Europe has some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world. One of the most common fears our readers have of an EU-US trade deal is that European standards might be lowered by TTIP. Readers worry that factory farmed, hormone-treated meat could flood the EU market, changing the character of European food and agriculture.

We had a comment sent in from Satsuma, who argued that Europeans should “stop mass producing meat in factory farms“. She’s not the first reader to suggest this. In fact, we’ve had several comments along these lines; arguing that intensive animal farming (sometimes called ‘factory farming’) is bad for both the environment and animal welfare.

Industrial animal farming has been called ‘the worst crime in history‘. Is this hyperbole? Is it based on emotion rather than scientific evidence? Animal welfare monitoring and standards tend to be relatively strong in Europe (though they are certainly not perfect), so is there really a problem?

To get a response, we spoke to Ulrich Adam, Secretary General of CEMA, an association representing the agricultural machinery industry in Europe. How would he respond?

adamI wouldn’t agree with the statement, in the sense that I don’t believe that industrial farming should be minimised. However, I would agree that there are quite considerable environmental challenges in the agricultural production chain that we need to address. The question is, however, whether industrial farming is a way towards greater environmental protection. Or is it, as some of your readers suggest, doing more harm than good? And I think that’s where we should have the debate.

Well, we’re not ones to shy away from a good debate! So, to get another perspective, we also spoke to Dr. Daniel Berckmans, a professor at the Catholic University of Leuven whose research focuses on the automatic monitoring of livestock, plants, and humans. What would he say to Satsuma?

berckmansIf we are talking purely about the environmental impact, then I have to disagree. Because if we look at the available scientific evidence, then it is absolutely not true [that intensive animal farming is worse for the environment]. For example, if we look at the greenhouse gas emissions from scratching hens kept outside, compared to indoor-kept hens, there is a big difference regarding the environmental impact, and the outdoor-kept hens are the bigger emitters.

When it comes to animal welfare, it is the same thing. For example, battery cages look awful. And yet the evidence suggests that if we give hens a lot of space, their health and welfare does not improve. In terms of health, the big problem is infections from wild birds that come into the pasture where the flock might be, or from rodents. Indoor-kept hens avoid these health problems.

There is also a lot of evidence in terms of animal welfare, which can be evaluated by animal scientists… We don’t see that there is greater welfare among hen populations kept outdoors. When they have a lot of space, they can escape and be harmed outside the farm, and in a small space they cannot fight with one another.

So, we should not make judgements based on our emotions, but rather based on the scientific evidence. And, for me, it is frustrating that science is so marginal in the debate around food.

Should intensive animal farming be banned? Or are the environmental and animal welfare costs being overstated? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: Copyright / BigStockPhoto – roibu


394 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. avatar
    Daniele Lusetti

    Of course yes..It’s,first of all, insane put a lot of animals in small spaces..Secondly intensive animal farming represents a great threat to public health according to the massive use of antibiotics and the consequently growth of new species of bacteria which can easily survive against normal drugs

  2. avatar
    Simion Truta

    If you think that initially was about making money and now it’s unconsciousness what then? Coz not too many farmers were kept godfathers with to feed entire cities with no fonancial interest!

    • avatar
      Joao

      Moronic to say the least. 743.1 million people can be fed in other ways other than using industrial factory animal farms. Not to mention the catastrophic environmental destruction caused by this industry which are diminishing the arable land, polluting aquifers and rivers, creating ocean dead zones, etc. So to say that we need industrial animal farming is nothing but a narrow minded temporary solution that will eventually eliminate our future capabilities to grow food. “Save” 743.1 million today, compromise their entire future and food security tomorrow.

    • avatar
      Shauna Murray

      nobody’s going to starve by not having meat, eggs or dairy everyday.

  3. avatar
    Tim

    I completely disagree with the statement. Intensive animal farming is by far the best and most efficient way of production.

    There are some environmental disadvantages, but they can be minimised with innovations. Animal welfare will also not increase by stopping intensive animal farming as mentioned above.

    So unless we want to take even more of the earth each year or make meat only affordable for the rich, intensive animal farming is currently the best solution.

  4. avatar
    Duncan

    I’d agree that it’s cruel. But I’d also ask what the alternatives are? Also, there’s that term “intensive” which I troubling. Just how much space are they given? I don’t think the problem is kept indoors or outdoors, I’ve been to farms where hens were kept indoors and they looked healthy and happy, but they had plenty of space still. So I think the indoor/outdoor argument is totally invalid, the argument should be about how much room the animals have.

  5. avatar
    Maria João Ramos

    Intensive farmer is morally and ethically wrong.We can feed people otherwise.

    • avatar
      Duncan

      How? I’m not asking to be scinnicle here, I’m wanting to know the other options.

  6. avatar
    Miguel Matos

    If animal intensive farming is banned from EU, then countries will import those products from non-EU countries with much less standards when it comes to welfare.

  7. avatar
    Spiros Kontogiorgis

    Yes and furthermore there should be very strict rules about everything that has to do with nutricion. It;s a matter of health people!

    • avatar
      Alex

      You worry about your health, and let me worry about mine. I don’t go into your plate, and I expect you to stay out of mine.

  8. avatar
    catheriine benning

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w7TCmJUD7g

    Listen to this link to the end. It explains how we are being poisoned by our own governments, under excuses. Eat only organic food you see growing the food you want to look and be like. Buy local and never touch fast food. For this is what you are eating when you do.

    This is poisoning us all. It is also changing the shape of our bodies. As, you are what you eat.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDo5c-ksmRs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yD4kpLiA2Qo

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDN-QeVhQTc

    And now we know the reason so many human beings are bloated and swollen. They look as if they are on some kind of huge growth drug. They are. They are eating this sick animal and its meat is killing them.

    And we stand by and let them do it to us.

  9. avatar
    Michael Šimková

    Greater animal welfare standards should be enforced, even if it raises the price of meat. Halal and kosher slaughter should also be banned.

    As a middle ground measure, the EU should do what it does best: invent a new label for free range meat, so we can choose to support it.

    • avatar
      Duncan

      You mean people with spare income could support it? I’d have to also strongly disagree with you on the subject of religious butchery being banned.

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      @ Principii Liberale

      What you have written is rubbish. If you swell the population of small countries, through, say, mass immigration, to a point it is overwhelmed with people, then, yes, you have less land mass to produce food that is needed for survival.

      However, the waste of food in Europe is atrocious. And this is where they should start a programme putting an end to it. The banishing of massive supermarkets would be a good start.

      Then, if we ate more vegetarian products, often grown by individuals themselves there would be a surplus not a famine. Additionally we all eat too much. There is another education we should be considering.

      We should not be shipping food around the globe the way we are at the rate we are, that too is wasteful and detrimental to the ecosystem.

      Grow locally, feed locally. And are you telling us ‘Africa’ doesn’t have enough land mass to feed its population? As well as India, North and South America? Please, your observation is an excuse to feed greed.

      Our food production is horrific and it is that way because of financial greed ‘not over population.’

      However, I agree the planet has far too many people that is disturbing the natural environment, which if not addressed will be the end of civilisation as we know it. That in itself will rid the planet of too many people.

