Talk:Veal/Archive 1

Debating within the article

I'm tagging this with "neutrality disputed" tag. Especially sentences like "Such activists ignore that the basic method of veal production dates back hundreds of years" and "Less ethical farmers have been known to compensate for stressful, unhealthy living conditions[...]" seem extremely POV to me. Since I'm extremely pro-animal rights, I don't feel comfortable making a judgement call on the specifics. Sean Hayford O'Leary 08:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sort of neutral on the subject and I don't think the article is overly POV or, if it is, it alternates POV enough from one side to the other to give the reader a taste of both arguments. There were major POV problems here in the past (see-sawing from one side to the other), but they've been mostly resolved. The points made in the article are all legitimate, though if you feel specific wording should be changed, go ahead. But I think the POV tag is unwarranted. Geoff NoNick 16:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Did some clean-up. Tried to eliminate the conflicting POVs and replace with an NPOV, as well as organize the article into logical sections. The article could use more details, however, and a photo wouldn't hurt. Geoff NoNick 16:36, 10 Jul 2005 (EDT)

This article probably needs to be organized better. Right now, it looks like an animal rights activist wrote part of it, describing how animals spend their lives in the dark in 2 by 6 foot stalls, made anemic by not being fed iron, so the veal produced is white and tender. In the later part of the article, it mentions anemia is carefully prevented, and that the calves are kept in a barn with fresh air and spacious stalls. I don't know what's the right thing to do here, unless someone can post pictures of the inside of a barn with veal calves. Venice 14:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrote that "conditions very greatly" because, frankly, they will. Removed some contradictions. --Spudtater 21:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a mention of rennet.

I made some changes to resolve the POV problems with the article. Some things to consider:

1. Despite how repulsive it may seem to people working on this page, people have highly varied opinions on what defines animal cruelty (e.g. "cruelty" replaced with "alleged cruelty"); some people take an apathetic stance towards the entire issue.

2. "Agenda" can hint towards political/social bias in my opinion, I deleted it and replaced with "activism" in certain places.

3. Tried to present counter-arguement (long history of veal production) from the POV of a critic of an animal rights activist. Might need to be referenced.

4. A few changes in wording elsewhere to achieve NPOV

FYI, I am a vegan and supporter of animal rights, but I believe the integrity of the article as an encyclopedia entry is very important. Both sides of the arguments must be clearly presented without any slant, such that the reader can form their own opinions. Otherwise it can quickly be dismissed as political propaganda by some. Sorry, this not a blog or discussion board. Let me know what you think, the grammar and source-citing could probably use work. I was merely attempting to establish a framework of NPOV.

Removed POV tag - there doesn't seem to be much support for it. Geoff NoNick 23:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not completely satisfied with this article, but I'm not neutral (animal rights side), and it has improved. Sean Hayford O'Leary 03:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What exactly are "ancient times" in reference to "has been an important ingredient in Italian and French cuisine since ancient times." this is a pretty loaded and vague term i think it could be better if it were more specific.

Being French and Italian, the only way to describe that in terms of cooking is that as two cultures, Veal has played a prominent role in many of our dishes, both French and Italian, and it's been used for a long time. I mean, it's the type of thing that one may find in older, pre-industrial revolution writing; It's found in recipes, descriptions of banquets, etc etc etc. It's vague, but it's legitimate, besides, it's not pressing how far back it went. Instead, treat that as a "origin of popular use". 74.12.7.166 03:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC) Joseph

Hormone veal

I remember that about 15 years ago there was a controversy, I think opposing Europe and the US, on the topic of hormones in veal meat: Europe refused the importation of US meat, which it deemed unsafe for human consumption. Any information on that? David.Monniaux 09:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Links and references

Somebody recently removed the anti-veal links from this article. Please refrain from doing so; they have bearing on this subject and are the source of some of the content. If you think the links section is unbalanced, please find another pro-veal link and add that instead. (The "Frequently Asked Questions" link is pro-veal.) --Spudtater 13:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Antibiotics

Why is a third of the article on antibiotics in meat? Is that a specific problem with veal or is it a problem with meat in general? I think this is entirely off topic. Thomasdelbert 06:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - it's part of the article that's steadily grown over the past couple of months and is dangerously approaching "debating within the article" range again. It needs a bit of a paring back, if you feel up to it. Geoff NoNick 17:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The bit about the effect on humans need to go. The issue of antibiotics have never been one of toxicity, but rather of increased immunity to antibiotics in sickness-causing bacteria. The later effect is documented beyond all reasonable doubt, but doesn't really belong in this article. At most, a link to an appropriate article would do. I'll make this change if noone protests over the next few days :) ---- Esben Mose Hansen

What does veal have to do with german cuisine? There isn't even a german word for veal.

