Talk:Veal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The free-raising method is environmentally friendly and sustainable.[edit]

Under types, free raised veal. This cites no sources and common sense tells me that it is probably no more enviromentally friendly than the other methods. It also cannot possibly be more sustainable unless the calves are allowed to breed before they are slaughtered. For these reasons I have removed this statement. The statement that this type of veal contains less fat also cites no sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.123.29 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about free-raised veal has a weak/biassed reference and strikes me as dubious. If these calves are never (never ever) given anti-biotics, even when they become ill, that would not strike me as a good thing.Ratinabox (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The controversy section[edit]

The "controversy" section is a good three times larger than the rest of the article, which seems to push this article towards a negative POV. Is there any reason there is no section about its role in cuisine? — TheKMantalk 00:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame. Some people know enough of, and are sick and tired of hearing about, the method in which the meat is procured. I for one would like to see more information on the tendancies the meat has, like on all the other pages on various meats. It states certain cuisines, but apart from the names of countries, we have no more information!! Lady BlahDeBlah 15:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to add some balance, though I haven't included specific dishes. Some pictures of food would be nice.

Pictures smictures. I was looking for the best and proper ways to cook veal, of which this article is woefully deficient. Instead of a vegatarian's guide to why crackpots should hate veal production, how about a mature, intellegent guide to preparing, serving, and eating one of the worlds oldest meats? Its for reasons like this that many Wiki pages have become gutless imitations of propaganda blogs. Radzewicz (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. The treatment of veal calves and the process of converting them into a food item is relevant. If you feel some specific portion of this article is biases, perhaps you should discus that instead of your anti-vegetarian biases. 08:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


Blatant plagiarism: In this article, part of the controversy section reads: "In recent practice, living conditions for veal calves vary greatly, with some modern farms providing clean, well-lit and -ventilated environments, with enough room for calves to STAND, STRETCH, GROOM THEMSELVES AND LAY DOWN IN A NATURAL POSITION." This phrase capitalized is copied verbatim from this pro-veal link: http://www.dutchvalleyveal.com/html/vealfaqs-links.htm (See Q: How are veal calves housed?). Phrase needs to be cited in the article to show that this viewpoint is biased toward the pro-veal side. 68.238.194.212 04:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC) Joe Daniels August 20, 2006[reply]

There was no reference in the article to the recent decision of the European Union to ban the use of veal crates and anemia inducing diets. (as of 2007) I do not feel that including this citation in the article is POV; I am not asserting whether the EU was right or wrong to pass this legislation. Rather, it is simply a statement of what the European Union voted to do. The counterarguments to ending the use of veal crates in this section keeps this article balanced.

I've made a couple of changes to wording to make the article more informative. I think they're minor but didn't flag them as such in case anyone else disagreed.RDT2 14:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The contraversy section is rediculously large. No article should ever have more than 10% of the content as contraversy. WilyD 00:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article does seem to read like propaganda from the veal producing industry. Using the word "cull" instead of slaughtered is a perfect example of this. It is dishonest, and not neutral at all. Animals are slaughtered when they are killed for their meat. Now saying murdered would also not be neutral. I suggest "culled" be changed to "slaughtered". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.97.251 (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A dictionary I checked included several variations on "slaughter" as definitions of "cull". It looks like it's more of a synonym than a euphemism, so I don't think there's any need to change it. If it said they were, say, "processed into veal" then I'd agree that it was euphemistic, diverting attention from the killing by making the process of doing so vague, but to cull a group of animals invariably means to slaughter them. --Icarus (Hi!) 15:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I wrote something a bit brash earlier and I think I'll replace that by saying the terms factory farm and "individual attention" are contradictory by nature. thousands of these animals are crammed into a single factory farm unit and there is no room for individual attention as, among other things, it is not economically viable to do so. Most veal end up lame before it is their time to be "culled" and that's the point. By restricting the baby calves movements so much it atrophies the muscles making the meat tenderer and more valuable. There are no sources to back up the claim that giving individual attention to these animals is a common practice on any factory farm, especial veal factories, and I dispute it. In fact, I think there's much to dispute about this entire article. As has been stated numerous times before, much of this reads like veal factory farm propaganda and I believe this whole article needs an overhaul.

Q: Why is Bernie Rollins marked as an unreliable source? He is the single most expert and experienced agricultural ethicist alive on the planet today.Ratinabox (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edited first paragraph of "Animal Welfare" to remove poorly worded sections. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.240.2 (talk) 08:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cull v. Slaughter[edit]

I grew up on a farm. Culling was what you did when having members of the herd killed due to illness, injury, or genetic inferiority (as to eliminate undesirable traits from a branch of breeding stock). I never heard the word 'cull' used as a euphamism for slaughter.

