It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ANOK
Nicely wrapped up at the grocery store you don't have to witness the fear, pain and disgusting conditions the animal you eat has gone through.
The meat you eat has feces, urine and puss from wounds in it, along with other nasty stuff.
Would you eat that piece of meat if you saw the cook crap and pee on it, then drop it on the floor before cooking it?
Well that's what happens to your meat at the slaughter house. But you don't have to see it, blinded to the reality.
Cows are often skinned alive, in the rush to get the product out many are not stunned when they are supposed to be.
Do animals in the wild cook their meat? Then why do you?
The way we treat, slaughter and consume animals is far from natural.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I have over a hundred pounds of game meat in the freezer right now.
I've worked in a slaughterhouse. Have you? In the US, meat gets inspected.
US Agriculture Department is allowing companies to perform more of their own food safety inspections, two consumer groups and a labor union said on Tuesday
On August 25, 2000, the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) was notified by the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (MBAH) of Bacillus anthracis isolated from a steer on a farm in Roseau County, Minnesota.
A local veterinarian approved the slaughter of the cow for consumption by the farmer's family.
Maybe that's why english cooking tastes so nasty? They could just as easily be doing that to your veggies, by the way.
I'd like to see the twit that tries to skin a cow alive, in a crowding alley!
I estimate that 30 percent of the cows are not properly knocked [stunned] and get to the first legger alive….To still be alive at the second legger the cows have gone alive from the knocker to the sticker to the belly ripper (he cuts the hide down the center of the cow’s abdomen) to the tail ripper (he opens the [rectum]) to the first legger (he skins a back leg and then cuts off the foot) to the first butter (he skins from the breast to the belly and a little bit on the back) to the worker who cuts off both front feet. Those cows then go to a worker who sticks a hook into the joint where the first legger took off the foot and the cows are hung from the trolley hook. I can tell that these cows are alive because they’re holding their heads up and a lot of times they make noise.” This is an excerpt from the affidavit of a worker at the IBP, Inc. cattle slaughtering plant in Wallula, Washington.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? Stop with the juvenile fear-mongering already. It's not even believable.
Because I have the intestinal tract of an omnivore, not a carnivore. But even carnivores like their meat cooked, when they can get it. At least my cat says so.
You're right. We domesticated them, so they'd be easier to deal with, and provide meat more efficiently. And they have domesticated us, too. It's been going on for 10,000 years now.
20 vegetarians can live off the land required by one meat eater.
If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% it would free 12,000,000 tons of grain - enough to feed 60,000,000 people (the population of Great Britain).
If all Americans became vegetarian, it would free enough grain to feed 600,000,000 people (the population of India).
Due to overgrazing 850,000,000 people live on land threatened by desertification & over 230,000,000 already live on land so severely desertified that they are unable to sustain their existence & face imminent starvation.
Originally posted by ANOK
So what feces would be in veggies? Carrot crap
This is an excerpt from the affidavit of a worker at the IBP, Inc. cattle slaughtering plant in Wallula, Washington.
So what did man eat before the discovery of fire?
Why is it you assume I hate Humans? All I've done is point out a few facts about the unnecessary bad treatment of animals. If you go out and kill your own food fine, I've got nothing against that at all. I've got nothing against eating meat, just the way it gets to your plate, and the way we are fooled into thinking its necessary for our health.
The way we raise animals for food is NOT natural in any way.
The way animals are raised for meat now is fairly new, where do you get 10,000 yrs from?
20 vegetarians can live off the land required by one meat eater.
Depends on the land. In semi-temperate woodlands, that's certainly true. On the American prarie (which covers a third of the contiguous US land mass) A vegetarian cannot grow anything besides buffalo grass, without a lot of irrigation and human-made fertilizers, most of which are petroleum-based . . .
If Americans reduced their meat consumption by 10% it would free 12,000,000 tons of grain - enough to feed 60,000,000 people (the population of Great Britain).
If all Americans became vegetarian, it would free enough grain to feed 600,000,000 people (the population of India).
The problem of world hunger is not primarily caused by lack of food, but by distribution.
those numbers assume that all land is equally fertile for truck farming. Most of the grain in question is feed-grade wheat, which is again grown on American prarie, where little else besides domesticated grass grows. It isn't fit for human consumption; neither is #2 grade corn, which is the vast majority of American grain production.
#2 corn is a single cross (one cob per plant), and requires much less water per plant than #1 does. Food grade corn requires more than A GALLON OF WATER PER DAY, per plant, in order to produce ANY grain at all. So, unless humans are going to be fed rock-hard corn that will crack their omnivore teeth, you wouldn't be "freeing up grain" for human consumption; you'd be depleting your water supply. #2 corn can be made into hominy, but that again requires heavy processing.
Which is why beef ranching is so popular in the corn belt. . . using cattle to do the processing FOR us.
