I'd like to delve deeper into the original issue. So how about cruelty free beer? What does it mean?
Should it be (animal) cruelty free beer, or beer that contains no traces of animal?
(1) Just because it does not contain traces of an animal, is it ok to say that it is (animal) cruelty free?
To expand this: Should we consider the potential impacts upon living things of the processes involved in making beer? As in what may happen to animals during the course of production of the inputs that go into beer. Should we consider the bigger picture right from soil through to bottle, or should we just look at what is actually in (or not in) the bottle? I say - Think bigger, for gawds sake, just think! Please disagree with me, if you have thought about some sound reasons why. Please also understand that your actions (or what you eat or drink) have bigger consequences (affect more things than just you and the thing you're consuming). There are quality posts from others in this thread that clearly outline such potential impacts.
Yep I agree we should be looking at the biggest picture we are informed enough to "see". I found it interesting in the previous thread where someone claimed that there is no "no impact" choices, so vegetarians aren't actually vegetarians (I'm horribly paraphrashing here). I do find that an interesting concept (and apolagies because it's only vaguely related to your paragraph, but it made me think of it).
What is worth doing? If you can't rule out 100% of the negative consequences of your actions, is it worth taking any steps to reduce your impact on society, the planet etc.? Say, for example, a soy bean crop grown in south america. If you directly consume the soy beans, you are responsible for any pesticides etc that are used in raising the crop, any waterways that are damaged, and microbial organisms that are affected by their growth. So yep, a vegetarian diet does not directly remove your impact on the globe. There are nematodes that grow in vegetables and fruit that you can't help consume.
So is it worth doing? I believe it is. Reducing your impact by 80%, 50%, even 20% is better than not even trying because you can't reduce it 100%. If that same soy crop was used as pig feed, then not only is much of it wasted (16kg of grain for 1kg of meat), but you also have the extra agriculture and space required to raise the animals (especially if they are not raised in tiny cages).
I believe that any improvement that people are capable of making to their lives that reduces their impact is worth doing, even if it is tiny.
(2) Another aspect is: what else does a statement of cruelty free beer say? It says a lot more than at first glance. I think a lot of folks only gave it a first glance and did not think about it. Cruelty free beer is implying that because part of an animal is in a beer (most likely a by-product used as a fining agent of sorts) that animals suffered cruelty. Ergo, this statement implies that it is 'cruel to kill any animal'* and we do not support using any parts of dead animals in our beer.
Yep this really does come down to what you define as "cruel". For me, it is the unnecessary death of an animal. I don't believe it is necessary to consume an animal for health reasons, we do it because we always have, it is our lifestlye, we enjoy the taste, it is our right as the sentient creature on the planet. For me, because it is unneccessary, it is cruel, regardless of how the creature is treated before death.
Regarding beer, I have been making perfectly clear, stable beer without the use of isinglass or gelatine, irish moss and pvpp are perfectly acceptable. This makes me believe that using these substances is unnecessary and therefore causes the unnecessary death of these animals. For me that is how I define cruelty.
*I personally do not believe that such a philosophy can be supported (is not truthful). In some cases, the way in which an animal is treated or dispatched may be legally considered cruel, but you just can't say in all cases.
So I got bagged for questioning non-meat eating philosophy. Do you see that it is intrinsically linked to the statement of 'cruelty free beer'? I do not believe that you can rightly say that killing any animal is wrong (cruel) and that you should not use any part of a dead animal in beer (or consume it). Nor do I believe that beer should be marketed this way.
I really don't mind people questioning my beliefs, that's why I put them out there. I don't approve of vegetarians who try to convert people, I don't approve of meat eaters who find vegetarians threatening. I've found it is one of the most common responses, just because I've made a moral choice doesn't mean I believe you are amoral for not making the same one (although I'm sure there are vegetarians out there who think that way).
Again, I think we simply have different definitions of "cruel". For most people who care about the "cruelty free" logo, they assume it means that nothing was killed to create the product nor was it not tested on animals. If you don't care about the logo, then it means absolutely nothing to you.
Not a lot of folks said, do you know what, maybe they are saying that cruelty free beer means that they are also saying that it is wrong to kill animals, that is not a clear cut argument and probably should not be associated with beer.
If you want to say 'beer that contains no traces of animals', that is a supportable fact. It is not argumentative; it is not making any moral claims. Conversely maybe you could say, may contain traces of animals that did not suffer cruelty.
If someone makes some moral claims and associates this with beer, am I not able to question those morals and the associated underlying morals?
Yep I agree, one is emotive and one is factual. I personally would go with the "no traces of animals" comment if I ever was to make commercial beer. It says exactly the same thing to those who care. And yes you have every right to question those morals, just as I have every right to question the morality of eating meat.
We are the only creature on the planet capable of questioning our own actions and the impacts they cause. And we are going to have to do some serious questioning in the upcoming generations about the sustainability of all of our actions, not just our consumption of meat.
If you want to imply something about the relative morals of dispatching living animals for human consumption and roll it up into a statement such as 'cruelty free beer' - well that will probably evolve into a debate of non-meat eaters vs meat eaters and become a pretty interesting thread.
So you don't agree with my views, that's fine. Have I at least explained them clearly?
Yes quite clearly, your more concerned with the implied morality of the label than with the actual practice? And that evolution is exactly what happened in the previous thread. It was inevitable.
Enjoyable too.
James