By contrast, 'slaughter' meant to kill an animal as a prelude to cleaning and butchering the meat.

Each word covered a specific process. 12.190.158.7 (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the inside knowledge! --Icarus (Hi!) 16:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with 12.190.158.7 - it is not another word for slaughter. A cull is a more widespread large-scale undertaking in which a part of a population needs to be killed off. 12.190... 's reasons were right on the money. A few months ago in Egypt, when people were really paranoid of the swine flu, the Egyptian Government decided to have every pig in Egypt killed off, even though none of them had swine flu, they did it, and that process of control is called a cull. It also happens with wildlife around the world. For example: wolves in some areas "seem" excessive to pro-hunting organizations, following people go out a cull off a number of them.

I've personally been to 2 veal farms in the states, and I have to say it was a very disturbing experience. It is 100% clear as to why veal gets so much retaliation.

'Culled' is used once in the article, to be more accurate, I'm going to change it to 'slaughtered'. Furthermore, with the passing of Prop. 2 in California last November, veal crates will soon be banned in California (& Michigan), I'm going to add this info to the article.

I agree with the WilyD above, the controversy section is very large, but since this is a situation with a high amount of controversy, I think the controversy section should be large, but if it over-dominates, then obviously we should make a separate page just for veal's controversy.

I'm going to spend some time on this article to improve it and get more sources. NoFlyingCars (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Overhaul[edit]

Hey folks, yes, this article needs it. Tons of things currently in this article are not sources, especially in the Production section. Researching this unsourced information I could only find an accurate source for about 80% of it all. I thus will remove the unsorced content and replaced it with sourced content. I've gathered almost 40 other sources and a good bit of other information to really expand this article to be a great place to learn about veal. The major expansions I'm working on is adding a History section, which this article lacks. Furthermore, I have a strong amount of material to about double the size of the production section that goes into the entire production process: birth, housing, feeding, parts of calf used, and color factors that determine veal value. Furthermore, I feel the animal welfare section needs to be heavily expanded. I'm working on a good bit of information on it and trying hard to not make it biased. I feel it's about evenly balanced with what I have, so far. It will contain strong points in the veal industry, such as their cooperation to improve facilities by customer request. It'll have a little section on hormone usage, and a sort of timeline on where and when veal crates have been banned. Some of this info was in the Production section, but it really doesn't fit well in there.

Anyways, I'm gonna do the changes to this article in the next few days after I complete my drafts. I'd appreciate some feedback. And my grammar is not 100% correct, so someone will have to run through it to fix any grammar mistakes. It's taken me many hours to gather up all the information and arrange it, to make this a respectable article, but it's worth it. I want to get rid of the warning tags on the article, which is my goal. Thanks NoFlyingCars (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not buying into to the arguments but when you redo this page please try to take out as much repetition as possible. The controversy items are doubled up a bit which does make it seem a bit soapboxy.58.170.99.19 (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I fully agree with you. I'm almost done with an overhaul which organizes everything better, and kills the doubled controversy items, and adds more information to the article, as well as tons of reliable sources. I've been spending a good while researching and so forth and will have the article updated before November 10th, 2009. It will require review. Much thanks. NoFlyingCars (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12.106.251.2 (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Some time back I wrote a section about welfare that was neutral and cited numerous scientific studies from peer-revoewed journals. Where did that section go? Can it be recovered? It seems to have been replaced by a very slanted section of text using emotionally loaded and poorly defined terms (e.g. "factory farming").[reply]


it looks like someone assumed half of the calves born were male, then of those males, half of them may have been female lol. thats in the births section. anyone else see that as poor wording?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.186.79 (talk) 05:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of questionable neutrality banners?[edit]

I re-did, improved, and expanded both the Production and Animal Welfare sections and I believe they are both neutral, as it is. I need more input on this. Do my improvements work? I would like to get these eye-sore banners removed and have a fully neutral article. It looks good in my eyes, how about yours? Much thanks, NoFlyingCars (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The banners are still there. I came to the Talk page to see why the "Production" section was considered of questionable neutrality; I don't see anything there that seems particularly biased (the periodic sections about "free raised" veal do read like they were lifted from a brochure or press release, but that's not necessarily an indication of bias as long as the statements themselves are objectively true). 68.105.71.75 (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Animal Welfare section, I'm guessing the press release/brochure came from "Strauss Brands", whoever they are. This section is definitely more iffy bias-wise than the Production section was and practically seems like a commercial. Pretty sure this could still be trimmed (eliminating every mention of a specific brand would help considerably). 68.105.71.75 (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The humane society link is broken[edit]

The article has a link into the investigation of the closed slaughterhouse. It used to be at: http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/10/veal_investigation_103009.html

It was changed to just say link broken. I chnaged to text to say it wasn't available anymore. If anyone else has a location for where it could be found feel free to put it back. I checked archive.org's wayback machine, and it wasn't there.