      Which means our Earth will, as it has always done, take measures to right itself. Which it has already begun to do. As observed by the sciences.

      And lastly, another thought, why are there so many starving people on the planet? Because, many of them refuse to get off their arses to feed themselves. They are constantly looking for a benefactor, rather than taking the effort to be their own producers. And that is because our world leaders are incompetent idiots with no vision or answers. Intellectually deficient all of them.

      Israel took the desert and irrigated it, making them able to produce their own food. Others, with the knowledge we already have can do the same. Oh, I can hear it now, the cost. Well we find the money for arms and war that costs far, far more than any of this, but, again, greed puts an end to innovation and solution.

  10. avatar
    Weinberge Alain

    Yes, need to be BANNED ! It is a animal abuses , is toxic for animal health and humans ! Is against ancestral breeding mode of our ancients !

  11. avatar
    Victoria

    It’s high time to stop it.

  12. avatar
    Radek Szyroki

    Is there even one legitimate reason not to ban this abomination? Please, let’s just be done with this already – it’s inevitable anyway. Can we be on the good side of history for once?

  13. avatar
    Dan Andrei Ciocoiu

    Of course animal farming should be banned, but also understood. There’s plenty of evidence about the environmental impact, as UCS nonetheless regards animal husbandry is an important problem facing our efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change. http://bit.ly/2d620m5. Also, there are lots of questions to ask about ethics! We don’t even need to talk about the impact these products have on our health, the scientific journals are full of studies and evidence that a plant-based diet can help prevent and even reverse some of the top killer disease.

  14. avatar
    Margarita Soto

    Yes..promote private small farms well controlled and with appropiate conditions for de animals

    • avatar
      Duncan

      To make enough room to feed hundreds of millions of people using small scale farming you would either need to implement a minimum living occupancy of 100 per house (a gestimate figure, please don’t judge me for it) in order to knock enough buildings down to make room for it, or strip every patch of wild forest to create sufficient space for the crops and grazing land required. That would clearly have a detrimental effect on the environment. Can you please give us an idea that could work? The only one I can think of is population reduction, but I’d rather see billions of chickens cooped into tiny spaces than people, and I’d rather see billions of chickens cooped up than to make everyone in Europe draw a straw with a 50% chance of them picking a short straw and being executed for the sake of some farm animals to have a better lifestyle. Seriously, has anyone got a good option?

    • avatar
      Florian Haydn

      I would just ban any use of antibiotics in animal farming. If the farmers can manage the intensive farms without they may continue.
      But banning the antibiotics in farming is imperative not only for the health of people who eat the meat, but for all people in the population.

  15. avatar
    Syra Stoica

    Imi plac dezbaterile dar fermele imense nu ! Imaginati-va daca da o molima in asa ceva Credeti cafermierul va accepta paguba imensa ? Nu ne va vinde carnea de la animalele bolnave vezu episodul din Germania cu ferma cu dioxina !

  16. avatar
    Masha Olenic

    That would be great. Maybe if meat becomes much more expensive (due to improved conditions) then people would also stop overeating it. Which is good for the health.

    • avatar
      Duncan

      And who exactly says we’re overeating meat? Because frankly, protein is essential for mussel and brain development, meat is protein (amongst other things). Are you saying we should let ourselves become weak and stupid? Before there’s some kind of comeback about medieval diets being lower in meat intake, I’d 1stly point out that wasn’t true of the wealthy, and since they included the blacksmiths and knights who were amongst the strongest of the time period. But also the common folks were eating fish, so much so in fact that in England a law had to be passed banning the eating of fish everyday. Nowadays fishing conservationist laws would stop fish from being a suitable alternative to meet for the masses. That and the fact if 50% of the population were eating fish everyday then we’d run out of fish within a few spawning cycles.

  17. avatar
    René Zahra

    And then how do you feed the ever growing population? The real proble is that this earth has nore people tha it could support.

  18. avatar
    Cezar Barcan

    Este un lucru benefic pentru patron mai ales,,,,,dar nu pot fi sigur cat de sanatos este acest produs,,

  19. avatar
    Παυλος Χαραλαμπους

    There is a kind of chicken that is nicknamed here in Greece “free bird ” or trump ,wild, chicken etc.. And it’s expensive very expensive, actually same people can’t afford to buy it or simple can’t find it in cities like Athens usually to find it you have a contact (!!!!!) to the countryside.. So if the cheaper mass produced food is to be baned the people in the cities what they going to eat????

  20. avatar
    Andrei Pufu

    Banned? Mno, it’s not quite a good idea. It has, however, to be very very well regulated.

  21. avatar
    Evangelos Koumentakos

    Intensive manipulation of information in order to cover up your inability to address the real issues, such as thé transport scandal. This should be banned.

    Why don’t you report correctly and compare scales, numbers, safety, animal welfare differences in laws between EU and third countries, such as US or Argentina, China ?

    Are you so lame and under the influence of the car lobby? Only yesterday tens of thousands of people demonstrated against TTIP because, because among others, there are concerns of lowering European standards. …

    New tou come blasting european agriculture?

    Incoherence at it’s best. Very low …you can do better.

  22. avatar
    Jean-Pierre Rosa

    It seems a lot of people here think its either or. INTENSIVE animal farming is harmful and excessive meat consumption is bad for you. Clearly we need a middle ground on both.

    • avatar
      Alex

      Again, you worry about your health, and I’ll worry about mine. Stay out of my plate.

  23. avatar
    Gottlieb Florian Von Eck

    No ! We need food at affordable costs ! Those who prefer “bio” or “eco” let them pay the price ! Also, it will be a good idea to authorize genetically modified organisms !

    • avatar
      Duncan

      Would it? So, you have the ability to see the future and genetically modifying plants and animals won’t have a detrimental effect? Just off of the top of my head, bacteria which have an extremely short evolutionary period may well have to become more volatile to exist in GM farm animals, the potential of creating a super virus that would kill off the entire human population. It’s not a good idea to do something without being aware of the damages it could cause.

  24. avatar
    Els Fatalist Von Kampenholz

    Yes, yes and yes. The main reason why people still consume animal products is because they are not aware of all the pain and suffering that animal farming brings to animals. Start with real pictures on milk/egg/meat and fish food packaging in stead of the lying happy pictures and see how the sale of those products will very probably collapse.

    • avatar
      EU reform- proactive

      ………….than, shouldn’t (human) abortion(s) be banned first and seen to be championed by those who claim the moral high ground on everything- whilst the EU is gripped by an unstoppable banning mood and considers to extend humans rights to animals as well?

      Wouldn’t that be fatalistic and weird? What else to curtail besides simple personal food choices and curtailing sovereignty? Maybe an EU supranational feedlot and “brainlot” for all brainless humans?

