Farmed Animal Watch: Objective Information for the Thinking Advocate
[missing header image]
[missing header image] Subscribe to Farmed Animal Watch

SEPTEMBER 1, 2006 -- Number 32, Volume 6

1. ATTEMPTS TO STALL CAGE BAN, LIMIT CONFINEMENT

Animal protection advocates and David Martin, a Labour MEP (member of the European Parliament) for Scotland, are fighting to thwart a campaign to delay a Europe-wide ban on battery cages. Under the European Laying Hens Directive 1999, a ban on the cages is due to come into effect in 2012. The British Egg Industry Council wants to push the ban back another five years. It expressed reluctance to make the switch to “enriched” cages (which provide perches, a nest, some litter, and at least 750 sq cm of space per bird) until a review, which was due in January 2005, is completed. Claiming that a massive egg shortage will otherwise result, the Council’s chief executive stated: “The industry is serious about removing these cages but needs a little bit more time.” According to a European Union Commission spokesperson, “…there are no plans for any relaxing of the rules.”

A Dutch poultry federation has asked the Dutch parliament to soften rules, which come into effect today, requiring poultry be kept indoors in an effort to reduce the risk of avian influenza posed by migrating birds. Farmers can choose between keeping birds indoors or constructing something to prevent contact with wild birds. The federation said that no other European country is imposing such strict rules, and that it believes the risk of contamination from wild birds is not high enough to warrant them. No wild birds infected with bird flu have been found in the Netherlands. The request was responded to dismissively by a majority of the parliament, with one member asserting ""We cannot be careful enough."


ACTIVISTS FIGHT TO SECURE CAGE BAN
Sunday Herald, Kirsty Taylor, August 27, 2006
http://www.sundayherald.com/57579

DUTCH POULTRY INDUSTRY REQUESTS SOFTER RULES ON BIRD HOUSING
World Poultry, August 31, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/f3wpg

 

2. CHICKENS: "HAPPY"? "CONTENTED"? "WELL-TREATED"?

Kreider Farms has changed its website’s description of the chickens it keeps for egg production from “happy and well-treated” to “contented and well-treated.” The change was brought about by a complaint lodged with the Better Business Bureau by Hugs for Puppies, which charged the description was false advertising. The action was initiated following a covert investigation of the operation by the animal rights group (see: http://farmedanimal.net/faw/faw6-15.htm#2 ). Kreider Farms spokesperson Tom Beachler downplayed the development, noting that the company’s five sites comply with industry standards. "I see (the chickens) all the time and hear them clucking and singing," Beachler said. "I think they're happy."


CHICKENS 'CONTENTED,' NOT 'HAPPY'
Intelligencer Journal, Patrick Burns, August 24, 2006
http://local.lancasteronline.com/6/25108

 

3. FOIE GRAS DEBATE COMES TO NEW JERSEY

New Jersey could be the first state to ban the force-feeding of poultry to produce foie gras, thanks to recently introduced legislation that will take effect immediately if passed (California’s ban isn’t effective until 2012). Chicago recently banned foie gras sales, and Philadelphia and New York state officials have discussed outlawing production and sale of it (see: http://www.farmedanimal.net/faw/faw6-14.htm#1 ). Joan Voss, the New Jersey Assemblywoman who introduced the legislation, did so to keep foie gras facilities out of the state. However, she said she has no plans to outlaw foie gras sales. In response, one reportedly puzzled restaurateur said, “The definition of foie gras is a duck with a fattened liver from feeding… It’s like saying you can make ice but you can't use water.” Michael Ginor, owner of Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the country’s largest, concurred, quipping: "There is no other way. You either produce foie gras or you don't produce foie gras."



BILL WOULD HAVE NEW JERSEY JOIN ANTI-FOIE GRAS CAMPAIGN
Home News Tribune Online, the Associated Press, August 28, 2006
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060828/NEWS/60828001

FOIE GRAS COULD BECOME FAUX PAS IN NEW JERSEY
The Record, Elise Young, August 27, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/gvrwy

 

4. FOIE GRAS: THEN AND NOW

An article by Jeffrey Steingarten in the Fall 2005 issue of Men's Vogue has been put back on the magazine’s website. Steingarten distinguishes foie gras from pate de foie gras, and refers to it as “the new fur.” He discusses the historical background of the substance, including when “geese were blinded and their webbed feet nailed to the floor.” Steingarten tells of traditional farm family members “massaging” ducks’ necks while force-feeding them. He says he considers this to be ethically acceptable, in contrast to “industrially produced foie gras.” His proposed solution “is to eat just a little of this sublime and ancient delicacy. Which is what most of us are doing already.” In discussing the American Veterinary Medical Association’s defeat of resolutions against force-feeding (see: http://www.farmedanimal.net/faw/faw6-27.htm#1 ), he wrote: “Some delegates were influenced by the argument that if the organization disapproved tube-feeding, who knew what might follow? Why, next year they might condemn the confinement of veal calves, or the batteries of small, mechanized cages in which egg-laying hens are kept for their entire adulthood. Not a bad idea.”

