it being asserted that veganism was the historic human diet, it was by a total quack YouTube personality. Veganism was also tangential to this claim; the claim was that the diet should be 100% figs.


> It's also why vegans tend to be lethargic, lose bone mass, teeth rot, joint pains, have trouble concentrating, etc. It's why vegans have to take tons of supplements to even stay alive and while doing so do long term damage to their bodies.

This is simply not true and one of the many lies anti-vegan activists tell.


This is anecdotal of course; I've been vegan for 20 years and have never taken supplements. I'm skinny, but my bone density and concentration are fine.

I've never had a cavity in my life. I'm not super old yet, but I don't think I have any joint issues beyond what comes with being nearly 50.

The efficacy of supplements isn't even established as reliable in many cases.

Porpiosly's comments on this seem quite extreme. I suggest others reading this do their own research or consult with their personal physicians before altering their diet in a significant way.


If it isn't true, why do vegans have to supplement their diets with tons of pills? Also, I was a vegan for while, so I know all the lies.

Can you show me one vegan that doesn't take supplements?


> If it isn't true, why do vegans have to supplement their diets with tons of pills?

They don't. All you need to supplement is B12, and that's one small pill a day to take.

If you're interested in the background, find some information e.g. here: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/vitamin-b12/


They do have to take supplements, of course. It's their prerogative.

It's much harder to have a balanced diet eating only plants. You can't easily compete against organisms that only eat plants, and have been collecting all the nutrients, for their entire existence, for you.

Humans are adapted to eat from both plants and animal sources. Take away one source, and you have to adapt.


The only supplement vegans and vegetarians need to take is B-12. The rest comes from having a varied and balanced plant based diet. Something interesting to note is that many people, regardless of diet, are at least somewhat deficient in B-12 and should supplement. And the meat that contains B-12 usually comes from supplementing the feed given to livestock with B-12.


Where do you get this? What supplements do vegans need to take? B12... that’s literally it. And B12’s unavailability in a vegan diet is only because of modern cleanliness practices. B12 is produced by bacteria, and can be found in streams and rivers just fine, if you’re into that sort of thing.


> Plants require far more effort for the same amount of energy.

I'm confused as to what you mean here. Do you mean the energy required to produce plant foods is higher than the energy required to produce animal foods? If so, this seems self-evidently false: all edible calories start out as plant calories, and we can either eat the plants or have animals eat the plants (wasting a bunch of the input energy along the way) and then eat the animals. Or do you mean the effort to prepare the plant foods is higher? If so... maybe? But that'll inherently be subjective and depend on what people want to eat. Certainly, meat-free prepared foods are not difficult to find, at least in the US.

> But no human society throughout human existence and pre-human existence were vegan because plant diet isn't optimal... Balanced diet folks. It's something humans have been designed to eat since human existence.

I don't think many vegans argue that humans were designed to eat only plants (many would dispute that humans were designed at all), but looking at historical societies isn't that useful; advances in agricultural technology have made eating a healthy vegan diet more feasible than it used to be, so the fact that it wasn't practical to do 100 years ago or 1000 years ago or whatever isn't very interesting. In the here and now, it is possible, and there's plenty of peer-reviewed research suggesting that the optimal amount of red meat, in particular, to consume, is none (it's carcinogenic), that animal fat of any kind isn't great either, and that people who reduce or eliminate consumption of these foods while still maintaining adequate caloric and nutrient intake have reduced all-cause mortality.

In any event, many vegans would also argue that even if it wasn't possible to eat vegan historically, the fact that it is now means that we should, for reasons of ethics/animal welfare, greenhouse gas emissions, etc.

> It's also why vegans tend to be lethargic, lose bone mass, teeth rot, joint pains, have trouble concentrating, etc.

Citation needed?

> It's why vegans have to take tons of supplements to even stay alive and while doing so do long term damage to their bodies.

The only nutrient that only occurs naturally in animal sources is B12. It's true that vegans generally need to get their B12 either from supplements or fortified foods, but the technology for that exists, so there's no real downside here.

