Following on from numerous threads such as this..
Which eggs do you buy and why?
Do You Buy Caged Eggs?
smashed on 05/11/2017 - 16:36
Last edited 05/11/2017 - 17:25 by 2 other users
Last edited 05/11/2017 - 17:25 by 2 other users
Poll Options
- 473Free range from supermarket
- 466Whatever is cheapest (usually caged)
- 53I have my own hen
- 42Free range from local farm produce
- 28I don't eat eggs
- 7Barn eggs
Comments
Good Farmer eggs are a con AFAIK - same family as those that have repeated fines for horrid barn conditions.
This guy free ranges.
I always buy Sunny Queen because they're usually the only ones with a 6 egg carton available lol
This is a pointless exercise, this is oz bargain not rspca forum. There are people who do crazy things here to save 5c.
Yes, that's why I put mustard in my pudding.
If you prefer free range due to animal welfare issues it means you have a moral concern for animals.
Ask yourself : how would you treat any other moral concern? Would you commit to reduced slavery or would you want to abolish it altogether? Would you be happy with some racism or would you want to abolish it altogether? Do you think women deserve incremental improvements in social equity or would you like to abolish sexism altogether?
Well what's different with animal interests? All animal exploitation involves their suffering and death. Free range eggs may not be the worst form of animal cruelty but it's still cruelty. Cocks killed at a day old; hens killed at a couple years when their laying diminishes; selective breeding that makes birds lay 200+ eggs per year with the chronic sufferings and health implications it causes them; unnatural flock sizes/configurations with their associated psychological implications; being vulnerable to human whim at all times.
It's all harm and it's all completely unnecessary. "Free range" is a scam to make the consumer comfortable ; it's an indulgence that makes you feel you're doing the wrong thing the right way. The industry has you doing their own bidding!
Want to change the world for chickens? Stop exploiting them altogether. It's also cheaper than free range or cage.
Chickens arnt human. If they were, foxes would be in jails for murder.
If foxes were our moral touchstone we'd have majorly different lives.
You're human so why not hold yourself to that account?
By that standard we should still be out policing the animal kingdom to prevent animal 'murders'…
At least I can feel good knowing my money pays for the execution of those bug murdering chickens. The balance is restored.
@0blivion: Obviously you missed the point. But if you truly think that other animals' behaviour is a good model for and justifies your own then maybe you should stop using the loo and start crapping everywhere indiscriminately.
I agree for the most part, but I'm also still in favour of steps to minimise harm, as opposed to going straight to an extreme. We live in a society where it's unrealistic to think people will just cut out eggs from their diet, so having proper free-range eggs and making incremental progress is still beneficial. For example, for someone who gets an electric car to reduce their emissions, according to your logic, why stop there if your goal is to reduce emissions? Why not just cut out vehicles and catch transport or cycle?
Two things:
The opportunity cost of boycotting petroleum powered cars is an immense change in the world as we know it; the opportunity cost of boycotting eggs is not eating eggs. The utility of each is really incomparable. One change is free and immediately possible, the other requires immense investment and technological advances. One can be accomplished personally and immediately, the other requires all of society to come on board.
But more importantly, one is a blatant, direct exploitation and harm of innocent beings, the other a pursuit that generates broadly scattered indirect harms and an issue requiring much more moral / intellectual sophistication. Think about it this way - every year about 1000 people die on Australia's roads. This is a statistical certainty. Does that make driving a malice? Not really. Certainly, if the indirect damages are born of increasing negligence then this may morph into direct harm and requires a different approach. Using petroleum is a similarly structured dilemma.
Eggs? They're basically about taste or habit. Not really great arguments in a moral analysis. They provide no essential nutrients unavailable from other sources and are therefore totally unnecessary. They always involve direct exploitation. They are an open and shut case of harming an animal for nothing more than human pleasure.
Such a waste to kill cocks at a day old, and chickens at 2 years… (when they could be turned into original or hot 'n spicy fillet burgers).
If that made economic sense they would do that.
meat chickens usually have a lifespan of 6weeks before they are thrown onto trucks with fractured bones and slaughtered for the industry
But… they taste so good.
Want to change the world for chickens?
Chickens will rule the world one day.
My world is filled with competing interests and tradeoffs. I don't shy away from the fact that I'm making choices that have negative consequences for others.
