The US citizen, Kayla wrote:Sappho de Miranda wrote:Why I wonder? Economics most likely. How many people would prefer to pay more for their meat, if they knew the animal had a quality life
some would but a lot of people could not afford humane meat while maintaining traditional north American diet
i know - from direct dealings with them - some very expensive restaurants are major buyers of free range organic meats but i could not afford to eat in the restaurants we do business with
Silly me! I should have known, that when I say people, you read it as only people of The United States of America.
Otherwise, I have no idea what a 'traditional north American diet consists of. I assumed that Mexico, Canada, the Dominican Republic , Guatemala, Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador,Honduras Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica,Nicaragua, Haiti, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Saint Lucia , Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Dominica, Saint Kitts and Nevis each had their own traditional fare irrespective of their geographical location North America.
Also, isn't it the case that peoples of the United States eat too much red meat: That a healthy diet of an omnivore should include only three small serves of red meat weekly?
Perhaps then, the issue for peoples of the United States is more about greed vs need. What's the bet that I could argue quite effectively that whilst ensuring a quality of life for animals would mean a greater cost to consumers, that cost would not exceed the affordability of satisfying an omnivores red meat need, even though it would definitely exceed the cost of meeting their greed for red meat.
