I am a little worried about how this thought of mine, which has started meandering around the channels of my mind, will be received. I am reluctant to share it because it touches on a subject about which many people feel passionate. These days free-range, Fair Trade, organic and, of course, vegetarian products are popular and widely available. They raise awareness of vital issues in our global society and they encourage a healthy consideration of our fellow beings, both human and non-human. The fine tuning of these questions and the deliberations that go on around them (concerning use of chemicals, carbon footprints, light pollution, healthy eating and so on) can become complex and labyrinthine. However, through them all, a healthier, juster way of living is placed before us for our consideration and action. Not everyone reacts in the same way and there are many varieties and shades of response.
One of the valid responses to this question has been the development in a number of countries of so-called 'happy meat'. One can consider all the issues and decide to become a vegan or vegetarian; some of us simply draw the line at eating veal, battery chickens or foie gras; others decide, after all, that life is too short, the issues too complex and plough doggedly on, enjoying their diet of steak, veal or cheap hamburgers, with no questions asked. Alternatively now one can choose a careful mid-way point along the line of argument and opt for happy meat, meat derived from animals whose albeit short lives have been deemed to be happy: well-fed, well cared for, free to roam in the fresh air and the green grass. A happy solution for all concerned. Or is it?
I am one of those people blessed with a rather quirky, inquisitive approach to things, an interest in linguistics and logistics and a penchant for pulling things apart and asking 'why?' I've always been like that. Some find it irritating, others endearing. Take your pick - I am at the mercy of my readers. Anyway, the question that keeps meandering around my head is a simple one really but it may have consequences. It may be flippant; it may be a touch politically incorrect, but I will ask it all the same - just to raise the question and keep us all on our toes, and if I make anyone cross with me then I apologise...
"Why?" I am asking. Why is it better to kill and eat the happy heifer who is busy minding its own business, chewing the cud, enjoying the open fields and the sunshine, than its neighbour, cooped up in indescribable conditions in a dark, cramped barn, miserable and waiting to die? Why kill and cook the blissfully happy pig, wallowing in soft mud and happy as a 'pig in clover', and not that other miserable specimen hurtling up the motorway in its overcrowded lorry, fighting for even a breath of air through its little pink nostrils? Euthanasia for pigs? A happy release for force-fed geese or turkeys? Why not? Why eat the happy pig and leave its miserable neighbour to suffer? Why not leave the free-range turkey gobbling in the farm yard this Christmas and gobble its unhappy relative from the factory farm?
I am missing the point, you all cry. You are right but I am loathe to spoil the fun of all those happy animals. The point, of course, is to encourage all farmers to strive for happy herds, delighted ducklings and cheery chickens. It's a fine cause and I'm all in favour. But it is a long process and, in the meantime, should I really choose to eat the happy ones and reject the rest? What sense does this apparently worthy choice make?
No comments:
Post a Comment