Re your hypothetical comparison, the difference is I don't value the suffering of a chicken in a 'free range' environment to the same extent that I do the suffering of a human slave.
I am very excited for a future of artificially grown meat and associated animal products though.
Considering the suffering of a free range chicken need not at all compete with / diminish your consideration for a human slave.
In fact, I'd suggest that a survey of those people that do take into consideration nonhuman sufferings will show that they are also more often than not more considerate of human sufferings than the general population.
I'm not saying the slave and the real chicken are the competing interest.
I'm saying that the real chicken and a myriad of other certain things I value are competing interests. In this instance the most pressing interest is the utility I receive from eating eggs.
Effects being at the margin though, slaves and chickens are competing interests, as there is no indirect positive effect from one to the other. Every dollar I put towards alleviating chicken suffering is a dollar I don't put against reducing slavery (which is still a big problem in the world). Of course personally I don't try to reduce slavery as I don't think it's an efficient and effective target for altruism (personally I give to the Against Malaria Foundation.
The REALLY INTERESTING question though is how I can justify spending more on eggs and therefore less on saving lives from malaria, when I value the utility from saving those lives more (dollar for dollar) than I do alleviating chicken suffering. I don't have a good answer for that beyond recognising that my overall distribution of resources is not entirely rational.
In this instance the most pressing interest is the utility I receive from eating eggs.
Eggs provide no essential nutrients that can't be obtained from other easily available (non-animal) sources. Therefore their utility is in the pleasure of eating them. I can't (actually don't care to) measure what this utility means for you, but if brief moments of pleasure are to balanced against the very life and suffering of another sentient being then we are at an impasse and this conversation is essentially over.
Every dollar I put towards alleviating chicken suffering
This is a false premise. There is no dollar required. Boycotting the expliotation of chickens is free - it requires no money and, beyond the initial education to find substitutes, no time. Substituting quality plant based foods for chicken's flesh and ova can actually be cheaper, quicker and safer. Any cause you have for alleviating slavery or malaria will not be adversely affected.
If you are a utilitarian as your posts suggest then I suggest Peter Singer's books on the topic are good reading. (I say this an an non-utilitarian myself).
Do you choose having no teeth or killing bacteria?
I have teeth, canines included. I also have a brain and hands which are capable of killing, strangling, stealing, and many other violent acts, yet I chose to generally engage them according to less violent objectives.
With regards to bacteria: like plants and other non-animal lifeforms they're not sentient. So yeah, I'll kill them without considering them in the least.
@thevofa:
Molecular biologist Bonnie Bassler from Princeton gives talks about the sophisticated community behaviour and communication of bacteria.Why do you believe communities of Bacteria Vibrio Fischeri bioluminesce socially in communities?
Why do you believe communities of Bacteria Vibrio Fischeri bioluminesce socially in communities?
I have no idea, because I've not even heard about them them until now. If you want to give me a link to ponder in the context of this discussion then do so.
"Sophisticated community behaviour" means nothing on it's own; even rocks like the Pinnacles in WA show "community behaviour" over longer time periods.
Deterministic reactions and the responses of sentient beings are quite different. (Sentient beings might be able to exhibit both - for example, a patellar reflex / knee-jerk is arguably a deterministic reaction while a sensation of the blow thereafter is a separate response). Until shown superior alternative evidence I think it best to follow the current consensus of science, as is nicely summed up in The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness or even this wikipedia page
@thevofa:
I wouldn't eat the unconscious. 50% of Flemington Racecourse won't pass the test tomorrow.50% of Flemington Racecourse won't pass the test tomorrow.
FYI over 80% of racehorses are declared "wastage," many of them killed with a bullet in the head, because, like chickens, they are perceived to only have value that is instrumental to human pursuits rather than their own value in their own lives.
@thevofa:
I wish I could pick 'the ones'.In seriousness, if society didn't exist, I'd still be a carnivore. Just a less lazy one. If you can demonstrate that morals and intelligence are correlated with magnificent maths skills, I'll consider converting. Degree 6 general analytic roots or better, though. Otherwise this animal welfare floorshow seems to be just a hobby of yours. I'm looking for standout renaissance maths and moral consciouness brilliance.
I spy V for Vegan. Fess up. Do you choose having no teeth or killing itty bitty bacteria?