  25. avatar
    Ana Mac

    o gajo da universidade como seria de esperar so disse bacorada. Mas comportamento e bem estar animal à parte, sim, é um grande disparate andar ha tantos anos a impor custos acrescentados ao produtores Europeus para terem um produto diferenciqado (teoricamente melhor), para depois deixar entrar à descarada produto de fora muito mais barato. É querer rebentar com a nossa economia de vez. Está tudo literalmente entregue à bixarada…

  26. avatar
    Amanda Antunes

    No as it is scientifically controlled in safe environments but a big NO to the use of antibiotics or any trade agreements with the USA

  27. avatar
    Liliane Luginbühl

    YESSSS… don’t eat so much meat my dears !!!!

  28. avatar
    Andra Ciocoiu

    Yes, of course! Animal agriculture is linked with more then one problem we face today as a specie and community. From climate change to health related issues, from lack of sustainability to ensure enough food for the entire planet to the ability to produce fatal diseases ( that can be prevented with a whole plant based nutrition). And least, but not last, from pursuing ideas of ethical treatment and moralities (see Peter Singer: The ethics of what we eat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHzwqf_JkrA). I think we need to reassess the situation in which we enslave and slaughter billions of creatures for our own desire, pleasure or need. We need to look at the science behind, and there is plenty of information regarding this topic, just one exemple: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19942280 . Or at least, we need to read articles that explain the science, like this one regarding Questions about Climate Change and Agriculture: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-change.html?_r=3). We need to better understand our bodies, to see how some of us react to products provided by the industry and we need to care, because we know today that animals are sentient being with consciousness, who understand suffering and feel pain, as much as we do, as pointed out in this Cambridge Declaration: http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

    • avatar
      Duncan

      Groovy dude, hug a rainbow. But in your world view, when people no longer eat meat. What happens to all the cows, chickens, pigs, goats, sheep, ducks, geese, ostriches and so on and so forth that only exist in such large numbers because we eat them? Put them all on the endangered list and say, well at least they’re not suffering!

  29. avatar
    Milena Minkova

    Yes, intensive animal farming should be banned.

  30. avatar
    Eduard Tiron

    Y’all gon’ eat all the possible bullshit that’s probably really bad for your health to replace the meat

    • avatar
      Andra Ciocoiu

      not, if you eat whole plants, vegetables, legumes, fruits, seeds and nuts!

    • avatar
      Duncan

      @Andra, I eat plants, vegetables, fruit and nuts and meat. And I’ve got to say, I don’t think I could get the same amount of nutrients by dropping meat. I think in fact the amount of vegetables I’d need to eat to compensate for dropping meat from my diet would actually mean I’d need to have access to extra time for eating every meal. Something I don’t actually have. And even if I did have that extra time, there are things I’d sooner spend that time doing than chewing food. Like spending more time exercising, spending more time with my daughter and other loved ones. Spending more time doing overtime so I can more easily afford to exist in the economic situation I’m living through. People are omnivores, not herbivores. Substituting meat in the long term in any way other than by eating fish, eggs and dairy will have an impact on our well being. Then there’s the fact that no bacon substitute tastes like bacon.

    • avatar
      Andra Ciocoiu

      @Duncan. Well, plants are full of nutrients and if you eat different kinds of them, you will get plenty of nutrients. Actually, from what I’ve studied so far, the only thing we can get out of meet, besides taste, is vitamin B12 (a bacteria wich can be found in soil, feces or animal and human intestines.) Although, some studies suggest that farm raised animals lack that bacteria, and omnivores can also have a deficiency. Protein is quite important, but our body decompose it in amino acids, so we can obtain the same amino acids from plants, but in a different way. I’m not a scientist, but I try to read the scientific literature from doctors and nutritionist that are active in this field and I also try to share their suggestions. And also, we weren’t all the time omnivores, in the past, some of us ate mostly plants, and a few bugs along the way, others were carnivores or scavengers, but from what I’ve read so far, indians have a great rate of veganism. Of course, I don’t say to trust my words, just be opened and look also at the benefits from cutting out meat. And besides, I’m not suggesting that everyone should dump meat, but maybe the one that is coming out of industrial farming is not that great for our health and planet.

    • avatar
      Dan Andrei

      @Duncan @Andra In terms of nutrients and vitamins you should definitly go with a whole plant based diet, actually vegans may have fewer nutrient deficiencies than average omnivores while maintaining a lower body weight. We should be conscious that our number one killer today is heart disease, and elevated cholesterol levels is thought to be the primary cause, this may explain why a plant-based diet, which is free of cholesterol and saturated animal fats, has been so successful in preventing and treating the disease, our problem is not a lack of protein intake, which if we check the latest scientific journals is actually healthy for us. Contrary to popular myth, vegans have healthy bones and higher blood protein levels than omnivores. Also, most vegans get more than enough protein.

      According to Michael Greger M.D. “Eating just one egg a day may exceed the safe limit of cholesterol and has been linked to a shortened lifespan. Eggs are so high in cholesterol that the Egg Industry cannot even legally claim that eggs are “nutritious”. Big Egg is not the only industry attempting to mislead about the health consequences of their products. Meat may increase heart disease mortality and fish and fish oil supplements may not be as heart-healthy as once thought, due to contamination with mercury and industrial pollutants. Chicken and fish consumption may have the same negative impact as red meat on our cholesterol. Dairy may increase heart disease risk because dairy products are the 1 source of saturated fat in the American diet, which the dairy industry has attempted to convince the public is untrue through misleading campaigns. The heme iron found in animal foods may also increase heart disease risk.” (see also: http://bit.ly/2cR1qLr) While most of the plant foods are protective against heart disease…

      Will we not loose more time and money afterwards? But, as Andra pointed out, I don’t think this discussion is about health, we should consider animal welfare, but unfortunately to these animals that are suffering, our taste plays a bigger roll in our decisions, compared to what philosophers think about ethics, or compared to what scientific journals say about environmental impact and health.

    • avatar
      Duncan

      @Andra, yes mainly plants and insects was the diet of homo erectus. You may as well go back further in evolution and say when we were single celled organisms we didn’t eat meat in any form.
      I’m not saying it is impossible to survive on just plants, but my sister, her husband and youngest son have been vegetarian for a few years now and it’s shocking just how frail they look compared to when they ate meat. I highly doubt someone with a manual job such as mine could survive on this diet. And I’m certain you’re overlooking my comments about length of time taken to get the required intake from plants alone. Are we to become grazers, constantly needing to top up our nutrient levels? My job wouldn’t allow me to munch away through the day and I’m certain I’m not alone in that.

    • avatar
      Duncan

      If that isn’t compelling just look at the giant panda, evolutionarily speaking, it’s a carnivore. Because it’s switched to a vegetarian diet it’s on the brink of extinction and can hardly ever find the energy to reproduce.
      I agree, farming intensively with animal size being bulked up and mass fed hormones or routinely being given anti-biotics is almost certainly not as good for us and the animals in question when compared to a hunter gatherer system. But in order to get that level of quality of life for the animals and us we would need all land mass on the planet to be able to support large game in large numbers, no deserts no frozen wastelands no inaccessible mountain ranges. Or we’d need to dial back the population of people living on earth by billions. Until technology progresses to the point we can (it’s a sci-fi term, but the only one that fits) terraform other planetary bodies that we can live on, or get the entirety of this planets landmass as rich and lush as a Kentish garden we have to find another way to feed ourselves or we need to scrap the whole concept of peace and human rights so we can cull our own numbers.

