1. LIVE CALF EXPORTS RESUME
The ban on exporting British calves,
imposed a decade ago due to “mad cow”
disease, was lifted on March 8th. On May 5th, the
practice of shipping calves to continental Europe
to be raised for veal resumed. The Daily Mirror has
teamed with Compassion in World Farming (CIWF) to
publicize the fate of these animals, whom the newspaper
says could soon number as many as 500,000. Investigators
followed about 1,000 of the calves on a 600-mile journey
from South Wales to Holland. Upon arrival there, calves
are kept in the type of crate that was made illegal
in the U.K. in 1990. Although the crates are to be
banned throughout Europe in 2007, they will be replaced
with a system that “still falls far short of
the requirements under UK law.”
CIWF wants the live calf trade to be replaced with
a meat trade, and for calves to be given bedding,
adequate fiber and iron, and more space, preferably
outdoors. A switch to cattle who can be used for both
milk and meat is also being called for to prevent
the dairy industry from treating male calves as “a
waste product.” The UK government is uncomfortable
about the exports but says that a unilateral ban on
them would be illegal.
Exclusive: Return on the Vile Veal Trade
Daily Mirror, Ros Wynne-Jones, June 26, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/rdzmy
2. CALF "RANCH" SUED FOR ILLEGAL CRUELTY
The Mendes Calf Ranch, which raises
thousands of calves to be used for milk production,
is being sued by the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF)
for illegally confining them. ALDF cites a state law
that requires that confined animals have "adequate
exercise area." The state of California is also
named as a defendant for failing to enforce the law
and for giving tax breaks for the crates. ALDF has
posted on its website a video
which it says East Bay Animal Advocates (EBAA) filmed
at the Mendes facility [this spring, per EBAA, during
a tour
offered by the World Ag Expo]. Two Stanford law students
are co-plaintiffs, suing for harm they allege they
suffered by purchasing and consuming illegally produced
dairy products. University of California (U.C.) dairy
advisors address the charges, and the articles give
details about the calf production system.
Group Sues Mendes Calf Ranch in Tipton
The Fresno Bee, Lewis Griswold, June 20, 2006
http://www.fresnobee.com/local/sv/story/12343081p-13073853c.html
ALDF Files Suit to Stop Abuse of Newborn Dairy Calves
at California Ranch
Animal Legal Defense Fund, June 19, 2006
http://www.aldf.org/article.asp?cid=568
3. DAIRY INDUSTRY ADVICE, CONSOLIDATION
The June issue of Dairy Herd Management
advises readers to “be a spokesperson for dairy,”
urging them to “speak up and be passionate about
what you do.” Explaining that “today’s
consumer doesn’t realize that an agriculturalist
is also an environmentalist and an animal-welfare
expert,” it features a
series of articles offering talking points on animal welfare, the environment,
antibiotics and organic production. The magazine notes
that “dairy producers generally take good care
of their animals. but, over time, a few bad habits
or chronic problems have developed.” It lists
lameness, death loss, and bull-calf care. “Just
because PETA hasn’t noticed these problems yet
doesn’t mean they’re not a problem”
cautions Colorado State University veterinarian Frank
Garry. Realistic goals are given as lameness rates
of 5% or less; herd mortality rates of 2%, and calf
death loss rates of less than 1%. Monetary cost shouldn’t
be the first and foremost factor in providing animal
care, says U.C. animal-welfare specialist Carolyn
Stull. Dairy producers need to manage their farms
with the goal of total transparency, adds U.C. veterinarian
Jim Reynolds. Dehorning, nonambulatory animals, mortality and euthanasia are among the matters discussed.
Top dairy firms are growing even larger
due to continued acquisition, according to a new report
from Leatherhead International (LFI) entitled Key
Players in the Global Dairy Industry, which profiles
the 34 leading companies: http://tinyurl.com/psgko
How to Respond to Questions about Animal Welfare
Dairy Herd Management, Shirley Roenfeldt, June 1,
2006
http://www.dairyherd.com/directories.asp?pgID=724&ed_id=5527
4. ARIZONA "HUMANE FARM" INITIATIVE
Arizonans
for Humane Farms, a coalition of animal protection organizations,
environmentalists, food safety organizations, and
concerned citizens, is promoting a ballot initiative
that would “outlaw the cruel and intensive confinement
of pregnant pigs and veal calves on industrialized
factory farms.” In addition to changing conditions
at the one large pig production facility in Arizona,
the coalition hopes to prevent other such pig or veal
operations from opening in the state. In order to
qualify for the November elections, campaigners need
to obtain 120,000 voter signatures by July 6th.
The
Arizona Farm Bureau’s Jim Klinker resents
the assistance the initiative is receiving from groups
outside of the state. He criticizes its supporters
for not having seen a modern pig operation and the
conditions in which the pigs are kept. The Bureau’s
primary concern about the initiative is that it would
cause negative economic effects on the Arizona meat
industry. Klinker argues that its passage would result
in companies moving to countries with lower health
standards. Stephanie Nichols-Young, president of the
Animal Defense League of Arizona, counters that the
initiative includes a six-year phase-in period to
allow producers to meet the new standards as they
replace aging equipment due to wear and tear. The
article also considers the initiative from a religious
perspective.
Arizona Catholic Fights for Humane Farming
Initiative
The Catholic Sun, Rebecca Bostic, June 25, 2006
http://www.catholicsun.org/2006/june15/local/humaneanimals.html
5.
CANADA PLANS TO ELIMINATE "MAD COW" DISEASE
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency
has announced that it plans to eliminate “mad
cow” disease from the country within the next
decade by banning high-risk tissue from all farmed
animal and companion animal food and from fertilizers
by July 12, 2007. Though Canada (and the U.S.) banned
the inclusion of ruminant protein in cattle food in
1997, it was still permitted in pig, chicken and horse
food. Concerns that cattle could be infected through
cross-contamination prompted the new prohibition.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) stated
that “Preparatory work was essential to ensure
that an enhanced feed ban would be effective, enforceable,
environmentally sustainable and economically feasible.”
Meat Processing magazine editor Chris Harris writes
that the rest of the world should have learned from
Europe’s experience with the disease in the
1980’s & `90’s but instead failed
to take preventive action. “It should not have
taken three years for countries such as Canada to
frame their own feed bans, he writes, “The evidence
and the science were before them and action should
have been taken immediately.” Referring to CFIA’s
statement, Harris admonishes that “to bring
economic feasibility into the question when a potential
risk to human health is raised is both callous and
nonsensical.” He suggests that a worldwide ban
on high-risk tissue be imposed by the World Organization
for Animal Health and Codex.
New Canada Rules Aim to Eradicate Mad
Cow Disease
Reuters, Marcy Nicholson, June 26, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/hc22g
Perspective
Meat Processing, Chris Harris, June 28, 2006
http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&artNum=11870
|
![[missing header image]](../images/faw_cows.jpg)
![[missing header image]](../images/newsletter_ico.jpg)