| Archive for Downsizer For an ethical approach to consumption |
| Brownbear |
Freedom foodI consider this a ripoff. It's ill-policed (another Lloyd Maunder producer found breaking the rules quite flagrantly recently by Animal Aid), misleading and just a way for the RSPCA to prostitute its good name for a few quid.I've conducted a small and unscientific study, and mpst people assume - as the RSPCA was no doubt banking on - that the label 'freedom foods' guarantees the same standards as free range, or even higher. They believe it must be the case, because the RSPCA couldn't possibly be involved in anything cruel. I'm considering a complaint to the ASA, on grounds that the label tends to mislead. However, I think that it would be necessary to get some hard evidence that it does so. I'm putting together a poll to be conducted on what people believe different labels to mean, and it would be perhaps useful for this and other purposes to get some hard data. Is anyone interested in conducting surveys? |
||||
| Mary-Jane |
Re: Freedom food
How, where and how big a sample? |
||||
| Brownbear |
Re: Freedom food
Are there any polling experts on the forum? I was thinking of about a thousand across the land, demographically divided using published data about the customer profiles of various supermarkets ('where do you get the majority of your food shopping?'). |
||||
| Jonnyboy |
I'm sorry but I consider 'freedom food' a necessary first step. It raises the issue of animal welfare without adding a price increase that allows people to ignore it completely.
I agree that it's far from perfect, but I haven't noticed it being particularly misleading. perhaps that's down to the consumers as much as anything? |
||||
| Ian33568 |
It would be easy enough to set up a web based poll and distribute the link via Downsizers. You could easily get free web space and use the power of the web to get your results - maybe need to think about analysis and number crunching though - this could really take off. | ||||
| Brownbear |
Web polling is too open to manipulation by partisans of one view or another to be of any evidential value. |
||||
| Mary-Jane |
I agree - but aside from BB's stance on the matter I do think a survey on what people think different labelling mean is a good idea. |
||||
| Jonnyboy |
BB may well be right for all I know, I'll peel off those sticky labels next time I'm in a meat aisle. | ||||
| Stacey |
See, this is what I mean about people seeing the label 'ethical' or 'green' or 'environmentally friendly' and assuming it matches their own ethical code. Unless people question everything it can be worse than meaningless. |
||||
| Stacey |
Agreed. At best it could be used as a basis for change but even at it's 'worst' it would still be extremely interesting. |
||||
| Mary-Jane |
So, shall we get involved Stacey? Or do you think thee and me will just end up getting cross with people and start bashing them over the heads with our clipboards? 
|
||||
| Ian33568 |
An ad-hoc poll conducted outside of a well constructed research study would only have the same validity. There is a lot of research already out there on labelling - maybe a good starting point. |
||||
| Stacey |
Us? Cross? 
I'm willing to have a go (within my capabilities of course) |
||||
| Brownbear |
Please excuse my momentary outbreak of over-enthusiasm. No doubt some postgrad somewhere is already working on this.
Just a matter of finding out who they are and asking them for a look at their data. |
||||
| Mary-Jane |
Oh - how disappointing. I thought we were going to do our own survey. 
|
||||
| Stacey |
He doesn't want us MJ 
|
||||
| Mary-Jane |
Harrumph.
Mind you, we could do our own survey... 
|
||||
| Brownbear |
Do you think there's any point? I thought there was some point in using it against the RSPCAs prostitution, but if people here disagree with that I would hardly ask them to assist and then use the fruits of their work in a manner of which they disapproved. So if not as first intended, what would be the purpose? |
||||
| JB |
It is misleading because 'freedom food' does make it sound like it's something to do with free range or some other more meaningful standard while the RSPCA association further enhances that appearance. In fact of course FF means little more than legal minimum standards and even those appear to not be that well enforced. |
||||
| Mary-Jane |
Oh stop being so precious BB - or I'll poke you in the ear with something sharp and pointed.
All information is fascinating on some level or another (except perhaps collections of old train timetables and any publication entitled 'Movements for Morris Dancers'). What you want to do with it in your fight against 'RSPCA prostitution' is up to you. I would just find it interesting because I'd like to know... and it would be useful for people to share. |
||||
| Rob R |
I'd be inclined to agree with the latter, but not the former. |
||||
| JB |
From what I had read about freedom foods their poultry standards appeared to be little more than the "enriched environment" which will be the legal minimum soon in Europe. I couldn't say about other livestock standards. |
||||
| Rob R |
Most of the problems of intensive poultry are caused directly by stocking density; faecal air particles, litter load, feeder/waterer access, exercise space, ventilation, etc. Environmental enrichment is pretty much pointless at high density & for all it's problems, FF does significantly reduce stocking density from the minimum (by far the biggest direct cost to the industry of becoming FF). | ||||
| RichardW |
I would find it very interesting from a marketing point of view. What should we be aiming at putting on our labels & should be be nationaly cirtified or set up our own independant system.
Richard |
||||
| Ian33568 |
Not sure how useful this is:
http://www.food.gov.uk/foodlabelling/ |
||||
| Pel |
Do you think freedom foods might be different with each farm, not as in its changes, but maybe some inspectors go with the minimum guidelines only whilst other have higher standards?
At work, the sheep, cattle and pigs are freedom foods, not that anyone would know, as they don't put it on the bl**dy packaging, and they don't stick organic on the beef and lamb either.. anyways, the FF inspector is good round this area, but i was wondering maybe he has a higher standard than others.. i know they probably get trained to be the same standard, but everyone has their own perspective of things. I can't say anything about poultry, i don't know the standard for that. Until recently if i was to farm, i would have just opted with FF as at work its good, but with the recent media converage, it don't seem as good. |
||||
| Rob R |
Like any inspection scheme it is open to interpretation, and while most industries have quantitive standards to comply to, an awful lot of farming 'quality' is subjective (and dealing with the huge variable of nature, which isn't as easy to pin down to a standard), or so it seems. I think the nature of farming (and fact that often inspectors have been affiliated to farming in some way) makes inspectors more variable too, based on their own experience. |