    • avatar
      Duncan

      @Dan, if meat eating doesn’t impact on muscle development why would body builders eat it? Why in fact if it had no impact for the positive would our ancestors starts eating it? You can cite as many findings as you like, but they won’t detract from what is evidenced in everyday life. I’d also like to point out that doctors used to prescribe tobacco, now it’s bad for us. Plus, I recall reading somewhere that due to soil contaminations vegetables may well be responsible for cancer, your argument that eating meat will ultimately kill us is futile, since eating just plants won’t make us immortal but as I’ve said elsewhere it would mean that we’d have less free time while we are alive. You think I could eat enough plants in my 20 minute lunch break to get me through the remaining 4 hours of work that involves heavy lifting?

    • avatar
      Dan Andrei

      @Duncan, Yes, meat helped us evolve, though there were cultures that lived on vegan diets, others that eat meat and some that applied cannibalism. Studying what our ancestors eat is helpful, but we usually refer only to the paleolithic times, we should also consider the miocene era. I think me and Andra we are not saying that we didn’t adapted to eat and digest animal products. I think we should just consider our present lifestyle and situation, we need to point out that today a vegan diet doesn’t consist just some leaves and a few berries. If one chooses, the diet could include beans, seeds, greens lots of protein, vitamines, antioxidants, for the brain if you want, as Andra mentioned proteins aren’t so special that you can get them only from meat, the proteins are decompose by our body in amino acids, and we can actually choose from were to get the amino acids.

      Yes, there are actually many vegans today on whole plant based diets, that are performance athletes and bodybuilders. But, we should think about the general sedentary lifestyle, we should talk about heart disease, obesity, today the lack of proteins won’t be a problem in developed countries. If one wants to hunt like lion, ok… although he won’t have so much success. Maybe one lives in the North Pole sure then, that’s something else… but that’s not how most of us live.

      I need to point out that bodybuilders doesn’t necessarly represent a healthy individual, and it’s not what the primates did in the joungle. We should all reflect more on our arguments, if these are based on scientific evidence or are they protecting our own beliefs.

      I’m really glad you mentioned tobacco, you’re totally right! And, unfortunatelly I think that is exactly what is happening today in the food industry. Did you know it took almost 6000 studies until the public opinion changed? That is bad news, we all know that, I just hope we won’t make the same mistake again, people die today of these diseases, animals sufer, we should all try more to implement what science knows about nutrition, about climate change and about animals.

      Duncan, I really belive that plants could get you through a 4 hours of work that involves heavy lifting, just follow what professional vegan athletes eat today or bodybuilders. What I recommend in your situation is lots of beans (quinoa, lentils, amaranth, chickpeas, etc) and flax seeds, best source of omega3, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds etc and greens of course. You will notice that you will recover much faster, and you will probably loose fat, but if you have a good diet, you won’t loose muscle. Oh, and black berries for the brain! If you want for carbon footprint, shop locally :)

      P.S. I’m on a vegan diet, for nearly a year and a half. I didn’t experienced back and knees pain recently, no constipation, less allergies, less fat and my analyzes are overwhelming good! I feel strong, energetic and I’m in a good mood. I didn’t noticed anything bad, and I consult the doctor a little more, compared to an average citizen, because I had a 5×5 cm tumor when I was a child, but it’s a happy story, lucky me! Overall, I feel much better then before, but that’s just my experience, so don’t take it literally, but do check Michael Greger, if you want, he brings lots of researches from the field of nutrition to a larger audience. :)

      Ah, that was long, maybe you got bored… :)

    • avatar
      Duncan

      @Dan, that’s a long list of things to be able to gulp down in 20 minutes. I really doubt I’d be able to manage it. Normally a sandwich is all I get time for (yes I’m risking the gluten from the bread. Let’s not get tangled up in that.) also, I’m not particularly fat and certainly not obese by any stretch of the imagination. According to my last check up I’m within my height to weight ratio to be considered “healthy” I think you are taking one extreme of an average American diet I believe you said earlier to prove meat is harmful to you, I’m not suggesting a meat only diet, or indeed a diet of mostly meat. As I said, I eat a full and varied diet that includes meat, and other animal products. You mentioned allergies, honey (animal products not allowed by a vegan diet) helps immensely with my hay fever (for anyone wanting to try this you need locally sourced honey, not mass produced honey). What’s more, under your suggestion it wouldn’t be possible to live by the guideline of 5 a day, since this would clearly not be sufficient intake. So the guideline is wrong?

  31. avatar
    Aleksandra

    Yes, intensive farming should be banned.

  32. avatar
    Gatis Gailitis

    No. We know exactly what we are doing and we know that chicken is a live being when we eat it. Only thing we can and have to do is not take the piss out the animal while it’s alive. Not torture it and not pump it with food and hormones. Rest of it is our human nature.

  33. avatar
    Patricio

    2050 = 10.000.000.000 people…

  34. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    .

    Only if your plan is to start yet another crisis is the EU by starving the population.

  35. avatar
    Leonardo Monteiro

    Definitely yes, besides creating more jobs and a more ecological approach to animal farming, it is our ethical obligation to do so. If we are using this animals in our benefit we have the moral obligation to give them a decent life.

  36. avatar
    Dimitris Kitsanelis

    How many days of us on western world of stopping eating chicken pieces are enough to cover the needs of starving to death world? We can continue animal farming only as far as it is used to cover exclusively their needs. Fair?

  37. avatar
    Γιωργος Πατερας

    If you say yes please also give an alternative. Otherwise don’t comment at all. Most stupid decisions have been based on exactly that, angry people (for what ever reason) arrogant people making decisions without giving alternatives.

    • avatar
      nando

      The alternative is “non-intensive farming”. Open range farming. Small farmers. Less meat in our diets. Simple alternatives. As to the very poor, they cannot afford “intensive-farming products”. They need a alternative, such as localized production by their own communities.

    • avatar
      Alex

      Again, you worry about your health, and I’ll worry about mine. Stay out of my plate.

  38. avatar
    Gediminas Bau Glumanas

    Who said YES for BAN, are emotional silly, think only about itself and never had no food on it’s table. BAN is bad word! Should we eat less meat and animal fat if it’s a lot of other food around – YES, ban whole meat industry – NO. Make industry more peaceful and respectful – YES. Should the people from EU south with warm climate and vegetarians, warm climate born religions followers dictate the people who live in the snow and -30’C outside in wintertime, without meat and animal fat? It’s stupid and BAN is stupid. :)

  39. avatar
    Miguel Cruz

    Yes, it should be banned! Each “intensive farm” leaves hundreds if not thousands of farmers jobless, farmers that otherwise would raise animals in a more humain and responsible manner. Not to mention animal cruelty, animals being fed with garbage, chemicals, hormones and antibiotics and the whole ecological disaster intense animal farming provoques. And I am not a vegan!

