The Benefits of the Ethical Treatment of Livestock Outweigh the Disadvantages

II. Economic impact 1. Factory-farming allows for the overly monopolistic control of animal products, thus negatively impacting the economy. -A few companies control the majority of meat/livestock. -These companies also have control over many stages of production. -Thus, they wield the power to raise prices consumers pay and underpay those below the middlemen. "Meat prices have been rising steadily since 2006 because of the power of a few companies, according to Christopher Leonard, author of the new book The Meat Racket: The Secret Takeover of America's Food Business" Four companies produce 85% of all the beef in the United States. .. These companies have the "market power to depress what they pay farmers while at the same time keeping prices higher. .. for consumers. .. "" [1] "Four companies make. .. 65 percent of its pork. Just three companies make almost half of all chicken. .. Companies like Tyson Foods have pioneered a new model of food production that gives them ownership and control over virtually every stage of the business. " [2] Not only that, but. .. ! "When farms that provide animals to the big four producers go bankrupt -- which they often do, says Leonard, because producers like Tyson put the squeeze on them -- U. S. taxpayers pay that bill too. An "obscure loan program bails out banks for about 90% of the lost loan value," says Leonard. " [1] "Farmers are at the bottom of this food chain. This race to the bottom squeezes the life out of farms, particularly the smallest farms. And it hurts rural communities not just by lowering farm prices, but by forcing down wages for agricultural laborers, packing workers, and others in the food industry. " [3] My third source even further details how one company's growing monopoly suppresses farmers: "In the Southeast, the merger left 2,500 independent hog producers with just one regional buyer. " Furthermore, if more small farms and slaughterhouses populated the country - uncontrolled by monopolies - I argue that it would be better the economy. Here's why: -Livestock would require less transportation to slaughterhouses. Animal products would also require less transportation to retailers, packers, etc. This is rather important, as increasing gas prices often means passing along higher costs to the consumer. -Competition. If there are more farms, then prices would be set more according to the market than the whims of producers. This is in favor of consumers. By making animal products more affordable for consumers, it will in turn be better for the economy. REBUTTALS: 1. Con talked about the resolution being vague. I agree that at face value, "ethical treatment" itself is vague, but I addressed this in round one by defining it and citing a detailed document of ethical standards. 2. Con suggested that without relying on practices of unethical treatment of animals, we could not sustain enough meat/dairy/animal products for the masses. For the sake of simplicity, I will look to chickens as an example. Eight billion chickens are consumed each year in the US. [4] Could an amount of chicken as significant as this be produced without reliance on factory-farm methods? Let's take a look. "Farm and ranch families comprise just 2 percent of the U. S. population. " [5] What if that was bumped up to 4 percent? That's 12,680,000 farmers. Now let's say half of these farmers each produced 1,000 chickens per year (compared to thousands of chickens passing through factory-farms a day). That's 6,340,000,000 chickens. Over 6.3 billion. No, it's not 8 billion. There is about a 1.7 billion difference, and I will discuss in later rounds why that would okay - even beneficial. For now, I'd like to point out that these numbers could be higher. If 5% of the population made up farmers and half of them each produced 1,000 chickens per year. .. it would yield 7,925,000,000 chickens collectively. Which is rather close to 8 billion. 3. It isn't unrealistic to expect farms that uphold the ethical treatment of livestock to produce a lot of animal products. There are well established farms which adhere to highly ethical treatment of livestock. For instance, Springer Mountain Farms are American Humane Certified, while providing meat to several states in several stores (in Maine, Vermont, New York, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and more). [6] 4. I should emphasize that this debate will focus on the benefits of the ethical treatment of livestock, as defined in my first round. Not whether the treatment is actually ethical. It would be the same as if the debate was titled, "The benefits of feeding livestock healthy food outweigh the disadvantages," and I had defined "healthy" with indifference to GMO foods. The debate wouldn't focus on whether GMO foods were healthy, but rather on whether my definition of healthy foods were beneficial. However, since many people (including myself) would consider the ethical treatment of livestock a benefit, con's point does hold some weight. Though I would like to point out that his points need to outweigh mine, not just be valid. In addition to this, I will counter why it would be moral to consider the suffering of livestock significant. First, con seems to suggest that since these animals are killed, they are released from their suffering and their inhumane treatment becomes meaningless. And because humans are different from animals emotionally, intellectually, and perception-wise, this is okay. However, I will argue that they aren't much different when compared to children. For instance, it's been show that pigs' intellect is quite comparable to three year olds' intellect. [7] Also, from con's own source, it states: "In adults, the fear of the dentist can intensify innocuous sensations, but the belief that it is a price worth paying in order to avoid far greater suffering can also render the experience of the treatment less significant. The latter capacity is not usually found in children, which may suggest that beings with less developed rational capacities are not necessarily suffering less, but more, since they are not in a position to conceptualise the pain as a means to an end. " [Con's 4th source from round 2] Like children, animals are not able to conceptualize pain this way. So they may suffer more than an adult human would in the same situation. This has to do with the perception of pain. Certain parts of brain are responsible for processing emotional response to pain, which can affect the perception of pain. [9] In other words, knowing why or for how long the pain persists can make pain seem more or less painful! 5. I will address this in rounds to come. [1] . http://finance.yahoo.com... [2] . http://www.slate.com... [3] . http://www.ase.tufts.edu... [4] . http://www.ansc.purdue.edu... [5] . http://www.fb.org... [6]. http://springermountainfarms.com... [7] . http://humansarehealthy.com... [8] I stole con's source [9] "Why Don't Zebras Get Ulcers? " (third edition) by Robert M. Sapolsky