|
1.
WELFARE REGULATIONS FOR EU CHICKENS RAISED FOR MEAT
For the first time, chickens raised
for meat in the European Union (EU) will be covered
by regulations regarding the conditions in which they
are kept. The new directive, to go into effect 2010,
includes limits on space requirements along with requirements
for lighting, litter, feeding, and ventilation to
ensure better welfare. The directive also calls for
industry training, scientific monitoring of welfare
impacts (e.g., genetics), penalties for those who
don’t comply, and possibly a new welfare labeling
program (for more info on the labeling developments,
see: http://tinyurl.com/yqehq8
).
The United Kingdom -along with Denmark,
Sweden and others- reportedly led the fight against
France’s attempt to weaken the measures. The
European poultry industry says the new requirements
will increase costs. Producers want to be compensated
by the EU if they are unable to compete. Eurogroup
for Animals counters that they can protect market
share by appealing to welfare-conscious consumers.
Links to the Council's Regulation on the Protection
of Chickens Kept for Meat Production and the new directive
can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/yoff4y
Information on regulations affecting EU chickens used
for egg production can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/28x279
BROILER CHICKENS BENEFIT FROM NEW EU
WELFARE RULES
World Poultry, May 9, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/yoff4y
EU AGREES NEW RULES TO IMPROVE WELFARE OF CHICKENS
The Poultry Site News Desk, May 9, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2zzcjn
PRODUCERS SQUAWK AS EU BACKS BIGGER CHICKEN
PENS
Toronto Star, May 8, 2007
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/211462
2.
TEXAS SENATE PASSES BILL LEGALIZING HORSEMEAT SALES
A Texas state bill authorizing the sale
of horsemeat for human consumption in the state passed
the Senate on May 9th. The bill was intended to clarify
the role of the Texas Animal Health Commission. Senator
Glenn Hegar included an amendment which he promoted
as being to test animals for disease and help catch
animal thieves. Clearly stated in it, however, is
that the state ban on the sale of horsemeat won’t
apply to horses tested by the Commission. Slaughter
opponents say it is a broad interpretation that sailed
through unnoticed in a bill that passed unanimously
and without debate. Animal advocates in the House
vow they won’t vote for the bill unless the
amendment is removed.
The Illinois House and a state Senate
committee have approved a bill banning the slaughter
of horses for human consumption (see http://tinyurl.com/2kmzbj
). It now goes to the full Senate for approval. Many,
including those opposed, believe a federal ban on
horse slaughter will be hard to stop short of a Presidential
veto (see: http://tinyurl.com/25kp8x
).
APPROVAL OF HORSEMEAT SALE SLIPPED INTO
BILL
The Dallas Morning News, Emily Ramshaw and Jim Getz,
May 11, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2dsswl
SENATE BILL ADDS LOOPHOLE FOR HORSE SLAUGHTER
El Paso Times, May 11, 2007
http://www.elpasotimes.com/breakingnews/ci_5873995
ILLINOIS LAWMAKERS SEEK BAN ON HORSE
SLAUGHTER
The Post Chronicle, May 10, 2007
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/breakingnews/article_21279839.shtml
3.
FTC: UNSUBSTANTIATED DAIRY ADS TO STOP
Research does not support the claim
that dairy product consumption helps with weight loss,
according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and
so national ad campaigns asserting that it does are
to cease. Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
(PCRM) petitioned the FTC in 2005, arguing that the
ads were misleading. The U.S. Agriculture Department
(USDA) had approved the ads but now supports the decision
to pull back from the campaigns. A May 3rd letter
from the FTC to PCRM states that the USDA and milk
producers and processors agreed to change the ads
and related marketing materials “until further
research provides stronger, more conclusive evidence
of an association between dairy consumption and weight
loss.” A spokesperson for one of the dairy campaigns
denies there was anything misleading about them. She
said the plan is to phase the ads out and focus instead
on how dairy can promote a healthy diet. A National
Dairy Council representative explained: “Like
any other marketing campaign, after time you want
to freshen them up and give the consumers what’s
new…That’s what’s happening here.”
The ads were “ridiculously misleading,”
said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New
York University. In her book, “What to Eat”
she contends that lobbying by the $50 billion dairy
industry could cloud nutrition policy. The 2005 revision
of federal dietary guidelines recommended that people
consume more low-fat dairy products. In support of
the advice, a guidelines advisory committee cited
a report that was partly financed by the dairy industry.
The Dairy Council is being allowed to continue to
use wording from the guidelines that says dairy products
shouldn’t be avoided out of concern that they
may lead to weight gain, the FTC letter said. (For
more on nutrition policy lobbying, see: http://tinyurl.com/34gb7j
)
A petition against egg industry advertising
is on file with the Food and Drug Administration,
see: http://www.cok.net/camp/egg_labeling/
DAIRY COUNCIL TO END AD CAMPAIGN THAT
LINKED DRINKING MILK WITH WEIGHT LOSS
The New York Times, Kim Severson, May 11, 2007
www.nytimes.com/2007/05/11/us/11milk.html
LOSE THE ADS, NOT THE WEIGHT, SAY DOCTORS
The Associated Press, May 11, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18610894/
4.
HOUSE AG SUBCOMMITTEE HOLDS WELFARE HEARING
"We believe animal welfare bills
may very well be the biggest threat that faces the
livestock industry in the upcoming farm bill debate,"
said an American Farm Bureau Federation spokesperson.
Industry fears it will face widely ranging attacks
on the House floor if the issues aren’t addressed
as the bill develops in the [more pro-industry] House
Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry.