Vegans are like Gays, they seem to enforce their personal choices on you, if you see otherwise, then they generally try and make you look like a fool.
@frostman:
It will be very interesting indeed, when the semi-animate fetishists with their plastic robot puppet partners earbash the workplace with their weekend exploits and expect others to keep a straight face. There is going to be a lot of way too much public information in the future. Office Christmas parties will be entertaining. I'm 'polyamorous pyjama party curious'.I'm not a utilitarian, I just hang around with a lot of utilitarians.
Considerations of utility aren't just a utilitarian thing though, it's a pretty essential framework for economic thinking. In any case, the way I have framed things have been very anti-utilitarian actually. I've made my arguments EXTREMELY based in self-interest (my altruism being dressed as a function of the utility I receive from being altruistic). But yeah, very complicated philosophical question that is unrelated.
By my very informed choices and actions it is demonstrated that I am at least in some sense willing to cause (indirectly or directly), or to fail to alleviate (indirectly or directly) the suffering of other animals (and to a certain extent humans) for my own benefit.
@frostman: Most people are guilty of that behaviour.
In any case, as far as I'm concerned the effort is largely misplaced. I've met very few people who didn't look the fool through their own gumption.
@jacross:
Then apply all those adult logic powers of yours to a C27 continuous smoothstep blending polynomial. What are the coefficients? Please don't tell me your moral powers are savant. Not another one.@Frugal Rock: I lack the knowledge (and quite possibly the intelligence as I am unfamiliar with this type of maths and so haven't had to attempt it and succeed/fail) to undertake that task.
The task seems irrelevant to this discussion though anyway. Unless you are asserting that one must be able to undertake that task in order to be qualified to discuss and hold reasonable opinions regarding philosophy. Which on the face of it seems absurd but I am curious as to where you are going with this.
My personal hypothesis is you're engaging in distraction techniques.
…VERY SUCCESSFUL!
@jacross:
Well, mastery of mercurial and subjective morals together with hamfistedness in the actual, undisputed sciences points towards moral haughtiness being just an indulgent, self assessed value judgment. You are judging your success by your own measures. When given an independent measure, you are clearly lacking.I don't recall claiming moral success, or any success, by my own or others measuring. Merely moral consideration. I invite anyone to provide alternative arguments. I'm too interested in philosophy to be concerned with being right or wrong. Surety is for those who haven't read anything.
In any case I reject the notion that your chosen barrier is the correct barrier to determine those who can and cannot effectively participate in philosophical consideration. It seems entirely arbitrary and designed to foil those you wish to oppose, without you having to engage in any philosophical consideration and argument yourself.
@jacross:
You have spoken about your 'very informed choices and actions'. Do you think the computer patent handover between Konrad Zuse and the Americans/IBM on the fall of the Nazi regime was suspicious? Do you think they offered him immunity from prosecution? It's a fascinating ethical consideration for any digital computer user purporting to have morals in abundance. If computers were diamonds, would they be blood diamonds? If not, why not, given their history. The timing of the handover is remarkable.@Frugal Rock: I use the term 'very' not to imply that they are exceedingly informed choices but as an intensifier to connect the informed choices and actions with the associated moral consequence (I am a monster in the eyes of vofa).
It's a fluffy and old fashioned way of communicating and probably does muddy things now that I think about it.
Again, I never said I had morals in abundance.
I'm unfamiliar with the specifics of Konrad Zuse. It does seem intriguing from what you have said though so perhaps I shall read up on it. Knowing the facts of an applied ethical issue and having the capacity (and understanding of the required principles) to analyse an applied ethical issue are not the same thing though.
If only we could think of a more relevant applied ethical question with which to judge someone's ethical arguments. Something topical. Something with complex facets. Something like the ethics of eating eggs perhaps? Then if people made arguments if only we could merely analyse those arguments themselves instead of playing an incessant and tedious game of 'who is the smarter/more knowledgeable individual on a suite of irrelevant topics?'.
I am nothing. My arguments are everything. Either they are right or they are wrong. Move your sights for I shall now move mine.
