I just saw a documentary on German tv showimg mich the Same thing for Danish pig farmers so it is not an isolated example. It is a simple issue of incentives.

Even more impressive was that zero anti biotics use in pig farming practiced by a farmer who had his pigs in stables with free range access was only 40% more expensive. Just think about it. We endanger the most important scientific advancement in human health for cheaper bacon.

It is not that simple though. It is rational to not eat meat that contains antibiotics or fruit and vegetables that contain pesticides. But you need the time, money, resources, knowledge and organisation to actually pull it off. I don't know there is some sort of Maslow pyramid for countries, but a lot of countries might just not be ready to face this problem just yet. For instance, China wasn't too bothered about pollution until recently, they were (and still are) busy raising the general standard of living. Similarly, the United States might not be ready to attack this problem just yet because they are busy attacking... other things.

And, when you get down to brass tacks, I would not be at all surprised if it was better tasting bacon too... How are the Europeans able to do this? Is there an opposition view? Surely some farmers couldn't change and went out of business or something, right? It just seems too pragmatic and agreeable, it's almost like it makes sense. Surely near term profits are an issue there as well.

In the US, agriculture is huge money, just beef alone is a $200b+ industry. Then there are all these backwards incentives in the farm bills. Then there is the issue of rehabilitating a farm to take it "organic" (I'm conflating things here, antibiotics and organic farming aren't completely the same but similar) it takes years and capital to go clean, not all farmers have the resources to do it; they and the communities around them have a vested interest in declaring their methods safe and it becomes hyper political...

> Just think about it. We endanger the most important scientific advancement in human health for cheaper bacon.

Because that's what the consumer wants. Apparently. Supermarkets have been competing with each other on prices for ages, a well-known example is chicken fillet. The price has gone down to just E3 per kilo at one point, which caused a bit of a riot because those were the famous 'plofkip' (exploding chicken), or chickens that were forced to grow as large as possible in as little time as possible.

But there's the other side, too; farms like the one described in the opening post can thank their existence over an increase in demand for 'organic' meat, or meat that gets a label indicating it was grown in an animal-friendly fashion without use of antibiotics and growth hormone. Conscious consumers with a decent income will be more inclined to pay a premium for that kind of meat.

I don't think it is fair to say that the consumer wants cheaper beacon, even at the expense of human health. Is that choice made clear at the check out? No. Do most people know this is a choice? I suspect not.

You're right. And the two are hard to compare: cheaper bacon in your hand, immediately, today vs. the more abstract 'human health' (which may or may not affect you, ever).

It's a classic negative externality. The costs for society are higher than the private costs. Therefore a market failure.

> Because that's what the consumer wants. Apparently.

People do not make Perfect Decisions based on Perfect Information, and this is a fine example of the wrong conclusions drawn from implicitly assuming they do.

'Organic' does not mean animal-friendly. It generally means without the use of synthetic chemicals (or without the use of any chemicals, depending on what farm you're at).

Either way, sorry for being overly pedantic, but too often when people see organic the automatically assume the animals are being treated better/more ethically than they would be at a regular, non-organic farm.

That not true in Europe at least, where organic certification includes animal welfare standards eg the UK see http://www.soilassociation.org/animalwelfare

That's what I get for applying the US lens to Europe. . . .

But, the regulations are very similar. So, where your site states, "Lots of outdoor space and fresh air" "Encouragement of normal animal behaviour" I wonder if that is translated the same as the United States: "Provide access to the outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors" "Support animal health and welfare"

If it is, I really wonder if they're being applied the same, or if yours are as open for interpretation as ours. My experience with US organic farming is dairy and chicken. I work with farmers quite a bit through the extension office of my college employer. The organic farmers in my area practice (in my opinion) very loose organic practices.

For example, access to outdoors was available, but in an enclosed area (run for chickens, small pasture for cattle). This, by no means allowed the animals to "exercise their natural behaviors," and yet was within the legal definition of organic, and allowed them to sell their products to grocery stores and markets as 'certified organic'.

The health and welfare laws mentioned in the second portion apply to all farmers, regardless of organic certification or not.

Is the interpretation similar in Europe?

That's a very good question. I don't know what the worst case is here, only a few cases which are very good... Will try to find out.

This is also not true in the US where USDA requirements for organic livestock include a requirement with free access to the outdoors and space for exercise, a ban on growth hormones and antibiotics (which are the only way to keep animals packed in close together), clean dry bedding, clean drinking water, direct sunlight, shade and much more.

I replied to another comment asking questions about how Europe interprets their regulations. But, here's the pertinent parts for the US:

The United States has: "Provide access to the outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors" "Support animal health and welfare"

My experience with US organic farming is dairy and chicken. I work with farmers quite a bit through the extension office of my college employer. The organic farmers in my area practice (in my opinion) very loose organic practices.

For example, access to outdoors was available, but in an enclosed area (run for chickens, small pasture for cattle). This, by no means allowed the animals to "exercise their natural behaviors," and yet was within the legal definition of organic, and allowed them to sell their products to grocery stores and markets as 'certified organic'.

I don't get it. Do we imagine organic chickens are roaming around town? Have the wide open prairie to explore? Of course its going to be an enclosed area.

Of course it's going to be an enclosed area. But my point is that it's not what most people think it is. To respond, I just pulled the math on the averages from 'certified organic' farms I've worked with over the years, just to spell it out a little more.

Egg Chickens Per Coop: 2.48 Square feet of space per bird. 45 Hens, 2 roosters, 72 square feet, 10 laying boxes, outside run of 45 square feet fenced on three sides and overhead.

Meat Chickens Per Coop: 1.8 Square feet of space per bird. 55 Hens, 70 square feet, outside run of 30 square feet fenced on three sides and overhead.

Dairy Cattle: Access to .3 acres per head in pen, average of 14 acres/45 cattle per pen/parlor. *Every single notation I've made about the dairy organics I've encountered states: "Many do not leave parlor, reason is apparent- feed in the parlor is easier to access and of a higher quality than forage available."

Now, I'm not sure of the space requirements for a chicken, but I can honestly tell you that 30-45 outdoor square feet is not enough to support that number of birds and to honor the spirit of "providing access to the outdoors so that animals can exercise their natural behaviors." It obeys the word - - outdoor access, but definitely not the idea behind it.

Cattle do have space requirements to avoid overcrowding and overgrazing, you can even find that on-line based on your area of the country. Most of my personal experience is with beef cattle, mind you. In my area, you can plan on 4-5 acres of good pasture per 2 adult cattle or 3 juveniles. 1/3 acre, again, honors the word, but not the spirit.

Anyway, we don't need them roaming around, or with the wide open prairies to explore. My point was that the law-abiding definition of organic, and the steps you have to take to get certified organic status aren't really the happy-go-lucky, love every animal, everyone deserves an awesome life kind of regulations most people think they are.