Wednesday, July 08, 2009

Cruel Namibia Once Again Allows Massive Seal & Baby Seal Slaughter: Expected to Club Over 90,000 Seals & 85,000 Pups: Videos Show Horror

Like the Canadian baby seal slaughter http://geari.blogspot.com/2009/03/sick-cruel-canada-begins-its-annual.html, this brutal and violent bloodbath has become an annual event in Namibia - http://geari.blogspot.com/2007/07/cruel-namibia-at-it-again-begins-bloody.html.

To see just how cruel and blatantly violent this is, see the following videos. Hard to believe that there are humans out there that can do this; and to do so with such hate. The second video even shows them cutting one open while still alive. Let the videos speak for themselves.






Article:

Namibian seal hunt to go on, 90,000 to be clubbed

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090706/ap_on_re_af/af_namibia_seal_hunt_1

Buzz UpSendSharePrint

By MICHELLE THERIAULT, Associated Press Writer – Mon Jul 6, 11:48 am ET

JOHANNESBURG – Namibia's annual commercial seal hunt will go on despite objections by animal welfare groups, a government official said Monday.

Frans Tsheehama of the Namibian fisheries and marine resources ministry said that the season started on July 1 and will run until Nov. 15.

Hunters are expected to club over 90,000 seals, including 85,000 pups.

The hunt was expected to begin last week, but there was confusion over whether the killings had begun after numerous media reports that a South African-based animal rights activist was in negotiations to halt them.

Namibia is one of only a few remaining countries with a commercial seal harvest. The government argues that the seal population needs to be controlled to protect fish stocks.

However, animal rights activists say the practice is inhumane and outdated.

Seals are hunted for skins, fur and meat, and seal genitals are sold as traditional medicines and aphrodisiacs in Asia.

Activist Francois Hugo of Seal Alert South Africa said last week that he had made a bid to buy out the company that purchases the Namibian seal pelts, effectively halting the hunt.

Hugo said that clubbing an animal to death is cruel, criminal and in defiance of international animal protection laws.

He also challenged the Namibian government's claim that the hunt maintained healthy seal populations, saying that in the past whole colonies had been devastated.

Namibia's seals number about 850,000 and live on a dozen remote, rocky islands off the coast of the sparsely populated southern African country.

The hunt takes place under clandestine circumstances to avoid the glare of publicity — and to avoid upsetting tourists.

The government has said seals consume 900,000 tons of fish each year, more than a third of the fishing industry's catch, and that the cull is needed to protect fisheries. Animal welfare groups counter that most of the seals killed are still-nursing pups.

AJ Cady of the International Fund for Animal Welfare said that the industry is "collapsing" worldwide, citing a recent European Union ban on the import of seal products combined with the global economic downturn. In this year's Canadian harvest, sealers killed less than a third of their quota on weak demand.

"The great question here is who is really buying these things?" Cady said. "The cruelty is so obvious."

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health & Columbia U School of Public Health & 27 Public Health Schools Start Meatless Monday Campaign

The direct link to the website for the Meatless Monday campaign is http://www.meatlessmonday.com/

The fact that it’s well known and respected schools of public health that are behind this shows that vegetarianism isn’t just an animal rights issue; it is a health issue as well. If you look at the website you’ll clearly see that the goal is to help people increase their level of health. And, quite simply, eating a meatless diet, even one day a week, will increase your level of health. As they state at their site:

“Our goal is to help reduce meat consumption 15% in order to improve personal health and the health of our planet.”

“Going meatless once a week may reduce your risk of chronic preventable conditions like cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity. It can also help reduce your carbon footprint and save precious resources like fresh water and fossil fuel.”

Here is an excellent video on the project and about the many people who have decided to pledge to go meatless on Mondays.






So check out the site. It also contains recipes and nutritional facts. The direct link to the website for the Meatless Monday campaign is http://www.meatlessmonday.com/

Article:

Here’s an article about the Meatless Monday Campaign

Meatless Mondays: Do Something Good for the Earth and Your Health

http://www.alternet.org/immigration/140978/meatless_mondays:_do_something_good_for_the_earth_and_your_health/

By Kathy Freston, AlterNet. Posted July 6, 2009.

A new campaign is focused on convincing the world not to eat chickens, pigs, and other animals -- just one day per week.

I love a practical solution, especially when it's good all around -- for personal health, the environment, and for living consciously. So when I received an email from Chris Elam, the director of the Meatless Monday campaign -- a project of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Columbia University School of Public Health, in association with twenty-seven other public health schools -- I was thrilled.

The campaign is focused on convincing the world not to eat chickens, pigs, and other animals -- just one day per week (on Mondays, as you may have guessed).

Since it's sponsored by a slew of public health schools, the campaign was set up to promote health, and since I've already written extensively about the fact that eating meat leads to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, and lethargy (for example here), I'll skip extended analysis of these facts, other than to say: When Johns Hopkins, Columbia, the American Dietetic Association, and dozens of other health organizations argue that the less meat you eat, the better off you'll be, it's worth listening to them.

