|
1.
HANGING PIGS IS LEGAL IN OHIO
Hung by a logging chain from a front-end
loader, a pig is said to have struggled for 4-5 minutes
before becoming still. Hanging has been the method
of killing pigs at Ken Wiles farm for 40 years. While
it is not recommended by the pig industry, it is legal
in Ohio. In a juryless trial on June 20th, Wiles and
a farmhand were exonerated of cruelty charges stemming
from an investigation by the Humane Farming Association
(HFA), see: http://tinyurl.com/24yl4a.
Wiles’ son was convicted on one count of cruelty
for throwing piglets into a cart. He was fined $200
and given a year’s probation. The three had
faced ten counts of cruelty, including beating and
torturing animals and depriving them of water, food
and medical care (see: http://tinyurl.com/22ncoh
). Donald E. Sanders, a veterinarian and associate
professor at Ohio State University, testified that
although it may appear shocking, bludgeoning piglets
on a concrete floor is an appropriate way of killing
them. HFA said it will continue working to ban the
hanging of animals nationwide. See also: http://www.hfa.org/campaigns/wiles.html
EUTHANIZING PRACTICE AT HEART OF WILES
TRIAL
The Daily Record, Christine L. Pratt, June 20, 2007
http://www.the-daily-record.com/news/article/2153672
JUDGE CLEARS FARMER AND WORKERS ON ANIMAL CRUELTY
CHARGES
WKYC, Bill Safos, June 20, 2007
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=69982&provider=gnews
2.
BERNARD MATTHEWS AGAIN ACCUSED OF ASSAULTING TURKEYS
Bernard Matthews, the U.K. turkey company,
is again accused of assaulting birds. Last year, two
workers were convicted of cruelty after Hillside Animal
Sanctuary covertly videotaped them using turkeys like
baseballs, hitting them with poles (see: http://tinyurl.com/296no8
). The organization has now released footage, said
to have been filmed on June 14th, of a worker repeatedly
kicking turkeys: (video at: http://tinyurl.com/38apn5
). During last year’s case, Bernard Matthews
said the company did not tolerate animal abuse and
was committed to the “highest standards”
of animal welfare. In court, the workers claimed they
were influenced by “peer pressure” and
the “culture” at the plant. Responding
to the current allegations, the company stated: “We
have launched an urgent investigation and if this
footage proves to have been from a Bernard Matthews
farm we will take the appropriate disciplinary action.”
The company recently initiated a multi-million dollar
campaign to regain consumer confidence following a
February outbreak of avian influenza at one of its
farms: http://tinyurl.com/37q73s
BERNARD MATTHEWS WORKER CAUGHT PLAYING
FOOTBALL WITH TURKEYS
Daily Mail, June 18, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/38apn5
BERNARD MATTHEWS PROBES CRUELTY CLAIM
Evening News, Dominic Chessum, June 19, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2qn67a
3.
JUDGE BLOCKS GRAZING RULES
New rules governing how ranchers use
160 million acres of federal land were blocked on
June 8th by a judge who declared that, in creating
them, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) violated
the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act. U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill said that
the ranching industry and its proponents had initially
proposed the rules rather than the BLM which had acquiesced
to them. The rules would have loosened restrictions
on grazing on public land nationwide, limited the
amount of public comment the BLM would have to consider,
and weaken the agency’s ability to penalize
ranchers for grazing violations. The new rules, the
first overhaul of the regulations since 1995, were
proposed by the BLM in 2003. Western Watersheds Project,
an environmental group, sued the BLM in 2005, resulting
in the recent ruling. Winmill ordered the BLM to consult
with the Fish and Wildlife Service and seriously examine
the potential environmental impacts of the proposed
changes before the revised regulations can take effect.
The ruling is on-line at: http://tinyurl.com/2v8jvf.
The industry response is on-line at: http://tinyurl.com/3awxwt
GRAZING RULES ON FEDERAL LANDS BLOCKED
MSNBC/The Associated Press, June 11, 2007
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19174578/
4.
CANADA LOSING BSE LEGAL BATTLES; U.S. LETTER
A multi-billion dollar class-action
lawsuit against the Canadian government’s actions
regarding bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, “mad
cow disease”) was approved by a Quebec court
on June 15th. The lawsuit, filed in 2005 on behalf
of 20,000 Quebec farmers, seeks compensation for losses
alleged to have exceeded $9 billion nationwide since
May 2003. That is when the first case of Canadian
BSE was declared, resulting in many countries banning
Canadian beef. The lawsuit claims government officials
lost track of 80 British cattle who were deemed to
be at high risk of BSE and allowed them to enter the
human and animal food chain. It also accuses the Canadian
subsidiary of Ridley, a multinational feed company,
of selling feed containing cow protein. (See: http://www.bseclassaction.ca). In a separate ruling, on June 22nd, an appeals court
upheld negligence claims against Canada and dismissed
Ridley’s attempts to have allegations against
it stricken. The plaintiffs assert that the government
introduced a regulation in 1990 that specifically
allowed the feeding of cattle remains to other cattle,
a practice that was not banned in Canada until 1997.
In mid-June, the consumer advocacy group
Food & Water sent a letter to U.S. Department
of Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns pointing out
“policies and practices that endanger U.S. consumers.”
The letter included USDA inspector affidavits describing
incidents and policies in several states when older
Canadian cattle said to be at high risk of transmitting
BSE were illegally imported and then slaughtered for
food even after their risk status was made known.