Yes there is, "das Kalbfleisch" is the German word for "Veal". It litterally means "Calf Meat".

Cooking

Perhaps some infomation on veal cooking would make it more neutral? Jack Cain 08:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I've put in some stuff on cooking and substantially rewritted the 'controversy' text. I don't think I've made any material changes but have a look.RDT2 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is stupid

We cant have anything on wikipedia without some sort of stupid fucking "controversy" part of the page, but yet when people edit an article thats misleading, they get banned, fucking wikinazi's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.154.18.6 (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

If you'd like to see something changed, it would be more effective to use this talk page to explain what is misleading and why. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 08:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

From the article...

"Veal production is a contentious matter (Julia Child remarked in her The Way to Cook that non-formula-fed veal ought to be called calf)..."

Straight from the article. Quoting of Julia Child is confusing and seems misplaced. How was her comment a reflection of the contentious matter that is veal production? The article doesn't really explain her quote, or why it's even there. What's it suppose to mean? Is she saying that veal ought to be called calf (if fed grain, etc.) to help "humanize" the animals? I suggest the quote be explained in the article. 207.12.38.25 23:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

NO OBSENE LANGUAGE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.91.215 (talk) 01:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

lamb vs. calf?

First paragraphs discuss lamb, last section discusses calves...what gives?65.112.250.218 20:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits of controversy section

Okay, I saw this article on the requests for protection, and after comparing the different versions, I honestly didn't see how the changes were "gross POV". It seemed like a genuine good-faith effort to improve the article by making it less biased. Whether or not it actually was more or less biased may be debatable, and maybe the editor in question should have come here to discuss before continuing to edit after the second revert, but I still think it was a well-meaning (not to mention well-researched) effort.

I personally think that the restructuring of the section by this editor was better than the old one, and I like how he gave good detail on how the veal industry rebuts its critics. I do think it needs more detail on the reasons why animal-rights activists object to veal production--doing so, I think, would make it seem less like a "gross POV".

I think I'm going to go ahead and apply the POV tag to the section. It could definitely be argued that the section as currently structured skews toward the animal-rights side of the debate. -- NClark128 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Restored the POV tag after anon reverted back to his edits. Can we please get some civil discussion here instead of people constantly reverting each other's edits? -- NClark128 20:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are my comments on the edits by the anonymous user. Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Veal&diff=127719123&oldid=127217635 for reference.

•according to animal rights acitivists [sic] Veal is generally regarded as contentious by society as a whole, which is why it has been banned in the UK and the EU and is controversial among large sections of society in the US including but certainly not limited to animal rights activists.

•These are traditionally raised in crates that restrict physical movement in order to minimize the growth of tough muscle fiber and to keep the flesh white and tender. changed to These calves are traditionally raised in stalls that restrict some physical movement, which according to industry, maximizes individual care, minimizes health concerns, and encourages efficient growth. It is an undeniable fact that restricting the motion of the calves, and a low-iron diet, is specifically intended for pale color and tenderness of the meat. That it "maximizes individual care" or "minimizes health concerns" is not substantiated by any well-regarded or unbiased source and is certainly not the primary reason behind such restriction or diet.

•Meat from unweaned calves is highly sought after. This sentence has been deleted without any justification.

•anæmia-inducing diets changed to all-liquid diets This edit does not make any sense. The principal objection to the diet by the EU is not that it is all-liquid, but that it is devoid of iron.

