|
1.
AETA THREATENS ANIMAL ACTIVISTS
The National Lawyers Guild, which defends
activists against First Amendment violations, “strongly
opposes the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act,”
which was unanimously approved as S. 3880 by the U.S.
Senate on September 29th. If the measure is enacted
into law, any activity causing an “animal enterprise”
business to suffer a profit loss, including peaceful
protests and media campaigns, could be considered
a terrorist act. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
was drafted by the lobbyist group American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC), in association with the U.S.
Sportsmen’s Alliance. ALEC, which has the support
of over 300 large corporations, had a hand in introducing
over 3,100 pieces of legislation in the 1999/2000
session, of which over 450 were enacted, all benefiting
corporations.
The Equal Justice Alliance, a national
coalition of social advocacy organizations, has formed
to stop the measure in the U.S. House of Representatives
when Congress reconvenes on November 13th. The Alliances
website explains the legislation and its opposition
to it: http://www.noaeta.org/home.htm
NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD OPPOSES ANIMAL
ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT
The National Lawyers Guild, Oct. 30, 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/news2006/1030-14.htm
2.
WELFARE LABELS DRAW ATTENTION & CONTROVERSY
Animal-welfare labels are becoming more
common in the grocery store, in part due to standards
being pushed by animal protection organizations. The
trend is increasingly apparent in restaurants as well,
such as in advertising by Chipotle Mexican Grill.
Supermarket chains themselves are also getting in
on the game (see: http://tinyurl.com/ygq5jd
). Whole Foods Market has been working on its “Animal
Compassionate” standards for three years and
will soon unveil its new logo indicating how the animals
were treated up until slaughter.
Such products can be twice as expensive as conventional
products. Critics also warn that the labels will further
confuse consumers who are already trying to differentiate
between such terms as “organic,” and “antibiotic-free,”
“grass-fed” and “natural.”
But many believe well-established labels are needed,
since the federal government doesn’t generally
regulate how farmed animals are treated and has only
a voluntary, fee-based program for verifying certification
systems and labels. (The U.S. Department of Agriculture
has established definitions for terms such as “natural”
and “organic”). Additionally, some welfare
standards allow such practices as routine amputations
and lifelong indoor confinement.
A number of animal protection organizations
have formulated their own welfare standards. The American
Humane Association oversees the “Free Farmed”
program, while Humane Farm Animal Care administers
the “Certified Humane” label. The Animal
Welfare Institute plans to unveil its own label next
month (see: http://tinyurl.com/yebbsf
). There is disagreement, however, as to which are
the best or even “humane.” (See also “A
MENU’S PASTORAL DESCRIPTIONS MAY NOT BE WHAT
THEY SEEM,” The San Francisco Chronicle, Bonnie
Azab Powell, Oct. 18, 2006 at: http://tinyurl.com/y2x5qu).
The New York Times ran five letters in
response to this article. See: “JUST HOW DID
MY BURGER GROW?” The New York Times, Oct. 30,
2006: http://tinyurl.com/yalocc See also: “MEAT
LABELS DON’T TELL WHOLE STORY,” Sarasota
Herald-Tribune, Denise Anderson, Oct. 30, 2006: http://tinyurl.com/y93xx3
MEAT LABELS HOPE TO LURE THE SENSITIVE
CARNIVORE
The New York Times, Andrew Martin, Oct. 24, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/yx3t96
3.
SATYA SERIES, PART II - MILKING US GENTLY
The second part of this 2-part series
(re part 1, see: http://tinyurl.com/oxq3z
) opens with Catherine Clyne's editorial "BRAVE
NEW VEAL: SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES," which
examines how, with the support of Compassion in World
Farming (CIWF), U.K. "industry hacks are trying
to pull baby cow flesh back from near oblivion with
a clever PR campaign." Clyne observes: "Conspicuously
absent in all of CIWF’s calf campaign literature
is any suggestion to reduce dairy consumption..."
http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/edit.html.
In “RESTORING THE SMALL FARM ETHIC,”
Diane Halverson discusses why the Animal Welfare Institute
is formulating its forthcoming animal welfare standards
and what makes them superior to others. Halverson
explains why she thinks the word “humane”
should not be used in regard to slaughter: http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/halverson.html.
In "SINGER SAYS," philosopher
Peter Singer discusses the intended message of his
new book "The Way We Eat." Singer tells
why he thinks that applying the word "compassion"
to the killing of animals (re Whole Foods' "Animal
Compassionate" standards) is appropriate: http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/singer.html.
