h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I have to ask - what were the circumstances?

Excuse me if I try an experiment:

Fanny - "black"

Sorry Offsoon, the circumstances were a survival course in the RN. One of those "live off the land" exercises. You had to eat what you caught. Mostly it was rabbits, but sometimes you weren't so lucky

A dog, human etc are primarily carnivores and I'm sure I read somewhere that it was extremely dangerous to eat bits from a carnivore due to increased iron levels and some such malarkey.

Now give me a nice plump vegetarian, a bit of Bearnaise sauce and perhaps some fava beans with a nice Chianti! Yum!

>You had to eat what you caught.<

SWL survived on chillblains for a fortnight.

And diarrhoea

I'm trying to imagine a worse combination than diarrhoea brought on by bad rat.

We-ell, there *is* a takeaway near here.

Should parents have ultimate control over *everything* their children see?

I can see all parents immediatly thinking 'yes, of course'

What about parents who decide that their children should not learn about the holocaust? or about evolution?

Given that I grew up in a Hindu community I do have a very strong 'disgust' reaction to meat eating - I grew up in a Hindu community in the UK but I've got friends who grew up in Hindu parts of India and they have the same reaction. It's similar to the reaction Muslims or Jews have to pork, or non-vegatarian Hindus have to beef. So I would instictively think anything that creates more vegatarians is a good thing - and showing children the reality of where food comes from is a particualy effective way to achieve that.

I do wonder, if meat-eaters are ok with eating meat why don't they want their chlidren to see where it comes from? Could it be that they don't like where it comres from themselves and secretly want to become vegatarian?

I also wonder where this desire to 'protect' children from the outside world comes from? I think it's a deep instict really isn't it?

But is it always logical? Parent tend to see their children as younger than they really are so probably aren't the best people to judge when they are 'ready' to see certain things.

At the end of the day parents are a far greater influence on their children's lives than their schools are and you can't control what they see and hear when they are at school, or when they at their friends houses. But you can provide alternate viewpoints to the school.

a week on and my daughter and I are still following the veggie life style, enjoying it too.

Maybe our health will improve as a result.

Jennyx

I'd say show a child where meat comes from early, the earlier the better. The recent and very wonderful publication "The Dangerous Book for Boys" has among its many excellent ideas for activities detailed instructions on how to hunt, kill, skin, gut and cook a rabbit. Anyone with a child over the age of about six should beg, borrow or buy an airgun and do this with them. Beats making jam tarts...

The main points it teaches are:
- patience and effort: getting your food takes time and effort.
- reality: something has to die so we can eat, and this is the way of nature and has been for millions of years
- cooking: not just bunging something in the microwave, but getting busy with a sharp knife and turning something that was living and breathing into a meal.
- the fact that it's worth it: no matter how icky the process, the end product *tastes good*. Which is why most people continue to do it, despite the processes involved.

Of course, supermarket meat isn't made that way... but given how good it tastes, you have to ask the kid - do you care? I think you'd have a harder time selling vegetarianism to a child who'd killed and skinned their own dinner.

SoRB

I understand where you are coming from SORB, I can say though knowing my own 3 children and the way they react, they wouldnt be able to kill and skin a rabbit even if they were hungry.

My boys adore animals, especialy my middle son (14) he does eat some meat but very limited. He likes fish, ham, eggs etc but wont eat burger,sausages, beef and calls Chicken rubber meat (and no its not my cooking!). He is a a well built lad, 6ft tall and weighs 12 stone so the lack of meat in his diet isnt stunting his growth.

My eldest lad (nearly 18) loves all meat products, Kebabs, Spicy currys, etc .. but he was very upset by his sisters revelations about the chickens suffering and is eating less chicken.

I wont force any of my children to give up meat, I cant do that as I would be a hypocrite, Up until last week I was eating meat too. I wont ram information down their throats... Sophie (their sister can do that...lol) ...

If you think about it teenagers are given so much information (most of it they will try and rebel against)...Sex/Relationship advice, Drug Advice, Smoking, Career advice, what time to come home, who to hang out with etc. From a personal view point, my own children as they approach adulthood need to be allowed to make their own choices, and all we as parents can do is give them the unbiassed information so they can make informed choices. The same reasoning applies to the free will to eat meat. I leave the decision to them and will support and not critisize whatever they decide.

I am however upset the school didnt at least warn or advise me about this video so I could at least prepare my daughter (and myself)

Have a good day everyone

In case anyone is interested, I have gleaned some factoids on chicken welfare standards from Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall's River Cottage Meat Book, my bible for all things edible:

98% of chickens in the UK are intensively farmed. The "recommended" packing density for these chickens is 34Kg per square metre (the slaughter weight being 1.5-2 kg), but this is not enforced. The book estimates roughly an A4 size area per adult bird. Mortaility rate in these conditions is about 6%, but clearly this level is still profitable.