There are many other sentences edited, all with the same POV. So in addition to the specific points above, the very extensive and unidirectional nature of the edits leads me to believe that an artificial and unnecessary POV color has been added to the article, which was previously composed by many people over an extended period of time. The industry defense may be mentioned in accordance with WP:UNDUE guidelines but should not replace conventional knowledge on the subject. --Splitpeasoup 04:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A few quick comments, since I've got an exam to prepare for:

•Wiktionary defines contentious as "marked by heated arguments or controversy". So yeah, it wouldn't be just animal rights activists that find it "contentious". Maybe we should replace "contentious" with a more clear-sounding word like "controversial".

•Regarding the purpose of limiting physical movement, I can see where you're coming from there in that limiting movement has that effect, but I'm not sure how much of an "undeniable fact" it is that that is the primary reason why they do it. It probably is at least partly the reason, but do we have any documentation on that?

•Regarding low-iron diets--there's a cited source (granted, maybe not an entirely unbiased one, but still) saying that calves are given sufficient amounts of iron, and the editor in question added a study from outside the industry claiming the calves are well-cared for. I think the article needs sourced statements showing specifically what the objections by the EU or others are, rather than just taking it for granted that calves are fed a low-iron diet.

•The "highly sought after" statement--I think that's something that needs to be sourced, and I'm not sure how relevant it is anyway.

Bottom line, though, is that the article, as it was, made too many assumptions regarding mistreatment of calves and doesn't have enough sourced information. I think if we get more sourced information on that and add that to the revisions by this editor, and maybe get rid of a few biased words, it'll be fine. -- NClark128 14:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I had always thought it was a well-accepted fact that the reason for constraining physical motion and delaying weaning was specifically to keep the meat tender and pale; and that this practice in fact predates modern factory farms. Since it's evidently not a well-accepted fact, I'll try and see if there is any good or unbiased source that confirms or denies this. Other editors should feel free to do the same. --Splitpeasoup 20:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a little rudimentary internet sleuthing. The anemia issue was easily verified: almost all scholarly papers on veal diet mention it, and even the Encyclopædia Britannica states "Herbaceous foods are excluded, resulting in an iron deficiency producing the desirable light colour in the meat." (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9074930/veal). One would have to be very selective in one's reading to claim that veal calves are *not* anemic! Regarding restriction of physical movement, the European Commission (EC) Scientific Veterinary Committee (SVC) Report On The Welfare Of Calves states "In order that bone and muscle can develop normally and injury can be avoided the young animal needs to take sufficient exercise... extreme inactivity causes very abnormal muscle development" (page 7) and later, after an extensive discussion on the topic, concludes: "...the housing of calves in individual pens, and the tethering of calves, results in problems in their welfare which are significantly reduced when the calves are group-housed on straw." (page 57) (http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/oldcomm4/out35_en.pdf) The EC-SVC report is a very comprehensive read on all aspects of veal production and references many papers on the subject for further reading. I also like it because it reflects a wide sampling of scientific opinion across all EU countries, many of which have traditionally been veal producing. --Splitpeasoup 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. Having read the various versions, the current version appears to present the most balanced depiction of the debate in my opinion.

2. For the record, and I do have some experience in these matters, the proposition that calves' movement is restricted to improve the tenderness of the meat is not "undeniable" nor should it be a well-accepted fact.

Dr. Scott below is absolutely correct. Veal meat is tender because of the high quality milk replacer diet and overall good health and fitness of the young bull. After all, there's a reason we feed our infant children milk and not corn. But I suppose if a story is repeated enough and millions of dollars are spent promoting it, with few dollars available on the other side to refute, such urban legends become "undeniable" after a while.

Sorry to argue content in this forum but I believe in this case it bears on some of the decisions to be made. Steve4832 01:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Steve4832