Chris wrote to share the fact that Michael Pollan had just argued in favor of the campaign on Oprah, saying, "[w]e don't realize it when we sit down to eat, but that is our most profound engagement in the rest of nature... To the extent that we push meat a little bit to the side and move vegetables to the center of our diet, we're also going to be a lot healthier..." I wasn't surprised, since Pollan's most recent book calls on all of us to eat "mostly plants," and his new movie (Food, Inc.) offers a stomach-turning look at factory farming and slaughterhouses (I highly recommend it).

As an aside on Food, Inc.: The scene that I found most interesting is the one where Joel Salatin, proprietor of Polyface Farm, was slaughtering chickens and talking a mile-a-minute through the process. He was talking about treating the animals with respect, but in the theater where I saw the film, this scene elicited perhaps the most audible shock of the entire movie because you can actually see the animals being slaughtered (contrast this with the secrecy of factory farms and slaughterhouses -- no one is allowed because, as Paul McCartney likes to say, the process would turn everyone vegetarian). Anyway, this scene seemed to shock a lot of people, even though this is poultry slaughter at its most humane. Actually, the scene reminded me of that Sarah Palin interview that she conducted in front of the turkey slaughter; it's worth remembering that most chickens and turkeys have a far more horrific experience in the factory farms that process more than 98% of the birds we eat.

Chris also wanted to share their new video, in which their scientists tell us that if all Americans switched from eating chickens and pigs to eating beans and grains for just one day per week, that would stop as much global warming as if everyone in the U.S. shifted to ultra-efficient Toyota hybrids (which is the weekly equivalent of using 12 billion fewer gallons of gasoline). Of course I have to point out the obvious: If we all stopped eating animals completely and shifted to vegetarian foods, that would save 84 billion gallons of gas per week (and all the troubles that go with that kind of consumption).

I know that some readers will argue that the issue is not the meat industry, but factory farmed meat. But in fact, environmentally, all meat requires exponentially more resources to produce than eating grains and beans, as eloquently discussed in the Audubon Society's magazine a few months back. And all meat contributes to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and so on. Some meat may be "less bad," but according to the science, no meat is good.

And I know that some vegetarians pooh pooh Meatless Monday as not enough. I'm sympathetic to that view, but I think it's unnecessarily strident. For people who think that going totally vegetarian is too challenging, the Meatless Monday campaign offers a gentle entrée into the idea of eating without eating animals. My hope is that people will use the campaign as a stepping stone -- first one meatless day per week, then three, then five, then seven. As we lean into meatless eating -- switching out more and more meat meals for meatless meals -- we end up feeling better, both physically and ethically.

And another point for those who might think that Meatless Monday is not enough: The first family of vegetarianism -- Sir Paul McCartney and his daughters -- recently launched the campaign in the UK. Stella and Mary have been vegetarian since birth, and Paul has been a vegetarian for more than two decades.

For recipes and cooking information, check out the Meatless Monday site. And for tips on making the transition to vegetarian eating, please click here. http://www.meatlessmonday.com/

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Cruel China at it Again: Brutally Kills over 36,000 Dogs in City of Hanzhong: Dog Killing Squads Beating Dogs to Death with Sticks and Rocks

Some Burned Alive

I’ll tell you….China just never stops being the cruelest country on Earth. In this ridiculous episode of torture and cruelty, they have allowed the brutal, bloody massacre of ALL dogs in a city because of A FEW cases of rabies. And of course, being China, they make sure the killing is cruel, bloody, painful and merciless via the use of sticks, bats and rocks. As you’ll read below, some are burned alive.

A few articles have been published about this. I have included an email below that I received that has some links that you can follow to take some action. I don’t endorse the group (or any for that matter), but they seem to be the only one doing anything (if they are). Nonetheless, I wanted to bring this to your attention and make sure that everyone still knows that China is the cruelest country on Earth.

For more information on just how cruel China is, also see our article “Crash Course in the Unbelievable Cruelty Behind the Eating of Cats and Dogs in Korea and China: Sick Countries Beyond Ethically Challenged” at http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/crash-course-in-unbelievable-cruelty.html

The email below has this link too, but to send an e-mail to the Chinese Ambassador urging China to stop mass dog slaughters like the one in Hanzhong City follow this link: http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_united_states/get_involved/take_action/take_action_2.php?msource=DR090601001#x

Email I received:

A massive cull in the Chinese city of Hanzhong has claimed the lives of more than 30,000 dogs - and now we need your help to make sure that it never happens again.

To contact the Chinese Ambassador in your country to call for an end to mass slaughters like this and to encourage China to pass legislation that protects all animals, including companion animals follow this link: http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_united_states/get_involved/take_action/take_action_2.php?msource=DR090601001#x

The local government ordered the mass slaughter of all dogs as the result of a few cases of rabies deaths. Dog killing squads are stalking the streets, mercilessly beating dogs to death with sticks and rocks.