In “ANIMAL RIGHTS AND WRONGS”
Lee Hall of Friends of Animals tells why she thinks
"advocacy involving systematic pain management
[animal production welfare standards] makes activists
into industry adjuncts": http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/hall.html
See also: http://www.friendsofanimals.org/actionline/fall-2006_07/fall-movement-watch.php
In "SERVING ABUSE: PROMOTING ANIMAL-DERIVED
FOOD," Joan Dunayer explains why "endorsing
any form of speciesist exploitation is counterproductive
and morally wrong." Giving true-life examples,
Dunayer demonstrates how "When individuals who
call themselves animal advocates promote a product-whether
or not they label it "compassionate" or
"humane"-much of the public concludes that
the product is virtually cruelty-free": http://tinyurl.com/ymmjb5
Four brief articles give the perspectives
of people who are affiliated with farmed animal sanctuaries
on alternatively produced animal products: http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/index.html.
In “DISHING OUT THE BULL: THE
RISE OF THE EXCUSE-ITARIANS,” Colleen Patrick-Goudreau,
founder of Compassionate Cooks, gives her take on
why promoting “humane meat” is a matter
of “consecrating cruelty”: http://www.compassionatecooks.com/word/satya_oct_06.htm.
In “FARM FALLACY,” Eric
Nicholson explains the campaign against worker and
animal abuse at the world’s largest dairy, at
Threemile Canyon Farms, which supplies milk to Dean
Foods, owner of Silk Soymilk and Horizon Organics:
http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/nicholson.html.
Three LETTERS in response to the September
issue, part 1 of this 2-part series, are also included:
http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/letters.html.
A DISCUSSION FORUM is also accessible: http://pub38.bravenet.com/forum/3182297110/show/583048.
Additional articles not freely available
on-line include “CALCULATING COMPASSION”
by Miyun Park, “INVASION OF THE MOVEMENT SNATCHERS”
by James LaVeck, “ORGANIC MILK: THE UNWHOLESOME
CHOICE,” by Andrea Rose, “THEREAT EGGSCAPE”
interview with Adam Durand, “DOES NIBBLING AT
THE EDGES CONFLICT WITH TAKING A BIG BITE?”
by Karen Davis, and “STILL STUCK IN THE MEATRIX,”
by Sangamithra Iyer. (The Meatrix animated graphics
series is on-line at: http://www.themeatrix.com
).
MILKING US GENTLY
Satya, Oct. 2006
http://www.satyamag.com/oct06/index.html
4.
MAGAZINES REJECT PIG 'RECIPES'
Some women’s magazines have rejected
ads by a $500,000 Australian campaign against the
intensive confinement of pigs. The ads mimic recipes
found in the popular magazines, featuring color photos
of dishes with titles such as “Traumatised Suckling
Piglet with Severed Tail.” The accompanying
text tells how week-old piglets have their tails partially
amputated and their eye teeth clipped off without
any pain relief. The ads have also been pulled from
billboards in supermarket parking lots. The publishers
deny being pressured by the meat industry -which spends
$800,000 annually on magazine ads- to refuse the ads,
claiming instead that they are inappropriate. A pig
industry spokesperson said the ads misrepresent farming
practices. The campaign is funded by an alliance of
organizations, including Animals Australia which received
a sizable donation from Paramount Pictures after having
found homes for the 40 piglets used during the Australian
shoot of Charlotte's Web: http://www.charlotteswebmovie.com.
The alliance was last planning to try to get the ads
published in newspapers instead.
WHOEVER SQUEALED, PORK ADS ARE OUT
The Sydney Morning Herald, Julian Lee, Oct. 28, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/ykz4v6
5.
TURKEYS ASSAULTS: U.S. & U.K.
Following an incident in which two of
its workers were given community service for brutally
battering turkeys (see: http://tinyurl.com/ydgc7v
), food company Bernard Matthews ran a full-page ad
in the Eastern Daily Press stating: “Our employees
are conscientious people… They are trained in
animal husbandry and do not abuse turkeys…we
will not and do not tolerate cruelty to our turkeys.”