It is remarkable to me how many editors with no prior Wikipedia posting history are drawn to this article, and how all of them agree that in their opinion the article in its rewritten form is extremely balanced! --Splitpeasoup 02:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This process is getting tiresome, but I guess it is worth it. I am a U.S. delegate to the OIE, the international standard setting agency for animal disease, welfare and medicine. I will provide a link to a UC Daivs study that agrees with Rutgers there is no clinical anemia in U.S. veal calves. Anemia is a defined term of art, and even your qoute from the Encyclopedia Britannica says they are iron deprived not anemic. Anemia is a defined medical term that can and has to be measured in absolute terms. Any preruminant calf, milking with mom, in a dairy or on veal farm is iron deficient, as cow's milk is devoid of iron, natures own way of protecting gastroinstestinal health for young immno-deficient bovines. I will also provide a link to more recent studies from France that found many errors in the EC-SVC report, and changes to their regulations are currently being considered. In addition, your own quote states that lack of exercise results in abnormal muscle development, not more tender or pale meat. We need to stick to the facts and not extrapolate personal interpretations. I have no problem with a statement being added referecing the EC findings, as long as color commentary isn't added to the meaning of the quote. By previously restoring an older version all you did was revert to a flawed document that made broad statements without reference or citation.

67.175.46.36 03:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Bryan

As promised: "Veal producers routinely evaluate blood hematrocrit or hemoglobin levels throughout the production cycle. Commensurate with the results of these blood analyses, producers add dietary iron to maintain blood hemoglobin levels between 7.5 and 8.5 g/dl. Growers usually limit iron only during the last stages of production in an effort to decrease the myoglobin content of the muscle but not induce circulatory anemia. McFarlane et al. (1988) determined physiological and behavioral characteristics of calves on different dietary regimes. They concluded that the iron levels in the diet did influence some blood variables, but not the health or behavior traits of the calves; no calf from any of the treatments had impaired muscle coordination. In trials with commercial veal producers in the western and northeastern states, hemoglobin averages of 9.0 and 8.0 g/dl were obtained by Stull and McMartin (1992) and Egan et al. (1993), respectively. Agriculture Canada (1988) concluded that blood hemoglobin levels of 6.5 g/dl or less are unacceptable since well-being of the calf is not ensured." http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-AN/INF-AN_VEAL95FRANCE.HTML

As to the correlation between iron levels and meat color: "means for HB at harvest ranged from 7.29 to 9.03 g/dl, and were not related to carcass muscle color as evaluated visually (subjectively) or with a colorimeter

(objectively) in the flank or brisket muscles (L. L. Wilson and J. L. Smith, unpublished data, 1998.

An earlier study also indicated that blood HB just prior to the end of the veal production period was only slightly to moderately related to veal muscle color as evaluated visually or colorimetrically (38)." http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/83/4/843.pdf

67.175.46.36 03:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Bryan

To refute the original text on residues: "Perhaps the most credible source of information with regard to the wholesomeness of the special-fed veal supply is from the U.S. Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). In the 1993 monitoring program conducted by FSIS, 0.11% of randomly sampled carcasses had violative levels of chemical residues (including antibiotics) (FSIS, 1994). The percentage of violations in both the monitoring and surveillance programs have decreased markedly since 1988 when the U.S. veal industry initiated a comprehensive quality assurance educational program." http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-AN/INF-AN_VEAL95FRANCE.HTML

67.175.46.36 03:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Bryan

On group housing versus individual and liquid versus liguid and solids diet: "There was no clear evidence of poorer welfare due to feeding on milk replacer only or individual housing, but calves reared in groups seemed more stressed by handling than calves reared in individual stalls." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T48-3T0S8XG-4&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F1998&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=991016bc2cdc0b6e4b190507cc04c2c8

On tethered versus non tethered and size of individual stalls: "Blood Indicators of stress: Three different blood components were analyzed on all the calves in this study to determine the level of distress that might have been caused by housing design or stall/pen width (cortisol, acute phase proteins, and neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio). All of these were determined each 28 days throughout the three different group production cycles. There were no differences between stalls or pens of different widths in any of these characteristics . The averages of these traits were within the ranges of calves in non-veal management systems." http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-AN/INF-AN_STALLSVPENS.HTML

67.175.46.36 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Bryan

As to mortality comparisons: "Mean death loss over all farms and groups was 2.5% compared with 2.9 and 3.1% obtained by Stull and McDonough(25) and Wilson et al. (37), respectively, also in veal studies. Percentage mortality of heifer calves on California dairy farms, including stillbirths, rangedfrom 17.3 to 20.2% (17). The Center for Animal Health Monitoring (4) reported a mean mortality of 8.4% in preweaned heifers." http://jds.fass.org/cgi/reprint/83/4/843.pdf

67.175.46.36 04:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Bryan - that's it for tonight, we will go to the European studies over the weekend.