They have been selectively bred to put on weight at a unnatural speed - slaughter weight in only six weeks. The shed is then cleaned out for the next "crop". The breed is called Ross Cobb, and is now genetically obese - they would no longer be capable of living a normal healthy life even if given the chance. The broilers (those bred for meat) cannot reproduce, the breeders are kept in different, but similarly intensive and unpleasant conditions.

One study found that 90% of the birds have leg problems, and many suffer hock burns because their malformed legs are constantly sitting in the ammonia from their collective faeces.

The ability of the birds to put on weight so quickly, and survive the conditions they are reared in (or at least for most of them to survive) keep the price of chicken artifically low. The book cites examples of supermarket chickens costing less, by weight, than potatoes.

The term "free-range" specifies a maximum stocking density of 27.5kg per square metre, plus allowance of 1 m^2 per bird outdoors, on rotation. Importantly, this is enforced. They are more expensive partly because of the extra space required but also because they get exercise, and therefore take longer to reach slaughter weight. However, the same genetically unhealthy breed is often used and the birds may never actually find the exits to use their outdoor run. Stocking density aside, the life of a free-range chicken may not be any better than an intensively farmed one.

There are two additions to free range: "Traditional free-range" (25kg per sq m, plus 2 sq m outdoors) and "free- range - total freedom" (5 sq m outdoors and free access during daylight hours).

There is also the RSPCA Freedom Food label (30 kg / sq m) which has (though not always) add-on standards for free-range.

"Corn fed" means just that, and no more.

The organic label is the best - it permits 25kg / sq m, plus outdoor runs and a load of other stuff designed to make a chicken's life a happy one.

So it is all to degrees and heavily dependent on the farmer. A free-range chicken is almost certainly not a happy chicken, and if you really care about welfare you should buy organic. If you want to avoid the intensively farmed ones, then you should avoid all other chicken products.

Actually, this could be the basis of an EG entry

Just because people kill and eat animals does not mean they do not love them (I undertsand this is not what you were inferring). My father, when younger, worked as a butcher in a pig slaughter-house and he loves them. His house is festooned with models of pigs etc.

Farmers also love their cattle etc. Just because they are breeding them or killing them does not mean they do not care about them. In fact, as SoRB has said, it makes one even more appreciative of the meat and the animals. Having seen JAmie Oliver kill a sheep in Italy, I would *have* to do the same thing if offered otherwise I would have to become a vegetarian rather than be a hypocrite.

I always ask 'veggies' why they do not eat meat. There are various reasons. When animal welfare is mentioned as a viable reason I always ask whether they would eat meat from a wild animal, shot in the wild and lovingly prepared into a great meal. A lot have said yes they have.

If this is the reason anyone here does not eat meat I suggest getting to local farmers markets and butchers. Find out where the meat has come from and decide whether it has been reared and killed to your accepted animal welfare levels.

Good point Researcher 179541

The only concern I would have would be that the local farmers markets and butchers may not answer entirely honestly. They have a living to make and if asked a probing question like that (especialy if surrounded by other customers) they may colour the truth to fill their pockets.

I expect most would be honest if they have nothing to hide but I am trying to imagine a situation where a butcher/trader that knows an animal has lived a horrendous life and been killed very inhumanely would openly admit this to a customer when asked?

Nature is red in tooth and claw, children should learn this from nature shows just as an antidote to all those Disney cartoons.
I better check out the legislation on chicken in my own country. Can´t say that Fernley Whittingstall comment sounded very good.

If you care about the welfare of animals, rather than becoming a vegetarian, the best thing you can do is to buy from sources where animals are treated more kindly. There is absolutely no way in our society that all people are going to give up eating meat. It tastes too delicious for that to happen. Farmers which rear animals more kindly and slowly are having to compete with those who only care about the economics. So they need all the customers they can get in order to stay in business. But the compensations are that the meat often has much more flavour and is less fatty as in the case of chicken. It may cost more, so eat less of it then.

By supporting more ethical farmers and buying from them, I feel I am doing more for the welfare of animals than becomming vegetarian. And that makes sense to me because although I eat animals, I also feel rather fond of them.

I would eat meat if I couldn't get the idea of 'what it is' out of my head - as someone who was raised vegatarian and sortofHindu.

I know that reincarnation is probably rubblish but I'm not 100% sure, and why make myself eat unhealthy food that disgusts me?

>>why make myself eat unhealthy food that disgusts me?<<

Well if you did that you'd either be a masochist, a superstitiouis maniac, and/or mad.

If I travelled to somewhere I couldn't get vegatarian food I would have to get my head around it.