  40. avatar
    Любомир Иванчев

    Yes. It’s not only unethical because of the extreme cruelty to animals, but its production is of poor quality compared to animal products from free range farming. The prices will go up, but it’s better to have quality food that costs a bit more than eat cheap junk.

  41. avatar
    Peter Nicko'lay Canseeheart

    :) I am starting my comment with an emoticon smile because I am not there.
    First of all, be patient enough to see how much parts/sides/issues of the theme had been covered in the comment and do not hurry to start answering/opposing.
    Money issue is the first thing I will tell you about. It is just the simpliest and less important. We need to have better (also*) self efficient producing – a man for himself like. That depends of the level of satisfaction on All levels. That way we will be sure when we start having or upgrading the social/collective form of doing things – especially also the safety, trustie and security issues. We just need the time to react to every stupid situation and be sure how its connected with us and our “business”. We need to improve, to ask for help or leave the people to do their things also. That is all the way to be able to leave the self -destructable, nature – killing machine that do not work so well. It is improving, serious (and nicely fun) people are overwhelming and yet we need to do more. Why self-destructive and what can we do? Species are physical forms of existance. Pure science with no misteries in it can easily tell us that the moving of things is creating themselves or other things. We can not afford to ruin logically same thing as ourselves which are actually other species. Plants are not animals. Plants are- in my opinion – part of the physics rather than biology, if you know what I mean. Then we can also go to medicine. Check Dr. Michael Greger’s page nutritionfacts .org and the connected collegues of his and you will realize that animal-foods are actually showing (I ment slowing but fine,touchpad “editor”: )) our body down in the walk of health and good life…ok, whatever about that I am not a professional in it. So, that is also the best way to reach our full potential, which is to reach the full capacity of adequate interaction with nature and between eachother. We may had had deevolved and the reason you see to had been this difference in the outside look and intellectual difference of us and the other species is most likely that. Or eternal growth as a goal – if that is what nature can, no matter how little logic we see in it as possibility. A lie is one of the possible reasons for “all” that and not only power. That is why technologies are our witness and not only people. NEver! Unless we actually have lived a thing with the witness himself. So, think again is the answer yes or not. For me it us an yes in exactly this form.

  42. avatar
    Thomas Hou

    Of course it should. The EU should stop financing animal Farming in General and support plant based alternatives which are healthier and more sustainable

  43. avatar
    Hristo Iliev

    Yes, but in only highly polluting sectors. This way products price will rise and consumption (and pollution) will be reduced by this. In meat/animal production yes. In agriculture, partly no, partly yes.

  44. avatar
    Matteo

    The very short answer is “Yes.”. If you want to learn more about the topic and discover many things that maybe most of the people just don’t know, I strongly recommend to watch the French documentary-film “Demain” (“Tomorrow”).

  45. avatar
    Matteo Rando

    For me, the very short answer is “Yes”. If you want to learn more about this topic, and sustainability in general, I strongly recommend to watch the French docu-film “Demain” (“Tomorrow”).

  46. avatar
    Donal Mc Laughlin

    Animals must be in the fields with fresh air and eating and drinking better than filthy rotten factory

    • avatar
      nando

      Yes!

  47. avatar
    R

    Industrialised, intensive animal farming should be banned outright, if we are to take climate change seriously. The planet can’t afford animal production at current levels. Industrial-scale beef, dairy, lamb, pork, & poultry production, is abusive, cruel, pollutes the environment, is resource inefficient & all studies demonstrate negative impacts on human health. Factory farming is a lose-lose situation for all but the corporations who control & perpetuate this awful industry. If we want to feed the world’s hungry, stop using precious land & water resources that grow animal fodder, & use it to grow fruits, veg, grains, beans, nuts, seeds & pulses for humans instead!

  48. avatar
    Ainhoa Lizar

    Yes, ban the intensive farming and consequently rise the food prices and keep the borders open. And the hunger games shell begin!!

    • avatar
      SBMontero

      The intensive breeding of meat and fish allows access to food for the majority of the population, animalism does not interest me, or children who eat every day in a dining room of a public school and that is an irrefutable truth.

      Food quality? Not true, animal proteins have the same quality in a poultry chicken as in a farm chicken, another subject is the taste of meat, but the quality of the proteins is the same.

  49. avatar
    Nando Aidos

    Absolutely YES!
    Isn’t cruelty against animals already unlawful or in the least, considered pathological?
    What is the difference between intensive farming and animal cruelty?

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      .

      There is a massive diffrence.

      You do one to feed the masses and kill the other for fun.

    • avatar
      Nando Aidos

      You do not need intensive farming to feed the masses.
      That is a fallacy created by the intensive farming industry.

    • avatar
      SBMontero

      I tell you in the commentary that repeat below, but the difference is in access to food such as meat and fish by the majority of the population and not only by a few. And that is a human numerical evidence, not animalistic elucidation.

  50. avatar
    nando

    Absolutely YES!
    Isn’t violence against animals already unlawful?
    What is the difference?

    • avatar
      SBMontero

      The difference is in access to food such as meat and fish by the majority of the population and not only by a few. And that is a human numerical evidence, not animalistic elucidation.

  51. avatar
    Arnaud Louis Muller

    No. If we ban it food prices will go up and the poor will suffer. Either you’re rich and you can afford free-range breeding or you’re not and intensive farming is your only option.

    • avatar
      Karlo Definis

      Prices would go up because the same company that makes it in Europe would now have to move to turkey… almost the same amount of animal cruelty would occur.

    • avatar
      Nando Aidos

      The poor do not eat “intensive farming” products. They cannot afford them. Rich people are the ones who call for lots of food at low prices.

    • avatar
      Andrea Morrone

      If you’re poor and you can’t afford free-range/organic/km0 or whatever humanly-bred meat everyday, then eat more vegetables! I do not want my EU to tolerate this horrific industry anymore just to “feed the masses”. Let the animals live and die with the dignity they diserve. That kind of farms use nothing different than torture in concentration camps, nothing different! No good for any living being. I do not want to be part of that horrible chain. Eat less meat.

    • avatar
      SBMontero

      Totally true.

    • avatar
      SBMontero

      Arnaud, totally true.
      Madis, Do you say children in public school canteens eat too much? Arnaud don’t lie, you do it and from the most absolute ignorance.

    • avatar
      Cristina Zamora García

      Andrea Morrone it indeed shouldn’t be tolerated, but to say that if you’re poor you should eat vegetables would only make the gap between poor and rich bigger. It’d take us back to when poor people couldn’t even eat meat. Being poor is not a choice so please don’t make it so simple

    • avatar
      Natalie Bee

      Right! because according to you the gap consists in what you eat and not in the conditions to get qualified education, fair job opportunities, health and housing! BTW eating vegetables is actually healthier than you might imagine. Instead breeding chickens and pigs and cows with steroids, hormones and without guaranteeing them conditions like space, food and treatment (’cause most of them get sick in those horrible conditions) is much better as food for poors! Brilliant, it’s an amazing reasoning

  52. avatar
    SBMontero

    First, we must differentiate. While it is true that agreements such as the TTIP aim to eliminate and limit European regulations about hormones, antibiotics, or fattening systems against which Europeans have rebelled because are demonstrably detrimental to the health of the population -it isn’t necessary to speak about transgenics because the scientific evidence is overwhelming-, this has no relation with the prohibition of intensive breeding of meat, or fish. It is to mix things that have no relation.