Friendly dogs - even healthy family pets - are being slaughtered right in front of their owners. Can you even begin to imagine how you'd feel if that happened to your dog?

IFAW has pleaded with government officials to stop the killing - and now we turn to you.

Please help us stop these cruel and massive slaughters once and for all.

Horrifying scenes of cruelty

Some of the pictures from culls like these are so horrifying that I can't even show them to you. And I hate having to describe this, but I think you need to know the truth about what's happening.

In one series of pictures, several small and fluffy white dogs - you can just tell they're used to snuggling on the laps of their loving owners - are trapped in a makeshift cage. One by one, the dogs are pulled out with a pair of long metal tongs, and brutally beaten with a stick. And then - even though it appears that some of the dogs may still be alive - they're tossed into a pit to be burned.

I can't even imagine the pain and terror these poor dogs endure when the fire is set.

So many dogs will suffer slow and painful deaths...we must stop this cruelty now!

What we're doing and how you can help

We have received so many messages in the past few days from animal lovers like you inside and outside China - pleading with us to step in and stop the slaughters like the one in Hanzhong City.

I assure you, IFAW is working to end these culls:

* We've already contacted local authorities in Hanzhong City to urge them to end the slaughter. Now you can help by contacting the Chinese Ambassador in your country.
* IFAW is creating an emergency rabies vaccination fund so that we can offer rural communities in China an alternative to mass slaughters like the one in Hanzhong. Please give generously to our emergency rabies vaccination fund.
* We're working with the central government to pass animal welfare legislation in China that will ensure the humane treatment of all animals. IFAW has already helped major cities like Beijing establish dog regulations that mandate humane vaccination and population control.

We CAN stop culls like this

We recently joined with concerned animal lovers in China to stop a similar mass slaughter in the city of Heihe by pointing out that the killing of dogs that have rightful owners is a violation of the basic rights of a citizen - owned dogs and cats are considered the "personal property" of Chinese citizens, and should be protected under China's Constitution.

Plus, it has been proven that rabies can be effectively controlled by a well-managed vaccination program. In fact, a humane vaccination and neuter program in Chennai, India, has dramatically reduced rabies cases there by over 95%.

So we must act now to stop the killing! Please click here- http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_united_states/get_involved/take_action/take_action_2.php?msource=DR090601001#x to contact the Chinese Ambassador in your country to call for an end to mass slaughters like this and to encourage China to pass legislation that protects all animals, including companion animals.

And then please donate what you can today to help us set up an emergency vaccination fund to help cities in China establish rabies prevention programs, help eliminate these mass dog culls once and for all, and to continue our mission to protect animals around the world from cruelty.

The slaughtered dogs of Hanzhong City deserved a better fate. Please help us ensure that dogs in other communities in China are protected from similar mass killings.

To contact the Chinese Ambassador in your country to call for an end to mass slaughters like this and to encourage China to pass legislation that protects all animals, including companion animals follow this link: http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw_united_states/get_involved/take_action/take_action_2.php?msource=DR090601001#x

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Jane Goodall States that Global Economic Crisis Affecting Chimpanzees and Other Non-Human Primates

So, all primates – human and non-human affected.

Article:

Monkey business hard to sustain in slump, Goodall says

http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSTRE5570UX20090608

SINGAPORE (Reuters Life!) - Chimpanzees, long under threat from humans encroaching on their habitat, are now facing another risk caused by that same member of the Great Ape family: the global economic crisis, says primatologist Jane Goodall.

Funding to the Jane Goodall Institute, a nonprofit organization that aims to conserve primate habitats and increase awareness of animal welfare activities, has declined by about 10 percent since the financial crisis hit.

"Money that came in last year was less than we had expected," Goodall told Reuters in Singapore while visiting for events related to World Environment Day. "The private donors and some of the foundations pulled back."

The institute, which has an annual budget of $10-11 million which funds its activities in Africa, has had to dig into its endowment fund to keep some of its programs running. Some projects were cut and staff laid off.

Goodall, who rose to fame in the 1960s through her ground-breaking study of chimpanzees in East Africa, said the root cause of most problems was overpopulation and the materialism of most human societies.

"Underlying everything is the sheer number of people on the planet," said 75-year-old Goodall. "We take far, far, far, far more than our fair share of these precious natural resources."
"We have to help people understand that enough is enough. We have so much more than we need, we have a throwaway society."

Such strident demands on the environment have seen previously forested areas being taken over by humans for housing, agriculture and business, leading to a dwindling population of chimpanzees and other animals in the wild.

Goodall estimates there are currently there are about 300,000 chimpanzees spread across 21 nations in Africa, down from the 1-2 million in 1960.

The animal rights activist, who fulfilled her childhood dream to live in the wild and write books, spends 300 days a year on the road using her personal story and fame to inspire youth to become more environmentally responsible.

