|
Post by luap on Aug 3, 2007 21:00:29 GMT
foot and mouth is back in Britain again .
|
|
|
Post by alisont on Aug 3, 2007 21:22:21 GMT
Just seen this on the news, not good, news just said there will be a mass cull
|
|
|
Post by sluggie on Aug 3, 2007 21:35:18 GMT
Ah well, maybe it will encourage more farmers to go over to organic vegetable/fruit cultivation instead of rearing livestock. Or is that just wishful thinking?
|
|
|
Post by veggiewoman on Aug 3, 2007 22:47:20 GMT
my mate text me about this tonight and jsut seeing it on news now.
For F%&ks sake , all these tossers care about are the finacial income and shows been disrupted while these animals are murdered. At least I suppose this way these poor animals although still been mudered are not profiting the killers..
When will this country learn, it serves them right if they use and abuse animals .
Just said on news 60 animals are been murdered in Surrey coz of this out break.
|
|
|
Post by Pob on Aug 4, 2007 10:51:52 GMT
The government will pay compensation to the farmers though
|
|
|
Post by maisiepaisie on Aug 4, 2007 11:04:36 GMT
The government will pay compensation to the farmers though Why do they do this? I don't get it
|
|
|
Post by veggiesosage on Aug 5, 2007 8:09:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by veggiewoman on Aug 5, 2007 8:34:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by astrocat on Aug 23, 2007 15:00:04 GMT
It's so that the farmers can stay in business.
It's a pretty illogical approach until you look at the structure of UK politics.
In short, the general masses do not want what is best for society, or themselves. They will vigorously campaign against introduction of what is best for them, in many cases.
It was very controvertial of the government to bring in their smoking ban, but can you imagine how much MORE so it would be, if they were to leave animal abusers to pay for their own businesses, thus causing the flesh industry to fold in on itself and causing a sky-rocketing hike in the price of flesh and body fluids ?
The bottom line is that people want flesh and body fluids to eat. They want them pretty much all the time, and they want them cheaply. If the government riles people up by preventing them from having that, when they have grown accustomed to it over decades, then chances are that few people would go on to vote for them in the next election. I think that a lot of people would conveniently overlook the rapid drop in taxation, and would move straight to the selfish 'i want my unsustainably produced products' phase.
This is no doubt why they have such huge subsidisation (3 way subsidy - production, waste disposal and end product cost) on flesh, eggs and milk products...... and is also most likely to be why they dole out huge sums of compensation to farmers whose own ineptitude results in their business becoming otherwise unprofitable thus unsustainable.
In the 1991 F&M outbreak they dished out £ 8 billion .... i wonder how much it will be this time.
Some farmers killed off healthy herds, because they weren't going to make much profit by selling the flesh and body fluids - especially in that sort of climate, so they got more money through compensation by killing them, than by actually doing their job.
... And still people have the cheek to try and support flesh-eating by claiming that it helps the economy to thrive.... I don't think that the production, and end price, of flesh, eggs and dairy produce ought to be tax-subsidised at all. But if they ARE going to be, then it ought to be in this way - with the money being used to minimise disasters which could affect everyone, and that sort of thing.... rather than merely being used to bring down the cost enough that even impoverished people can often afford cheap flesh and body fluids very frequently, as is presently the case. If it were me, i would make then run their business like everyone else has to (fruit and veg producers, etc), covering their own costs, doing their own maintenance, paying for their own insurance or else coping with business damages resulting from their own ineptitude in a responsible manner.
Given my own way I would, in short, make them charge enough for their products, that their business would be sustainable.... and if it isn't sustainable because nobody wants to pay £10 for a Big Mac or £20 for a little pack of chicken busoms, then boohoo for them !
Anyone with any sense would surely conclude that the logical solution is simply to just not eat anything which has feet and a mouth. If everyone were to do that, then voila - problem solved !
|
|
|
Post by maisiepaisie on Aug 23, 2007 16:02:43 GMT
Sorry but I still don't understand Why did the government ever start to subsidise the meat and dairy industries and create this situation where animal products are really cheap? I'm sure that the way most people are so obsessed with animal products is a lot do with them being cheap so people eat them on a daily basis. I agree that if the government were to take away the subsidies now they would not be popular (it would be funny though ;D ) but surely it wasn't always this way? If they'd never started to subsidise the farmers then meat and dairy products would have gradually risen to extortionate prices but people would have just accepted it as they have with alcohol, cigarettes and petrol.
