Farmed Animal Watch
A Project of Animal Place

December 6, 2001                                                     (To Search This Page Press Ctrl F)
Issue #44

CONTENTS

1. "Silent Suffering:" Farmed Animal Pain Management
2. European Commitment to Farmed Animal Welfare
3. Report on Mad Cow Disease in the U.S.
4. Public Rejects Mass Slaughter of Foot-and-Mouth Disease Victims
5. Global Hunger and Animal Production
6. California Factory Farms Exempted from Clean Air Requirements
7. Meat Industry Should Consider Vegetarian Alternatives
8. Becoming Vegan: an Empirical Analysis


1. "SILENT SUFFERING:" FARMED ANIMAL PAIN MANAGEMENT
The American Veterinary Medical Association held a forum on pain management
in animals at their annual conference. A subsequent series in their
professional journal notes: "A decade ago, an entire forum could be devoted
to whether animals feel pain or not. Today, the question is no longer 'Do
they hurt' but 'How can we best manage their pain?'" Dr. Wendy Underwood, a
veterinarian for Eli Lilly (pharmaceuticals), addressed "the balance between
the economics of food animal production and animal well-being." Definitions
of "pain" and "distress" are given, and it is noted that pain and distress
are unique to each individual. Being prey species, farmed animals have
evolved to not readily exhibit signs of pain. Recognizable signs of pain in
cattle, pigs, goats and birds are mentioned. Standard practices, such as
branding, beak trimming, and tail docking, are causes of physical and
psychological stress. Few pain relievers are approved for use in farmed
animals. Some recommendations for controlling pain and distress are listed.
It is noted that Europe has been "far more aggressive" than the U.S. in
regulating farmed animal care and use, with the U.S. employing guidelines
rather than regulations. The author warns that every manager and research
facility should follow the guidelines or "our right to have [food] animals
may become a privilege."

"Silent Suffering," The Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association, R. Scott Nolen, December 15, 2001.
http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/dec01/s121501c.asp


2. EUROPEAN COMMITMENT TO FARMED ANIMAL WELFARE
The European Commission's newsletter on Health and Consumer Protection
(11/01) gives an overview of the commitment of European countries to farmed
animal welfare. The Swedish Presidency and Agriculture Council state that
"animal welfare and aspects of animal ethics should form an important part
of the basis for decisions when drawing up the future policy on agriculture
and food." Specific improvements being made in Europe are discussed.

"Big Improvements in Animal Welfare on the Way," Health and Consumer
Protection, November 2001.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/health_consumer/newsletter/200111/04_en.htm


3. REPORT ON POTENTIAL SPREAD OF MAD COW DISEASE IN THE U.S.
Harvard University has released a report on mad cow disease in the U.S.
Researchers constructed a mathematical model to project the spread of the
disease based on various ways it could enter the U.S. cattle population. The
550-page report states that the U.S. is "extremely unlikely" to acquire the
disease due to strict trade restrictions. The chance of the disease being
spread by 173 animals who were imported prior to the restrictions and remain
unaccounted for is considered to be small. Spontaneous occurrence of the
disease in the domestic cattle population is also considered. Were the
disease to occur here, it is believed that it would be quickly arrested and
eventually eradicated.

The USDA responded to the report by announcing additional actions it may
take. These include: more than doubling the number of BSE tests it conducts
[5000 animals were tested in 2001 (the U.S. cattle population exceeds 100
million)], prohibiting the use of certain tissue from nonambulatory animals,
and prohibiting the use of certain stunning devices used to immobilize
cattle during slaughter. The agency will also consider additional regulatory
options for the disposal of animals who die on farms and ranches. Rendering
these animals into animal food is considered an important potential pathway
for the spread of the disease. Though the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
does accept money from industry groups, the USDA financed this 3-year study.

"Harvard Study Shows Low BSE Risk in U.S.," AgWeb News, Darcy Maulsby,
November 30, 2001.
http://www.agweb.com/news_show_news_article.asp?articleID=81872&newscat=GN
"'Extremely unlikely'? Harvard study sees little risk of mad cow in US,"
Reuters, December 4, 2001.
http://www.just-food.com/features_detail.asp?art=571&app=1
"U.S. Cattle Resistant to Mad Cow," The Washington Post, David Brown,
December 1, 2001.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42053-2001Nov30.html
"Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy," The United States Department of
Agriculture.
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/bse


4. PUBLIC REJECTS MASS SLAUGHTER OF FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE VICTIMS
The public is becoming increasingly sensitive to the suffering of animals
and increasingly insensitive to economic arguments. This was the message the
director general of the Dutch agriculture ministry delivered at a recent
foot-and-mouth conference held by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture
Organization. He related the Netherlands' experience with the disease when
it hit there this year, resulting in the mass slaughter of 265,000 animals.
The government's main goal was to protect economic interests by maintaining
its export market. The public, however, was resistant to the news and
reality of healthy animals being killed and burned. Farm inspectors were
threatened and harassed and often needed to work under police protection.

