1. Chicago Bans Foie Gras
Chicago has become the first U.S. city
to ban the sale of foie gras, the fatty liver of ducks
and geese produced by force feeding. The city council
passed the measure with a 48:1 vote. Effective in
90 days, food dispensing establishments, retail outlets
and restaurants selling foie gras will be subject
to a fine of up to $500 per day. In 2004, California
became the first state to ban the sale and production
of foie gras, but it will not go into effective until
2012. Other states considering legislation against
foie gras are Illinois, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New
York and Oregon. Countries that have taken action
against foie gras include the Czech Republic, Denmark,
Finland, Germany, Israel, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland,
Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. France, however,
claims it to be part of its "cultural and gastronomic
partimony." The Sun Times article tells of the
politics involved in the Chicago ban.
1. Chicago Champions Foie Gras Prohibition
Just Food, April 27, 2006
http://www.just-food.com/article.aspx?id=94684
2. A Better Luxury or Cruelty on a Plate?
ABC News, Rose Palazzolo, April 27, 2006
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=1897109&page=1
3. City Council Approves Foie Gras Ban
The Sun-Times Company, Fran Spielman, April 26, 2006
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/26foiegras.html
2. U.S. Plans for Avian Influenza
The H5N1 strain of avian influenza is
likely to arrive in the U.S. this year, according
to officials at the USDA’s Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS). If the virus is
suspected in a commercial poultry operation, the government
plans to immediately kill all the birds with carbon
dioxide gas (see: http://tinyurl.com/kumcu
), even before testing is completed. The government
will financially compensated any such business for
the market value of the birds. Vaccines could be used
in flocks in the surrounding area. However, the government
is reluctant to use them since the virus could be
spread by vaccinated birds who don’t appear
sick. Officials are urging that poultry be kept inside
and observed. The U.S. poultry industry is worth more
than $29 billion, producing 9 billion chickens and
250 million turkeys yearly, more than any other country.
H5N1 has spread through Asia, Europe and Africa,
with 110 human fatalities. More than 200 million birds
have been killed by the disease or efforts to contain
it. The outbreaks originated from chickens in China,
not wild birds, according to an article in the April
21st issue of Science. The U.S. plans to test as many
as 100,000 wild birds for the disease this year. Suspicion
is growing that international movement of poultry
or poultry products, such as fertilizer, may play
a bigger role in the virus’s spread than do
wild birds.
1. Flock-Killing Planned if Bird Flu
Found
The Associated Press, Libby Quaid, April 19, 2006
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=1861727
2. Scientists Work to Spot Flu in Migratory Birds
Associated Press, Lauran Neergaard, April 21, 2006
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/living/health/14395127.htm
3. Emerging Standards of Farm Animal Welfare
At the March 2006 Alberta Farm Animal
Care (AFAC) conference, Dr.
David Fraser gave a presentation about emerging
standards of farmed animal welfare. He noted highlights
that have resulted from the “profound change
[that] has occurred in attitudes toward animals”
in the past half-century. Fraser pointed out that
while most of the world’s meat production occurred
in industrialized countries during the 20th century,
by the end of the century “the lines crossed,”
with meat production increasingly concentrating in
less industrialized nations.
Animal welfare has become a global issue. In May 2005,
The World Organization for Animal Health adopted its
first animal welfare guidelines, covering the slaughter
of animals for human consumption, the killing of animals
for disease control, and the transport of animals
by land and sea. Supported by 167 countries, the guidelines
are especially important because they signify the
first time many of the nations had adopted animal
welfare guidelines.
Many actions and programs to address farmed animal
welfare have been brought into existence by governments,
corporations and organizations. They include regulations,
international agreements, non-mandatory welfare codes
and guidelines, corporate social responsibility programs,
and labeling to differentiate products. Fraser discussed
these options and categorized the requirements needed
in animal care assurance programs into four types.
