Of some diseases. It also prevents other diseases. Isolating animal species, specifically separating their waste, prevents cross-contamination. Google the stories of people getting parasites from lettuce grown on a "small organic farm" downhill from the pig sty. Want to eat raw lettuce and undercooked steak without getting sick? Those privileges come from factory farming techniques.
(I grew up in an area where we washed vegetables in diluted bleach. And I still prefer my meat very well done, burned, because that's how meat must be cooked in parts of the world that don't have western-style factory farming.)
Outbreaks of E. coli, listeria, giardia, etc. are common in factory farmed bagged lettuce. Dole certainly isn't some small artisan operation; https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/packaged-salad-mix-12...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/08/16/ecoli-str...
"'There are more and more people wanting products like triple-washed bagged lettuce, but bagged salad is a great vector for E.coli growth,' he said. 'And farms have expanded closer and closer to animal feedlots and dairies, and these are now more prone to flooding.'"
Farm workers pooping in the fields because they're not allowed to walk 15 minutes to a port-a-potty doesn't help, either. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB888948983807436500
> And I still prefer my meat very well done, burned, because that's how meat must be cooked in parts of the world that don't have western-style factory farming.
That's more likely to speak to a lack of food safety regulation in the supply chain, from farm to slaughterhouse to store to table. It's entirely possible to properly process an artisanly raised organic cow in a way that avoids spreading E. coli all over it.
Common, in that millions of people eat the food and a vanishingly small number get sick during the rare outbreaks. Compare pre-industrial farming, where nearly everyone got sick on a somewhat regular basis. Read British history. Everything was boiled for a reason. Today we can get away with lightly washing our food. Most everyone opens a salad and eats without question. That is new. That is because of modern farming practices.
It's because of a multi-factorial societal shift involving vaccines, sanitation, germ theory, hand washing, water treatment, safety regulations, inspections, refridgeration, etc.
Pretending it's all because of factory farming is just silly.
The key to being able to eat rare meat is not to smear cow shit all over it and store it at 65 degrees for a day in an alley market. The key to being able to eat a salad is washing and cold storage of a product that inevitably gets exposed to pathogens in farm fields unless you raise it hydroponically in a hermetically sealed warehouse.
Just for general interest, they've got quite the colonial banana rebulic oligopoly history (in surges).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dole_plc
The OG Dole brothers were part of breaking the back of traditional rule in Hawaii.
No comment or implication here other than, gosh, history heh?
A slightly more on topic, and more generous interpretation of GPs comment removes any contradiction.
Not even close to true. The act of isolating (concentrating) animal species, pumping them full of antibiotics, and concentrating their waste is a significant danger to human and animal health alike. It breeds antibiotic resistant strains of disease and the waste is never isolated - it always gets into the soil, air, and groundwater of the surrounding communities increasing the risk of cross-contamination downstream. These are well-documented, peer-reviewed, large scale impacts that you somehow ignored when googling for n=1 anecdotes to confirm your bias.
It sounds like the problem is maybe farming of animals in general? Obviously a farm being small and organic doesn't automatically equate with everything being fine. Even on factory farms animal waste seeps into groundwater and can cause tons of environmental issues, which reminded me of a report from last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNutjzkXDqY
Modern industrial farming has been the greatest source of limiting disease, parasites and sickness. Before modern industrial farming, human life was rife with food-born parasites, disease and sickness. So much so that it severely limited people's physical and intellectual development.
> Of course we can thrive with less meat consumption or none.
We can survive without meat. But being omnivores, we probably need meat to thrive. Though too much of a good thing can be harmful.
> How is that even a question?
As a self-proclaimed rationalist, why does that surprise you? Rational people question things.
A sweeping statement, that betrays ignorance of the many people that are tremendously helped or healed from terrible illnesses by eating more meat (or even, only meat). I'm not advocating everyone eat only meat, nor do I think most people would want to, but there are also MANY people who would fall gravely ill if they did so.
Again, it's fine to voice an opinion, but this kind of categorical statement that isn't supported by empirical evidence is not. I'm very well acquainted with the subject myself, having dealt with severe autoimmune issues, and if I was forced to eat only plant matter, my health would be completely compromised. It's something I have heard from thousands of others, and if you are so interested I will provide links. There is also "scientific" data to support this, though as someone who has lived through it, I don't care for it, but it exists. Anecdotes, again, by the thousands, many with ex-vegans for whom a plant-based diet took a huge toll.
In both cases you know exactly where the brush fires are.
Of course, life with less meat consumption has a lower quality, and life with no meat consumption is utter misery.
Cities are an aggravating factor for the spread of disease, but I’d hardly argue that they should all be dissolved: the benefits are worth the costs. Likewise with meat. Eating meat fulfills one aspect of our natures as humans; a life without meat is thus a less humane life. No thanks.
Lifestyles and civilization doesn't significantly change if we all halve or eliminate need for factory animal farms in developed countries.
I have personally been helped by a diet of mostly meat (and frozen raspberries) which I stayed on for a few years. It helped me to stay somewhat productive while I slowly recovered from a complicated illness state.
These years I get most of my protein from beans and almonds, but those foods do subtle cumulative damage to my gut (even if I pre-soak, pressure-cook, then refry the beans and blanch, then toast the almonds) so once a year or so I take a break from them, and since I cannot handle eggs, grains or dairy protein, and since I seem to need a lot of protein, during the breaks I eat a lot of grass-fed lamb.
If I lost access to meat, I would be less healthy.
Those words require “as proven by” and then the sentence that follows.
The claims you make are so trivial as to almost be tautological. You make no quantitive claims except “none” for meat consumption. The most extreme possible position.
Rationalists put forward measured testable arguments that can be defeated by fair reason. Rationalists don’t frame the arguments for what they oppose in purely negative terms and what they support in purely positive terms.
Factory farming has had massive benefits to the health and well-being of humans on the planet. It is undeniably cruel. No meat consumption for many would lead to mental and physical health issues for many. It would also end some of humanity’s cruelest practices.
People get worried about serial passage "gain of function" experiments in a lab with a dozen lab animals being involved. Meanwhile in farming a virus can get passed through millions and millions of animals in nice compact bioreactors.
But it’s also not a question of if we’re going to, we won’t. Meat consumption goes up a little every year (on average) and we’ve known these things for a long time, so clearly we’re not convinced.
As to the benefits and drawbacks of factory farming, there are a lot of both. It’s overly-simplistic to call it a problem.