"Root & Shoots," a youth organization she started with 12 high-school students in Tanzania in 1991, now involves people from pre-schoolers to university students and prisoners across 111 countries. It aims to raise awareness about the planet.

"People understand a lot more, but it doesn't mean they always change their behavior though," Goodall said. "The last hurdle is to get people not only to understand, but take action. The bigger problem is that again, again and again that people honestly cannot believe that what they do makes a difference."

Taiwan will Enact Strict law on Labeling Vegetarian Food: New Categories will Indicate if Food is Fully Vegan

Very incredible movement. Who would have guessed that Taiwan would lead the way. Read on below to see just how far this important act is going. Truth in labeling move that we can only hope other countries follow.

Article:

Taiwan to enact world's strictest law on veggie food labeling

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/272296,taiwan-to-enact-worlds-strictest-law-on-veggie-food-labeling.html

Taipei - Taiwan is to enact the world's strictest law on labeling vegetarian foodat the request of Buddhists and people who eat vegetarian for health reasons, the health ministry said Monday. Starting from July 1, Taiwan foodmanufacturers must use five categories, up from the current two, to identify the content of vegetarian food. Violators will be fined from 40,000 to 200,000 Taiwan dollars (1,200-6,000 US dollars), the Department of Health said.

Currently the labelling only indicates whether food is pure vegetarian or contains no meat but egg and milk. Now added are categories separating egg and milk as well as vegan.

Pure vegetarian refers to food which does not contain meat, egg, milk or plants including onion, garlic or leek, which are spicy and considered unclean and bad for meditation. They are banned for strict Buddhist practitioners. Vegan, on the other hand, may contain the "unclean" vegetables.

The new rule also bans food manufacturers from labelling food as vegetarian if it is fermented - like chilly sauce - and its alcohol content exceeds 8 per cent.

"We request clear labeling of vegetarian food to meet the needs of the growing number of vegetarian food users of about 2 million, and to help religious practitioners not break food taboos," health department official Hsu Ching-hsin said.

Most Taiwan food manufacturers support the government's labelling requirements, but find it difficult to implement them.

"We will comply with the rule, but we are afraid that it could be confusing to consumers if we print too much information on the food packages," Wu Hsu-hui, a spokeswoman for Uni-President Enterprises Corp, Taiwan's largest food conglomerate told the German Press Agency dpa.

But Pasadena Bakery, which sells more than 100 kinds of cakes and bread in three outlets in Kaohsiung, south Taiwan, sees no difficulty in following the new rule.

"We are already using the pure veggie and egg/milk veggie labels. It is easy for us for us to expand that to five labels," Chien Su-ling, the bakery's brand name manager, said.

Tebala Shrine Circus Accused of Mistreatment of Elephants

Another circus sticking to the cruel and antiquated use of Elephants.

Article:

PETA Calls for Seizure of Elephants at Loves Park Circus

http://www.wifr.com/news/headlines/47169197.html

Elephants are the iconic symbol of circus' around the world, but animal rights activists are calling for the seizure of three of them being used in a circus right here in the stateline. 23 News Reporter Chris Norman takes us under the big top with a look at this creature controversy.

Wide eyed excitement at the Tebala Shrine Circus, tainted by allegations of animal mistreatment. PETA, or people for the ethical treatment of animals, says three elephants, one seen here lost a combined 18-hundred pounds, just in the last year.

"These elephants are dragged around the country in over heated trailers for most of the year instead of walking up to thirty miles a day free of chains with their extended family in their native homeland," said RaeLeann Smith, PETA Circus amd Government Specialist.

Hamid Circus brought the elephants to the Indoor Sports Center. Its VP James Hamid Jr. says he and other circus owners hear these allegations all of the time. He denies PETA's claims and says there's nothing wrong with how his elephants are treated.

"There are certain people out there that don't do the right thing, and it's up to the producers to go out and find people who are following the letter of the law and treating their animals correctly, everyone on our show we feel does that," Hamid said. Hamid says he stays up to date with the US department of agriculture. An inspector was actually just out on Sunday. But PETA wants the government to step in now.

"We're hoping the USDA will act swiftly to ensure that these animals are pulled off the road and receiving adequate vet care before it's too late for them, " Smith said.
Hamid asks us to look at the animals, and judge for ourselves.
In its history the USDA has only confiscated two elephants. Over the weekend about 10,000 people attended the shows..

Biomedical CO Bioreliance Corp.Cited - 18 Violations of The Animal Welfare Act: Animals Regaining Consciousness in Refrigeration Unit for Carcasses

Includes Animals Regaining Consciousness While in a Refrigeration Unit for Storing Carcasses

More disturbing proof of the reality behind the doors of organizations that engage in vivisection or animal testing. It’s bad enough to be tortured, but then to wake up in a refrigerator full of carcasses and then die of freezing. Unacceptable.