The first maintains the basic health and functioning
of the animals. The second intends to reduce pain
and distress. A third tries to accommodate natural
behaviors, and a final type dictates that species
must have some access to natural elements in their
environment.
With that information, Fraser has assembled the formats
and types of requirements into a matrix that allows
one to see various programs within this context. "The
matrix, then, is a way of organizing the different
programs as a set of policy options that could be
used to create new programs of animal welfare standards,"
he explains. Countries and industries can thus select
options best suited to their own cultural and economic
situations. The strengths and weaknesses of the different
formats and requirements were also considered.
1. Orcas, 'Freedom Food' and the World
Bank
Alberta Farm Animal Care media release, April 11,
2006
http://www.afac.ab.ca/media/2006/fraser.htm
(The full text of the presentation is not available
on-line.)
4. Rationalizing Animal Agriculture
The focus of agriculture has been on
economics, with animals viewed as objects, explains
Dr. Wes Jamison, an agriculture professor and popular
speaker. Animal protection advocates have been illuminating
society's "schizophrenic"
thinking about animals, the contradiction between
how the public thinks animals should be treated and
the actual use of them. "What we have to do in
agriculture is give people permission to both love
animals as family members and to eat them as food,"
he advises. While Jamison doesn't claim to have a
moral rationale at the ready for keeping farmed animals
confined indoors, he suggests that biosecurity concerns
might work as such an argument. He cautions that,
for the public, moral concerns will trump scientific
or economic arguments for business practices.
1. "Livestock Producers Encouraged
to Emphasize the Moral Justifications for Raising
Animals for Food," Farmscape, April 5, 2006.
http://tinyurl.com/q8oc6
or http://www.farmscape.ca/f1Scripts.aspx?m=INT&p1=663
2. "Morality Debate Coming on Farm Livestock,"
The Des Moines Register, Philip Brasher, April 2,
2006.
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060402/BUSINESS03/604020354/1029/BUSINESS
5.
The Future of Animal Agriculture in North America
The results of an 18-month study
have recently been released in a 247-page report entitled
"The Future of Animal Agriculture in North America."
The report is a project of the Farm Foundation: "a
publicly supported nonprofit organization working
to improve the economic health and social well-being
of U.S. agriculture, the food system and rural people
by helping private and public sector decision makers
identify and understand forces that will shape the
future." The project was co-chaired by Charles
Stenholm, a rancher and former Congressman (R-Tx)
who is now a lobbyist for the horse slaughter industry.
The report is believed to be the first of its kind
to “take a comprehensive look at the opportunities
and challenges facing the major species of the animal
agriculture industry in Canada, Mexico and the United
States.” It refrains from making policy decisions,
instead highlighting “commonalties, differences
and areas where future work may be needed.”
Animal welfare is the focus of one chapter, which
explains that: “Productivity has increased enormously
due to the use of animal confinement systems, especially
for poultry and hogs. There has also been intensive
genetic selection for desired production traits, development
of scientific feed formulation and use of productivity-enhancing
pharmaceuticals.” It also points out that while
most people in North America do not believe that nonhuman
animals and people have equal rights, studies have
shown that most do believe farmed animals have “a
right to be treated humanely.”
The chapter considers the meaning of animal well-being,
and describes current regulations, key issues of changes
in practices and policy, and alternatives for protecting
animal welfare. It also examines economic aspects
of animal welfare, stating that “economic forces….
are likely to be the major determinants of the success
of initiatives to raise animal welfare standards in
North America.” The chapter concludes: “It
seems likely that animal welfare standards will become
an increasingly important issue in international trade,
not only for governments but also for companies operating
in global markets.”
1. The Future of Animal Agriculture in
North America, Farm Foundation, April 18, 2006
www.farmfoundation.org/projects/04-32Reportrelease.htm
Special thanks to Bruce Friedrich for information included
in this issue.
|
![[missing header image]](../images/faw_chicks.jpg)
![[missing header image]](../images/newsletter_ico.jpg)