Other than that, many vegans choose to get other nutrients from supplements or fortified foods because it's easier than planning a diet that includes all of them naturally. Omnivores do this too, though; we just don't think about it, because that diet is standard enough that it makes sense from a public health perspective to incorporate nutrient supplementation directly into the regular food supply so people don't have to think about it. That's why there's iodine in table salt, or vitamin D in milk. If everyone were vegan, we would do the same for nutrients that require special attention in vegan diets, but that says nothing inherent about veganism.

And I have no idea what that "long term damage" claim is about. There's nothing inherently dangerous about getting a nutrient in a capsule instead of in a steak.

Your link also suggests that having healthy gut flora is important (true), but doesn't support the case that you need to eat animals to achieve it, at least as far as I can tell.


> If so, this seems self-evidently false: all edible calories start out as plant calories, and we can either eat the plants or have animals eat the plants (wasting a bunch of the input energy along the way) and then eat the animals.

I'm no expert but I believe there may actually be some limited basis to that claim: ruminants can eat things we can't (grass) and there are areas where it's more ecological to grow grass and let ruminants eat it than try to grow things that we could process. You also get the benefit of better topsoil with the help of the animal dung.

But I think the (huge) majority of the meat we eat is fed grain, where we're obviously wasting energy.


Like you say, the fact that they're mostly grain-fed makes the grass-fed angle largely moot, but in a modern context, surely if it were for some reason necessary for humans to derive calories from grass, there would be more efficient ways to do so than by than by feeding them to a cow over a several-month-long period and then eating the cow (e.g., enzymatically or through fermentation).


> Plants require far more effort for the same amount of energy.

I'm curious about this one - what about things like corn and soybean? Those would seem pretty readily accessible in terms of pure caloric content.


> If you are optimizing for calorie and health, you eat a mix of meat, vegetables, fruits, etc ( aka a balanced diet ).

If that is so, why are all these people healing and getting healthier on an all-meat diet? http://meatheals.com


Humans don't have the cellulase enzyme necessary to digest cellulose, the primary component of vegetables. Cows and other grazing animals do, which is why they can efficiently use plants to gain energy and mass. Humans eat meat because we can not use the majority a plant's mass for energy or mass production. Some day maybe there will be a cellulase supplement or probiotic supplement that allows efficient veganism, but we're not there yet.


That's a terribly simplistic analysis. First, humans don't digest plants in the same way and won't get the same calories/nutrition out of the plants as a chicken/whatever. Second, feed for animals is significantly cheaper than the plants humans like to eat and what the stores sell them for.

Sure, if you could live eating chicken feed then it would certainly be cheaper to eat that instead of chicken for caloric intake. But to optimize for dollar nutritional value in food humans actually eat, it's pretty hard to beat the $5 chicken.


Animal agriculture has a lot of externalized costs, so that is one thing to think about when considering what type of diet would be optimal for society.

As for the present time, I agree that the retail price of meat and the nutrients offered makes it a pretty good deal.


I have several friends who claim to be socially and environmentally conscious but still get sucked in by the cheap baked chickens at the grocery store.

It's $5-6 bucks, seasoned, cooked, in a plastic container. You know there's no way that's a fair price, right?


Rotisserie chickens are often used as loss-leader. Here's one of many articles on the subject: https://www.wsj.com/articles/rotisserie-chickens-the-ninetie...


And the classic Priceonomics article: https://priceonomics.com/are-rotisserie-chickens-a-bargain/


Those are a loss leader, though. Those are chickens typically past the sell by date. Grocery stores actually take a loss on those, but they're appealing and convenient. People will pick them up during normal grocery shopping and have an easy meal.


They're probably not a loss leader at all, and they're unlikely to be part of what the grocery store normally stocks in terms of chickens.

If you look at most of the grocery store rotisserie chickens, they're roughly 2 pounds - 3 pounds at Costco, which is one of their selling points. At $5, you're paying $1.67-2.50/pound for the bird, a few cents worth of seasoning and oil, a plastic shell, labor and depreciation on the rotisserie equipment. The store is probably not paying even $1/pound for those small birds.

