I totally agree the West needs to improve animal welfare even further. But SOME cruelty laws are better than NONE, which is why I bring up China more. But you're totally right, there's awful stuff going on here, too.
Here's an interesting point: do we know that the poultry/fish industries can absorb the cost of "humanely" raiding these animals without collapsing? Assuming the money is there and this law would not kill an industry, how can we ensure that these cost increases are not passed on to the consumer?
Living in the US is expensive enough. Would you guarantee "ethical eggs" if the cost was fewer poor people could afford them? I am not happy that we treat poultry and fish the way we do, but if that means keeping those products affordable the I'd take that over increasing the welfare of an animal.
> do we know that the poultry/fish industries can absorb the cost of "humanely" raiding these animals without collapsing?
Enter the Tardis, go back 200 years and replace "poultry/fish" with "cotton/tobacco" and "eggs" with "fabric".
I don't think the industry needs to absorb those costs. Food is not expensive, we are just too stupid to eat it. It is ridiculously cheap since the industrialization of its production:
* We got used to only eating the very best. Lots of fruit does never reach the consumer because it does not look "nice" enough.
* We don't plan anymore. "Chicken today, we'll use the stock tomorrow for $this and the day after we can use the leftovers of $this for $that." That too comes with a high price.
* We became squeamish: A lot of meat that was regularly eaten just 50 years ago completely disappeared from our menus (tongue, liver, kidney, heart, tail, testicles, intestines). Since you are already paying for those parts, why not eat them?
* We have sacrificed the local workers' kitchen for the reliability of fast food chains: 365 days the same menu. That means 365 days of constant quality - pretty expensive when compared to the chef who goes to the market every day, picks what is good and affordable (which usually translates to "in season") and offers a good, simple and home cooked meal for $2.
* We are completely detached from our food: Who can, without googling, name 3 varieties of apples, how they taste and where they are used best? How much bread does a 10 by 10 meter field of wheat yield?
And by "we" I mean the US and Europe, in most other parts of the world people have a much, much healthier relation with their food.
Why do you want to "ensure that these cost increases are not passed on to the consumer"? Isn't that a major problem already (people not paying the real cost of their food)?
I can appreciate the need for cheap protein, but I don't see why it should be addressed in isolation from any other form of social inequality.
I see no reason why the government should be subsidizing someone's steak, bacon or fish. Eggs and dairy? Yes, but only for the vulnerable.
Living in the US is expensive enough. Would you guarantee "ethical eggs" if the cost was fewer poor people could afford them? I am not happy that we treat poultry and fish the way we do, but if that means keeping those products affordable the I'd take that over increasing the welfare of an animal.