Article:

MD Research Firm Accused of Lab Animal Misuse

http://wamu.org/news/

June 08, 2009 - An animal rights group says a leading figure in Maryland's biomedical industry, the BioReliance Corp., has been cited for violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The charge includes up to 18 instances in which seemingly euthanized animals regained consciousness while inside a refrigeration unit meant for storing carcasses. Research facilities like BioReliance come under regular inspections by the USDA. But animal welfare groups like PETA say the government office is doing little more than reporting violations when they occur and that inspections are too often based on information voluntarily reported by the labs themselves.

Dr Broom of Cambridge University Veterinary School on Cognitive Ability of Pigs: Also, Summary of Recent Laws Affecting Pigs in Factory Farms

Great article. Here are just a couple of quotes from below that provide a great summary of this issue:

“They have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated. Even more so than dogs – and certainly three-year-olds.”

“I wonder if any of these people would dare keep their beloved companion Fido in the same conditions they deem perfectly acceptable for pigs?

Article:

Getting pig cruelty into the closet

http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/opinion/2481992/Getting-pig-cruelty-into-the-closet

About pigs, Dr Donald Broom of the Cambridge University Veterinary School says: “They have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated. Even more so than dogs – and certainly three-year-olds.”

So, what would you think of a neighbour who kept their three-year-old in a steel crate just a few centimetres bigger than the child was?

From the Stuff website: “I wonder if any of these people would dare keep their beloved companion Fido in the same conditions they deem perfectly acceptable for pigs?

“How do these people look at themselves in the mirror knowing they are deceiving the public and forcing such intelligent and social animals into a life so miserable I can hardly begin to imagine?

“They should try it out – go lock themselves in a closet. It might just make this world a better place.”

Some other facts that may help you if you fear that the bacon and egg argument about cruel confinement of pigs and poultry is simply an issue driven by wild-eyed, unworldly eccentrics in darned woolly jumpers and sandals. Plus someone you may rate as an odd columnist.

On May 12, the state of Maine passed a law banning gestation stalls and veal crates. Animals there will have to have enough room to stand up, extend their limbs and turn around freely, for the majority of the day. The law takes effect on January 1, 2011. A happier new year, indeed.

Colorado recently passed a law to phase out veal crates and pig gestation cages on the recommendation of what was described as an unlikely coalition of Colorado-based animal agriculture organisations and the Humane Society of the United States.

As long ago as 2002, Florida banned intensive caging of pigs in gestation crates – the first such measure in the US.

In 2006 Arizona overwhelmingly outlawed cruel confinement of breeding pigs as well as veal calves.
In June 2007, Oregon banned pigs in gestation crates.

Its act says: “A person shall not tether or confine any pig on a farm for all or the majority of the day in a manner that prevents such animal from lying down and fully extending its limbs or turning around freely.”

At that time, the US Humane Society, the largest animal protection organisation in the US – with more than 10 million supporters – said: “Even animals raised for food deserve humane treatment. Gestation crates are notoriously abusive.”

Tethering is banned entirely in the European Union and at least three countries, Sweden among them, have already stopped the use of gestation crates altogether.

That ban will effectively reach the rest of the EU by 2013 when all member countries will have phased out gestation crates entirely.

The United States’ largest pork producer, Smithfield Foods, and Canada’s largest pork producer, Maple Leaf Foods, have both announced they will begin phasing out gestation crates in their pork production.

Burger King and restaurant chain Wolfgang Puck have also said they are moving away from pork producers who use them.

Group Asks for Truth in Advertising in Relation to “Naturally Raised” Meat

I received this via email. A great move. Just as with anything, it's only fair to have truth in advertising. Read below and follow the link to find out more and act.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently allowed companies to slap a “naturally raised” label on meat and meat products that come from animals whose upbringing was far from natural. Raising animals in intensive confinement on factory farms, with no access to sunshine or fresh air - is that natural? We say no! Furthermore, such a label misleads the public and exploits consumer trust in advertising and packaging claims and in government regulation of agriculture.

Let the USDA know you won’t stand for such deceptive claims. Sign the petition to tell the agency its “naturally raised” label is not natural!

Thank you for your compassion,

Gene Baur, President and Co-founder
Farm Sanctuary


Friday, May 15, 2009

Wolfs Lose Federal Protection Under The Endangered Species Act: Obama Makes Bush-Like Move and Opens Gate for Wolf Hunting / Killing / Slaughter

I really don’t have to say much, and just let this quote speak for the reality of this situation and Obama’s ridiculous Bush-like decision (sadly many more to come): “The Obama administration, in one of its least popular moves with environmentalists, upheld a Bush era decision that gray wolves have returned from the brink of extinction and no longer require federal protection. That decision took effect today, opening the gate for hunting in Idaho and Montana, which share a population of some 1,300 wolves.”

Seems like Obama is not only like Bush in other areas, he’s also showing more and more that he’s no friend of animal rights either.

Article:

Wolf delisting takes effect today

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-04-gray-wolf-delisting-obama/

Wolf-people, give a howl for your lupine brethren, who lose federal protection under the Endangered Species Act in much of the northern Rocky Mountains and upper Midwest today.