As for them being ones that the store was selling that were past their date, go look at whole chickens in the store some time. If you find any 2 pound birds I'd be very surprised - you're more likely going to see a minimum of 3.5 pounds, at least in the US. The store also wouldn't be cooking random-weight birds because it's going to be much harder to control for even cooking - you can't just throw a 4 pound bird that's approaching its sell by date into the oven with your 2 pound birds, it'll be raw inside when you pull the rest of the birds out.


Groceries are definitely making money on rotisserie chickens. They exist as a way to generate some incremental income at the deli counter by giving employees something to do in their down time.

They are high margin, but low volume. A fifty cent chicken, with a few cents worth of spices (mostly salt) and like three minutes of labor will sell for $5. Not including the additional revenue from sides and rolls.


Unfair to whom?


I've always thought that we need some sort of consumer 'geiger counter' where the user can scan a product and have some sort of objective criteria they can use to determine if they should buy/eat something.


They’ve been trying to bring in this kind of thing for years but industry having none of it


Mainly because there's no good way to do it... attempts have been made, but they're pretty dire devices that can barely achieve a surface level scan.

If you don't mind watching a YouTube video, this guy does a good job summing up the problems some have had:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHjmlQdzpW4


There are plenty of good ways to do it, but the problem is there’s always going to be somebody that looses out. Of course none of those approaches are ”perfect” but even if somebody did come up with a perfect approach you can be certain that a bunch of issues will be manufactured overnight


Check the video out - those aren't "manufactured" issues - the reality is that such devices can only perform a surface level check at best - and even then, telling close things apart gets challenging. If you think you can do better, please explain how such a device could work?


It's quite simple: Coca Cola, Crisps, Mars Bars, Bacon, White Bread ... all these things you assign a red. Broccoli, Carrots, Nuts and Beans get a green. Everything in between gets orange. Pretty much all meats and dairy will end up in the orange segment which will upset this very powerful sector. The pork guys want you eating pork at every meal if possible.


It's pretty difficult to make something handheld that can scan beneath the surface layer. All of the kickstarter food scanners are crap.


Yeah... it's indentured servitude... chicken farmers take on millions in debt, and walk out with wages of $20-30K for 18 hour days x 7 days per week..


That doesn't make much sense. Someone in a position to invest millions (or take out millions in loans) would more likely be paying someone else wages to do the work, whether 18 hours or whatever. From what I hear contract poultry farming has become almost a turnkey sort of business. You contract with one of the poultry majors, they supply you with a lot of the supplies you need for whichever niche you occupy, and then basically guarantee buying your entire output.


>Yeah... it's indentured servitude

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. If you can declare bankruptcy, you can't be an indentured servant.


So you can get out at any time if you don't mind ruining your life in the process? I think the phrase is apt enough.


In the Philippines there is a chain of restaurants called Chicken Bacolod. The chicken is a bit smaller than the US but the taste is much better. I think that the chickens are allowed to eat bugs and root around in the dirt.


are you filipino?


Even the happy chickens get their heads cut off.


Why would you say organic chicken takes more time to grow? Organic has nothing to do with how long it takes to grow the chicken right?


The antibiotics fed to non-organic animals cause them to grow faster.


Are you sure about that?


Surprisingly, growth promotion is the original reason they were popularized: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/riots-rage-a...



Antibiotics don't cause animals to grow faster.... Please stop stating fake information as fact.


To be honest, although I prefer organic chicken for health and ethical reasons, mass produced chicken tastes juicier and better.


You might want to brine it. Commercial does brine injection and depending on organic, that might not be the case.


I strongly disagree. One of the most obvious (among many) differences we noticed when moving to the US from Europe is the taste of chicken meat. It just tastes very bland and almost chemical. Years later we discovered that (organic, etc) chicken at Whole Foods was better but still not perfect. I've confirmed similar issues with the taste of many vegetables (and I'm not even talking about tomatoes, those I can grow in my backyard and are delicious) and confirmed this with other immigrants.


> One of the most obvious (among many) differences we noticed when moving to the US from Europe is the taste of chicken meat. It just tastes very bland and almost chemical

Everything tastes 'chemical' :)

Snarky comment aside, I agree. Chicken in the US tastes quite bland, generally. At least compared to the Brazilian counterparts.