Extensive data on the global foot-and-mouth disease crisis, including
information on the additional 1.6 million animals who were slaughtered in
the U.K. due to movement restrictions, can be accessed at:
http://www.thepigsite.com/LatestNews/Default.asp?AREA=LatestNews&Display=1126

"Public no longer accepts mass animal slaughter," Western Producer, Barry
Wilson, November 15, 2001.
http://www.producer.com/articles/20011115/news/20011115news08e.html


5. GLOBAL HUNGER AND ANIMAL PRODUCTION
Industrial animal agriculture is being promoted as a solution to world
hunger despite the knowledge that meat and other animal products are the
least efficient means of nourishing people. The World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund are using their influence to aid multinational
corporations in exporting factory farming to impoverished debtor nations.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is supporting
these expansive plans and promoting them as hunger relief programs. This
article explains how this has happened, and how the environment and humans
and other animals suffer from it. The Global Hunger Alliance is a new
international coalition of environmental, animal liberation and
anti-globalization organizations fighting these developments.

China is the world's largest producer of meat, at 60 million tons a year.
International animal disease rules have prevented the country from exporting
more than 1% of it. China is attempting to increase this amount by
constructing zones free of swine fever, bird flu and foot-and-mouth disease.
Since 1998, the government has begun working on disease-free zones in 670
counties and 23 provinces. It is anxious to expand the overseas market since
foreign animal products will have easier access to China's markets now that
it has joined the World Trade Organization. Proponents argue that meat
consumption will grow in rural areas as living standards increase so a wider
market needs to be explored.

"The Hunger for a Solution," The Animals' Agenda, Pattrice Le-Muire Jones,
October 11, 2001.
http://www.animalsagenda.org/articledetail.asp?menu=News&NewsID=492

http://www.globalhunger.net
"Chinese animal products ready for world market," China Daily, November 25,
2001.
http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/news/cb/2001-11-25/45234.html


6. CALIFORNIA FACTORY FARMS EXEMPTED FROM CLEAN AIR REQUIREMENTS
On December 3rd, the EPA granted final approval to California's Title V
operating permits program of the Clean Air act. Title V requires permits be
obtained for major sources of air pollution. The permits detail
environmental protections and monitoring obligations that must be met.
Though the agency had maintained for the past 5 years that a state exemption
for agriculture had to be removed before full approval could be granted, the
statute remains in place. It exempts from the permitting process any
equipment used in agricultural operations, such as huge diesel irrigation
pumps. Earthjustice, a nonprofit public interest law firm has pointed out
the illegality of the action. It has 60 days to appeal the decision in
federal court. The organization already represents a coalition of medical,
community and environmental groups in a similar lawsuit against the EPA.
Background on Title V and excerpts from a letter by the state attorney
general to the EPA explaining the implications of the action are included in
the article.

"Illegal EPA Action Jeopardizes Public Health," Ascribe News, December 3,
2001.
http://library.northernlight.com/FE20011203070000245.html?cb-0&dx=1006&sc=0


7. MEAT INDUSTRY SHOULD CONSIDER VEGETARIAN ALTERNATIVES
The "2000 Vegetarian Resource Group Roper Teen Poll" indicates that a
growing number of teens are rejecting meat. The poll found teens are twice
more likely than adults to not eat any meat. A commercial news release
citing the poll said teens are motivated by health concerns and a growing
sensitivity to animal rights issues. The news release has, in turn, been
cited in a meat industry column encouraging meat processors to consider
offering meat-snack analogs. Annual sales of meat alternatives exceed $250
million. The author suggests buying out existing analog processors, and uses
ConAgra's acquisition of Lightlife Foods as an example. ConAgra's Chairman
and CEO explained, "We are increasing our focus in this area because of
consumer demand for healthful, vegetable-based products."

"Meat-Snack Analogs Could be a Promising Niche to Snare Veggie Teens," News
Analysis, the Meating Place, Bryan Salvage, December 3, 2001.
http://www.mtgplace.com/meatingplace/DailyNews/News.asp?ID=8461


8. BECOMING VEGAN: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS
In an attempt to analyze how individuals become vegan, the author
interviewed 12 people who had rejected animal products for a year or more.
Common elements of their experience were identified. The article describes
how the subjects learned about commercial exploitation of animals, what
action they took and what new practices they adopted. Key elements of the
process of learning to become vegan are discussed. Reading played a large
part in the learning process, and emotion and cognition were "crucial." The
interviewees' interactions with others concerning a vegan lifestyle are
explained. Openness to new information was identified as an important
element in the adoption of a vegan lifestyle.

"'Once You Know Something, You Can't Not Know It': An Empirical Look at
Becoming Vegan," Society and Animals, Barbara McDonald, 2000.
http://www.psyeta.org/nutshells/nutshell11.html