Recent Edits

I have read the comments posted and have reviewed the various versions. I do believe that the current version is the most nuetral and balanced of any to date. It would appear that the reverting was done by someone with a particular POV. The recent edits were factual and without POV. There is certainly room for additional information to be posted about the activists beliefs on the topic. However, previous versions contained a lot of rhetoric, wiki is suppose to provide facctual information and be unbiased. Previous versions did not meet either goal.

I believe the current version should stay in tact. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.239.166.101 (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Edits

I was the original author of the edits on Sunday. As a small animal vet who doesn't have a dog in the hunt, I believe the edits were appropriate, factual, and an improvement to the topic. I did not perform the revisions on Monday or Tuesday.

The previous versions were very biased with an animal rights POV. Wiki is clearly not the forum for debate or POV, and as such the topic needed to be updated to create balance.

67.175.46.36 02:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Bryan

Controversy Section

As to split pea soups comments:

"It is an undeniable fact that restricting the motion of the calves, and a low-iron diet, is specifically intended for pale color and tenderness of the meat."

Please find any scientific study that documents this. This is rhetoric right off any animal rights site.

Calves being fed a liquid only milk diet, which prevents remunination in the animal, is what keeps the meat tender and generally pale in color. That is an undisputed scientific fact.

The EU didn't ban anemic diets, they required grains or roughage to be fed in addition to milk replacer. They did this to cause remunation, and they beleive to produce a healthier animal, although healthier is still disputed between French and Dutch experts. So, the wording change you contest makes perfect sense, and should be kept as it is now.

As to removal of the statement about the meat being highly sought after, it was out of place and not germane.

Look up the definition of crate and stall and you will clearly see, even in the somewhat biased picture in this section that it is a stall not a crate.

The current version could certainly use additional documented statements supporting either position. However, I don't think AVA or HSUS/PETA quotes have a place here, period.

71.239.166.101 19:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC) Dr. Scott

Prcjac I think that this article may be slightly one sided towards animal rights. Maybe if the article on Veal from Gordon Ramseys 'F-word' was discussed it would balance it out. Quick notes:

• Veal calves were raised in a free environment
• Allowed to excersise
• Were not cramped together

This article (from the f word) did show a side of veal production that was fairly humane

• I've reduced the controversy section. It is still too long and violates the undue weight portion of the WP:NPOV policy. Being "Balanced" isn't enough. Unless it could be demonstrated that controversy is the most important facet of veal (it can't) that much space allocated to controversy is improper. It's still over a third of the article, which is too much, but the current material may be about the right amount if the article is expanded to cover uses, economics, and the other broad factors concerning veal. - Taxman ^Talk 05:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Struggling with the exact translation of the English word 'veal' to a small language, I came here expecting to get a clear idea about what it is. Instead, I learned a lot about animal raising and general food industry in the US, EU measures to fight unscrupulous farmers, and the pain some animals live under in certain parts of the globe. As for the rest of the world, including vast parts of Europe - and, I believe, in the US as well -, who cares? In a lot of places these problems do not exist and the animals are raised in long prairies by caring old men from the best grass available (such I see and know it happens in my homeland, in northern Portugal, and in most of the bordering Spanish regions, for instance). While I don't dispute there are terrible farming conditions and no concern with basic animal rights around in some places, why should the very definition of 'veal', a type of meat, be centred on how the animals we take it from live? Should the definition of 'tobacco, plant' in an Encyclopaedia centre itself on how bad it is for people's health from the first line or rather on its classification and description in the Flora context? I mean, please...

Veal Calf Housing Section

This section is copied pretty much verbatim from the cited Ontario Veal Association website, except that it is provided in bulleted form. If you go to the website, it's definitely pretty biased toward the industry. I didn't make any changes, but it's definitely something to look at. Demonkey36 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

What Controversy?

I was surprised to find this article lacks even a mention of the controversy often associated with veal. There's not even a separate article about that. The History tab says half of the article has been missing since June. Why wasn't some of it preserved here or in the See Also section? Miqrogroove 18:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Although no less balanced, this has more information: http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/food_matters/veal.shtml Miqrogroove 12:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, lamb should be controversial too, any baby animal really. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.77.255 (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Veal and cruelty to animals.