On May 8th, the Subcommittee held a hearing on the
status of farmed animal welfare. Those invited to
testify consisted of: industry lobbyist -and former
ranking Democrat on the House Agriculture committee-
Charles Stenholm; David Martosko of the Center for
Consumer Freedom (see: http://www.consumerfreedom.com
and see: http://tinyurl.com/ar9g4
); representatives of The American Veterinary Medical
Association, the National Association for Biomedical
Research, and of a half-dozen industry groups; Wayne
Pacelle of The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and
Gene Baur of Farm Sanctuary.
The first panel consisted solely of
Stenholm, who insisted that industry is both financially
and morally motivated to treat animals humanely. He
bemoaned recent actions against horse slaughter (see:
http://tinyurl.com/24r5jj
), and criticized HSUS and others for using contributions
for political purposes. Pacelle admonished the Committee
for not having held any hearings on animal welfare
in years [decades?], and suggested the members were
out of touch with the public on welfare matters. He
warned that if they don’t include animal welfare
in the next farm bill HSUS will bypass them and instead
work with more sympathetic legislators. Stenholm had
acknowledged that the organization does seem to be
winning the public relations battle over animal welfare.
The list of witnesses and full text of their submitted
testimony can be found at: http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/statements.html
SUBCOMMITTEE HEARS SAME DISCUSSION AG
CHAIRS HEARD AT ANNUAL MEETING IN DC
Ag Clips, May 11, 2007
http://www.agandruralleaders.org/agclips.htm
MAINSTREAM ANIMAL AG GROUPS, HSUS SQUARE
OFF IN D.C.
Brownfield Ag News for America, Peter Shinn, May 8,
2007
http://tinyurl.com/2tkk6f
5.
COOPERATION VS CONFRONTATION
Industry writer Steve Bjerklie comments
that while “animal-rights protests are on the
rise overseas,” in the U.S. there “is
a new era of cooperation, or at least conversation,
shared by the animal-welfare community, the industry
and the industry’s customers.” He quotes
Paul Shapiro of The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS):
"The Arizona vote [against crating calves and
pregnant pigs (see: http://tinyurl.com/ypp63w
)] was definitely a tipping point…I don’t
think there can be any doubt about that. The industry
put up a huge fight against the initiative there,
spending enormous sums of money. But they not only
lost the vote, they lost in resounding fashion."
Shapiro advises: “What the industry needs to
understand is that the vast majority of the public
does not accept confinement crates for hogs and veal,
does not accept force-feeding for fois [sic] gras,
does not accept inhumane treatment of cattle."
He tells how HSUS is exploring ways to further open
communication channels with industry. Bjerklie also
tells of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA)’s efforts to work with Smithfield. He
concludes: “…it seems that meetings, conversation,
research and studies are collectively accomplishing
more in the way of animal welfare than confrontation
and argument.”
In “Grunts vs. Squeals,”
Bjerklie also touches on the conciliation point in
an interview with the American Meat Institute’s
Janet Riley regarding the recent publication of the
second edition of its "Animal Handling Guidelines
and Audit Guide": http://tinyurl.com/yo38m2
DÉTENTE
Meat & Poultry, Steve Bjerklie, May 4, 2007
http://www.meatpoultry.com/feature_stories_print.asp?ArticleID=85286
6.
WHY MOCK MEAT?; U.K. ATTITUDES TOWARD VEGETARIANISM
“For better or worse…meat
has been a centerpiece of both American meals and
Americanness itself,” writes Ted Anthony in
an Associated Press article, “These days, mock
meat sits smack in the middle of America's most traditional
pastiches - Fourth of July burgers and dogs, Thanksgiving
turkey, cold cuts in the lunchbox.” Anthony
continues: “If you're leaving meat behind, why
hold onto the trappings at all - the taste, the texture,
the very idea of carnivorousness? Cultural politics
hold some clues. The trappings of meat in America
have long represented two powerful threads of the
national narrative - the rugged individualism of the
survive-or-else frontier and free-market success.”
Jeff Ferrell, a vegetarian and a sociologist at Texas
Christian University explains: "In the same way
we value guns and the frontier ethic, meat - ironically,
at this point, because it's all factory produced -
still carries the mythology of hunting and self-sustenance
and self-survival…To have meat regularly is
to tap into that American mythology that you've made
it." Anthony notes that: “those seeking
meat alternatives have never had it easier. Today's
supermarket shelves are a showcase for carnivorous
simulation.” Sales of meat alternatives reached
$547 million in 2004 - up $17 million from 2002, according
to the Soyfoods Association of North America. Mock
meat has in fact become so convincing, Anthony explains
why “the best fakes can occasionally fall victim
to their own success.” See also: http://tinyurl.com/3y5wa9
The number of vegetarians in the UK is now about
5-6% of the population. “There is no doubt that
vegetarianism and vegetarian food has become a much
more accepted part of everyday life…”
writes Research and Markets, which bills itself as
“the world’s largest market research resource.”
It’s new report, Attitudes Towards Vegetarianism
in the United Kingdom 2006, examines “the main
market drivers affecting attitudes to vegetarianism…together
with the roles played by vegetarian societies and
meat-free food manufacturers in defining the image
of vegetarianism.”
Meanwhile, in “Restaurants Adopt
Humanity,” the May 11th Orange County Register
discusses how “Restaurants across the country
are adopting animal welfare policies as consumers
demand less suffering of pigs, cattle and poultry
raised for meat.” See: http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/money/article_1690888.php
MOCK MEATS MAKE INROADS
Berkshire Eagle, Ted Anthony, May 8, 2007
http://www.berkshireeagle.com/food/ci_5851393
NEW REPORT REVEALS UK CONSUMERS' ATTITUDES TO VEGETARIANISM
AND PROSPECTS FOR THE MARKET
Business Wire, May 9, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2bj42m
|
![[missing header image]](images/faw_cows.jpg)
![[missing header image]](images/newsletter_ico.jpg)