Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter for Human Consumption

Pisser that your submission got flagged -- it's happened to me any number of times, and it's always frustrating.

Anyway, thanks for the "maximum exposure," to be sure! This is REALLY useful information!!!

You won't be told that you are eating horse meat until 5 years after you got used to the burgers with it. This happened a couple decades ago when Australia had a few too many kangaroos on their hands, so they sold it to Jack in the Box who sold it to Americans w/out labeling it as kangaroo meat. When they were finally caught and told to start labeling it, they stopped selling it so they didn't have to admit it.

You are right, there isn't a demand for it. You are being a bit naive if you think that will stop Burger King (Goldman Sachs) from putting it on the menu w/out your knowledge.

Yes, that's pretty much my point. We'll end up with horse in our food, especially when it's a cheap meat product. I hadn't heard the kangaroo story before. Fun reading ahead. If you recall Taco Bell's "beef" problem not long ago, the company's definition of beef wasn't in line with the USDA definition. Their meat filling included non-meat products like wheat oats -- basically filler. The moral of this story and that one will be to avoid eating anything that only advertises as "meat"!

You are correct. Once again Congress gives into the demands of the lobbyists in the meat industry and the ranchers looking to just offload meat (and I have to be honest and say those words sound so heartless) that will more then likely not really be fit for consumption, and people will not be told that. And we don't even have labels on our food to denote GMOs, nor are many of the pesticides sprayed on our food even regulated so it looks like anyone who does eat meat will need to be even more wary when they do. I am sure the oversight of this will be just as lax as it is regarding CAFOS now, and that also does not bode well for the treatment of these animals which not too many here seem to care about. But this is also an election year and the clarion call of "jobs" as well which is as we can see just a campaign catch phrase that candidates on all sides will be using as an excuse for passing these barbaric bills that only in time will put an even greater pressure on our environment as well.

exactly !

another agree.

What?!?!? Are you saying that Current TV has picked up on this article submission? That would be so cool!

Oh, I see my reply to you was voted down. Perhaps because I may have mis-read what you initially wrote, then. I just think it would have been cool if Current TV shared some of this stuff.

I just went to Current TV, and checked out the guide, but it's nothing but the same three or four shows repeating on television. Too bad.

This story was in the Community Spotlight. Our stories actually made TV at a time when those who participated here were actually appreciated for their participation.

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Painfully sad...

"it is no more or less ethical to take one life or another"

If you are taking the hard-line stance that a life is a life, then we should not eat plants, because that is life.

We're not taking such a draconian stance. Just because we say "some people eat cats and dogs, so why not horses" doesn't mean we condone cannibalism. Cannibalism doesn't exist in civilized nations. Eating horses does.

Your argument is much like anti-gay activists who say: "If we allow a man to marry a man, then we'll have to let a man marry a child, or let a man marry a horse, or even a tree!"

You have failed to address me rationally.

Here's why you should consider my analogy:

Referring back to your original statement, you told us what your point was explicitly:

"the point is that arguing that 'oh, they're good for you!' or 'some people eat cats and dogs, why not horses?' is a specious one, because the blank can just as easily be filled in with humans. it is no more or less ethical to take one life over another..."

That statement, according to you, is the whole reason you informed us with how healthy it is to eat human flesh, because you were trying to make that point. As you stated, a life is a life. And the logical conclusion is that you would not eat living things. You later qualified your statement by adding "sentient" into the equation, which modifies the original statement we were arguing on. However, my analogy is relevant. The argument "some people eat cats and dogs, why not horses?" is a reasonable statement to make, whereas "some people eat cats and dogs, why not people?" is less so.

People on my side of the argument, that if you eat meat and are perfectly happy slaughtering cows, chickens, and pigs so why not horses -- we are not advocating the consumption of human flesh, nor do we see it as "a life is a life" formula, where any word can be substituted for another. We each might have a different rationale as to how we came to the conclusion that it is acceptable to slaughter horses for human consumption, which is why your condemnation of that statement is off-base. You have glossed over the rationale behind the words, trying to dissect the formal logic behind the statement, while forgetting that the statement is part of a larger argument, taken out of context, and stripped of individual meaning while put into a formula for dissecting.