It's commonly held by most people that the production of veal is on par with fois gras. When you have pop culture references such as in the Simpsons it's pretty safe to say it's a well known POV. This isn't reflected in this very polished article that addresses the wonders of veal. There were, apparently, sections dealing with this. They have been removed. Could we have a non nutjob PETA representative and a non BEEF INDUSTRY representative present some neutrality on this article? Jachin 09:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced

It seems to me that this article is biased toward the veal industry; it contains only praise about veal as a food product, and contains virtually no discussion of the controversies related to veal production. --bdesham ★ 16:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I tried to clean up a little, but this article still sounds like it was written by a veal industry lobbyist. I don't want to stub the article, but it's high on fluff and low on reliable sources. -- Satori Son 14:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

POVs -VS- Fact?

Everyone's talking about POVs and such- but in a truly balanced page there shouldnt BE any POVs. It should be flat facts.

Baby cows- milk-diet- allowed less movement- meat lighter and more tender- nutrition stats- Veal Parmesan/ other recipies- LIST of the controvercies (Not argument in favor of OR against them).

Period. NEITHER "Humane-healthy-happy-La la la farmers are angels" NOR "cruelty-sickly-miserable-doom on you-meat is murder" should be in there. If I had more facts I'd do it myself. I might even go on a hunt and scrounge up some numbers to do so..

I agree with an above statement- PLEASE no PeTA nuts or kill/profit-happy farmers, eh? AnonIhmus 01:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes, that's what I was trying to say. Not sure what you thought I meant, but I agree with you. -- Satori Son 01:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

What?

I added a short section on animal welfare that has now been deleted. An article on veal with no substantial tackling of the animal welfare issue is ridiculous. I will come back and add a more substantial section WITH MANY SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES. If that also gets deleted then this whole thing is a joke. Currently this page is nothing but an advert for the veal industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.251.2 (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I have obligingly added a reference showing that a proportion of veal calves do typically have clinical anemia, as well as pneumonia and ulcers. I can add as many more as you require on the scientifically measured negative effects of raising calves in small pens on low iron, all liquid diets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratinabox (talk • contribs) 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

+NPOV

I added an NPOV tag. See above discussion, but the reason I added it was because I came here wondering what "veal" actually is, and found that the article reads like a pamphlet addressing the (unspoken) question "is veal cruel to produce?" and answering "it sure ain't! dig in" at every possible turn. Needs editing to remove "fluff", be more factual, and not read like a pro-veal pamphlet. I personally don't care one way or the other about veal production, but the prose as is reads pretty strangely. 24.31.180.180 (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to any specific examples? What part of the article do you think does not belong (or, conversely, what do you feel is being excluded)? What do you think needs to be rewritten? Adding a tag without discussing potential changes is pointless as there is nothing to act on and develop consensus. Plus, it's just lazy. --Loonymonkey (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Young Calves" redundant?

It seems the me that the phrase "young calves" at the beginning of the article is redundant because a calf is by definition young but perhaps I don't completely understand the meaning of "calves." Dubcity566 (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nutrition

Reading this page the Nutrition section reads like something from the Veal Marketing Board, and is unreferenced. It reads as if veal was much better for you than beef (otherwise, why give specific nutritional info for veal). So I checked some of the claims, using the USDA Nutrition Database. For comparison purposes, I selected "Veal, loin, separable lean only, cooked, roasted", and "Beef, loin, bottom sirloin butt, tri-tip roast, separable lean only, trimmed to 0" fat, all grades, cooked, roasted" (attempting to get a similar cut cooked in a similar way). The claims:

• Veal is low in sodium, making it an excellent choice for sodium restricted diets.

This may be true, but it appears to be true of fresh meat of all kinds. USDA lists beef as having half the salt content of veal, but to be fair most refs I could find show comparable levels in both meats.

• Veal is a source of B-complex vitamins. Veal has the advantage that little of the vitamins are lost during preparation (cooking).