@jacross:
This is not a cage battery farm. I would be wearing gumboots and breathing apparatus if it was. This is a digital debate, an abstraction, and you are woefully undereducated in the digital aspects of the medium that you are using. That cannot be conveniently overlooked.@thevofa: Have fun subsisting on the bare nutritional minimum of various lichen and algae then I suppose? Did you know that plants emit chemical distress signals when they're attacked/cut/harvested too? Plants feel pain in their own way.
@0blivion: The wonderful thing about public forums is not that anyone gets to win an argument but that silent onlookers get to see various positions and can decide for themselves which are sensible.
@thevofa: Unfortunately I feel more than a few people will be eating eggs partially just so they aren't associated with you and your 'logic'. Also I guess it's also wonderful for you that online you can completely side-step arguments instead of responding to them.
Oh, you're serious about plant distress. I hope you never have to mow a lawn.
http://veganindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/173_p…
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/78/00/33/780033d484a24cc54cf2…
https://www.vegansociety.com/sites/default/files/uploads/lea…
Oh, you're serious about vegans barely eking out their own survival. Why not argue with these conservative authorities rather than malnourished and practically dying me.
https://www.eatforhealth.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/th…
@thevofa:
All the sincerity of an interviewee flogging their book. You remind me of the creationists handing out religious pamphlets whilst thinking god maintained plants before Noah's flood provided the very first rain. 'veganindependent' proves you have a sense of humour.@thevofa: See, I'm not the one who's saying I care about other 'things' feeling pain and being in distress. You are. Why do you apply one standard to animals and another to plants, and if you can do that, why am I NOT able to apply one standard to people and another standard to animals?
And if your entire argument is comprised of image macros, no wonder you're not taken seriously anywhere.
@thevofa:
No. A great idea would be making scratch'n'sniff cards of the cage factory floor on a 40 degree day. Internet slacktivism, on the other hand, does nothing.Regarding animal rights, rather than badger people on the internet, I bought habitat for endangered animals. What have you actually done other than preach? I have several endangered species habitats. It seems the people doing the preaching, do it in lieu of taking actual action. What are your tangible actions and financial investments into animal welfare?
But if I made vegan versions of those scratch'n'sniff cards then nonvegans would complain that they weren't like the real thing and I don't want to offend them and their personal choices and risk them getting protein deficiencies else they might bite me with their canines according to the circle of life like our ancestors did on a desert island where we all act like lions at the top of the food chain.
It's all harm and it's all completely unnecessary. "Free range" is a scam to make the consumer comfortable ; it's an indulgence that makes you feel you're doing the wrong thing the right way. The industry has you doing their own bidding!
What are you basing this off? what do you consider chickens per square hectare to mean? How can you juke it? generally interested because I don't intend on not eating eggs, but I'd like to increase the quality of life on hens.
How would you rate the quality of life of women if they were bred to be exploited, their male siblings were killed at birth because they were unsatisfactory workers, they were scheduled to be killed the moment their younger sisters could replace them as more efficient workers, they were genetically manipulated to menstruate* three times a week because their value was in the collection of their menstrual fluids? If you think that existence is better in a big barn then free-range is your poison, if you think that existence in a small cage is fine then you probably won't have a problem with cage eggs, if you think that sort of existence is terrible regardless of the confines and numbers per square metre then consider not subjecting other animals to it by not buying eggs at all.
(* Chickens admittedly don't menstruate, they ovulate - this is just an analogy)
I'd probably use a suite of psychological and biological tests.
But I think it would depend on their ability to consider their situation in relation to their own internal goals and desires.
Meanwhile every piece of cotton clothing you wear has had an impact on animals whose habitats were cleared for farms. Same with everything you eat. Even being on the computer typing your responses on this forum is using electricity which was probably at least partially created in a coal generator, creating toxic gas harming insects, birds, and other animals. Every time you step through the grass you're probably killing loads of insects. Every time you brush your teeth you are killing little bacteria or if you take antibiotics. Your body is killing plenty of them every day just through its immune system. Whatever you do, even if you think it's in the name of helping animals, has a detrimental effect on them.
The only way you can be sane (either through not being deluded, or not going crazy when you realise how little impact any of your decisions have on how much you're harming animals), is to accept that humans are just part of the bigger web of life, and be OK with that. Otherwise, you're either deluded, or you'll come to a sickening realisation that the only way to no longer harm animals is to no longer exist on this planet.
@Quantumcat: I guess our indirect harms on each other give us justification for murdering each other too then.
