Does anybody know why veal has a worse reputation compaired to forms of factory farming? To me it seems that chickens have it off the same or poorer.

The impression I get is that ordinary people might know only that it is bad, but they dont know why. Or they know its bad but they dont know where their other food comes from. Is it from the media?

Well veal is baby cow... Also chickens are seen as dumb(er than other animals). But I don't think most people know that that meat is bad. If they would think so, they wouldn't buy it.

But apart from this, I don't know if one can say which animal has it "worse". All animals in agriculture have to endure suffering and eventually slaughter, and IMHO there's no real sense in comparing their lives. It ALL should go away.

Does anybody know why veal has a worse reputation compaired to forms of factory farming? To me it seems that chickens have it off the same or poorer.

The impression I get is that ordinary people might know only that it is bad, but they dont know why. Or they know its bad but they dont know where their other food comes from. Is it from the media?

Veal is "worse" cause:

calves are kept in confined spaces, preferable so they can hardly move.
This is to prevent the muscles from developing and get soft meat.

Calves are fed special food to give them iron deficiancy or to keep them close to it.
This is to get nice "white" meat.

The bad rep that veal has is because the baby cows are generally kept is worse conditions than regular cows, and to get the pale colour, the cows are fed a low-iron diet. Stuff like that.

personally, my grudge is with the chicken industry. I see it as being worse than veal. I've seen some slaughterhouse footage, and it's not good. And cyberactivist's accounts from his time when he was a slaughterhouse worker have pretty much reinforced my views.

Things I've read in books like The New Ethics of Eating have convinced me that apart from beef cattle (whose lives are slightly less horrifying before they're sent to the feedlot), all food animals have basically equally torturous lives. Crowding and isolation have different but equally damaging effects.

I think the real reason veal calves get more attention is because:

1) They're cute little babies.

2) Most people don't eat veal very often. It's not that difficult to give up veal because you don't have to sacrifice very much. On the other hand, most meat eaters eat chicken regularly, and giving it up would be, for them, a big sacrifice.

I think the real reason veal calves get more attention is because:

1) They're cute little babies.

2) Most people don't eat veal very often. It's not that difficult to give up veal because you don't have to sacrifice very much. On the other hand, most meat eaters eat chicken regularly, and giving it up would be, for them, a big sacrifice.
Also, veal, like fois gras, is expensive, or at least seen as a higher class meat.

I cut this out of an AR leaflet years ago:

HOW TO PREPARE VEAL

* First, take a baby calf from his mother.

* Place him in a stall 5' x 2', making sure he cannot move (even stretching his leg can ruin the flavor).

* Feed him milky gruel 2-3 times a day.

* Season with antibiotics and hormones to taste.

* After 15 weeks, remove the calf from stall, kill him, and eat him.

Sick, but true. Saw a Boycott Veal bumper sticker today on my way to work - made me smile!

As far as edible animals go here is my personal hierarchy:
Bugs
Fish+
Reptiles
Birds+
Four Legged Mammals+*
Two legged Mammals

+ Animals I would actually consume under normal circumstances.
*There are a lot of four legged mammals I wouldn't eat, such as dogs, cats, and horses.

I dont understand your list. Is the top what you consider the most edible or the least?

:cry: Poor Babies :cry: All babies should be with their mommies! :cry:

My personal hiarchy of animals I would eat under normal circumstances:

1________________________
2________________________
3________________________
4________________________
5________________________
6________________________

I dont understand your list. Is the top what you consider the most edible or the least?

In my list the animals at the top are the ones I value the least and the ones on the bottom are the ones that I value the most. You knew that though.

My personal hierarchy goes:

Vegans.
Vegetarians.
Omnivores.

That's not to eat, though. That's who I would save if their lives were in danger.

I would agree on the "chickens have it worse" thing after having read cyberactivist's Web pages. But I'm not sure about this, since I haven't read the other forms to compare - maybe I'm just being too optimistic, i.e. thinking that there possibly cannot be anything worse than what I read about the chickens.

I hate comparing animals, but if I had to choose (in some odd situation) between fish and mammals and birds to eat, I would select fish. (And not solely because I would remain vegetarian in that case.)

(By the way, as regards Kurmudgeon's list, if we happen to be utilitarians (i.e. supporting an ethical system which attempts to quantify harms and benefits to all affected), that is the list we would probably choose. At least if the cases were general (so that we wouldn't have the information that the vegetarian is some kind of an extreme altruist, etc.) Don't know why I mentioned this, though, since I'm not an utilitarian.)

This is a support forum. That means it is not for debate i.e. expressing views antagonistic to veg*nism, AR or animal welfare. The compost heap is acceptable for debate.

To bryanweatherly:
I think there has been a mistake. This is a vegetarian forum. "hint" "hint"
Where r the :notvegan: when you need them?

they booted our friend Bryanweatherly.

I think I would agree with Bryanwearthly's post (which appears to have been deleted, although is qouted in majake's reply).

I tend to value the lives of cows over chickens over fish. In a lifeboat situation, I'd save the cow. As for which suffers more, I don't know.

I thought veal and foie gras to be two of the cruelest forms of meat because the animals are not permitted to move, etc.

I thought veal and foie gras to be two of the cruelest forms of meat because the animals are not permitted to move, etc.

Laying hens in battery cages are not permitted to move. Sows are often kept in tiny spaces so that they can't even move to avoid crushing their own piglets. I really do think that it's easier for many people to focus on luxury items like fois gras, veal, fur, etc., because, though these animals do suffer horribly, most people can give up these indulgences very easily and feel like they're doing something good for the animals. Meanwhile, they continue to eat beef, chicken and pork, knowing that it's not right but purposefully remaining ignorant so they can continue their accustomed lifestyle.

When I was travelling on a train with my mom and brother, our meal was a choice between veal or salmon. They both looked at me guiltily and mumbled something about, "Eating veal would be really wrong, wouldn't it?" and chose the salmon. And I guess salmon don't suffer as much or as long as veal calves, but HELLO, you're still killing them and eating their dead bodies.

I really do think that it's easier for many people to focus on luxury items like fois gras, veal, fur, etc., because, though these animals do suffer horribly, most people can give up these indulgences very easily and feel like they're doing something good for the animals. Meanwhile, they continue to eat beef, chicken and pork, knowing that it's not right but purposefully remaining ignorant so they can continue their accustomed lifestyle.

Exactly. Although it's a good thing that they do even that. I sometimes wonder whether AR information should concentrate more on medical animal experimentation than cosmetics animal experimentation, because the former gets less attention.

don't get me wrong, killing is killing, and it's if it has a brain and nerve endings, you can't justify one moreso than the other. but still, the poor little babies. :cry:

I sometimes wonder whether AR information should concentrate more on medical animal experimentation than cosmetics animal experimentation, because the former gets less attention.

But most people who would support an end to cosmetics testing are much less excited about the prospect of banning, say, cancer studies. It's easy to switch to a different brand of lipstick, but if you asked most people, they'd be perfectly willing to kill a puppy if it means saving their mother's life. (Obviously, the real issue isn't exactly like that, but that's how most people see it.)

You're going to be have much better luck getting people to stop eating veal than you will getting them stop eating hamburger. You're going to have much better luck getting people to stop wearing fur than you will getting them to stop wearing leather. You're going to have much better luck getting people to stop using cosmetics tested on animals than you are to get them to stop using medicine tested on animals. Start where it's easy and work from there.