On Thursday, March 14, 2002, at 10:44 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Kevin Robert Dean wrote:
>
>> OSU SCIENTIST QUESTIONS THE MORAL BASIS OF A VEGAN
>> DIET
>
> I talked to an East Coaster a while back who spent some time in
> Berkeley, hating it. She said the final straw, though, was when she
> bought a pound of coffee that had a label assuring that "no birds were
> harmed" in the production of the beans.
just another reason i don't want to live in new york. "those birds wouldn't last a day in The City. they'd probably wander into alphabet city and it would be all over."
i'm not sure i understand why it's necessary to kill birds in order to grow coffee. one off several advantages of shade grown coffee is that birds get to keep their habitats. it also makes better coffee. but it takes longer and typically yields less, iirc. perhaps she'd be happier with a coffee label assuring "we don't give a hoot about animals that may or may not have been harmed in the production of this coffee."
not to be snide, really, but gee whiz, what's so bad about adopting agricultural practices that respect local wildlife? the only angle i can see is the one a friend of mine used to take--she'd see "dolphin-safe" on tuna cans and could only wonder why we don't have "worker-safe" labels. of course, in the case of coffee, i believe most shade-grown (bird-friendly) coffee you'll see in this country is produced on a coop.
j