You must log in or register to comment.

AllanfromWales1 t1_iqrx2w3 wrote

What, you mean the general public doesn't have the same level of understanding of animal husbandry practices as those in the industry?


Darth_Kahuna t1_iqs8htr wrote

Exactly this. Does anyone expect to have the same understanding as pharmaceutical chemist about what goes into making medicine? Does anyone like what happens to animals that are needed to test on to help ensure the safety and efficacy of these drugs? Nope. Do we say to ourselves "I would love a cruelty free method of medical drug producing but, guess what, it's what we have and I am OK w it as I will not stop using medicine for everything from headaches to chemo."

This is the same w consuming animals. Sure, if you could grow meat in a lab for equal cost, taste, and nutrition, wo no weird side effects, I would choose that. If not, I'll choose the cow in the field. Just like taking aspirin, etc. for a headache I could live w, I do not choose to eat meat but I do so bc I can and want to. I reject the baseless ethical assumption that it is my responsibility to manage the suffering of animals.


ElectionOver4Hours t1_iqs5a6c wrote

To be honest, you can't really name an industry where the average consumer knows more about it than people working in it. And, therefore, have different viewpoints about said work


[deleted] t1_iqsvi2p wrote

Both groups call it a slaughterhouse. That pretty much tells the story. It ain't euthanasia, or hospice care, or genocide - oh wait, it is genocide, just not people.


BL4NK_D1CE t1_iqt0rki wrote

It's not genocide, it is a form of eugenics though. Which is equally awful


AutoModerator t1_iqrw8jt wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


Meatrition OP t1_iqrwai5 wrote

Differences in public and producer attitudes toward animal welfare in the red meat industries

Grahame J Coleman 1, Paul H Hemsworth 1, Lauren M Hemsworth 1, Carolina A Munoz 1, Maxine Rice 1
Affiliations expand
PMID: 36172237 PMCID: PMC9512227 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.875221
Free PMC article

Societal concerns dictate the need for animal welfare standards and legislation. The public and livestock producers often differ on their views of livestock welfare, and failure to meet public expectations may threaten the "social license to operate" increasing the cost of production and hampering the success of the industry. This study examined public and producer attitudes toward common practices and animal welfare issues in the Australian red meat industry, knowledge of these practices, and public and producer trust in people working the red meat industry using an Australia-wide survey of both the general public (n = 501) and red meat producers (n = 200). Public participants were recruited using a random digit dialing telephone survey (Computer-Assisted Telephone Interviewing) while the red meat producers were randomly selected within a curated database of Australian red meat producers. After controlling for gender and age, there were marked differences (p < 0.01) between public and producer respondents in 20 of the 27 attitude, trust and knowledge variables studied. Producers reported more positive beliefs in the conditions provided for sheep and beef cattle during sea and land transport, the husbandry practices used in the red meat industry, and red meat attributes regarding human health, environmental impact, animal use and animal welfare. Both public and producers reported similar levels of trust in conventional and commercial media and had similar beliefs about animal rights, prevention of animal cruelty and balancing the welfare of people and animals. The results indicate a polarization between the public and livestock producers in their attitudes toward animal welfare, knowledge of husbandry practices and trust in livestock people.
Keywords: attitudes; farm animal welfare; general public; knowledge; livestock producer; trust.


TerpenesByMS t1_iqwfd62 wrote

So this study is claiming basically that:

  1. General public have worse opinions of meat industry than people in the meat industry

  2. This means unfair regulations get in the way of business? Unclear.

  3. People in the meat industry believe they are being nicer to meat animals than the general public.

For #3, did the researchers measure how many justifying beliefs people in the meat industry had for continuing to slaughter animals? Bandwagon effect is a big deal, and people will explain why their bad actions were OK a bunch of different ways as long as others are still doing it. Some famous psychology experiments showed us this.

Without turning over the stone of why these survey results come out this way, we are painting an incomplete picture and presenting it as complete, eh Meatrition?

Look, I get the point about how Temple Grandin, etc., had a positive impact on animal welfare in the meat industry. Sorta like gas chambers were an improvement over ovens for the slaughtered during the Holocaust. Pardon the visceral analogy, everyone. This whole line of reasoning about meat workers being kind to animals that are raised for slaughter is one of the most striking examples of mass denial in human history.