- Jun 4, 2012
I am talking about the hormones and antibiotics. And IF we were railroaded into accepting US standards it would go further than just meat. It allows additives that the EU has banned to be used etc. Anyway, back to the footy.Its a tricky one for me. I don't really eat meat anymore tbh so that probably skews my view a bit.
On one level I kinda feel if you're eating an animal that's been slaughtered specifically for your delight then fannying around the margins debating what's acceptable and humane is rather missing the point. It doesn't mean I don't find the intensive farming methods of the big american farms particularly repulsive but it's really just another shade of shite when push comes to shove.
If you're talking about the antibiotics and that kinda shit then I guess I lean towards the "you don't have to eat it" argument....presumably a niche would remain whereby those who really cared could pay more to eat meat of a better provenance. I dunno, perhaps that's a bit naive and there are wider implications. I haven't given it masses of thought. I get turned off the argument when I hear the "Chlorinated Chicken" claptrap tbh...spouted in horror by people who have no problem walking in a supermarket and buying a bag of prepacked salad that's gone through the exact same chlorine-wash process.
Again it all boils down fundamentally to why should I trust European legislators as opposed to my own to decide what's in my interest? Yeah you can argue the relative economic size of the EU can act as a better buffer against lowering of standards but, for me at least, it aint worth the political cost...I'd rather just watch what I eat.