Hacker News Reader

Comment by floor2 | Hacker News Reader

Wait until you see the photos of what goes on inside meat packing plants.

Just kidding, you won't. The political power of the meat industry is so significant in government that they actually made it a felony to record and publish what goes on inside hog confinement operations, meat packing plants, butchering, etc. https://aldf.org/issue/ag-gag/

View on HN

Not excusing what these plants do from an ethical standpoint, but there's a big difference between "gross meat stuff is around because this plant processes meat" and "this plant is dirty and unhygienic in a way that causes risk to people consuming the product." Lots of things that look nasty and would be terrible for PR are perfectly safe from a food safety perspective.

Right, but these are leaked photos from a Beyond Meat plant (something that is a felony to do in slaughterhouses) and the inspectors say the plant is fine.

So how is this different from the current status of slaughterhouses but without photos of the inside?

Proof that a bad thing is obviously happening is different from a strong (justifiable) suspicion that a bad thing is happening.

And it doesn't matter anyway. That meat plants might be gross doesn't mean Beyond Meat should be allowed to be. Everyone should be producing food in a clean environment.

> That meat plants might be gross doesn't mean Beyond Meat should be allowed to be.

> That Beyond Meat is gross doesn't mean mass slaughter of animals should be allowed to continue.

You can look at other countries though, here is an "ethical" slaughter house in France, self described as "more respectful of the environment and animal welfare"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWbgZQxd6J4

ps: don't watch if you don't want to see animal in distress, dead/dying animals

If you eat meat and can’t watch these videos, are you a hypocrite since you suspect/know how much suffering this causes but don’t want to face the consequences of your choices and ignore it altogether?

What evidence do you have that the FDA representatives that are required to sign off on meat production are not doing their job correctly? How many cases of pork parasites or beef contamination in non-fast food products have there been in the past couple years?

That there are 15 [1] facilities per FDA employee. Take a look at your buildings security, I highly doubt you have a 1 security guard for 15 of the company's buildings. There is no way the FDA is actually annually inspecting every facility (afaik, they don't claim to either).

> How many cases of pork parasites or beef contamination in non-fast food products have there been in the past couple years?

Why do we get to exclude fast-food? That's what beyond burger is tbh, so if we exclude fast-food then it doesn't matter if beyond burger is contaminated.

[1]: 272,719 [2] / 18,000 [3] [2]: https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glan... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration

Primarily it was because I view "Chipotle/jack in the box/whoever sickened thirty people" to be a different case, with different acting incentives and systems than "Store brand meat full of parasites". I am claiming that fast food supply chains are distinct enough from consumer oriented supply chains that they cannot reflect on each other.

This is not the case for beyond meat, as it's still a small business that is distinct from fast food companies and serves both companies and consumers.

Am I wrong in this thinking?

Wow you couldn’t be more wrong.

every animal is inspected before and after slaughter and stamped by regulators (USDA not FDA) if meat is not stamped by an inspector it cannot be sold. A meat packing plant cannot operate if an inspector is not on site.

As opposed to your doubts about once a year monitoring, literally everything is inspected or it is illegal to sell (even as dog food).

Perhaps US should use this event to apply the same processes in alt-meat rather than condemn it in favor of killing animals.

"What evidence do you have of" ... issues where someone publishing that evidence would be sent to prison for decades for said publication.

Surely you can see the flaw in this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com