See: http://tinyurl.com/yq3m2k
QUEBEC MAD COW LAWSUIT TO SET PRECEDENCE
FOR CANADIAN CATTLE FARMERS
The Globe and Mail/Canadian Press, June 17, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/2z2ve7
OTTAWA LOSES YET ANOTHER LEGAL BATTLE AGAINST MAD
COW CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT
570 News/Canadian Press, June 22, 2007
http://www.570news.com/news/national/article.jsp?content=n062259A
5.
OREGON SET TO BAN GESTATION STALLS
Oregon will become the third state to
ban gestation stalls, and the first to do so by legislative
action, if the Governor signs a bill which has been
approved by the legislature. The practice has been
banned in Arizona and Florida but by voter initiative.
SB694, which would come into effect in 2012, makes
it a misdemeanor to keep a pig in a gestation stall
for more than 12 of 24 hours except for the final
week before she gives birth. Some 4,000 pigs are used
for breeding purposes in Oregon, and few if any farmers
there are said to use the stalls. However, Rep. Betty
Komp argued that Oregon should set high standards
for animals raised for food. She said that putting
pregnant pigs in the restrictive stalls is like keeping
them in an airline seat. The bill passed the House
32-25 and the Senate 20-9. The original proposal also
included a ban on crates for calves used for veal,
but reportedly dairy producers were able to have it
stricken. A timeline of events is at: http://tinyurl.com/2x3f8e
HOUSE FREES THE PREGNANT PIGS
The Oregonian, Michelle Cole, June 11, 2007
http://blog.oregonlive.com/politics/2007/06/house_frees_the_pregnant_pigs.html
OREGON LEGISLATURE FIRST TO BAN GESTATION
STALLS
Feedstuffs FoodLink, June 19, 2007
6.
"DEPOPULATING" POULTRY
Poultry barns, holding tens of thousands
of birds, are an invitation for disease to spread
from bird to bird and through their droppings. Along
with electrocution, gassing, and chopping up live
birds, “the new poultry-killing instrument of
choice is foam,” explains Jeff Donn in an Associated
Press article about “depopulating” poultry
in the event of a disease outbreak. The foam, adapted
from that used to smother fires (see: http://tinyurl.com/2vtjm3
), was approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
in November. Advocates say it saves time and labor
and is the least inhumane way of killing the birds.
Mohan Raj, a British veterinarian at
the University of Bristol, says that foam fills the
birds’ windpipes and strangles them. "You
might as well drop them in a bucket of water,"
he fumes (see also: http://tinyurl.com/392d69
). Karen Davis, head of United Poultry Concerns, asserts
that using foam is like “burying them alive.”
She notes how carbon dioxide (CO2) is also aversive
to birds. "There is no really satisfactory, humane
method to depopulate a full houseful of birds,"
says animal ethicist Bernard Rollin of Colorado State
University. Some favor more experimentation with inert
gases which don't seem to cause breathlessness like
CO2. Other possibilities under consideration are foam
laced with CO2, or food or water laced with anesthetics.
Government and industry officials say they would probably
use foam and gas “and some uglier methods too,”
notes Donn, including letting birds die of thirst
or disease.
BIRD KILLING METHODS DEBATED
USA Today/Associated Press, Jeff Donn, June 9, 2007
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-06-09-birdflu_N.htm
7.
NYT PUBLIC EDITOR DISPUTES PLANCK OP-ED
Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The
New York Times (NYT), who “serves as the readers'
representative,” took issue with Nina Planck’s
“sensationally headed” May 21st op-ed:
Death by Veganism (see: http://tinyurl.com/2l35jo
). “Op-ed pages are for debate, but if you get
only one side, that’s not debate. And that’s
not healthy,” he stated on June 24th, in one
of his twice-monthly columns. Although the NYT did
run five letters “that briefly took issue with
[Planck],” Hoyt points out that the paper hasn’t
presented anything else on veganism on its op-ed pages
for 16 years. He tells that Planck’s column
unleashed a continuing “torrent of reader e-mail,”
primarily from vegans. He writes that clinical nutritionists
“pointed me to a 2003 paper by the American
Dietetic Association, the nation’s largest organization
for food and nutrition professionals. After reviewing
the current science, the A.D.A., together with the
Dietitians of Canada, declared, ‘Well-planned
vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate
for all stages of the life cycle, including during
pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence.’”
Hoyt further took issue with the premise of Planck’s
piece. He notes that medical professionals had testified
that it wasn’t the type but the amount of food
that led to the baby’s death, and that the prosecutor
told him that the case was “absolutely not”
about veganism.
See also: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4919336.html
THE DANGER OF THE ONE-SIDED DEBATE
The New York Times, Clark Hoyt (the Public Editor),
June 24, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/opinion/24pubed.html
8.
UPCOMING CONFERENCES
ANIMAL RIGHTS 2007 “the world’s
largest and oldest animal rights conference,”
will be held July 19-23 in Los Angeles. The conference
is to include 100 sessions, 80 speakers, and an exhibit
hall that will be free and open to the public from
July 20-23. Several groups are planning a post-conference
demonstration on the 23rd. See: http://www.arconference.org
TAKING ACTION FOR ANIMALS, “the
leading national conference of the animal advocacy
movement,” will be held in Washington, D.C.,
July 28-30. This year, the conference, sponsored by
numerous animal protection entities, will focus particularly
on farmed animals. “Registration includes keynote
sessions, training workshops, a Lobby Day on Capitol
Hill, exhibitors, social events, and networking opportunities.”
See: http://www.takingactionforanimals.com
(At both events, Farmed Animal Watch
will be represented at the Animal Place table.)
|
![[missing header image]](images/faw_pigs.jpg)
![[missing header image]](images/newsletter_ico.jpg)