The Obama administration, in one of its least popular moves with environmentalists, upheld a Bush era decision that gray wolves have returned from the brink of extinction and no longer require federal protection. That decision took effect today, opening the gate for hunting in Idaho and Montana, which share a population of some 1,300 wolves.

Wildlife groups have filed notice that they will sue to overturn the decision, saying state management plans don’t provide enough protection for the species that was listed as endangered in 1974.

Last Friday I proposed that “Save the wolves” campaigns typify a strain of old-school environmentalism that is being swallowed by the much broader movement against climate change. The poster-species for the new environmentalism, the polar bear, faces its own day of reckoning this week:

Later in the week, the legal status of polar bears will become clearer when the Obama administration must decide whether to overturn a last-minute Bush move that denied the arctic mammals key protections under the Endangered Species Act. Acknowledging that the polar bear is threatened by a melting habitat, Bush officials still ruled that endangered species protections cannot apply to causes originating outside of their habitat (in other words, the greenhouse gas emissions heating up the polar regions). Obama has until May 9 to overturn the decision; otherwise, it stands.

Greenwire has a piece on the behind-the-scenes tussle over the polar bear decision; look for more on Grist on this later in the week.

Oh, and it’s also a big week for a little mountainous mammal, the American Pika, whose high-elevation habitat faces climate disruption. KQED’s Climate Watch reports on the pika’s prospects for protection, which ride on decisions from the courts and the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Australia Continues to Shoot / Kill / Slaughter Kangaroos

Just another writing in the segment “take the easy way out and kill” that we so sadly have to bring to attention monthly.

Article:

Australia to shoot 6,000 kangaroos

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090508/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_killing_kangaroos_2

By ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press Writer – Fri May 8, 8:15 am ET

CANBERRA, Australia – Australia's army has started shooting 6,000 kangaroos to thin their population on an army training ground near the capital, an official said Friday, outraging conservationists who have vowed to protest.

The killings are intended to protect endangered plants and insects that share the grassy habitat with the kangaroos. A much smaller slaughter of 400 kangaroos on another Defense Department site in Canberra last year was disrupted by protesters.

Civilian marksmen contracted by the department began shooting the kangaroos on Tuesday night at Defense's Majura Training Area, where an estimated 9,000 of the wild marsupials roam, Army Brig. Brian Dawson told reporters.

"The culling is intended to reduce the kangaroo population to sustainable levels," Dawson said, describing the action as that of a "responsible landowner."
The nighttime shooting is expected to continue intermittently until August. The training ground covers more than 7,400 acres (3,000 hectares) and includes grenade and artillery firing ranges.
Bernard Brennan, president of Canberra's Animal Liberation conservation group, said protesters planned to descend on the area starting Friday night and many more would flock from around Australia next week. He could not predict how many.

"We're not going to sit back and let it happen," he said.

The kangaroo slaughter follows a recent government environmental report that the common eastern gray kangaroos are too numerous in Canberra's parkland and grassland, eating scarce native grass which is the habitat of endangered insects such as golden gun moths and perunga grasshoppers.

The kangaroo overpopulation is also threatening endangered reptiles, the grassland earless dragon and the striped legless lizard, the report said.

Kangaroos are slaughtered to control population throughout Australia, but government agencies have been reluctant to kill the beloved national symbol around Canberra in the past 20 years because of public outcry.

“Big Meat” Giant Agribusiness Politician to be put in Charge of Food Safety

No matter who is in charge, it’s still the same ol’ boys up there.  So, don’t expect much in terms of animal treatment changes.  

Article:

Close friend of Big Meat may be put in charge of food safety 

http://www.grist.org/article/close-friend-of-big-meat-may-be-put-in-charge-of-food-safety/

POSTED 9:48 AM ON 11 MAY 2009

BY TOM LASKAWY

Politics, Food

USDA chief Tom Vilsack is once again on the verge of stepping in it regarding his pick for food safety czar, i.e. the head of the USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service. Some may recall that back in March the Obama administration nearly appointed Dr. Michael Osterholm to the post only to back off when his views on meat irradation (aka “Zap the Crap”) proved too hot to handle. Ironically, Osterholm—who has ties to the meat industry, biotech heavyweight Monsanto and defense contractor 3M—is also a legitimate expert on pandemic preparedness, a skill which might’ve come in handy recently. Ah, well.

Now, swelling rumor has it that Dr. Mike Doyle is the leading candidate for the post. Obamafoodorama first reported the rumor late last week and it has solidified in recent days. Doyle meanwhile is proving at least as controversial as Osterholm and is just as closely allied with the meat industry. Via Ob Fo:

Doyle is currently Director of the Center For Food Safety at the University of Georgia, and a professor in the department of food safety and technology. His work at the land-grant university has been heavily funded by major meat industry concerns, and Doyle has won big acclaim for his industry-friendly policy wonking, in particular from the American Meat Institute, a huge pro-meat/low-government intervention lobbying force on The Hill.  He’s also received big funding and support from the National Chicken Council, another industry lobbying group.  He’s also recived a lot of funding from USDA’s own Agriculture Research Service. How invested is Doyle in the economics of food safety? He actually holds patents on a number of microbiological solutions for disease outbreaks.