Vegetables are ok. Most berries are delicious. But bananas taste like cardboard. Some are less bad than others, but still. They do "look" perfect; I'd rather have an ugly, but tasty, banana. Mangos are crap. Most oranges taste like they have already been packaged in a box (there are some good ones though).


>>mass produced chicken tastes juicier and better.

You might be referring to the "gamy" part of it. That's valid for super wild chickens, but a little walk only makes them a lot better. There's no comparison in taste between a 50 day old chicken raised in mass-produced conditions and a 6-7 month one that roams in someone's backyard.


In 20 years, I can see gamy meats being a delicacy. The trick is they have to be 5x the price before people want to eat it on purpose. Chickens have been bred to be tasteless in the US just like commercial pork.


Also, remember that most chicken has added saline as well.

If you eat more natural white meat, it’s drier because there is less fat and no added fluid.


Often, just water. Chicken is sold by the pound. If you increase its weight by 5%, then you just got a close to free way of boosting profits by that amount.

They don't even hide the fact that they do it; most of them print it right on the packaging.

I quit buying supermarket chicken a long time ago because the quality is very poor. I trim the excess fat off chicken, and supermarket stuff has so much waste it was shocking.


No way. Organic free range tastes way better.


Said this to myself recently - I think I buy too much food. Or is it just the packaging... As of lately, I've been patronizing this local farmer's market, they're only open two days a week and I'm buying what I need for the week. I am making a conscious effort to stay out of big-box grocery.


If you get tofurkey or mock duck instead, you'll never have to worry whether it was battery chicken from a factory farm. Yes, it may taste slightly different, but it's a tiny cost to pay to prevent a long time of extreme suffering.

For me, it has helped my mental well being, to not (even subconsciously) have to think about the life of the being whose flesh I've been eating.


> it may taste slightly different

Slightly different? I like vegetables and tofu as much as they next person, but 'textured protein' meat alternatives taste nothing like the real thing.

I prefer just to spend a little more on a non-battery chicken.


Beyond Meat is doing "chicken strips" now and is going full tilt boogie on other meats: bratwurst, steak, and bacon!

https://www.livekindly.co/beyond-meat-expands-to-develop-veg...


Most of those meat alternatives are either soy or wheat based and not necessarily the healthiest kind of food. IMO if you don't want to eat meat learn how to cook vegetables in a tasty way. There's some pretty amazing dishes you can make from fresh(and not processed) vegetables.


> My nephew from the US came over and was shocked at the taste

Shocked -- because it was surprisingly superior?



When I do eat meat, I'll buy pastured meat only from the farmer's market or ethical butchers. Pastured chicken is $16 a pound. This is definitely not feasible for the average shopper. But then again -- people don't need to be eating chicken every single day.


I'm a low income student (in a first world country so still far from poor) and it is totally doable for me to only buy animal products from ethical sources. It just means I eat a lot less of it. I don't think everyone needs to be able to afford to eat meat every day.


>I don't think everyone needs to be able to afford to eat meat every day.

I think you mean not everyone needs to eat meat every day... the way you phrase it makes it sound like an argument for lowering the minimum wage.


I read this as "pasteurized chicken". I was really confused by what you meant at first.


They just take the chicken and raise the temperature to 71.5°C for 15 seconds, then chill it. Way easier than actually providing them a pasture. ;)


[flagged]


Could you please start posting more substantively? This isn't a one-liner sort of place.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html


Not sure if you're just trolling or not, but I'm genuinely interested in understanding your perspective more. Although I don't expect you to take my word for it, I'm very open minded on this subject. I went vegan at one point.

However, is it really less ethical to raise animals (in humane circumstances, open pasture, etc) and butcher them quickly than to either:

a. Cause them to never exist and never experience life at all (presupposes that one places higher value on existence than non-existence, which is philosophically debatable of course)

b. Cause them to die a natural death at the hands of either predators that will mangle and mutilate them, or to disease which is a slow and terrible way to go?

I've never seen such cruelty as is found in nature. Even just seeing what the neighborhood cats do to the birds makes my stomach turn. I think if I were mangled and blinded, I'd be begging for somebody to kill me quickly.


Please provide better comments.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: