|
1.
ON KILLING PIGS (I & II)
I. Animal protection organizations are
calling for disciplinary action against a veterinarian
who they say testified in an Ohio court that hanging
pigs is a humane way to kill them. Dr. Paul Armbrecht,
an Iowa veterinarian, was a paid consultant for the
defense this summer in a cruelty trial against the
owner and employees of the Wiles Hog Farm (see: http://tinyurl.com/38ued5
). The groups sent a letter to the Iowa Department
of Agriculture complaining that Armbrecht likely violated
the Iowa Veterinary Practice Act by defending actions
that constitute neglect of farmed animals. The executive
director of the Iowa Veterinary Medical Association
declined to comment but pointed to the web sites of
the American Veterinary Association and the American
Association of Swine Veterinarians. Both include guidelines
on euthanasia with neither listing hanging as an acceptable
form of killing pigs. The letter requests action “up
to and including revocation of [Armbrecht’s]
license to practice veterinary medicine.” It
was sent by the American Society for the Prevention
of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Welfare Institute,
the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights,
the Humane Farming Association, People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals, and The Humane Society of the
U.S.
**
II. “Very soon, a farmer and his
son will come to the farm to kill our two pigs. If
that sentence bothers you, you should probably stop
reading now — and you should probably also stop
eating pork,” begins an October 25th opinion
piece in The New York Times by Verlyn Klinkenborg,
one of the newspaper’s editors (see: http://tinyurl.com/r0pq
). He writes that he has been taming the pigs out
of love of being with them and to make it easier for
them to be killed “swiftly, immediately.”
Klinkenborg and his wife watch as a “gruff farmer
and son” kill the pigs in order “to understand
what the meat itself means,” explaining that
“to me, the word ‘meat’ is at the
root of the contradictory feelings the pig-killing
raises.” He states that having the pigs killed
for meat “sound[s] like a bad bargain”
yet “is beauty itself” when compared to
“the bargain most Americans make when they buy
pork in the supermarket.” Klinkenborg comments:
“If I had no more foreknowledge of my death
than these two pigs will have of theirs, I’d
consider myself very lucky,” opining: “humans
have trouble thinking carefully about who knows what.”
See also: http://www.meatpaper.com/articles/2007/0528_caserta.html
(and see: http://tinyurl.com/2fd6pc
).
ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUPS WANT IOWA VET SANCTIONED
Creston News Advertiser (Associated Press), Amy Lorentzen,
Oct. 22, 2007
http://www.crestonnewsadvertiser.com/articles/2007/10/23/news/state_news/10-23iaanimalrights.txt
THE RURAL LIFE: TWO PIGS
The New York Times, Verlyn Klinkenborg, October 25,
2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/opinion/25thur4.html
2.
ABSENTEE SLAUGHTERPLANT INSPECTORS
The Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS), which regulates meat (including poultry) and
egg production, says it has 7,450 inspectors. However,
according to a representative of the American Federation
of Government Employees, there are about 1,000 vacancies,
putting the number of existing inspectors closer to
6,500. "It's steadily gotten worse," he
said. Several interviewed inspectors said their workloads
are doubling or tripling as they take on the work
of unreplaced inspectors. About 6,000 food production
facilities are monitored by the inspectors, some requiring
several of them. Excluding birds, inspectors examined
the bodies of some 34 million farmed animals from
April to June of this year, condemning 54,546 of them.
During that time, they also inspected the bodies of
2.3 billion birds, condemning 11 million of them,
according to FSIS records.
Inspectors say their workload is unrealistic,
with cursory checks of company records replacing physical
examination of meat and eggs. They claim that inspection
goals have not been met for years. "For the most
part, inspectors at processing plants are on patrols,
meaning they cover a number of plants,” said
Felicia Nestor of Food & Water Watch. Patrols
are counted as an inspection because of the possibility
that inspectors could show up, she explains. At the
Topps plant -the largest ground beef plant in the
U.S., which recently recalled all it had produced
in the past year (see: http://tinyurl.com/2vedve
)- the single inspector assigned to the plant also
inspected five other plants, spending about an hour
and a half daily in each plant. "This is a problem
we've been pointing out to [FSIS] forever," Nestor
said. Topps had not been cited for its food safety
violations, which included inadequate microbial testing
and mixing tested and untested meat (see: http://tinyurl.com/yso938
and http://tinyurl.com/2z4ay6
).
After an E. coli outbreak in 1993, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA, of which FSIS
is a part) required every meat plant institute a Hazard
Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) plan.
Companies were allowed to design their own food safety
measures, usually around the ability to process meat
quickly. Inspectors say that instead of enforcing
FSIS regulations they are merely monitoring companies’
HACCP plans. "They write everything for themselves.
We're 'monitoring' that now. It's just a joke. We
mostly check paper now. You can put anything you want
on paper," an anonymous inspector said. In response
to the Topps recall and other recent incidents, FSIS
has announced new testing measures and more rapid
recalls, and that it will work more closely with other
entities in coordinating responses (see: http://tinyurl.com/2fzykh
). Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he will reintroduce
legislation to give the USDA the authority to temporarily
close plants that repeatedly fail E. coli inspections
and also increase its power to trace and recall food
(see: http://tinyurl.com/27q9ch
).
On October 13th, J&B Meats Corporation
in Illinois announced a voluntary recall of 173,554
lbs of ground beef and the Arko Veal Co. in Georgia
recalled some 1,900 pounds, both for possible E. coli
contamination (see: http://tinyurl.com/3coz79
).
FOOD INSPECTORS OVERWHELMED BY WORKLOAD
Chicago Tribune, Stephen J. Hedges, October 13, 2007
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-meat_bdoct14,1,4891135.story?ctrack=5&cset=true
3.
L.A. TIMES: CLEAN UP AG PRACTICES, CUT BACK ON RED MEAT
“Livestock are a leading source
of greenhouse gases. Why isn't anyone raising a stink?”
asks the Los Angeles Times in an October 15th editorial.
Although farmed animal production is largely blamed
for global warming and other major environmental problems
(see: http://tinyurl.com/2w3g4o
and: http://tinyurl.com/26atm7
) “politicians almost never discuss it, and
environmental…groups seem unaware of its existence,”
notes the Times. “It is extremely hazardous
for politicians to take on the U.S. beef industry,”
the editorial explains, going on to state that: “legislating
food choices is an unpopular and nearly impossible
task, so it's unlikely any candidate will endorse
a national vegetarian movement to fight global warming
any time soon.” Pointing out, however, that
feed crop subsidies keep the price of meat low, the
Times exclaims: “U.S. agricultural policy is
overdue for changes.”
Other efforts to reduce problematic
emissions are discussed, such as developing new varieties
of grass and genetically altering cattle, and alternative
manure storage and disposal methods are considered,
with the Times urging regulation of ranches and dairies.
The editorial agrees with a recent report in Lancet
that such approaches probably won’t suffice
and that reducing meat consumption would be more effective
[see: http://tinyurl.com/yr38s6
]. Environmental leaders would be more credible if
they pointed out that eating less “red meat”
is the most important thing that Americans can do
to fight global warming, the editorial admonishes,
declaring: “a campaign urging people to do so
is clearly in order.”
Referring to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture checkoff programs (see: http://tinyurl.com/3xncbw
), the editorial states: “The U.S. Department
of Agriculture assesses ranchers, dairymen and producers
of other commodities to pay for marketing campaigns
to promote their products, raising millions of dollars
a year and turning such slogans as ‘Got Milk?’
and ‘Beef: It's What's for Dinner’ into
national catchphrases. This isn't quite tantamount
to a government-mandated campaign to promote cigarette
smoking, but it's close. The government should not
only get out of the business of promoting unhealthful
and environmentally destructive foods, it should be
actively discouraging them.” The Times advises:
“Eventually, the United States and other countries
are going to have to clean up their agricultural practices,
while consumers can do their part by cutting back
on red meat.”
KILLER COW EMISSIONS
The Los Angeles Times, October 15, 2007
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-methane15oct15,0,1365993.story?coll=la-tot-opinion&track=ntothtml
4.
MARYLAND POULTRY POLLUTION PLANS
Scientists consider the billion pounds
of waste produced by Maryland chicken farms to be
the cause of 10% of the pollution running from the
state into the Chesapeake Bay [the largest estuary
in the U.S., see: http://tinyurl.com/2dthue
]. The 1972 federal Clean Water Act gives states the
responsibility to clean up the nation's waterways
through the issuance of permits. In 2003, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) told states to begin issuing
permits to large chicken farms. Following a legal
challenge, the agency is revising its rules but said
states can still issue permits for the farms. At least
a dozen states now require the same type of pollution
control permits for large chicken farms as they do
for factories. Farms with such permits have a lengthy
list of rules to follow, are to be inspected annually,
and face fines of up to $32,500 per violation per
day for allowing manure into streams. Additionally,
they are subject to public hearings prior to opening
or expanding, their records are available for public
scrutiny, and citizens can sue them for environmental
violations. While Maryland requires these permits
for dairy and pig farms, the state’s $1.6 billion
poultry industry -an economic and political force
that employs some 16,000 people to produce and sell
567 million birds annually- has repeatedly defeated
attempts to mandate them for poultry farms.
Maryland does require that large farms
have management plans for minimizing the amount of
waste spread as fertilizer on land. (See item #8 of
http://tinyurl.com/2g7xnp
The maximum penalty for not having them is $350.)
However, it has no requirements for how poultry facilities
should limit runoff, and farmers who raise chickens
or use poultry litter as fertilizer receive minimal
or no oversight from the state. The Maryland Department
of Agriculture, which has a primary mission of helping
farmers, is also responsible for making sure they
have fertilizer plans. The agency said it is trying
to check up on about 10% of the state’s 6,273
large farms to make sure they have the required paperwork.
Visits are announced in advance, and no testing is
done to detect if pollution is escaping. The state
has announced that it plans to require permits for
large chicken farms and inspections by the Maryland
Department of the Environment. The agency is determining
how to legally define poultry pollution, and has said
it will issue regulations requiring permits by the
end of the year. The poultry industry vows to oppose
industrial pollution regulations on the grounds that
farms don’t pollute like factories.
AN ENVIRONMENTAL GAME OF CHICKEN
The Baltimore Sun, Tom Pelton, October 14, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/27bsr6
5.
MOTHERS, OMEGAS, MERCURY & MONEY
The National Healthy Mothers, Healthy
Babies Coalition, a coalition that includes federal
agencies and professional medical associations, announced
on Oct. 4th that women of childbearing age should
eat at least 12 ounces of seafood every week, including
fish who can have high levels of mercury. Since 2004,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental
Protection Agency have cautioned these women against
eating more than 12 ounces of fish a week, and advised
them to avoid those high in mercury due to its harmful
effects on fetuses and young children. The Coalition
based its advice on that of the Maternal Nutrition
Group (MNG), which relied on recent research that
showed the benefits for babies of omega-3 fatty acids
and other substances in fish trumped the risks of
mercury.
The Coalition subsequently acknowledged
that the National Fisheries Institute provided $1,000
to each of the MNG’s 14 members, an additional
$500 to each of its four executive committee members,
and $60,000 to the Coalition’s education campaign.
“We are appalled,” said Dr. Frank Greer
of the American Academy of Pediatrics, a member group
of the Coalition. His organization does not believe
the preponderance of science supports the Coalition
advice. “Plus it’s paid for by the National
Fisheries Institute, which is a real conflict of interest,”
Greer said. Several other Coalition members also disavowed
the advice, including the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, and the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development. “We receive money
for an educational message and we stand behind that
message,” said the Coalition’s executive
director, “We saw an important health message
that is a priority and thought the latest science
should be included.” The FDA stands behind its
warnings about fish. The fish industry has given money
to other groups to promote fish consumption, including
$45,000 the U.S. Tuna Foundation gave to the University
of Maryland to create a website disputing the government’s
warnings about mercury in fish: http://www.realmercuryfacts.org.
INDUSTRY MONEY FANS DEBATE ON FISH
The New York Times, Marian Burros, Oct. 17, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/dining/17fish.html
6.
AWT STUDENT INTERNSHIP GRANT PROGRAM
The Animal Welfare Trust is accepting
applications for its 2008 Student Internship Grant
Program. The grant provides funding for graduate students
to work on an independent research project under faculty
supervision or for an unpaid position within an established
organization. Internships can be for a summer, a semester,
or year-long in duration. Devoted to all areas of
animal welfare, AWT’s primary areas of focus
are factory farming and farm animal welfare issues,
pro-vegetarian campaigns and humane education. (AWT
is a sponsor of Farmed Animal Watch.) Applications
must be received by March 1st, and recipients will
be notified by April 1st. Additional details, including
information on past grant recipients, can be found
at: http://tinyurl.com/2vl8kn
|
![[missing header image]](images/faw_chicks.jpg)
![[missing header image]](images/newsletter_ico.jpg)