Comes up as comparable but lower than beef for B6, B12. The cooking claim is bizarre. Is this really different from beef?

• Veal contains very little fat, not more than 10 grams of fat per 100 grams, many of them unsaturated fats and because of this, veal is considered very lean.

Comparable to beef but lower. Both are under 10% fat. Veal is listed as 2.5% saturated fat, beef is listed as 3%.

• Veal has a balanced amino acid profile containing "proteins of a high quality".

Is this even meaningful? Whats a low quality protein?

• Veal is a good source of iron, calcium, sodium, potassium, phosphorus, and zinc.

Very dubious. Its claimed as a good source of sodium while being low in sodium. Its claimed as a good source of iron when the process apparently lowers the iron-bearing myoglobin content; and indeed the USDA list it as having half the iron of beef. Potassium and phosphorus levels are indistinguishable from beef; zinc in veal is slightly lower, calcium is slightly higher.

A bit more digging and all of the claims seem to be sourced from vealrecipes.com, ie this was originally marketing material. I've added a tag to the content in the article, possibly someone has a better reference. --Bazzargh (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. It does have a marketing tone to it. Any food can be described as high in something or low in something else ("soda is low in fat!") It should be sourced and probably needs to be balanced out with the negative nutrition points of which I'm sure there are some. --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the wording is POV and has an unencyclopedic tone. If someone has a source, it should be re-written as simple facts with no commentary. (e.g. "A 100g serving contains: X calories, Yg fat, Z% of the RDA for iron" etc.) Similar to the nutrition facts you'd find on a package of pre-made food. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This site has some info that could be easily formatted into a table for this article. A source that's not involved in the veal industry would be preferable, but for such fact-based info I don't think it's much of a problem. Any objections, or can I go ahead and re-write the section? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The USDA search above (http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/) or their per-nutrient canned reports (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Main/docs.htm?docid=15869) are probably a more reliable resource. But go ahead and be bold, I agree with your 'simple facts' suggestion. --Bazzargh (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

History and origins of veal

While I'm sure there's a lot to be said about the ethical conflict of veal, I'm actually more interested in its history, who practiced it first, it's transition and evolution into modern life, etc. Does anyone have information on that and would care to create a section, I think it would make this article much more solid.M4bwav (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to REALITY

Controversy? Great. Animal welfare? How ethical of you. References to those throughout the text? UNethical, actually. Someone or multiple someones hijacked this topic for a personal agenda - NOT nice. Example: When I go to an article about Cuba, I expect to see more about culture, geography, language, scenery, ethnicities, history, etc., and I don't expect constant ramblings about either the dictatorial evil or the humanist benevolence of the Castro family. Those belong in a separate article or may be confined, in unbiased form, to a relatively small section of the article, no more than 10% by volume. Just like there's more to Cuba than the Castros, more to Sudan than Darfur, etc., there is more to a food than farming techniques and animal rights. For god's sake, even the article on [heroin] provides facts and info, rather than screaming evilEVILevilEVIL! So, please, someone write something to-the-point here. More on nutritional figures, more on traditional and modern recipes, preparation and cooking, anything related to cultural traditions surrounding it, prevalence, major producers, major consumers, use in diets for conditions/weightloss/training, health benefits/risks/concerns/studies (to the human consumer, not to the bovine!)... And please, please, PLEASE don't take this as support for adding a huge section on mad cow disease twice the size of the original article! Aadieu (talk) 10:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologist tone

The claims in "production" currently read like a counter-response to criticism, and are astonishingly wide and unconvincing/unprovable in their scope. Point by point:

• There has been some controversy in veal-raising methods over the years, including housing, use of antibiotics and hormones. In Europe, these issues have all been addressed.

Really? The issues have been addressed, eh? All of them? Everyone who said European calves were excessively confined is utterly satisfied? I could accept "in Europe, steps have been taken to address these issues", but that is a far cry from "these issues have been addressed."

• In North America, there has been a general lag in these areas but there is no use of hormones now and use of antibiotics follows withdrawal guidelines.

Again, the universality of the claim is highly suspect, given that it applies to all farmers in North America. I could accept (for example) a statement about regulatory requirements, but not about universal practice.