That last bit means that he could personally profit from decisions he might make as head of FSIS. But I’m sure he’ll recuse himself from any decisions regarding use of his patented methods for disease management. I’m sorry, did I say something funny?

Doyle is being championed (again according to Ob Fo) by GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. Note to Vilsack: Dude, the GOP LOST THE FRAKKING ELECTION!!! Since when do they get to pick top administration officials? And to hear that Vilsack is listening to Saxby Chambliss of all people, one of the idiots more conservative members of a party already far outside the mainstream, boggles the mind. And apparently, if the administration judges Doyle’s conflicts of interest to be manageable, he will in fact get the nod.

Doyle is also associated with the Animal Agriculture Alliance as well as the American Council on Science and Health (this report [PDF], lists him as on the ACSH science advisory board)—both industry-funded astroturf organizations whose shared mission is to undermine any research that questions the safety of industrial products or practices. To get a sense of where the Animal Ag Alliance is coming from, you simply have to read its full-throated defense of the use of sub-therapeutic doses of antibiotics in livestock from this attack on the recent Pew report documenting the dangers of livestock factory farms. In fact, Doyle recently spoke at an AAA “summit” where he discussed his research claiming that sub-therapeutic antibiotic use is crucial to “safe” livestock practices. I wonder what Congress, which is considering legislation to outlaw the practice, will make of this.

The only good news regarding Doyle is that his naming hasn’t been officially announced. We can only hope that Vilsack and Obama come to their senses before it’s too late.

Massachusetts General Hospital to Use and then Kill Sheep in Trauma Training: What you Can do to Stop It

Received this from PCRM, a great group dedicated to ending vivisection.  Please read below for more information.  Pretty easy to act.

By the way, you’ll see the TraumaMan System mentioned below.  This is a surgical simulation tool that provides an alternative to animal testing or vivisection.  You can learn more about this incredible animal testing alternative at http://www.simulab.com/home-traumaman-system

Email received:

On Monday and Tuesday, live sheep are scheduled to be used and then killed in a trauma training course at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. We need your help to end this unnecessary and cruel practice.

Mass General may be one of the nation’s best hospitals, but it is woefully behind the times when it comes to teaching Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS). Across the nation, more than 90 percent of ATLS courses are taught using only human-based simulators, which Mass General currently owns.

Please call, e-mail, or write a letter to Massachusetts General Hospital president Peter L. Slavin, M.D., and politely ask him to end animal use in the institution’s ATLS program. Then forward this message to your friends who care about animals and effective medical education. Being polite is the most effective way to help these animals. 

Peter L. Slavin, M.D.
President
Massachusetts General Hospital
55 Fruit St.
Boston, MA 02114
Tel: 617-724-9300
E-mail: pslavin (at) partners.org

Mass General owns the American College of Surgeons-approved simulator known as the TraumaMan System. The hospital uses the simulator to teach ATLS surgical skills to medical students while using live sheep to teach the very same procedures to practicing physicians.

On May 14, PCRM filed a formal request with Mass General’s Subcommittee on Research Animal Care asking that it deny the use of animals in the hospital’s ATLS program.

The letter cites an ongoing survey by PCRM, which has so far received responses from 201 ATLS programs in the United States and Canada. The survey has found that 187 of those programs (more than 90 percent) exclusively use nonanimal models for instruction. The vast majority of those 187 programs exclusively use the TraumaMan System.

Learn more about the TraumaMan System (http://www.simulab.com/home-traumaman-system). If you have any questions, please contact me at rmerkley (at) pcrm.org. Thanks so much for your help!
Best regards,
Ryan Merkley
Manager of Humane Education Programs

Thursday, April 30, 2009

The Truth Behind The Kentucky Derby: Used Thoroughbreds are Shipped to Canada and

Hello again to you all.  I received this email regarding the upcoming Kentucky Derby.  Sadly, there is a truth behind the Kentucky Derby many have not heard of.  As you’ll read below, “Due to the recession, donations to rescue organizations are at record lows and many thoroughbreds are being shipped to Canada and Mexico to be slaughtered. “ 

Please read on.  There is a link to a press release for more information - http://www.prweb.com/releases/horseslaughter/kentuckyderby/prweb2323154.htm

I know that you have covered horse related issues in the past and
thought you might be interested in this release:

As you know, May 2nd marks the 135th running of the Kentucky Derby in
which many of the world’s fastest thoroughbreds will compete.

Yet there has rarely been a more difficult time for these magnificent
animals.   Due to the recession, donations to rescue organizations are
at record lows and many thoroughbreds are being shipped to Canada and
Mexico to be slaughtered.  (Some of these same animals have earned
millions of dollars for their previous owners.)

