I remember when "free range" chicken/eggs came around. The definition of that is wild. Opened my eyes to how bullshit all of the US food labeling stuff is. It means something like they have access to 2 square feet of outdoor space access. But theres like no rules on how often they need to be able to use it. So you can just have thousands of chickens you lets cycle through a tiny outdoor area once in their lives and it meets the requirement. It's a joke.
Supersize Me 2: Holy Chicken! covers this and is definitely worth a watch. He sets up a fried chicken restaurant and establishes all the minimum criteria to promote your food as free range/organic/healthy etc when it really isn't.
There is a thing now in Germany called "outdoor climate" for beef etc. It's supposed to be the second best form of farming and literally means: There needs to be a window somewhere.
STOSSLÜFTEN
The best part is that chicken naturally live in forests. They are afraid of open spaces because those come with the threat of birds of prey.
I believe organic chicken requires them not to be pumped with antibiotics; at least in my county.
This means farms literally cannot keep them in as horrible and cramped conditions because the risk of disease could wipe them out.
I'm not an organic nut, but I do buy organic chicken/eggs or go without.
In most countries, organic mostly just means that the feed they use is organic with maybe a few minor other additions, but regardless I wouldn't trust any claims of anything actually being antibiotic-free.
Sadly, what it means in practice is that access to outdoors is strictly controlled or forbidden, and the factory will probably kill all the chickens and throw them in the trash if a disease outbreaks. There's a bunch of talk now in big ag about biosecurity, and how small farms are a risk because they can introduce disease. How about actually have a natural farm instead of a micromanaged industrial operation, and then maybe the animals will be robust to illness.
remember: you don't have to be vegan to worry about animal welfare
However, it does help if you want to minimise your personal contribution towards animal suffering.
But what good is worrying?
Become vegan and actually act.
You realize we don't want to do that, and aren't going to, right?
Unless both you and I agree on regulation, animal abuse will continue uncontested.
I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won't become vegan, and take the compromise of continued meat production with strict punishment for animal abuse?
I advocate for widespread prolonged de-use and eventually abolition of animals as objects in societies that don't need to.
What you've amounted to saying is "if the world can't be 100% vegan, why try?"
Let's try this then-
Me: "respect women"
Misogynist: "You realize we don't want to do that, and aren't going to, right?
Unless both you and I agree on regulation, misogyny will continue uncontested.
I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won't become a feminist, and take the compromise of continued sexism with strict punishment for female abuse?"
Or this one's good-
Me: "don't be racist"
Racist: "You realize we don't want to do that, and aren't going to, right?
Unless both you and I agree on regulation, racist will continue uncontested.
I think we need better regulation, do you? Are you willing to accept that I won't become a non-racist, and take the compromise of continued racism with strict punishment for lynching?"
If the feminist movement met up against people saying what you're saying, what do you think their response would be?
And similarly, what would MLK say to you?
No, before you call out my comparison, I'm not comparing racism to sexism to animal abuse. I'm comparing the rhetoric used to defend the acts themselves. And it's awfully similar.
In summation; I choose consistency in my morality, based on this: if the topic is different, but my rhetoric to justify is the same, check my biases.
People are just simply inconsistent with their justifications, mainly due to detachment from the reality.
I do not care to even read the main body of your argument.
Animals will continue to be eaten, and because of your distracting efforts it will continue to be in the most painful and depressing ways. Because you don't support regulations.
It's OK. Your veiled attempt at good faith discussion is textbook, so was expected.
It's not my goal to make YOU individually vegan. Others can read and evaluate my reasoning, and by extension, the lack of yours.
You still don't support regulation.
And you still support animal abuse when you don't have to.
Take care, and try and lead a better life mate.
Hah, fuck off.
Go yell about Pokemon ethics.
Nothing of value to add?
Peace.
Also don't have to care about animal welfare to be vegan
But there's a difference between animals and capital goods producing meat.
The only goal for a farmer is in the end how much money you can make. And yes healthy and happy animals taste better but people buy cheap shit so usually the welfare isn't paid by people.
The history of food labels is really interesting and sad. It's a classic example of regulatory capture. Even the term "organic" doesn't come close to what many people think it does. The best most of us can do is find a local farmer or coop you trust, ideally one that practices permaculture, that sells to the public. Unfortunately, that can be a challenge to find and can be prohibitive for those with lower incomes or lack of transportation.
It's incredibly frustrating. Free-range eggs vs cage-free eggs... companies waging war on soy/almond milk, "cheese products".
ill just stick with my beans and rice 
Killed Humanly
by Juan.
I saw a label that said, "certified humane" which sounded nice.
Also goes for PETA and their poor wool sheeps