Here is a link to a statistic on how many metric tonnes of horse meat was sold in a particular year:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/agr_hor_mea_pro_met_ton-horse-meat-production-...

Unfortunately, I could not find a statistic on human meat consumption. Why? Because there are so few people consuming human meat. It is not out of the ordinary to eat horse meat as opposed to many other meats. Human meat, not so much.

In order to reconcile our animalistic needs to consume, with our higher order mental capacities such as morality and ethics, each individual must choose his or her comfort line when it comes to morality and choice of diet.

~~~

When I used the word "we," I was referring to my side of the argument, not yours.

~~~

By the way, try to "Familiarize" yourself with your own current profile, where it says under the title, "What I would change about the world: restore EMPATHY." [emphasis yours].

A disease like mad cow also appeared in New Guinea in the 40s or 50s, from probably one contaminated human individual, and it still prevails today. Just like mad cow disease prevails today.

Hmmm.....I wonder if someone fed cows contaminated humans.....a bit of warped thinking perhaps

I grew up with horses. We would never have considered eating them, but I know many people have no problem with it.
With the way our food is processed in this country, I refuse to buy any meat which I do not know what it is AND where it comes from. That leaves very few places to buy.

Are you saying this because you're talking about horses or are you saying this because you're talking about slaughtering animals in general?

Kind of both. most of the country folk like horses for help. I do eat very little meat, and not from corporate stores.

Back at it I see :) Unfortunately if the 1% gets their way ........."Let them eat Cake (errr..... horse)" instead. Just sayin.

Ah, gotcha.

I just think it's funny that people get so outraged at eating horses, but have no problems eating whatever they have deemed acceptable.

Please count me in as an exception to your statement, because I -- PERSONALLY -- find it "unacceptable" to eat any living being who's been used, abused, slaughtered, etc. Sorry, but it's so easy to unintentionally generalize -- hope you don't mind my clarification of who I am.

Actually, even though I don't personally hold the same ethical view as you on this topic, your view is consistent and noble and without hypocrisy.

That's nice to hear, Nabe8, and I thank you.

Usually I'M the one getting verbally pounced on if someone finds out I'm a vegan -- this might be, for instance, in a restaurant scenario, that sort of thing. Never have I jumped on anyone for NOT being vegan.

And, since I work with rescued animals (in sanctuaries), and also promote humane education, I wait until an individual asks me about my veganism in a respectful way, and then I try to explain simply and without sounding preachy.

Two Sundays from now, our libraries are holding a winter dinner. Even though there are three vegans and nine vegetarians, the fixed menu has absolutely nothing -- NOTHING -- that a vegan can eat. Even the salad is prepared with gorgonzola cheese. The desserts are all made with dairy. The main courses, obviously, are animals or fish.

I'm surprised, since I live in Los Angeles, and you'd think librarians and their ilk would be the kind who'd be open-minded enough to have considered those of us who eat differently. I imagine that if I were of some sort of special religion, I might have been approached to see what might be added to the menu.

So... there I'll be, dressed up, seated with 98 other librarians and library assistants, and my plate will remain empty. That's going to be uncomfortable... and not just for me, but for everyone else seated around me and worrying about me.

If I'm invited to dinner at someone's HOME, I always, always bring a substantial entrée that's vegan (of course), but that I know nearly everyone will fall in love with. And most of the time, I don't draw to anyone's attention that the food they're eating is vegan (which sometimes sounds even "scary," if you will, to folks). Now, if someone asks me for the ingredients -- aha! Big opening there! And if they ask WHY I'm vegan, I'm careful (while people are eating) about what I say. If conversation comes back to veganism when everybody's casually seated, then I might give some details about factory farming... or the farmed animals that I help take care of at one of our sanctuaries.

For the most part, though -- as I wrote a bit earlier here -- people don't consider that raising their voices at ME for NOT eating something they're eating isn't very nice, and can even be hurtful.

I'm an atheist, by the way -- and most Current-related people don't know that about me. I don't throw myself at people that way.

[And there's a bit of irony about my being an atheist and yet believing that all life is equal and not to be harmed, huh?]

Thanks for publicly writing to me so nicely. It means a great deal.

And I always enjoy your posts.

