Food Fight! Davis versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef

Lamey, Andy

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9833.2007.00382.x

Cited by 54 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If someone wants to reduce animal suffering, but the step to a vegan diet seems too demanding, it is, therefore, recommended to stop eating poultry before pork or beef. This dietary change is also endorsed by other scientists as a first step (Matheny 2003;Lamey 2007).…”

Section: Animal Product Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Still, farm machinery like ploughs and harvesters can accidentally kill wild animals living on agricultural fields, from insects to small rodents. It is debated whether products from pasture-raised ruminants like cattle cause less harm than crops from intensive cultivation (Davis 2003) or not (Matheny 2003;Lamey 2007). In reality, neither all crops are cultivated intensively, nor all cattle are raised on pastures.…”

Section: Animal Welfare In Crop Cultivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That can be justified by the distinction between intentional and accidental killing of animals-the same distinction is made for human beings where manslaughter and murder are valued differently in most legal systems (Lamey 2007)-and it might lead to double counting of impacts on ecosystem quality quantified in LCA studies (e.g. for toxic emissions and land use).…”

Section: Animal Welfare In Crop Cultivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment

Scherer

Tomasik²,

Rueda³

et al. 2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study seeks to provide a framework for integrating animal welfare as a fourth pillar into a life cycle sustainability assessment and presents three alternative animal welfare indicators. Methods Animal welfare is assessed during farm life and during slaughter. The indicators differ in how they value premature death. All three consider (1) the life quality of an animal such as space allowance, (2) the slaughter age either as life duration or life fraction, and (3) the number of animals affected for providing a product unit, e.g. 1 Mcal. One of the indicators additionally takes into account a moral value denoting their intelligence and self-awareness. The framework allows for comparisons across studies and products and for applications at large spatial scales. To illustrate the framework, eight products were analysed and compared: beef, pork, poultry, milk, eggs, salmon, shrimps, and, as a novel protein source, insects.Results and discussion Insects are granted to live longer fractions of their normal life spans, and their life quality is less compromised due to a lower assumed sentience. Still, they perform worst according to all three indicators, as their small body sizes only yield low product quantities. Therefore, we discourage from eating insects. In contrast, milk is the product that reduces animal welfare the least according to two of the three indicators and it performs relatively better than other animal products in most categories. The difference in animal welfare is mostly larger for different animal products than for different production systems of the same product. This implies that, besides less consumption of animal-based products, a shift to other animal products can significantly improve animal welfare. Conclusions While the animal welfare assessment is simplified, it allows for a direct integration into life cycle sustainability assessment. There is a trade-off between applicability and indicator complexity, but even a simple estimate of animal welfare is much better than ignoring the issue, as is the common practice in life cycle sustainability assessments. Future research should be directed towards elaborating the life quality criterion and extending the product coverage.

show abstract

Section: Animal Product Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Animal Welfare In Crop Cultivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Animal Welfare In Crop Cultivationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment

Scherer

Tomasik²,

Rueda³

et al. 2017

Int J Life Cycle Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mice are not used as merely means, so therefore veganism remains the morally better choice. (For further criticism on the least harm argument of Davis, see Matheny, 2003, andLamey, 2007).…”

Section: Universal Ethical Principlementioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a coherent theory of animal equality

Bruers

2012

BTS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…So even a diet free of animal ingredients involves the killing of animals, and hence vegans, by their own ethics, must be immoral killers. Smith cites an essay by Steven Davis (2003) that favours an omnivorous diet including grass-fed animals as the best way to minimize deaths, but he neglects to mention critiques that seriously challenge Davis's figures (Lamey 2007;Matheny 2003). Perhaps the omission is understandable:…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Wesley J. Smith's A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement

Taylor

2010

BTS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food Fight! Davis versus Regan on the Ethics of Eating Beef

Cited by 54 publications

References 13 publications

Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment

Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment

Towards a coherent theory of animal equality

Review of Wesley J. Smith's A Rat is a Pig is a Dog is a Boy: The Human Cost of the Animal Rights Movement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About