Soybeans, while building nitrogen into soils, are very demanding of other nutrients in the form of fertilizer, and require intensive processing for human consumption.
Due to overgrazing 850,000,000 people live on land threatened by desertification & over 230,000,000 already live on land so severely desertified that they are unable to sustain their existence & face imminent starvation.
www.flex.com...
It's you that don't care about Humans, all you care about is your stomach...
Originally posted by Delta Alter
This programme purports to be informing us about the reality of PETA, but does nothing but serve as a platform for predictable and highly boring jokes revolving around vegetarian bashing and ridicule of people who care about animals.
I'm so tired of reading and watching propaganda about the animal rights movement. I don't care what two Moronic comedians think. This type of programme is poisonous. Informative? No, dangerous and misleading.
The vast majority of people involved in Animal Rights are peace loving, compassionate people who have NOTHING to do with terrorism. This programme is just so obvious in it's aims.
It's a sad, sorry world we live in
Originally posted by ANOK
Look, no one is trying to force you to do anything.
Why do you get so defensive when your choice is questioned? Usualy indicates feelings of guilt
Yes the pics of the animals was meant to shock . .
I've been to labs and seen the reality, it's extremely shocking, if you have any kind of compassion for life.
How else do you wake ppl up to such shocking abuse, this is reality and ppl should be made aware.
I can tell it bothers you, as it should, from your reaction and you don't like it. But like most ppl you're stubborn and justify your actions anyway you can. It's not manly to not eat meat huh? I won't get enough protein, blah blah blah . Myths.
You act like I'm trying to take away something that would cause the downfall of the Human race.
Do we have a right to torture animals so we can have luxuries that we really don't need?
Or so scientists can see what happens if they stick a probe in a monkeys brain?
Most animal testing is totally unnecessary, but it gets a research grant for some egg head who thinks they're more important than life itself.
Do you really think I'd put an animal before a Human? That's redicularse.
I care more about the starving millions than I do the cows.
People are starving because we eat meat
our hospitals are full of patience because they stuffed themselves with meat.
More people die from heart disease than drug overdoses.
But let's just ignore all this, happy in our ignorance, who cares about starving people?
Wouldn't you give up a piece of steak to save a life?
Have a nice day
Originally posted by ANOK
Why do you get so defensive when your choice is questioned? Usualy indicates feelings of guilt
Yes the pics of the animals was meant to shock, cause most ppl don't realize what vivisection is all about.
I've been to labs and seen the reality, it's extremely shocking, if you have any kind of compassion for life.
How else do you wake ppl up to such shocking abuse, this is reality and ppl should be made aware.
But like most ppl you're stubborn and justify your actions anyway you can. It's not manly to not eat meat huh? I won't get enough protein, blah blah blah . Myths.
Do we have a right to torture animals so we can have luxuries that we really don't need?
Most animal testing is totally unnecessary, but it gets a research grant for some egg head who thinks they're more important than life itself.
I care more about the starving millions than I do the cows.
less than one of the four potential drugs that successfully negotiate the initial animal tests are ever approved by the FDA...
Of those drugs that are safe and efficacious in animals, the animal trials are no better than 50 per cent accurate in determining a drug's safety and efficacy.
only one in 10,000 research programmes make it to the market'. Moreover, the number of clinical trial failures is certainly not a new phenomenon; for example five years ago, a writer commented: 'After all, at least 30% of all drugs fail clinical trials in phase III' (Peter Mitchell, 'Crash and boom: the rise and fall of biotechnology', Lancet, Vol.350, No.9073, 26 July 1997).
'...Biotechnology stocks have slumped about 30 percent so far this year after a series of *clinical trial failures and rejections from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration...'.
'U.S. stocks cling to gains, biotech, job data weigh', Yahoo News, 16 May 2002.
* Note: These would have been first tested on animals.
'Vivisectors can quote hundreds of ideas concerning human medicine obtained with the help of animal experimentation. They omit, however, to tell us that these ideas proved useful in understanding human illness only after they had been confirmed by clinical observation: at the time of their formulation, they told us nothing useful whatsoever about human beings'.
Professor Pietro Croce, Vivisection or Science? (London: Zed Books, 1999), p.60.
I would like to thank the Research Defence Society for their interesting revelations but I am a little confused. You see I suffer from arthritis, and nothing my doctor has given me works. In fact, the side effects of some treatments have been very distressing.
My cat also has arthritis, yet the tablets my vet gave her appear to have worked wonders. So, after reading the articles (of the Research Defence Society) I went along to see my vet and asked him for some of these tablets for myself. He laughed at me and said that just because they had cured my cat, that doesn't mean that they are suitable for me.
Last week my neighbour's dog strained his shoulder and could barely walk, but after pain-killing injections he was jumping around like a puppy. I went back to my vet and asked if these injections would do the same for me. He was quite rude and said that medication used on animals and humans are so different.