@thevofa: If you want to eliminate all harms to living beings that you produce you have to kill yourself. While you are alive, spouting vegan rhetoric is pure hypocrisy. You are sadly deluded if you think anything else.
If you want to eliminate all harms
Yeah I've never claimed that.
On another note, my breathing reduces your available oxygen. Guess what? I don't care. That's right, callous me doesn't care. So now I might go kill someone because they taste good. Logic!
@thevofa: Don't you see how it is hypocritical to care so much about one particular harm you might do (eat a farm-raised animal) but not care about all the others (destruction of habitat caused by you wearing plant-based fibre clothes)?
Well it's a good thing I don't give a shit about free range eggs so your whole spiel doesn't apply to me
In many ways I agree with you, but its just not realistic.
Moving to decent stocking rate free range is the best option out there, the rest is never going to happen. People eat things, and those things include animals. In the end, the best we can do is make sure the animals have the most healthy and natural lives possible within that framework.
200 years ago people would not have thought the American slave trade's days were numbered. 150 years ago people would not have thought that women would have a right to vote. 50 years ago white Australia had no issue taking indigenous children from their parents. Yet here we are.
There's 7.6 billion people on the planet. Until lab grown meat is cheaper than farmed meat, the chicken industry isn't going away.
Here is the 2017 Choice report on free-range eggs https://www.choice.com.au/food-and-drink/meat-fish-and-eggs/… which lists brands according to Model Code compliance and density.
Thank you for this. Will be using it.
You're welcome.
I'm unsure how caged eggs became a more important ethical issue above all other ethical issues that are regularly mentioned by convienently igonored (relatively speaking) to the caged eggs issue.
Clothing companies employing poor working conditions that lead to the Rana building collapse as an example. That doesnt stop rediculously good clothing deals from being negged by anyone.
Or reports of Apple's supply chain leading to kids digging dangerously for small amounts of raw materials for a few bucks a day.
Because we pick our battles - and those battles are often on the defenceless things that have no voice - animals.
Just because bad things happen everywhere doesn’t mean you have to do everything or nothing. And it doesn’t mean doing one thing and not other things is hypocritical.
Well i certainly never called anyone a hypocritic. Lets start with that.
I don't agree we're in a battle though, we all have the option to + or - vote a deal. By giving a deal a plus you endorse it, and obviously he neg is the opposite. One can simply not vote if you they are neither for or against it.
So if so many have ethical issues with chicken poorly treated and are happy to put their vote to the negative why is it so hard to explain why they dont also simply hit the negative to a $1 tee shirt made (most likely in Bangladesh). I don't see it as a battle to pick, as much as an expression of endorsement.If anything, this simply vote that ozb gives us is nothing near the "everything or nothing" approach you seem to be describing. Infact, it is exactly what you are advocating, it is about doing something. Yet, again, i will say this, no one says anything about the other obvious issues.
Happy for you to bring up all those issues when you see these deals. Especially if you can highlight exactly in the supply chain where the issues are arising as that is how you make the changes in the system. Every caged bird is suffering and buying free range eggs is a step towards them being treated humanely.
Well its actually been reported many times over and over that children are used in the supply chain.
A quick google finds:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jan/25/apple-chi…
http://www.supplychain247.com/paper/this_is_what_we_die_forI note you don't address the underlying point i was trying to make, which was the selective ethical issues people stand up for and issues they are happy to ignore. Like horrid working conditions in the clothes making industry.
This discussion is about the condition of chickens. I will be very happy to contribute to a discussion on poor working conditions, if you want to raise that topic, or the environment if you raise that one, or gun control if you raise that one. People can be appalled by multiple topics but muddying one by including others doesn’t help either cause.
Because it's really easy to do something about it. Figuring out which clothing is ethically is really hard - i.e. Inditex (i.e. Zara) scores really highly on ethical practice in their supply chain but just recently messages were found in their garments about workers getting paid. Very easy to go to the supermarket and just make an ethical choice for a marginal price difference than work out who are the goodies and the baddies in the textile industry and buy accordingly and cost-effectively.
Not trying to defend animals over humans at all but you can control what happens in your country more than another corrupt third world, also humans in relative terms are treated much better than animals. This eggs thing seems like very easy to win kinda situation when you have to do very little like making a choice of less than a few dollars while clothes it is not.
