Live sales: No problem so long as animals aren't endangered species

The Straits Times
STForum Online
April 18, 2009

Live sales: No problem so long as animals aren't endangered species

I REFER to yesterday's letter by Mr Howard Shaw, 'Stop live animal sales, urge activists', and disagree with the view that the sale and consumption of live seafood pose ethical, environmental and economic problems beyond the initial impression of having a convenient source of fresh seafood.

The unfortunate truth is that if the human race has to eat to live, we have to kill animals from land and sea to survive. We cannot live on rice and vegetables alone. We cannot ignore the fact that fresh meats are more nutritious than frozen ones.

It is strange to consider the consumption of live frogs, soft-shell turtles, razor clams and eels as posing ethical and environmental problems, when we should logically consider them as complementary to live fish, prawns and other live animals. The increasing trend of more variety of live seafood made available is purely due to better transport and handling systems and business acumen of bosses.

I do not see a threat to local businesses like wet markets when most if not all food is imported. Importing from countries of abundance helps to balance the food chains and the ecosystem. In fact, killing whales and sharks is one of nature's ways to maintain the eco-balance because their consumption of sea creatures is horrendous.

If live animals sold in supermarkets are not endangered species, there is no reason to stop introducing better service to customers to complement the supply of wet markets. Yes, live animals should be kept in clean and non-crowded environments to prevent cruelty. Also, the slaughter of live animals in supermarkets should be more discreet and done behind the counter, out of sight of customers, and meat should be thoroughly cleaned before delivery.

Paul Chan

Latest comments

Quote: The unfortunate truth is that if the human race has to eat to live, we have to kill animals from land and sea to survive. We cannot live on rice and vegetables alone. Says who? Certain religious people (Buddhist monks, Christians fasting for Lent), vegetarians etc - who don't eat meat - aren't part of the human race? Quote: We cannot ignore the fact that fresh meats are more nutritious than frozen ones. Fact?! Yours? Quote: It is strange to consider the consumption of live frogs, soft-shell turtles, razor clams and eels as posing ethical and environmental problems, when we should logically consider them as complementary to live fish, prawns and other live animals. Strange? Might as well start eating dogs, rabbits, cats, camels, donkeys - all manner of four-legged animals - and consider them an extension of cattle. How illogical is that?! Quote: The increasing trend of more variety of live seafood made available is purely due to better transport and handling systems and business acumen of bosses. Purely? What about a "strange" taste for game? Quote: Importing from countries of abundance helps to balance the food chains and the ecosystem. You don't need "abundance" to be able to export. You just have to overfish/kill. Quote: In fact, killing whales and sharks is one of nature's ways to maintain the eco-balance because their consumption of sea creatures is horrendous. Nature does not kill whales or sharks except by natural death, it is us humans who do, mistake not. And what is the meaning of "horrendous"? If I'd to grade your composition, you'd fail for lack of argumentation - a flimsy attempt to get away from/without facts. Quote: If live animals sold in supermarkets are not endangered species, there is no reason to stop introducing better service to customers to complement the supply of wet markets. Which makes me wonder, are humans endangered? Why not, you know, introduce better service to "customers" by promoting slavery - live labor?

Posted by: unewolke at Sat Apr 18 06:19:26 SGT 2009