    When the intensive breeding of meat food or fish is called the worst crime in history refers to a supposed ethics in relation to animals that forget in an interested way that without the intensive breeding of meat and fish food the majority of Europeans could not access these foods without paying much higher prices. Proof of this is that meat and fish that don’t rely on intensive breeding are prohibitive prices, many of them only have outlet in gourmet stores, or in specialized markets.

    It would also be good we ask ourselves who promotes the ban. In general, animalistic groups that, for the most part, are vegetarians, vegans and crudists. There is no evidence of food science that supports their claims, however there are in the opposite direction, and that is irremovable, like them or not.

    As far as the impact of intensive meat and fish farming on the environment is concerned: Much progress has been made in this regard, the regulations are increasingly being adjusted so that the impact is minimal, and will continue, so unless the European Parliament decides, against the wishes of all Europeans, to approve the TTIP. We all know how the United States is in that respect and, having changed the presidency and the majorities in the United States chambers, is likely to get even worse.

    There isn’t more to say about, at least from the logical and scientific point of view, I imagine that from other esoteric and visceral points of view yes. I’m not interested.

  53. avatar
    Karlo Definis

    You do realize it is legal to eat animals and make shoes out of them right? Kinda hard to draw the line on cruelty after that.

    • avatar
      Nando Aidos

      There is another front to address, yes. And one does not justify the other.

    • avatar
      Karlo Definis

      I see your point but surely you can understand how something that is to be made into a shoe will not receive five start treatment right? The point that people who say yes here should be arguing is : ban animal cruelty. (That includes killing and eating) THAT is the step 1.

  54. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    .

    Feed 7 billion people via none intensive farming methods ?, only in the dreams of vegans.

    • avatar
      Nando Aidos

      How many of these 7 billion eat to live, not eat to binge or get fat, “intensive farming products”? Not industry stats. Serious, honest to goodness, independent sourced information.
      Let’s get the statistics straight. Not bombastic statements.

    • avatar
      Nando Aidos

      And let’s add food waste as well. It all counts.

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Nando Aidos

      There are already 780 million people undernourished in the world, how many would you like to add to that number ?

    • avatar
      Natalie Bee

      And you think giving them poisoned meat is going to solve the problem? An ancient chinese proverb says: don’t give starving rice, teach them to cultivate it. One of the reason is drought in most places where there’s a problem of starvation

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Natalie Bee .

      Who is eating ‘poisoned meat’ ? lol

    • avatar
      João Machado

      Fallacy. You need 14 calories of veggies to produce 1 calorie of flesh. Not to mention the immense amount of fresh water that animals consume, the consequent contamination of aquifers, the creation of ocean dead zones, all the very expensive economically and humanly health problems related to the consumption of animal protein… The list goes on and on. Dont get me started on animal rights.. Enough excuses.

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      João Machado

      Ok, I won’t lol

    • avatar
      Arkadiusz Kowalik

      Ivan Burrows, EU is 0.5 bn people and it’s one of the richest group out of the 7bn you mentioned. The change has to start in the developed world.

    • avatar
      Ivan Burrows

      Arkadiusz Kowalik

      There are 440 million people in the EU, are you really going to feed them all on free range chickens & chickpeas ?

  55. avatar
    Viorika Motoi

    Should stop producing meat in factory is more important health of people and cuality of life!

  56. avatar
    Ivan Burrows

    Arkadiusz Kowalik

    There are 440 million people in the EU, are you really going to feed them all on free range chickens & chickpeas ?

  57. avatar
    Elie Awad

    Yes but with also putting a limit to birth rate on a global scale otherwise there will be no solution to feed 7 billions people

  58. avatar
    Iván Marsh Whateley

    yes we should have a more responsible enviroment-friendly farming. that would be good for local market and employement in all overthe world…. butotfor corporations that domain Europe… :(

  59. avatar
    George Papadache

    no. we,as a race,cannot rely anymore on the ‘what would be, would be’ type of farming. it is like saying we should not plant crops, and yet expect them to grow

  60. avatar
    Olga Kikou

    There can be no other way than banning factory farming. It is extremely harmful for the environment, climate change, land degradation, deforestation, biodiversity loss, farmers’ livelihoods, public health and of course, animal welfare. The feed used by animals in factory farms requires vast amounts of land, excessive use of resources and agrochemicals. In addition, human edible crops are used to feed animals, not people, resulting in food insecurity. Moving away from factory farming, should be accompanied by a very significant reduction in the consumption of animal products and an increase in consumption of plant based foods. Olga Kikou, Compassion in World Farming

  61. avatar
    Magdalena Wagner

    Yes! Not only for treating animals with some respect, but also to protect our own health: the preventive use of antibiotics in intensive animal farming is one main reason for multi-resistant bacteria, threatening our health. And no, we don’t need to starve: growing vegetables needs less space and less energy. And if we would be able to use all this land that is currently used for growing food for intensively farmed animals, I am quite sure we would very well survive without starving. Eating much less meat is of course necessary!

  62. avatar
    Shauna Murray

    Yes! While I do think it is natural for us to eat meat, the way we go about producing it is not natural! Confining animals in indoor spaces is wrong. If animals are going to be farmed then it should be done in a way that gives the animal the most natural life possible. It should be done in a way that the animals best interests are looked after not the humans. It should be done in a way where the animal has some sense of freedom and not having the focus on producing more meat/eggs/milk. Having meat everyday is something we can and should sacrifice so that animals can lead decent lives. People need to stop abusing their power and realise that animals are not ours to do with as we please.

    • avatar
      Tchoum Xav

      You got a bit of google search to do…

    • avatar
      Ante Radnić

      Extensive farming is cheaper, only prices are high :)
      If you have, for example, a heard of 100 cows and they are all the time in enclosed space. All the time you need invest energy to bring them a food, water, to clean them, to keep them cool… On the other hand, in free-range, they are on pasture all the time. You don’t invest almost nothing. Growth is slower, but meat is better.

    • avatar
      Sárdi Csaba

      But that would mean less meat .. wich means more expensive.

    • avatar
      Kirstie Mamoyo Rogers

      Sárdi Csaba less meat is better for humans and better for the environment.

    • avatar
      Sárdi Csaba

      Sure it is..I don’t think you ever felt hunger. All this goodi-goodi EU bullshit is just that: bullshit. Go eat your cabbage and stop telling anyone what should and should not do. Fukushima is there, petrol no problem and you tell me about not eating meat is good for the environment.. I’d kick your ass if yo were in front of me.

    • avatar
      Ante Radnić

      No, it’s not less meat. It’s less milk and more meat. But, there is huge area of highland in Europe where we could grow cattle, sheeps or goats. Also wetlands in continental part. Untill end of 70-ths all villages in pannonian part of Croatia had their own pasture area, jet today they are all converted into a crop-fields. Only problem is that most of them are in some wet-land, so if there would be any interest they could be easily coverted back into a pasture. And it would be more productive.