This has left me very puzzled, because according to the RDS letters, if it's safe for animals then it's safe for us! I'm not sure what to do the next time I'm ill: should I see a doctor or a vet? After all, the principle's the same...isn't it?
Mrs D M, Hucknall
The Drug Information Bulletin (Il Bollettino d'Informazione sui Farmaci, No. 8 August 1983).
This reports that the registration of 22,621 medical preparations had been revoked i.e., prohibited. All of these had passed the animal testing stage.
The American General Accounting Office (GAO), announced that of all the new drugs that began to be marketed between 1976 and 1985, 52% of these were found to be more dangerous than the pre-marketing experimentation had suggested. Because of this, they were either withdrawn or required stronger warnings.
Animals have been killed in their billions in medical research, so it is only logical to suppose that some useful knowledge in the fight against human disease must have resulted somewhere along the line. Yet this neither automatically proves that these experiments were either vital or irreplaceable...Critics [of vivisection] have likened the success rate of animal research to putting money into a slot machine; put enough in and you will occasionally triumph, but this does not make it either a reliable or logical method of pursuing your goal.[19]
In one study, the USDA determined that Ohio State University had violated the Animal Welfare Act because approximately forty cats had been injured when identification tags became embedded in their necks. The Ohio State annual report to the USDA of animal use for the relevant period indicated that no animal (including these cats) were subjected to any unrelieved pain or distress. Apparently Ohio State vivisectors did not consider a chain embedded in the flesh caused any suffering or distress...
In another study, researchers did not consider that placing corrosive substances into the eyes or on to the shaved skin of rabbits caused any pain or distress.[66]
the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act. Section 24 of the 1986 Act makes it a criminal offence to divulge information on animal experiments.
Cats were subjected to 1,580 'procedures' in 2001 (Note: animals can be and are used for more than one experiment.
7,945 procedures were carried out on dogs in 2001 - an increase of 4 per cent.
3,986 procedures were performed on primates in 2001 - an increase of 8 per cent.
[One pro-vivisection group] 'produces a video that recounts the stories of numerous children saved, so it claims, as a result of animal experimentation...In sweeping generalities but without facts, the video assures us that the only way to save babies is through the use of animal models. It ends with the death of one child whose life, so it claims, could have been saved, with 'more animal experiments'.
Such scheming PR, which relies solely on emotional appeals, should raise this suspicion: if the facts of the cases are so persuasive and overwhelming, why are they not revealed? We wish to know, truthfully, what animal models have actually done for sick children. Tell us from where these supposed advances arose.
Without facts, vivisection makes no sense. Pick at the edges of the pro-vivisection argument and you will find researchers choosing what is expedient in the short term, i.e., grants and publishing papers, instead of what actually works in the long- term - human solutions'.[114]
As Richard Ryder...pointed out, researchers are 'basically conformers who do not question what is expected of them...like most men, they seek security and success, and in order to achieve these ends, they know that it pays to toe the line'. So, if the truth be told, the real goal of animal research is the personal 'welfare' of those involved...
Ultimately, the desecrator of animal life ends up desecrating all life including his own, because he reduces life to discrete mechanisms of measurable quantity.
Andree Collard with Joyce Contrucci, Rape of the Wild (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989), p.70.
'When a drug's patent is about to expire, its maker tries to ward off competition by filing frivolous lawsuits against anyone looking to make a low cost, and perfectly legal, version of the pill. They don't really expect to win, but the suit can delay the generic version from hitting the market for up to 30 months - allowing the patent holders to rake in billions in additional, competition-free sales. And the public gets to pay twice: we pay for unnecessarily high-priced drugs, and we pay for the court system they're exploiting to keep us paying the high price'.
'It takes a few decades for long-term side-effects to be revealed, and the biological theories that supported its safe use [HRT] have now been shown to be unfounded...My quote is from a leading article in the British Medical Journal'.
(Source: 'When doctors get it wrong - and drug firms get the profits', The Scotsman, 20 February 2004).
'Beagles have been gassed until they passed out in secret tests to monitor the effects of a chemical which was banned more than 15 years ago. Confidential documents reveal how the bodies of dogs would convulse violently during recent experiments at the controversial Huntingdon Life Sciences laboratory...'.
(Source: 'Secret lab notes reveal dog cruelty', The Observer, 22 February 2004).
Originally posted by Hamburglar
...and after their throats are slit (most of the time effectively), they are dipped into scalding tanks to help get the feathers off. Sadly, as so many are processed, the neck cutting isn't always effective, and many chickens are literally boiled to death.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Anyway, Anok has a LARGE paragraph with the intro like
"And big pharma is about nothing but profits."
Originally posted by ANOK
Oh so I'm a communist because I point out that the idea that animal testing is for profit rather than the Human good they claim? I was just pointing out the hypocracy.
Originally posted by obsidian468
As it is now, I have a five year old, very healthy, very happy puppy (and as precious to me as my own child),