During the first half of the last century, Watertown, Wisconsin was the foie gras capital of the United States. A page on the Watertown historical site tells of the “art of noodling” (force feeding noodles to geese). [It also mentions “the razor sharp teeth which line the goose's mouth.” Geese have serrated bills, not teeth.] On-line at: http://www.watertownhistory.org/Articles/StuffedGeese.htm


STUFFED ANIMALS
Men's Vogue, Jeffrey Steingarten, Fall 2005
http://www.mensvogue.com/food/articles/2006/08/21/foie_gras

WATERTOWN ONCE A FOIE GRAS CAPITAL
The Capital Times, Doug Moe, August 31, 2006
http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=96994&ntpid=8

 

5. ANIMAL AG, POLLUTION & GLOBAL WARMING

While states like Iowa, Missouri, Ohio and North Carolina are attempting to reduce the number of intensive farmed animal confinement facilities in them due to the resulting substantial problems they create, Indiana is welcoming them “and encouraging what amounts to a corporate take-over of local farming.” So tells a lengthy feature article in NUVO, Indianapolis’s “weekly alternative newspaper.” According to it, the vast majority of U.S. pig meat now comes from such mega-operations, which “are rapidly ensuring the demise of the family farm throughout the Midwest.” The article credits U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics in stating that the total number of farms raising pigs shrinks by one-third every five years, while the actual number of pigs produced remains virtually the same. In 2006, U.S. “factory farms” generated 291 million pounds of manure daily, while the U.S. human population produced approximately one-sixth as much, it notes.

Oklahoma Sues
After four years of talks, Oklahoma is suing eight firms – including Tyson Foods Inc. – for pollution caused by chicken waste applied to crops which the state claims damages the ecosystem and jeopardizes the tourist industry. "They're not fertilizing, they're dumping," said Drew Edmondson, the Oklahoma state attorney general who filed the suit last year. Poultry farmers in neighboring Arkansas consider the lawsuit a threat to their livelihood. They profit from selling the waste as fertilizer and can’t afford to truck it out of the watershed. The lawsuit could drag on for years; meanwhile the public relations battle is equally fierce. Among other things, the poultry industry has responded with a television and radio ad campaign touting the virtues of "organic" chicken litter. The federal government is still determining which regulations apply to poultry, dairy and pig production, and existing rules don't apply to those who purchase animal waste for fertilizer. Some lawmakers are lobbying to permanently exempt these industries from even minimal federal oversight. Edmondson faults Congress for failing to pass a broad law regulating poultry waste. See also: http://www.farmedanimal.net/faw/faw6-19.htm#3

Global Warming
The production of meat significantly increases global warming due to the millions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane released by it annually. The two gases together account for over 90% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, with 21% of carbon dioxide emissions and 16% of methane emissions come from farmed animal production, according to recent reports. Rainforests are also being cut down to pasture cows and grow soybeans for feed. University of Chicago geophysicists Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin have concluded that becoming a vegetarian does more to fight global warming than switching from driving an SUV to a fuel-efficient hybrid car. A webpage about the connection between meat production and rainforest destruction, citing Greenpeace reports, has been posted on a PETA site: http://goveg.com/environment-wastedResources-rainforest.asp


FACTORY FARMS
NUVO, Laura McPhee, August 23, 2006
http://nuvo.net/article.php?title=factory_farms
(Thanks to Matthew Penzer for informing us of this article.)

POLLUTION IN THE WATER, LAWSUITS IN THE AIR
The Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin, August 28, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/md2eo

MEAT IS A GLOBAL WARMING ISSUE
E Magazine, Dan Brook, August 24, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/40639/

 

6. CHILDREN, VEGETARIANISM & MORALITY

Harvard Graduate School of Education doctoral student Karen Hussar has researched 45 children ages six to ten: a mix of vegetarians from vegetarian homes, vegetarians from meat-eating homes, and non-vegetarians. She has found that for most of the children who became vegetarian, the decision typically had more to do with morals (e.g., empathy) than with personal choice (e.g., food preference or health). She explains: “This means that children are being influenced by other children and going against the tide in their own homes, which are meat-eating homes.” Additionally, non-vegetarian children judged those who made a decision to refrain from eating meat for moral reasons more harshly than those who made personal decisions to be vegetarian.

In the study, all of the vegetarian children disclosed moral reasons for not eating meat, while the non-vegetarian children did not acknowledge morals at all. However, vegetarian children did not judge as being bad those who chose to eat meat. They were more critical of those who had once committed to not eating meat for moral reasons and then broke the commitment. Hussar plans to continue studying vegetarian children and moral decision-making while working on her dissertation this year.

WHY DO YOUNG CHILDREN CHOOSE TO BECOME VEGETARIANS?
Harvard Graduate School of Education, Jill Anderson, August 8, 2006
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2006/08/08_hussar.html






In This Issue








Our Sponsors

The information in this news digest does not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors nor is anything in it meant as an endorsement by them.


Masthead

Compiled and edited by Cat Carroll and Mary Finelli, Farmed Animal Watch is a free weekly electronic news digest of information concerning farmed animal issues gleaned from an array of academic, industry, advocacy and mainstream media sources.