  63. avatar
    Alex Casalboni

    It must be..For a better food quality and healthy. Buying to local farmer give more work and you know what you eat.

  64. avatar
    Ante Radnić

    Yes, for sure. Europe has eneaugh space for pasture where we could grow cattles, sheeps, pigs or goats. It’s same thing with poultry. We don’t need industrial food, our capatities are more than enaugh to fill up all our needs.

    • avatar
      Pedro Castro

      Kirstie Mamoyo Rogers we had never been so many and before intensive farming there was quite a lot of famine!

      Can we live without it at this time and age?

    • avatar
      Matteo Santus

      Absolutely. 1 kg of meat needs more than 10 times the land and resources needed for 1 kg of vegetables/fruits. No only we can, but we MUST if we want to save our planet and first of all ourselves. To remove famine, we have to remove intensive farming.

  65. avatar
    Jean-Daniel Zomou

    Not necessarily ban, just regulate it. I understand meat lovers and their cravings, what I don’t understand is the over production and the waste!

  66. avatar
    Bogdan Prisoschi

    YES! And please implement a law to stop the population from raising. 2 children per family! PLEASE! Overpopulation leads to intensive farming, that leads to polution, and so on. There is strong evidence that supports my affirmations. But the real question is: does the EU really care?

  67. avatar
    Rosy Forlenza

    well emotional reaction is absolutely it should, however, how it should be done needs to be carefully thought out. undoubtedly the taste in terms of eggs and chickens is in the rearing methods. One way to deal with this is to encourage smaller holdings that work on cooperatives rather than corporates. emiglia romagna had one of the most successful cooperative farming methods and could be looked at as a model. I don’t eat meat, but i would like to think that dairy and eggs are produced well, with a quality of life and a quality of product.

    • avatar
      Natalie Bee

      right, because you being raised in a dictatorship have no idea about having opinions, discussing them and reach a wise, widely-accepted decision. unless someone tells you top-down what to do you’re lost. but you see some people have evolved (thankfully) and would prefer to debate like in the old greek polis to make sure at least a good majority is part of the decision

    • avatar
      Александър Михайлов

      Well, no, I’m seeing people trying to push a narrative and hide european authoritarianism under the guise of free and open debate

    • avatar
      Veselin Kukenski

      EUSSR much? Debates are important as long as they stay on the important topics. Otherwise they become a distraction.

  68. avatar
    Любомир Иванчев

    Even though it is a very cruel practice, it is currently the main reason for affordable prices of animal products. If it is banned the prices of eggs, milk and meat will go up. And when basic food products get more expensive, this leads to inflation.
    So in short – no, it shouldn’t.

  69. avatar
    Sara M

    I think we’ve become so dependent on eating meat on a daily basis. 70 years ago in Portugal people didn’t eat meat everyday, simply because it was too expensive. If you were lucky to have a pig, you would kill it and make the meat last for up to a year. This insanity of eating meat on a daily basis must end, if not for the environment at least for your own health. What are the costs of meat eating related dieseases going to cost all of us?

  70. avatar
    Cedric

    Yes!
    Meat production should fall drastically. The problem is not the well being of the animal but the emmissions and polution the animal creates

  71. avatar
    Frauke Brodkorb-Kettenbach

    Yes, please, ban this insanity

  72. avatar
    Eleanor Young

    Yes. Intensive farming should be banned. Animals should be treated with respect.

  73. avatar
    Eszter Megyeri

    I think animals deserve a decent life even if they are kept for consumption purposes.space,good food,natural light-we should stop immediately keeping them in cages and close them in small spaces.
    also we have to ensure crueltyfree way of killing-many scandals revealed in europe,and it is only the top of the iceberg

  74. avatar
    Guido Formisano

    Difficult to say yes or not. Since the future world population we will need industrial food production for sure. Since that we are humans we should do in smart way in order to improve the product quality and considering all the necessity for a suitable method.

  75. avatar
    Mi

    Yes.
    Stop cruaulty. Respect the animal. Let us have respect for ourself and stop eating to much without thinking about what we really eat. Let us stop the trade managing our life. The animal is a person. Don’t forget it.

  76. avatar
    Belamie Versco

    ban antibiotics for those mass-farmed animals and see how many survive: then you know how many should actually be farmed in one space. ;)

  77. avatar
    Sylvie

    I agree that we should ban intensive animal farming : it is disrespectful of the animals, it encourages huge farms with the only objective of making money, hence jobs in farming activities disappear (when you milk 2000 cows on an automatical platform, you only need one person to push the button of the milking machine), the buildings where those animals are kept degrade the landscapes where they are built, plus all the reasons already written by other participants to this debate : the intensive use of drugs, the poor quality of the flesh of the animals due to the stress caused by a lack of space and unnatural growing methods…. the list of arguments is probably even longer.

  78. avatar
    paul johannes

    this is the animal holocaust. It is so terrible. torturing animals, locking them up without being able to move!!! locking them up without daylight!!!!
    this is the Holocaust. Pigs even go to gas chambers in the end. Did you know that? After being locked up in cages so small where they could never walk their whole lives!!!!!!!!! for those who didn´t know. It is insane. it is so insane, if there is no ban soon, there will be violent action against them. It is a bigger holocaust than world war 2. these concentration camps are not millions, but billions of insane torture and murders. It is crazy. try showing people the cruel footage of inside factory farms and they look away. they cant see the cruel and horrors. Try it, see it on youtube. The crazy lies that a human needs to eat that meat to live healthy are still believed by uneducated people. Meat is something you should only eat if there is no other option. You may only kill an animal if you really have no other food. And there is so much food.
    Locking animals up in concentration torture camps and then eating their meat just for fun is something you should be punished for. The farmers and investors should be economically destroyed and serve long jail times for insane cruelty.and murder.

    • avatar
      Dr. Zeeshan Ali

      Very well said Paul!

  79. avatar
    Matteo Santus

    Of course we have to ban it as soon as possible. 20% of CO2 emissions come from intensive animal farming, wich dramatically impacts the environment in many other ways: soil (for animal food), water, feces. Humans have to eat few meat, but of high quality, not the opposite.

  80. avatar
    Dr. Zeeshan Ali

    Both Daniel and Ulrich are giving naive statements about factory farming. Factory farming is unethical, cruel and dangerous to human and environmental health. Factory farming should be completely banned. Factory farming chickens are forced to eat through a 24 hour cycle, chipping their beaks so that they cannot fight with each other in jam-packed cages, given a tons of antibiotic to fight infections and tons of growth hormones are given to them to grow quickly. All these toxins end up in their muscles and eggs and ultimately they enter our body if we consume them!

  81. avatar
    Tierschützer1987

    love eating chicken

  82. avatar
    Ivan

    Pro EU Europeans are obsessed with banning things without having a viable alternative to offer, please remember a little thinking goes a very long way.

