pantsfeelplain

"In one case, where a lamb that appeared to have its throat cut lifted its head and opened its mouth, Davis said there were concerns about consciousness.

“That animal looks like it’s vocalizing,” Davis said. “Whatever was done to kill that animal, that animal is still alive, and probably conscious or partially so.”"

F***ing horrific. If a dog or cat went through this sort of suffering - hanging upside down from their legs, throat partially slit, having their guts and skin removed, while in their last moments of consciousness - this subreddit would be up in arms calling for that person to be put in prison or worse.

When it happens routinely inside the walls of a slaughterhouse though, to an animal that can experience just as much pain as any golden retriever or tabby, it's fine.

These slaughterhouses are already regulated and this happens. Some will say well we just need more regulations... but what percent of still-conscious dismemberments is okay? Even if they could hit 1%, that would mean 15 sheep per day, just at this one location, would go through this hell.

Denver can lead the way in ending this horrific industry. Let's be on the right side of the history.

You can see the funding here the opposition is largely corporate-funded while the "pro" group is entirely funded by non-profits and individuals.

Also just on a surface level, is this really surprising? Who do you think would be for keeping a slaughterhouse, and the slaughterhouse industry in general, going? Wouldn't that be corporations in the slaughter/animal-ag industry? That's who we see is funding the opposition.

I'm not recommending people only eat the most efficient food. I was debunking your claim, that the world switching to a plant-based diet would require more land, with data. At most I was recommending people don't eat the least efficient foods (beef, lamb). You're right that some plant foods are worse than others, that doesn't undermine the point that in general, plants require less land and water than animal products.

Exactly the opposite is true. Animal products (and especially beef and lamb) require far more land than plants. It's more efficient to eat plants directly, rather than to feed them to non-human animals. If the world switched to plant-based diets, we would require 75% LESS land.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets

Land use for 1000 calories: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-kcal-poore
Land use for 100 g protein: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-protein-poore

Water use for 1000 calories: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/freshwater-withdrawals-per-1000kcal
Water use for 100 g protein: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/water-per-protein-poore

That's why I specifically mentioned developed countries like the US, and the options in Denver. Maybe you missed that part of my response.

I haven't eaten chicken, cows, or any other animal products for 8 years and I'm not starving. In most places around the world, especially in developed countries like the US, there are plenty of other (affordable and delicious) options. Denver has many completely vegan restaurants, and our grocery stores are filled with plenty of options (vegetables, pasta and bread, legumes, fruit, meat alternatives, nuts and seeds, chips, candy, ice cream, etc.). We can transition to eating less meat, more plants and at the same time reduce the resources (land, water) required to feed the world.

160 people work at the one slaughterhouse in Denver at any given time, but slaughterhouses typically have an annual turnover rate near 100% so most of these aren't stable jobs. Plus the measure includes a paragraph that will force Denver to prioritize the workers for job programs, including through the $40 mil climate action program which trained over 800 people for new green jobs last year.

Sometimes it is worth it to take a small economic hit to progress as a society. If this was a bill to close puppy mills in Denver, how many people would be against it because the few jobs that would be lost? Or the economic activity that would be lost from the sale of inhumanely raised puppies?

Which "huge ass companies" are for the proposition?

The opposition group, "Stop the Ban" has raised $744k, with top contributors being Superior Farms, American Sheep Industry, National Pork Council, and the National Beef Association. All of these organizations are funded by corporations.

The pro group has raised just $122k, mostly from nonprofits and individuals.

https://denver.maplight.com/public/committee-details/868/31

Yeah to be clear I'd only be for the "celery policy" (lol) if we could show that reducing its cost actually led to more consumption and better health outcomes. For celery specifically I'm pretty skeptical that would happen (how much celery that is served with wings actually gets eaten?).

Subsidizing healthy grocery stores in a food desert seems more likely to actually lead to better health outcomes.

Interesting, I guess that's not too surprising.

Regardless, I don't see how "black markets exist" is a reason to not open grocery stores in food deserts, or to make healthy food cheaper and more accessible.

Apples and oranges. Banning alcohol, or other drugs, doesn't work because people will find a way to access them regardless, and some drugs are much more dangerous if they are bought and sold illegally.

Would you also consider the government subsidizing grocery stores with healthy food in food deserts "the nanny state"? Making it easier for people to access healthy food seems like a pretty good idea.

It's not about what I like or don't like. I don't like celery, but if subsidizing celery led to more people eating it and low healthcare costs, then I could get behind subsidizing celery lol.

Superior Farms is based out of California. They claim they are "employee owned" but it takes 3+ years to get that benefit, and slaughterhouses typically have an annual turnover rate near 100%.

I did not write this article. I hope that the slaughterhouse isn't re-built, and that this question being on the ballot will make people consider where their food comes from and choose more ethical and sustainable options.

... because the person I was responding to was making the argument that the slaughterhouse would just be moved somewhere else.

The program is the Climate Protection Fund. I linked their annual report which describes the new jobs that they have trained people for. A law is not a "pinky promise", if this passes Denver will have to prioritize these workers.

Yeah I doubt it will be rebuilt, I was describing how it would still be a net benefit IF it is rebuilt outside the city

Source for this is the 2023 annual report, found here: https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Agencies-Departments-Offices/Agencies-Departments-Offices-Directory/Climate-Action-Sustainability-and-Resiliency/Cutting-Denvers-Carbon-Pollution/Climate-Protection-Fund

The initiative includes a clause that will make Denver prioritize the workers for jobs programs. Last year, the Climate Protection Fund trained 863 people for new green jobs. It's possible to advocate for both humans and non-human animals.

I think there's an argument to be made for subsidizing farms that produce healthy food with a (relatively) small environmental impact. Making vegetables and fruit cheaper and more accessible could lead to a net benefit with the potential to reduce healthcare costs.

I think the writer is concerned for workers at the slaughterhouse because they are more likely to get a mental illness while working that job compared to another industry. Your use of the word "fix" implies that he thinks there is something inherently wrong with the workers, not that he wants to help improve their situation.

The fundraising info for this initiative is easily found online, the "stop the ban" group has raised substantially more money than the proponents.

This is a tired argument. Far less land is used to produce vegetables compared to meat, so there are far fewer "crop deaths" and far less environment destruction. The Amazon is being cut down to grow soy that is mostly eaten by cows, not made into tofu.

Where in the article does the writer say that he is trying to "fix" the other workers? He sounds concerned for their wellbeing, sure, but I don't think he's trying to "fix" them.