=)

Wow.... that's humbling. And now I'll have to read more of YOUR comments and submissions, to be sure.

What is so odd about being atheist and believing all life is equal? A person does not have to believe in a god in order to be ethical and moral.

I don't mind the clarification at all.

I come from the unique background of having been involved in all aspects of the farming (to put it nicely) process. My grand parents had a farm when I was growing up, my parents still raise a cow, some sheep and chickens every year and my father hunts avidly. We've always processed our own meat and rarely was store bought meat purchased.

I don't have a problem with meat eaters, though I do have a problem with the way in which animals are slaughtered and the flagrant disregard for where meat actually comes from. Perhaps it's my background, but I've always thought that if you're unable to, even mentally, walk through the process that maybe you should consider the reasons why that is true for you.

Being a vegetarian now is sometimes confusing for people (my family specifically); particularly because I am not ethically opposed to eating meat.

Coincidentally, I experienced the exact same thing as you with regards to our company Christmas party. The menu was primarily meat based with a few veggie appetizer options. I was a little put off by that fact and decided not to attend. After sitting with it for a while, however, I brought it to the attention of the owners and the menu was adjusted.

Each of us can choose to eat meat or not, but nothing should be done blindly; our actions have wide spread consequences on ourselves and others.

Interesting. Why the down votes?

Glad you brought that up, because I was wondering if anyone might not catch the irony in my statement. Well, anyway, it's kind of more the other way around. People who believe in a typical god are supposedly all about love and compassion and giving and helping. And I believe that many god-believers also feel that this god created EVERYTHING/EVERYONE on earth. So why, then, would these same people "disrespect" that god by killing that god's creations?

Man, that sounds mean. Not intentional. And I'm very, very sleepy, and am facing a really busy work weekend.

Nicely put... the whole thing! Thanks!

Actually, in several Asian countries, dogs and cats are both pets and a source of meat. In Europe, horses are also pets and a source of meat, and they are not fed chemicals to keep them healthy. Their meat is healthier than beef.

The easiest and only sure-fire way to avoid eating contaminated horse or other meats is to not eat meat of any kind. But you knew that, and me being me, had to say it. Good comments though csmonut.

Actually it makes sense to keep them healthy without all of the chemicals, etc. if they are going to be eaten.
But here in the states, with all of the chemicals they are fed, it doesn't make sense to also keep them for food.

Perhaps, but certainly not in all Asian countries.

Hi, zampano! In regard to your final "EDIT" paragraph, that's a very fair statement.

Don't give the right-wingers any ideas. Someone like John Boehner will be buying a horse ranch and push through legislation to get horse meat into the military and schools.

Don't eat meat........Amen and Hallelujah brother Scott. Sorry. I can't help myself.

So now we should add horses to the list? DONE BADLY? ISN"T SHOCKING? WOW! ((( Shaking my head left to right! ))) Many of these poor animals could have been on your dinner table last week and you wouldn't know the difference! Many could be in your freezer right now! Open up your freezer and tell me which animals were slaughtered and lived under humane conditions. Can't do it can you? Watch the video. Let me know how many you recognize! Boycott Factory Farms!

That's too bad but I guess I understand. The powers that be want us to eat lots of crap.

But we can make moral choices whereas a lion cannot.

The way this discussion is going, I won't advertise the pair I have for fear carnivores would want to eat them.

Odds are 99.5 to 0.5 that none were raised and slaughtered under humane conditions. All we know is that they look so peaceful under the clear plastic wrap with a slight pool of blood in the bottom of the plastic tray. I see no suffering, therefore, no problem.

I'm a vegetarian, through my own choice & if my children choose to become vegetarian when they are adults....good for them....Not everybody 'inflicts' their opinions on their children. I would prefer it if they didn't listen to (in my opinion) cr*p music, but they do. If you insist on laying down the law in your house, please don't assume it happens everywhere else.

.

There is a huge difference between vegetarians and vegans.

Vegetarianism is a diet. Veganism is a lifestyle.

The moral choice I was referring to is that they cannot choose whether to kill or not kill to survive. I believe you said that also, in a few more words. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Sounds like you are making wise choices zampano. I truly believe that we are evolving to eat less meat. It's a matter of survival for the planet and our species.