|
|
|
Post by astrocat on Aug 27, 2007 2:10:11 GMT
You and me both ! This is a very good question, and it's one which I've been contemplating and trying (not very well) to research, for some time now. It is astonishingly hard to do internet searches for this, though.... there's so much crap out there about meat subsidies and stuff, but not the specific things I'm after..... I mean, I'm not even sure what year the different subsidies were introduced during, to know which government/s it was/were who/which introduced those subsidies in the first place...... the trouble being, that nowadays the situation is all compounded, with a government perpetuating the situation who didn't start it off to begin with, so who feels inclined to absolve itself of all responsibility for that initial catalystic decision. does anyone else here know about this ? I mean, i can understand keeping it going, but what halfwit thought up this crazy notion to begin with ? I mean, it would quite likely have been introduced back before most of the vast modern industialisation of animal exploitation took place,... when the diseases were less numerous, those which were around weren't nearly as well-nurtured by humans, thus were less resistant to treatment, back when it could be credibly claimed that the animal exploitation industries are beneficial to the UK economy. The fact that this isn't at all true nowadays, and even the national media is blaring out that information loudly from time to time (usually in the form of 'let's lend a sympathetic ear to the poor struggling animal-farmer' articles ') , well.. that doesn't stop many people.... and so to the voting booths they go.... And yes, UK flesh-eaters primarily buy factory farmed flesh.... I assume that isn't for the 'prime taste and quality' of such flesh.... it's cheap & nasty, and they know it.... but they don't care..... or if they do, then they try to stifle such emotion in their efforts to more easily continue doing something which they know is immoral as well as filthy, unhealthy and downright penny-pinching. If that stuff were £20 a tray, rather than £2...... I somehow doubt they would flock to buy them. If McD's sold their chips for £1 , but had to hike the Big Macs up to reflect the real price and thus had to charge £10 for them...... do you think there would be so many takers hehe, i i quite agree with you... i think they would find that suddenly they had lost their wanton cravings for huge sums of flesh..... Similarly, the reason that people buy trays of factory farmed eggs is usually because they cost 8-25 p for six eggs, compared to about £1.50 for free-range eggs from the supermnarket, or maybe 80p-£1 for local free-range eggs if they can be bothered to find them. If those farmers didn't have subsidies, the local ones would go bust most likely especially if they keep upo their present death-rate and methods of 'production' ... while the commercial ones would make little money out of hen-flesh sales and would have to bump up eggs prices hugely to compensate..... if we're talking about £8 or thereabouts for 6 eggs, I doubt the plebs would go for it much. That's how it is though..... in the olden days, those days which are astonishingly recent, only nobility and royalty could afford to eat like royalty, eating lots of flesh all the time and mounds of body fluids all year round.... Now with subsidisation, even the lowest classes of society can afford to eat like nobility in that kind of way - albeit in their own poor sort of way, with their 'Happy Krispy-Bum Meals' , sickly-looking sadist-grade eggs and polystyrene trays of tasteless cheap conveyor-belt flesh. But ultimately, why ? ?!? beats me....
|
|
|
Post by maisiepaisie on Aug 27, 2007 13:01:16 GMT
If you ever do manage to find the answer to this Astrocat please let me know. Its so annoying because now they are saying that its not financially viable to produce organic veg guaranteed free from GMOs so they're allowing organic veg to be contaminated upto 0.9% www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jun/13/gm.foodWhy can't the government subsidise this? We should have the right to eat natural fruit and veg if we choose but soon we won't have a choice
|
|
|
Post by astrocat on Sept 3, 2007 2:23:06 GMT
Sure, no problem and vice-versa ! I think that it's obscene ! Word up, they know where it's at. Another problem with GM crops is that the flipping seeds get all over the freaking place, blowing on the wind as humans have known for milleniae that seeds do.... you're going to need a lot of money to keep that stuff out of the food chain entirely, nowadays.... and it will become more expensive just to maintain a consistent level of contamination , even if people stopped growing GM crops tomorrow... and especially if people continue on the way they are doing, growing lots more GM crops because they perceive there to be selfish benefits in doing so (often profit for the seller, and saving money for the consumer). I totally agree ! Even before the ridiculous human notion of spreading GM contamination about the place, I have felt for a long time that the governments of many nations would do well to subsidise good, organic produce (especially local stuff) sales, and the growers. My ideal would ( of course) be for subsidies on flesh and body fluids to be abolished altogether, and for some of the vast pool of money thusly generated to be diverted into subsidising fresh produce which is organic, and making sure that loads of stuff is fairly traded..... they could hike import taxation for imported fruit and veg, and slap a big juicy subsidy on local stuff from the profits generated in doing so. As a result of this , dinners given in institutions such as old folks' homes, hospitals and schools is likely to become considerably better in many cases as it becomes seen as financially viable (profitable, even) to feed people decent food, rather than stodge or dodgy synthetic crap. Of course, despite this neither of these approaches would be remotely popular among the opposition's voting populace , or even fringe-voters (who are the ones to try & sway in an election) despite being logical, sensible, reasonable, non-selfish and much more ethical than the present situation. go figure.
|
|
|
Post by veggiewoman on Sept 12, 2007 11:43:04 GMT
|
|