Wasn't the greatest film on this topic (I liked Supersize Me better) but it did have some great eye-opening scenes that hopefully caused viewers to walk away with a different attitute towards the meat industry.

When I read the NY Times article I was also really frustrated that the most effective solutions were not mentioned: eating drastically less meat and improving the animals' conditions and diet. More humane practices typically lead to fewer disease outbreaks.  Common sense to me but I suppose not to those obsessed with cheap and abundent meat supplies.  

I was glad though to see some pretty graphic pictures of cow carcasses in slaughterhouses in the online article and was impressed that the Times had the bravery to publish them.  Their readers deserve to see the truth.  

I know the meat producers are working hard to gain efficiencies to boost their bottom lines.  It involves wasting huge acreage and energy growing corn and soy to feed cows.  It involves wasting enormous amounts of water.  Of course, being that they have such a small bottom line, they can't be held responsible for their wastes either.  But I have a suggestion that I think could solve the whole thing.

I've been reading more and more about how cows are being fed chicken shit.  That seems like an obvious inefficiency to me.  If they can take soybeans and make soyburgers out of them without using the inefficient cow, couldn't they make chickenshit burgers the same way?  Just add a little water and some binders and then all the meat eaters could eat chicken shit burgers.  They say it's perfectly healthy...high in potassium or phosphorus or something.  

Shu pas a vende.

Ha!  John fM, chic cela!

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

good article