265
Chick-fil-A changing its chicken sparks backlash
(www.newsweek.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
265 points (91.5% liked)
News
23609 readers
3501 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Making sure the chickens stay healthy is perfectly reasonable. Particularly if the antibiotics aren't necessary for human medicine.
The antibiotics are used so that the chickens don't contract infections and die from living in inhumane conditions.
This change allows them to increase their profit margin at the cost of animal welfare.
The article specifically said they're only going to administer antibiotics to sick chickens and those in close proximity to sick chickens, not generally as a preventative.
"A chicken in house 7, row 15, cage B2769G72 was seen with pus buildup around its clipped beak. Destroy and incinerate that one and administer antibiotics to the rest of the chickens in row 15"
That's zero sum, from the chicken-life perspective.
Die of infection or die by slaughter, their life isn't changed by the variable in context.
Edit I'm saying antibiotics are not for the animal's wellbeing. They are a tool to extract profit, and not let the chickens die at the wrong moment. That's it.
Lol suffering means nothing! Us humans are gonna die at age 80 anyways. Might as well suffer for my adult life instead of living a happy life, what's the difference, right?
My goodness, the lack of empathy for living creatures is just fucking wild. You can slaughter something AND not want it to lead a terrible life until its death, ya know.
Humans are clearly on a different territory from factory born animals for slaughter.
Again, antibiotics do not change their lived experience because they get no changes in conditions in return. Antibiotics are just for human profit
I’m afraid your sarcasm and irony were unclear despite the words used. But please correct that or me.
If you think antibiotics are to reduce animal suffering you're deluded. It's only to not let them die at inopportune times for the profit machine. The animals in factory farms are already experiencing suffering being belief and an early death is an escape.
I am not a proponent of routine antibiotic use in any animals (including us humans), unless it’s called for as in actually saving someone’s life.
I was caught at one of these moments where I wasn’t sure whether it was sincerely meant or humour, and tried to be mildly sarcastic about it.
Edit: Double checked. Thumbs up now.
Ah yes, nothing about your entire existence matters if the way you died wasn’t in an approved fashion.
Shit even if you just look at it in terms of the quality of the meat a stress free well fed animal will taste so much better than one that’s been stressed out its entire life fed literal garbage.
making sure the chickens stay healthy*
*profitable