    • avatar
      João

      I dislike the EU almost as much as you do Ivan and I’d ban this holocaust any second. The alternative? A transition to a system of food production that doesn’t destroy the soil, doesn’t contaminate aquifers, doesn’t deplete the oceans, eliminates animal suffering and provides quality food with bigger yields. Permaculture, vertical farming, hydroponics, etc. There are many alternatives.

    • avatar
      Paulius

      How about you lose some weight?

    • avatar
      Robin

      Paulius I would, but the vegetables are so damn expensive.

      3 euro for a kilogram of tomatoes? Have we lost our minds?

    • avatar
      Adrian

      Paulius typical soviet attitude. Why give people bread when they can starve.

    • avatar
      Robin

      Adrian He’s just a troll.

    • avatar
      Paulius

      Soviet attitude? Dude, you’re stretching far lol. And no, I am not trolling. If you look only for cheapest products regardless how they are made and what impact it has on the environment, you kinda deserve shitty health.

    • avatar
      Robin

      Paulius, my weight was not part of the conversation. You, deciding what’s best for me/ us/ others is.

      Part of the problem is the attitude you are having: let’s save the environment no matter what.

      How about we find realistic, practical solutions, shall we?

    • avatar
      João

      The irony. You get your “affordable” food today at the expense of other’s lives, get your expensive medical bill tomorrow. Plus you better start thinking where to get clean water and fertile soil to get any food whatsoever in a near future. Thank you industrial farming for your “cheap” food and environmental destruction. Message for the next generation: We knew what we were doing, we did it anyway. Screw you!

    • avatar
      Robin

      So, if we make it expensive, will it be more eco friendly?

  83. avatar
    Ludwig

    please with less Hormones, Antibiotics and more space for the chickens

  84. avatar
    João

    Now! But that won’t happen in this economic system, too much money involved.

  85. avatar
    Alex

    No. We need affordable food, and we need to approach this without stooping town to argumento ad passiones.

  86. avatar
    Athena

    What happens to the millions of animals that no longer are needed if intensive animal farming is banned? ….. I believe that would result in mass slaughter on an epic scale. Farmers would not be able to sustain feeding and managing their stock. Millions of people will loose their jobs, economic chaos would be inevitable.

  87. avatar
    David

    It should be made visible, so people are informed on the amount of suffering that it causes.

  88. avatar
    Michael

    Yes, intensive farming is needlessly cruel. It will also help encourage uptake of cloned meat.

  89. avatar
    Amalia

    Innecesario sufrimiento de inocentes animales
    Innecesario aumento de cánceres de colon

    Unnecessary suffering of innocent animals
    Unnecessary increase in colon cancers

  90. avatar
    Christine

    If we are to stand a chance curbing climate change we will need to eat a lot less meat

  91. avatar
    Noelle

    We have a choice, If we all eat less meat ….much less…and choose free range, cook our own meals from scratch ,choose bio, etc. then it might help…I say might…in the meantime regulations to ensure a healthier future for people and nature should be put in place.

  92. avatar
    Ivan

    Only if the aim of the policy is to starve to death millions of people.

    • avatar
      Ben

      Or we can actually use the food we use for these animals for human consumption and we have a plethora of food extra and no animal suffering!

    • avatar
      Ivan

      Ben Good luck telling 6 billion people they are going to have to eat grass comrade.

    • avatar
      Ivan

      Ben Good luck telling 6 billion people they are going to have to eat grass comrade.

  93. avatar
    Miguel

    The kind of farming being intensive or extensive has nothing to do with animal welfare standards. You would be surprised by how high animal welfare standards can be in certain “intensive” farms. And at the end of day they have to be high because healthy and “happy” animals are more productive, being the only way to make it in a very competitive industry.

  94. avatar
    Sheila

    Just ask yourself. How are you going to produce enough food to feed the nation. If you keep banning mass production ?

    • avatar
      Ivan

      mass production produces more food than needed or that we can eat. :/ many is destroyed

  95. avatar
    Anonymous

    You eat something else. I’m working right now in a cattle station in Australia with 50000 cattles. Never been vegetarian but I have a lot of respect for people who are and I’m seriously thinking about that right now. Also, it is true that intensive meat farms are one of the major cause of pollution on the planet (more CO than all the transportation sector produce in one year comes from this). You don’t starve to death not eating meat and for sure you don’t starve to death if you start consuming only one fifth of the meat you eat nowaday.

  96. avatar
    Teresa

    Yes, of course and public subsides have to be banned to animal farmers. And it,s necessary put in jail for years farmers who are guilties of animal abuse. Stop impunity

  97. avatar
    Teresa

    I have become vegan 3 years ago. I,m 56 years old. I don,t want to have nothing in comun with animal farming, nothig, it’s cruel, it,s greedy,.. I don,t want than my taxes go to this concentration camps

  98. avatar
    Matthew

    It’s a difficult question, pitting the ideal results and intentions against the harsh, cruel reality of how it would end up.
    Just drink Brawndo, it’s got what plants crave.

  99. avatar
    Ivan

    What number of deaths would be acceptable to you if this idiotic idea was implemented, 1 million, 10 million, 100 million, more ?

    • avatar
      Uli

      Ivan yes, the advance of europe is based on cheap kfc chicken. Everyone knows that

    • avatar
      Ivan

      Uli As its’ Sunday I prefer roast beef, mixed vegetables, mashed potatoes, Yorkshire pudding & onion gravy myself with Spotted Dick, clotted cream and custard for afters, but each to their own. 8|

    • avatar
      Uli

      So who exactly will die then?

    • avatar
      Ivan

      Uli mostly those living in the 3rd world, are you ok with that or are you volunteering to take their place ?

  100. avatar
    Sándor

    Playground of the spoiled rich

  101. avatar
    David

    With less meat consumption they wouldn’t be necessary.

  102. avatar
    Quiterio

    Then only the rich ones could eat fried chicken.

  103. avatar
    Nikolaos

    you don’t want intensive farming? Find a way to reduce the population

  104. avatar
    Ana

    Yes together with teaching another food culture based on combining our needs with Terra’ sustainability.

  105. avatar
    John

    Yes let’s all starve to death, then go Chinese, forcing all European families to have only 1 child so that there are less mouths to feed and the chicken race may be free from enslavement and tyranny . Activist logic always rules.

  106. avatar
    Aubrey

    Yes. We can easily meet meat production required by consumers and businesses without intensive farming. Moreover, the health benefits to omnivorous humans will be significant

  107. avatar
    Στέργιος

    Of course. Life is to be respected.

  108. avatar
    Hilke

    Yes. But we as consumers need to be prepared (and able) to pay real, fair prices for well-produced food. That will mean changes in lifestyle for most of us. Both changes in legislation and altered consumer behaviour are necessary to achieve this.

  109. avatar
    Sárdi

    And what will we eat than? Food is expensive as it is in some overrated countries as they are now. eg: rumenia. So, no, it should not be banned.

  110. avatar
    Stuart

    Ye, it’s pretty horrific tbh

  111. avatar
    Sheila

    Do you want the nation to starve?

  112. avatar
    Sándor

    Who needs cheap food anyway?

  113. avatar
    Chris

    Replaced by what, lab dummy food ?

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

More debate series – Food for Thought View all

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.