The hunter Philipp Ritter keeps his eyes fixed on the deer, pulls the trigger and hits the animal directly in the heart with one shot. It has not noticed anything and within a few moments the deer collapses and lies still. But that, of course, is not the way most people today get their meat. People have gradually moved away from hunting through the intermediate stages of farmer and butcher to today’s industrial processing of meat, in order to give consumers the best possible experience. Nowadays, it is possible to walk into a shop and buy a nicely packaged piece of meat at a cheap price. It is easy to forget that behind every piece of meat is a life that has come to an end.
But is it right that animals are only bred for the purpose of slaughter? What gives humans the right to have the upper hand like this, what makes the difference between animals and humans? It has been proven that animals are by no means less intelligent than humans, in many cases they even outperform humans. It has also been observed that they have feelingsand communicate within their species.
Kevin Ischi, from the Catholic Church in the canton of Zurich, says from his point of view: „According to biblical traditions, man is not only a creature of God, but he is also in God’s image. This means that humans should not only ’own‘ or ’rule‘ over animals, but should also care for their fellow creatures. Humans are also allowed to use natural resources for their own needs. The killing of animals for food is therefore not forbidden from a Christian point of view, but it is a question of the right measure. It is also about minimising the suffering of living creatures and ensuring that people value the animals that are killed and appreciate them as a gift from God. Showing such appreciation is difficult in the face of increasing industrial, mechanised, ‘invisible’ and anonymous ‘animal production’. Conscious meat consumption and the way animals are reared and killed is therefore absolutely necessary from a Christian perspective. This is why many Christians don’t eat meat or limit their consumption. Not because their faith directly forbids it, but because their faith makes them act responsibly and consciously.“
But does this really reflect today’s world? Most people like animals and don’t want to harm them but eat them anyway. This is the so-called meat paradox, a form of cognitive dissonance. Meat processing companies like Switzerland’s Micarna make it possible for people to live with this contradiction. They position themselves on this issue as follows: „We do not consider consumers who eat meat and at the same time claim not to be able to slaughter an animal to be dishonest. They make this statement, that they aren’t able to slaughter, theoretically and at a time when they are not in an emergency situation. It can be assumed that many people could and would kill an animal if they were in the wild and hungry. Nevertheless, many would probably have to overcome themselves to do so. Thanks to butchers and retailers, most people no longer need to kill, gut and bone an animal. This is also the result of the increasing division of labour in the economy and does not only apply to meat production. Thanks to the appetisingly packaged pieces of meat, many consumers are able to ignore the fact that it was once a living being. From our point of view, this abstraction offers the opportunity to overcome cognitive dissonance.“
But is cognitive dissonance something that should be overcome? Should people stop questioning things?
The farm Obermettlen in the canton of Lucerne in Switzerland has also looked into this issue and found discrepancies. The current farming system was not in line with these farmers’ values, and they invented their own concept with the aim of creating an animal-friendly meat consumption system. There are five old suckler cows on their farm that actually should have been slaughtered. For example, because they have lost a calf or simply to make room for a younger cow. On the farm, however, they are given a second chance and live as long as they can give birth to calves. These calves are then assigned to eight “sponsors” who can visit them on the farm from birth until about two years later when the calves are slaughtered. The sponsors then receive their part of the meat. They pay 730 Swiss francs for this, which is one franc per day for two years. This concept is new and bold, but many people are interested in it. The farm has a waiting list of two years and 85% of customers sign up for sponsorship again. Some consumers only eat the meat of their sponsored animal and nothing else. Neighbouring farmers have also started to approach the founders and take an interest in the project and on-farm slaughter and are adopting the concept. There are farms in other countries with a similar concept, where you also buy the products directly from the farmer. However, the buyer there has no relationship with the animal, as it is still bought dead in the shape of a piece of meat. An example is the Charmingfare Farm in in New Hampshire, USA.
Marlen Koch, who started the project in Switzerland together with her husband, says: „The customers who sign up for sponsorship vary. From BBQ lovers to vegetarians who have started to consciously eat less meat again for health or conviction reasons. There are parents who want to use the project to show their children what is behind a bite of meat, so that the children can then decide for themselves later in life whether they want to consume animal products or not. There are both wealthy and less wealthy people involved, from the city as well as people from the village. What they have in common is that it is important to them that „their“ animals are treated well here. And they enjoy the place and appreciate us and our work.“
This is a new concept and yet it takes us back a little in the history of meat processing to the hunters, to the origins. It shows that certain people are prepared to deal with killing, even if it is only a very small part of society.
Hunter Philipp Ritter says that killing is never pleasant for him, but it’s just part of the job. He is a very nature-loving person, and the well-being of the forest and the animals are very important to him. Hunters like him make sure that nature is in balance — if there are too many deer, for example, the trees get damaged. For most hunters, hunting is a passion. They treat the animals with great respect and take just as much of them as necessary.
Philipp Ritter has also thought a lot about how he can eat meat with a clear conscience. He decided that if he wanted to eat it, he had to be ready to kill it. He started with fishing. He had to overcome himself a lot to kill his first fish. But he was also somehow proud that he made it and that he is able to do his craft. Could that also apply to the rest of society?
According to a person in the church, a farm and a hunter, meat consumption is about treating animals with respect and having respect for the lives that have been ended. It is very important to them all to have a direct relationship with the meat and not just to regard it as a product. Only the meat processing company, which profits from this, thinks not. That’s not really surprising. It is its sales strategy, including through advertising, to prevent the buyer from emotionally evaluating whether or not he can justify it ethically. This works very well, but it also results in food waste and a loss of appreciation for the meat. However, if farms like Obermettlen gain in importance, this could mean a change in society.