• The tethering of calves in the USA was mostly due to economics as the cost of housing is reduced. This made veal raising viable for a family farming operation.

Why the calves were tethered is not really relevant here, especially when presented (as it is) like an excuse. I don't think anyone could reasonably doubt that veal farmers are doing what they do for economic reasons: even those who regard it as cruel don't go so far as to think cruelty is a motive for veal farming! Those who do regard it as cruel would in turn not accept economics as an excuse anyway.

--Saforrest (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Going overboard with "Citation Needed"

Does it bother any of you when an article has been stuffed so full of "Citation Needed" tags that you can barely read it anymore? The "Production" section of this article is a perfect example of what happens when you "citation needed" a page to death.

Yes, I know there are certain standards that need to be followed in order to maintain credibility, but this is an example of taking it so far that it becomes a joke. A "citation needed" tag has literally been added to almost every sentence here. Most of the information in the section is not rocket science -- e.g. a normal person can infer that one step logically follows the next. So inserting five or six "Citation Needed" tags, where one will do, seems both redundant and annoying to me.

I am not cleaning that up myself, rather leaving it as an example of what happens when you go overboard with this. I don't really care about veal and just happened upon this page by accident, but was so struck by the overuse of that tag that I felt something needed to be said.

bradrules 10:29, 26 Jun 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that. I hesitated to remove them and replace them with a general {{unreferenced}} for the section since there is a source for one bit of the section, but I think that would still be better than the mess of {{fact}} tags. Better yet, there's the {{refimprove}} tag, so I think I'll go clean that section by using that template.

A general observation I've made about overuse of {{fact}} tags when one {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} would be more appropriate... I get the impression that this happens more for controversial information. That may simply be because citation requests are always more common for controversial information. But I sometimes wonder (let me make this clear: I am not leveling accusations about any specific editors. I assume good faith, such as an editor simply not knowing about the other applicable templates) if putting a dozen {{fact}} tags is a subtle form of disruptive editing. In some cases, it might be done to intentionally repeatedly bludgeon the reader over the head with how info the editor does not agree with is unsourced. Not to just truthfully point that out, but to insinuate through repetition that it automatically untrue rather than just unverified. Again, I'm not making any accusations about anyone who's edited this article. It's just something I've wondered based on general observations across multiple articles.--Icarus ^(Hi!) 21:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your edit seems eminently reasonable to me. — Satori Son 21:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, it did that annoying thing where because I either added or removed a blank line, it makes it look like I re-wrote pretty much the entire thing! But yeah, all I did was remove the {{fact|date=March 2008}} tags in the section (just the main part of "Production" not the later sub-sections) and added {{refimprove|section|date=March 2008}} to the top. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's was exactly what {{refimprove}} was designed for. Looks much better. — Satori Son 02:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Disaster

This article reads like veal industry marketing material. In reading the article, I have no idea what statements, if any, are believable or can be trusted.

As an outside observer, I'd say that this has gone beyond what can be addressed by the Talk page. It's clear that for every NPOV rewrite, veal industry shills are waiting in the wings, prepared to swoop in. Someone needs to take the shills to task. Does wikipedia have any functionality for banning wiki-lobbyists?

I'm going to go find some non-biased material on veal so that I can make an educated choice about whether I want to eat it, and if so, who I should trust to produce it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.199.59 (talk) 02:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Interwikis

Are there really so few interwikis for this term? Badagnani (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

doesn't anyone realize...

no one is allowed to use wikipedia as a source for academic writing anyway...so why such disputes over the truthfulness of its articles? this is for cursory knowledge's sake...it's not like college professors log onto wikipedia when they're unsure of something...maybe realize that wikipedia just doesn't deserve this much attention pertaining to its accuracy, or lack thereof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.163.19 (talk) 00:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If there was no requirement for accuracy, there would be no point in having this encyclopedia at all. Even cursory knowledge needs to be as accurate as possible, or it is useless. Wikipedia may not be useful as a source for school assignments, but many people (such as myself) enjoy learning new things, even when it is not assigned by a teacher. Either way, this talk page is to discuss the article Veal, not to discuss the usefulness of Wikipedia in general. Please try to keep talk pages on-topic. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)