The best way to discourage cage factories is to ever smell one downwind on a hot day. I eat free range based on that.
I wouldn't eat a rotten vegetable, forget about rotting meat and any byproducts from sick animals, abused and pumped with chemicals. NO WAY!
We've had a few from caged turn out to be off. We exclusively buy free range. I dont even eat eggs all that often, maybe 3 max in a week even if that.
There's no difference between free range and caged eggs in terms of how long they last or what their quality is. Their all required to have the same wax-like substance coating the shell and their shelf-life is identical. They then all have the same life span as they are cooled for sale. The only difference between them is their physical size and the quality of the egg box their packaged in.
Like Ive said. When we bought caged a few would always be off. Never had that problem with cage-free. Ethically, we wouldn't want to support a company that puts their chickens in battery cages. The washing process kills the eggs here hence why it needs to be refrigerated.
We have a few chickens overseas that actually roam. You know actual "free range". Guess its classed as "organic" here.
So for us - There IS a difference.
Not sure what you're referring to about refrigeration, because Aldi doesn't refrigerate eggs. I expect refrigeration in ColesWorths is largely due to storage times though. What I mean by that is, TV chefs keep saying to buy 'only fresh eggs' to make poached eggs… But if you look at the packaged date, you quickly realise you can't buy ANY 'fresh' eggs. They're all several days old. So they're probably refrigerated so they can truck them all in one hit, and to 'keep stock out the back'.
@GregMonarch: I was under the impression that the eggs in this country are washed which gets rid of the protective layer on the egg that stops bacteria from getting in hence why the eggs needs to be refrigerated.
When I used to work at IGA, the eggs were not refrigerated but then management put them in the fridges (maybe they were forced). Im fully aware where eggs are kept prior to display.
You would know what unwashed eggs look like if you've lived in say Europe
Of course, I don't expect an egg straight from the chicken's arse. But I would be lying if I said I didn't prefer it or haven't been privy to it
Maybe all the people upvoting should do an ounce of research and see the difference between how eggs are kept and sold in say the US and the UK
The type of feed is different for caged and free range. The free range have access to a much wider range of feed, including grass, insects, etc.
Makes no difference on the internal quality of the eggs at all. The size, shape and type of eggs laid comes down purely to the breed of the chicken. The only difference feed makes is on the thickness of the egg shell, which can only have the density improved upon by eating non-food product like grit and ground egg shell. When it comes to eggs and chicken health, they either simply lay them, or they don't. There's no difference in the quality of the yolk & white.
@infinite: Why did my eggs from home always have a bright yellow yolk, when store-bought are always an orangey colour? Despite the breed being the same in both cases (isa browns)? Has to be what they are fed.
@Quantumcat: The colour of the yolk is purely dependent on the amount of xanthophylls or carotenoids absorbed in their diet. It just means they eat different types of grass and green/yellow veg or plant-top's. It's not an indication of health or quality of the egg. Claiming an egg is better because it's more yellow, is like claiming that red cars go faster.
@infinite: So that would suggest that eggs with yellow yolks come from hens with more variety in their diet. Maybe the eggs aren't better but the hens are probably happier.
Anyway, their diet DOES have an effect on the eggs besides the thickness of their shell, you said it yourself :-)@infinite: You said there was no difference caused by diet apart from shell thickness, then you said there was….
@Quantumcat: Go back and read my comments. I said it makes no difference on the internal quality of the eggs at all.
I own 4 chickens and still buy caged eggs. There's no difference in the taste or quality - anyone who says otherwise is a lying hipster. I give my sister-in-law the excess eggs from the chooks each week and she sells them for a premium at her weekend market cupcake stall. Easy money, really.
Even easier money if you just gave her the caged eggs to sell.
I sense a profit opportunity here
Just because you can't taste the difference doesn't mean others can't - and anyone who says otherwise is a lying Tony Abbott/Trump supporter.
according to a just-released study by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the eggs are indistinguishable. When there is a difference, it's often the factory eggs that are safer
http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2002334,0…
FYI, this is reputable unbiased information regarding the taste of the egg.
That artice does not menation the word "taste" at all. Not one instance of the word.
@iseenya: Can confirm I see them in NSW, outside metro Sydney even.