The article probably stand pretty well without the link to the video, and the reference could probably be taken out completely since the link doesn't work anymore. What do you think? Vettrock (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took out the whole line. Vettrock (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the video here http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2009/10/calf_investigation_103009.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.104.229 (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The first reference link is also no longer available - the BBC link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.122.89 (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the section that discusses the slaughterhouse that was closed down is not mentioned by name. The name was the 'Bushway Packing Plant'. I see no reason to NOT name the plant or even mention the owner, Frank Perretta. Here is a link that still works, 

http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2010/06/bushway-owner-charged-with-animal-cruelty.html

Don't know why the link isn't highlighting as I typed it exactly. If you type it in search or in the http header it will come up. Some of the links that are listed in the article don't work anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.232.44 (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banned in Finland[edit]

Veal calf production as such is not allowed in many Northern European countries, such as in Finland. As in Finland giving feed, drink or other nutrition which is known to be dangerous to the health of the animal to an animal which is being cared for is prohibited, as well as failing to give nutrients the lack of which is known to cause the animal to fall ill

Since Veal production does not necessarily require giving harmful nutrients, this assertion needs more explanation beyond the links. Dainamo (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct that veal production does not necessarily REQUIRE giving harmful nutrients. However it is common practice in veal production to feed veal cattle with a low-iron milk solution. This could be constructed as 'failing to provide nutrients' as it creates a health deficiency in veal cattle for cosmetic purpose (a whiter meat tone than you would achieve using natural milk to feed the cattle). JLV88 (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Calf hutches.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Calf hutches.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Calf hutches.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 04:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article sucks[edit]

I am amazed that this very biased POV and deficient article has been allowed to stand. It is a FACT that historically much or most veal was produced in what many countries now consider illegal conditions. Where is this explained? It isn't. Those conditions include confinement and forced feeding. Where are these methods explained? Why isn't there a link to foie gras? There is significant disagreement between what is and what is not humane living conditions and diet, yet that isn't anywhere to be seen here. Why not? I'd be very surprized if both sides haven't scientific studies supporting their POVs. If I'm correct, why isn't there a section describing the various requirements (UK, USA (state by state), Europe, etc.) as well as what the science has found (in terms of health and stress)?? I have no expectation that the vegetarians will agree with the people who eat road kill, but at least the major governmental, business, and humane organizations POVs should be made explicit and discussed. Which of the major restaurant chains feature veal? (and how is that veal raised?)173.189.77.209 (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying "this sucks", being needlessly offensive, why not provide some of the information that you feel is missing, since you seem to be aware of it? 331dot (talk) 16:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I don't understand how a "link to foie gras", which is a paté created from the fattened livers of ducks and goose, would benefit this article. The ONLY thing foie gras and veal have in common is that they're both considered to be controversial dishes.
Veal calves aren't being force-fed a milk solution. They're being fed a synthesized milk solution for the purpose of whitening their meat. While that's probably still worth including in the article it is not the same thing as being force-fed. Force-feeding involves jamming a tube down an animals throat in order to be able to fatten it quicker than you would be able to if the animal could freely choose how much it ate. This would make no sense for veal calves. 79.237.204.26 (talk) 08:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PETA is not a reliable source[edit]

Please do not use PETA as a source for animal husbandry and livestock production articles. This is the equivilant of using the Neo Nazi party as a source for the holocaust. WP:QUESTIONABLE

The Nazi/Peta bit is completely over the top - this is not to say PETA is not often over the top in their own way - but bringing in the Nazis and the Holocaust is ridiculous!

On the contrary. Using the *meat industry* is not a reliable source, and is the one equivalent to the Nazis in the holocaust. Asking PETA about factory farming is somewhat like asking Jewish organizations about the holocaust. They represent the victims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.33.5 (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • laugh* The first comment specified "Neo-Nazi" and as such, it's actually the better analogy. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.116.101 (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split article[edit]

