LOVEABLE TV buffoon Homer Simpson once proclaimed his two favourite animals were “pork chops and bacon”.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
Sadly, such ignorance about the origins of the food we eat is not confined to satire.
Even in the gateway to the nation’s food bowl, many of us have a tenuous grasp on how food finds it way onto supermarket shelves.
In recent years, fuelled by celebrity endorsements and the pervasive reach of social media, a growing “ethical eating” movement has emerged.
Through graphic images and shock and awe ads, it has aimed to shine a spotlight on unethical farming practices.
And, to varying degrees, it’s worked.
Where legislators have failed, this movement has helped change some consumer habits and forced some companies to use ethical farming as a marketing hook.
Most of us eat meat.
And all of us agree animals should not be put through needless suffering in the farming process.
What constitutes “needless suffering” is really at the heart of this debate.
A ferocious battleground for the debate is centred in our very own community.
Few issues in the long history of Harden have divided the community like the proposal for an intensive piggery on the fringes of the township.
Opponents claim the “intensive sweatshop” will confine the estimated 22,000 pigs to unconscionable cruelty and have a deleterious impact on the environment.
They point to the fact pigs are sentient beings, believed to be as smart as cats and dogs, and shouldn’t be treated like machines on a production line.
Supporters say the piggery abides by stringent regulations and will be an employment and economic boost for a town that has witness an inexorable population decline in recent years.
They claim the vast bulk of objectors to the piggery (a petition against it garners an incredible 25,000 signatures) are members of the metropolitan chattering classes, rather than concerned locals.
The piggery issue looked set to be resolved by Harden’s councillors, until they were unceremoniously sacked as part of the state government’s attack on local councils.
It will now likely fall to the Joint Regional Planning Panel. Based on the emotion in the debate so far, they will have plenty of “food for thought”.