I didn't know that. I wonder if it's because most of the fast food kids seem to be addicted to require very little mastication. I used to eat my share of the crap and if memory serves, about the only thing that required much chewing was the lettuce and pickles in the burger. It is "fast" food not only because you get it quick but you can eat it quick, as it slides down in an efficient, albeit slimy mass. Yum!

No, I don't eat at McDonalds. I would not assume too much about all who post here. Some of us actually walk the walk.

Why are you shouting at people? I don't agree with the law, I won't eat it, I don't eat meat in general and I think their slaughter is inhumane. Do what you will if it doesn't bother your conscience. You won't change my mind repeating the same sentence over and over again.

Can we not evolve? I have. Other than people in very remote areas (such as jungles) I believe that in 50/100 years very few people will be eating meat, for many reasons. (I checked you up Scott to get you out of negative territory but I don't know how long it will last!)

I think she does

I think you are right when you say in 50/100 years we won't be eating meat, it is NOT sustainable. Like another person here I avoid meat in a restaurant, as I do not know where it comes from. What meat I do eat comes from a local co-op with humanely raised animals.
With the price of everything skyrocketing, meat is always the last on the list. I have noticed if I do not get my veggies, I get cranky:)) guess I am getting old.

You're not getting old, you're evolving. I'm sure I am playing fast and loose with that term but to me, it is almost like watching evolution in progress. Wonder if evolution can come in short, intense bursts or if it must happen very slowly over time. Maybe it's a logarithmic scale based on the need of a species to survive short term as well as long term. In my case, as they say, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I can't figure out if the person down-checking some on this thread are pro or anti horse slaughter. My theory is that it's a carnivore who's jacked up on a hormone laden quadruple quarter pounder. ha! You were down one but I upped so now it's zero. Very confusing.

Thank you for saying I am evolving:)) and not old.

Right on. They all suffer, the raising and slaughtering of them is bad for the environment and they are all bad for you.

Yeah, that dolphin thing sucks too.

Yes, it does, OlBlue. Big time.

Article 1, Section 7 U.S. Constitution.

“Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~
In other words, if the president whoever he or she may be has a conscience, does not have to sign the bill. It will become law anyway in ten days time however, again, the president if they have a conscience and does not approve of the law can just not sign it. Obama signed this which tells me approves of horse slaughter in direct antithesis to his previous comments on it. I think that is what the crux of this is about. It is about conscience and consistency of principle. If I were president I would never sign a bill like this. It may well still become law according to the constitution, but it wouldn't with my signature on it.

I can remember when horse meat was listed in dog food. I am a bit old:))

The title doesn't say, This Is Obama's Fault. It says, Obama Legalizes Horse Slaughter For Human Consumption. And that is not erroneous because the bill became law with his signature, so he did in essence legalize it. And again, based on his previous statements on this issue by rights he shouldn't have signed it at all which was his prerogative. Why can we not hold people in office responsible for their inconsistencies in principles to suit the purpose? It's always about not pissing off Republicans with everything Democrats do lately. I wonder if Bush had signed this what the response would be from some.

Trigger was stuffed

and it still is in my meat market

And I simply used the very same title that the original source had used.

I have to agree, even though Obama has a veto pin, this is a very small part of a very large appropriations bill. It includes appropriations for the Department of Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development.

Source: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h2112/news_blogs

But also, as someone else previously mentioned, the bill passed with a 70% margin in the Senate, which renders it veto-proof.

So even if Obama wanted to veto this legislation, he would be shooting himself in the foot. In this political climate, he's lucky to get anything on his desk, so to veto appropriations for the Department of Transportation, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development would be politically toxic.

Very good point.

There is, however, an undertone of blame resting solely on him -- which may or may not be fair.

Which is an awesome thing to do.

I must agree. And, in some little, quiet way, I kind of hope -- and even though this is very, very wrong to even THINK -- that President Obama's being pushed and pulled in a way he'd never thought would/could happen.

Damn, that's going to sound bad, no matter how folks interpret my words. Oh well.

I'm hoping that he'll win his re-election, lose all inhibitions relating to politics (because he won't have to worry about getting re-elected), and make a dashing run to hard-left!!

I can dream, can't I?