I propose that this article be split into an article on "veal(meat)" and an article on "veal calves". The first article will focus on varieties of commercially available meat, meat cuts and the properties of this meat relative to other meats, and what culinary uses they are put to. The article on veal calves will focus on the lives of the animals that provide the veal. Most of this article actually deals with the veal calves and conditions in which they are raised. The best approach would be to rename this article veal calves and remove references to veal meat, such as types of meat and their culinary uses to a new article called veal(meat). In addition, this will allow for the removal of terms such as production of meat when talking about the raising of animals. Such industry terms suggest that meat is produced in a factory as opposed to the reality that meat comes from the slaughter of sentient living animals; meat and calves are not synonymous. Meat production starts with the slaughter of an animal rather than with the raising of an animal. The slaughter and cutup of a calf is thus technically a part of veal(meat). At least one other Wikipedia (Nederlands) has a split article (Kalfsvlees and Vleeskalf) for this currently single page. The veal calves article will also allow a focus on the veal calves away from the page of calves or calf (general) in justness to the large role they play in our society.If there is no opposition to this split I will proceed with split. It will also remove the ambiguity between calf(leg) and calf(cattle)Whatever2009 (talk) 03:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the opposite. You cannot separate the veal(meat) from where it came from - the calves. One should be aware of the controversies in raising calves in factory farming, before deciding to consume it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.182.33.5 (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no European ban on veal, and there never was.[edit]

How can anybody read from those two sources that veal is banned in the EU since 2007?

In June 2007 the only thing that happened was that it was declared, by law, what is allowed to be called veal, and what is not.

Below 8 Months of Age is Veal, between 8 till 12 its "Young Bull".

There is no law for a ban on it. Or at least none i could find. If you say there is one, please provide a source that states so! The two sources didn't talk anything about a European wide ban.

One Source, which i won't even say is reliable, talks about their own stuff, and that it will be illegal in 2007. So the article is older than the planned law itself. Thats not a source for a law that doesn't exist in this way.

The second one is an article from 1995..... do i need to say more? --95.88.224.174 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Veal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

There are still a lot of advocacy sites (most anti-veal) that are used as references here. That is fine if you are using them solely to say "group X believes Y" , but these are being used to state facts in Wiki's voice. I realize this is a controversial issue, but we still need to use RS. Please evaluate whether links to these groups are appropriate throughout. I have removed some dead links and replaced with citation needed, but many of the existing live links are advocacy sites inappropriate for factual citation without reference to the source and bias of facts.12.11.127.253 (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The HSUS link is broken, and it is referenced several times throughout (It's also the Humane society, not an impartial source, being used to speak in the impartial voice of wiki). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.11.127.253 (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EU veal crate ban: dates[edit]

It looks like the relevant legislation is Council Directive 2008/119/EC which was enacted on 18 December 2008 and came into force on 4 February 2009. Confusingly, Eur-Lex says "since 1st January 2007" without really explaining what this means or where the date comes from - perhaps someone more familiar with Eur-Lex can enlighten us. It also contains provisions that apparently have retroactive effect, specifically Article 3 (imposing requirements on calf housing from 1998) and Article 6 (requiring the Commission to submit a report by 2006). I was under the impression that retroactive law was not allowed in the EU - is this directive just an amendment to an amended version of previously existing law? It does repeal an earlier directive, 91/629/EEC from 1991, which imposes less stringent requirements and prohibits non-conforming housing from being used after 31 December 2007, a full year later than the ban date of January 2007 stated in this article. Hairy Dude (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody EU legislation - it's always so complicated. When it gets like this, I tend to go to reputable news papers on the basis that "verifiability trumps the truth" on WP. Not a newspaper, but I have found this "Although the veal crate was banned across the EU in January 2007," [1] DrChrissy (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Veal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial sections taking over the article?[edit]

While I see that there has been a cuisine section added, the sections regarding the controversial nature of veal remain the majority of the article. This seems excessive, and seems likely to have been driven by people pushing an agenda. The controversies surrounding veal production are a valid part of the article, but when they start taking the article as a whole over, overshadow any other aspect of the topic, and become the majority of the article, that's excessive. It would be comparable to editing the article on George Washington so that 75% of the article discussed the fact that he owned slaves, overshadowing his military career, time as POTUS, etc., or if the article on Kevin Spacey were edited to consist of mostly the topic of the accusations of sexual assault that have been levied against him, leaving his acting career as something of an afterthought.

Wikipedia is not a cookbook, but neither should it be a place to litigate fashionable debates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.151.247 (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article does seem to be weighted down with discussion on contemporary controversy. It seems to me that there is considerable historical material neglected in the article currently. Drsruli (talk) 04:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cost[edit]

The lead paragraph mentions that veal is more expensive, but this is not touched on in the article. WHY should veal be more expensive(, since it sounds like it ought to be much cheaper to produce)? (The animal is raised to slaughter in a much shorter period of time.) Drsruli (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

US Focused?[edit]

In the past I have seen some articles or sections have a flag about being US-focused as a way to promote (I think) people adding information from other places. I noticed the section on animal welfare was very heavily about North America and wondered if this would be a useful addition? (Afraid I can’t expand the section myself as I was here looking for the information and don’t have time to research it.

If someone with the know-how of adding that flag agrees, I think it would be useful to add, please. TroyOlympicCollateral (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veal&oldid=1194479957"