It is questionable if the catastrophic conditions of the breeding of animals, the fattening procedure and the misuse of drugs can prevent people from eating animal products.
Some would even go as far as to say that animals are faced with more difficult conditions in wildlife but such allegations contradict any form of reality.
Everybody should know that animals are fully sensitive beings. They communicate with one another, the play, eat and sleep, feel fear and pain and are able to cry. The fact that they are not capable of speaking or making themselves understood by man in another meaningful way does not mean that they feel no pain and is no justification for us to slaughter them. There are humans, too, who are not able to speak nor communicate in another way. This equally applies to dogs and cats. Yet, none of us would feel free to cause pain to them.
If we try to comprehend the usual methods of animal keeping, we may even come to see that they are crueller than the very process of slaughtering. What we do to our fellow creatures, just to make them suited for the fattening, is the highest degree of cruelty to animals.
Those who want to take a deeper look into the animal protection laws of the US can do so here:
As regulations differ from state to state, it would be very extensive to go in detail.
But in general the animal protection laws of Germany can be taken as an example of the arbitrary interpretation of laws. This European country belongs to the most developed countries in the world and accordingly its livestock standards.
In the following you will see how absurd the wording of the law is:
The maxim of Germany's laws for the protection of animals (Tierschutzgesetzt) sais:
It is the duty and responsibility of humans to take care of the lives and the well-being of their fellow creatures, the animals. Nobody is allowed to cause pain or harm to an animal without an acceptable reason.
Yet immediately further down it reads:
The office of nutrition and farming is entitled to define the respective requirements of animal keeping according to §2 as far as the protection of animals is concerned (…)
In other words, §2 is nothing but the authorization for farming to adapt the law for the prevention of cruelty to animals to its purposes.
According to §1, it is permitted to cause pain, suffering and harm to animals if there is a reasonable motive for it.
And the motive to cause pain to an animal (i.e. killing it) for the purpose of feeding humans may seem reasonable.
Yet, no reasonable justification can be found to mutilate animals in order to make them compatible for intensive livestock farming. Except you regard a bigger profit for the animal production lobby as a reasonable justification.
It is impossible to describe all the cruelties that happen day by day in a million ways behind the tall walls of animal industries.
Those who have watched the video "Simply. Live. Consciously." will probably have been shocked at the habitual practices of fattening stations, which show no respect for the life of animals and will understandably question their reasons for doing so.
Many of us assume that the animals are allowed to live comfortably, that they are sufficiently taken care of and fed and that in the end they thankfully give their lives.
But in the course of the last few centuries the Crown of Creation found has found out how it can make the production of animals more simple, more effective and more profitable...
Man has found out that the meat of male pigs has an unpleasant smell or taste. So someone had the brilliant idea of simply cutting off the animal's testicles so the respective hormones could not be produced. In addition, Homo sapiens realized that anaesthetics were too costly for that purpose so they simply do without them.
This is why, in the USA alone, about 50 billion piglets are castrated without any anaesthetics. It is only in 2019 that castration without anaesthetisation is scheduled to be forbidden. Yet it is complicated to supervise prohibitions in animal production anyhow.
This is just another example that shows how absurd this industry is altogether. Why – for heaven's sake –- do we slaughter 1.4 billion pigs every year when their meat does not actually taste good?
Another "brilliant" discovery was made by the Crown of Creation when they observed that pigs on fattening stations often bit off each other's tails. Why they do so has not yet been fully examined, but it is supposed that it is to do with the animals' sexuality.
There is one simple solution to that problem: cutting off the animals' tails as a measure of prevention. Of course, the costs of anaesthetization are spared, too.
One day, when he was looking at his milking cows which were kept in tie-stall housing on a space of 2 to 3 square metres for their whole lives farmer, Cowlove had an idea: "I could save space if the cows did not have those big horns. Another advantage would be that the cows would not be able to hurt each other so easily when they strike out with their heads to compensate the lack of movement."
Thus farmer Cowlove had the idea of removing the young calves' horns by burning out the horn buds with a hot iron or by pulling them out with a pair of pincers. Sedation? No, it costs money and anyway, the consumer does not know about this procedure.
Another stroke of genius was to realize that hens can become extremely aggressive when they are crammed together and stacked one upon another. In such a situation they can badly hurt each other – and it would cost money to lose chickens. They hurt each other by hacking with their sharp beaks. So somebody had the brilliant idea to simply cut off the beaks, the chickens' most sensitive organs. This could be compared to cutting off somebody's fingertips. However, the consumer does not need to be concerned about this when he is adding eggs to the dough or when he is eating chicken.
In some European countries like Germany this practice is to be forbidden from 2017 onward. So it is still a long way to go for billions of chickens.
But instead of being glad that some cruel practices will be stopped for certain animals, the consumer gets angry about a possible price increase by a few cents.
Would it really be a problem to pay a few cents more? After all, the consumer has enough money available when he wants a new car, a new cell phone, a new tablet or a new TV or fashionable clothes.
But it is exactly when it comes to our diet, which obviously plays the most important role as far as our wellbeing is concerned, people want to save as much money as possible.