The company emphasized that the men were “subcontractors”
rather than official employees. It criticized the
sentencing as being “derisory,” and further
stated: "Many recognise that there is a small
minority of individuals who are determined by whatever
means possible to discredit the production of livestock
for human consumption." Hillside Animal Sanctuary’s
Wendy Valentine countered: “Why didn’t
Bernard Matthews or its workers alert the authorities
to what the men were doing if they do not tolerate
cruelty?”
On September 30th, Kevin Mahoney, 19,
and Jon Stella, 17, broke into Stella’s stepfather’s
Newbury, Mass. farm. There, Mahoney repeatedly threw
a pitchfork at a group of turkeys, killing two at
a time. Police reported that one of the males got
a baseball bat and was "beating [turkeys] up
against the wall." The two killed 21 of 3,700
turkeys at the farm. In an initial news report, Stella’s
stepfather, Matthew Kozazcki, said he had "absolutely
forgiven" them for killing the birds. A defense
attorney attributed the attack to alcohol consumption.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wrote
to the prosecutor, demanding jail time for the two
and psychiatric evaluation if they were convicted
(see: http://tinyurl.com/y6jwz4
). Police said the charges were taken seriously “…because
if a person is able to commit such an ‘atrocity’
as killing 21 turkeys in such a manner, he may be
capable of another serious crime.”
On Nov. 1st, Mahoney and Stella were
each found guilty of 10 counts of cruelty to animals.
Another 11 counts of cruelty to animals and a breaking-and-entering
charge will be continued for three years without a
finding. They have been sentenced to a year in a correction
facility, with 30 days to be served and the balance
suspended and three years of probation. (Prosecutors
had asked for them to be sentenced to two and a half
years in the correctional facility, with one year
served and five years of probation. Each count had
carried a maximum of five years in prison.) Mahoney
and Stella are to remain drug- and alcohol-free, receive
counseling, and attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
They will also have to make restitution to Kozazcki,
who said they can work off the debt at his farm instead
of paying him.
TURKEY FIRM ADVERT CONDEMNS ABUSE
BBC News, Sept. 15, 2006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/england/norfolk/5349336.stm
DRUNK TEENS SLAUGHTER 21 TURKEYS
The Daily News of Newburyport, Stephen Tait, Oct.
2, 2006
http://www.news-tribune.net/wierdnews/cnhinstalkers_story_275225848.html
TWO TEENS GUILTY IN TURKEY SLAUGHTERING CASE
The Daily News, Dan Atkinson, Nov. 2, 2006
http://www.news-tribune.net/wierdnews/cnhinstalkers_story_306231719.html
6.
VEG*ISM IN THE U.S. & U.K.
The American Dietetic Association (ADA)
believes the number of children who reject the meat-eating
habits they grew up with is on the rise. A 2000 poll
by the Vegetarian Resource Group estimated that 6%
of American youths ages 6 to 17 do not eat red meat,
and 2% avoid poultry and fish as well. Another 0.5%
is vegan. The ADA states that a well-planned vegetarian
diet can be nutritionally sound for children and adolescents
– and perhaps even healthier, as the change
encourages some families to improve their diets. A
2002 survey of 4,746 Minnesota adolescents, published
in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,
found that vegetarians were more likely than non-vegetarians
to meet recommended government dietary standards.
Additionally, a 1991 European Journal of Clinical
Nutrition study involving 1,765 children ages 7 to
18 attending public schools and Seventh-day Adventist
schools found that the Adventist semi-vegetarian children
(those consuming meat less than once a week) were
on average taller than the other group.
The rise in vegetarianism is not limited
to the US – veganism has risen by 200% in the
past decade in the U.K., with an estimated 300,000
people choosing this lifestyle. There are also more
than 3 million vegetarians in the country, and another
5.5 million people who avoid dairy products for various
reasons. Among omnivores, overall meat and dairy consumption
has declined over the past 50 years, after peaking
in 1979 when the average person ate over 2.5lbs of
meat each week (in 2000, it was only 2.13lbs per week).
Egg consumption is also down 3 eggs per person per
week since 1965.
DON’T HAVE A COW, MOM: YOUR KID
HAS GONE VEGETARIAN? THAT CAN BE GOOD.
The Washington Post, Jennifer Nelson, Oct. 31, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/y3udyw
GREEN FOR GO IF YOU’RE VEGAN
Daily Record, Maria Croce, Oct. 31, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/tmr9p
|
![[missing header image]](../images/faw_cows.jpg)
![[missing header image]](../images/newsletter_ico.jpg)