Without sufficient funds, nonprofits are unable to save these
ex-racers.  To remedy this situation, Chez Chevaux , a
Washington-based thoroughbred rescue organization, has issued a Derby
Dollar Challenge.  The organization is seeking to raise $135,000
before the Derby, reminding potential donors that even a single dollar
can make a tremendous difference in horses’ lives.

I would be incredibly grateful if you could mention this in your blog.
 Every day, more and more thoroughbreds who could be retrained are
needlessly going to slaughterhouses.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Sick, Cruel Canada Begins its Annual Baby Seal Slaughter: Bludgeoning, Skinning Alive Seal Pups: Largest Slaughter of Marine Mammals on Earth

Every year I unfortunately have to post about this. Unbelievable that it’s still going on. Again, this is grown men going out and bludgeoning baby seals.

As stated at http://www.peta.org/feat-canadaSealHunt.asp

Canada’s annual seal hunt is the largest slaughter of marine mammals on Earth. Last year, the world looked on in horror as the Canadian government permitted the slaughter of more than 330,000 harp seals. During the hunt, baby seals are shot or repeatedly clubbed. Sealers bludgeon the animals with clubs and “hakapiks” (clubs with metal hooks on their ends) and drag the seals—who are still conscious—across the ice floes with boat hooks. Many of these animals are even skinned alive. Hunters toss dead and dying seals into heaps and leave their carcasses to rot on the ice floes because there is no market for seal meat. Veterinarians who have investigated the hunt have found that hunters routinely fail to comply with Canada’s animal welfare standards.

It is legal in Canada to kill seal pups when they are about 12 days old. During last year’s hunt, almost all the seals killed were 3 months old or younger. Many had not yet learned how to swim or eaten their first solid meals. Baby seals are helpless and have no way to escape from the sealers’ clubs.”

Unfortunately, they will now take their slaughter to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island Friday.

For more about what you can do to stop this, and to view photos and videos that show proof of the horrible violence of this issue, see:

http://www.seashepherd.org/seals/

http://www.peta.org/feat-canadaSealHunt.asp

Article:

Seal hunt ends off Iles de la Madeleine; more than 17,200 killed

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090325/national/seal_hunt

By The Canadian Press

HALIFAX, N.S. - Seal hunters returned to the ice in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence for a few hours Wednesday to kill the last remaining seals allowed under their quota off Iles de la Madeleine.

Phil Jenkins, a spokesman for the federal Fisheries Department, said about 17,200 seals were killed on Monday and Tuesday, leaving only a few hundred remaining before the hunt ended at 10 a.m. local time.

Helicopters carrying observers from two animal welfare groups headed out to witness the final stage of the hunt, which involved sealers from the Quebec islands.

In addition to sealers in boats, the hunt involved sealers who were able to reach the animals by snowmobile and all-terrain vehicles because of ice that reached the shore.

Jenkins said a hunt in the gulf for sealers from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island is scheduled to begin at 6 a.m. Friday.

"That's the earliest, weather dependent," he said.

About 50 licensed sealers plus their crew will take part in that hunt between Iles de la Madeleine and Cape Breton. It has a small quota of 1,435 animals.

The federal government has set a combined allowable catch for this year's East Coast seal hunt of 338,200 harp, hooded and grey seals.

Monday, March 23, 2009

Burt's Bees, Tom's of Maine, Naked Juice, Cascadian Farms, White Wave, Boca, Ben and Jerry’s, the Body Shop: The Truth of Who Really Owns Them

A great article that really brings to light that many of the companies that market themselves as cruelty free or environmental are actually owned by horribly cruel companies that engage in animal testing and create products known for their toxic chemicals.

We wrote a while back about Tom's of Maine Selling Out to Animal Testing Giant Colgate-Palmolive - http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/toms-of-maine-sells-out-to-animal.html

In that, we also discuss other sell outs. Notably, White Wave, Celestial Seasonings, Boca, Ben and Jerry’s, the Body Shop, and numerous others. In fact, I wrote about the Body Shop’s sell out here: http://geari.blogspot.com/2006/03/once-animal-friendly-company-body-shop_17.html.

As I stated, who would know that if you buy Boca you support Altria, or, what was once known as Philip Morris. Or when you buy Ben and Jerry’s you support Unilever. Sad state of affairs.

The point is that if you are committed to animal rights or environmental issues, know the truth behind the brands. Know who owns what.

Here are a few shockers listed in the story below:

Burt's Bees is now owned by Clorox, a massive corporate company that has historically cared very little about the environment, but whose main industry is directly associated with harmful chemicals, some of which require warning labels for legal sale.”

General Mills owns Cascadian Farm; Barbara's Bakery is owned by Weetabix, the leading British cereal company, which is owned by a private investment firm in England; Mother's makes it clear that it is owned by Quaker Oats (which is owned by PepsiCo); Health Valley and Arrowhead Mills are owned by Hain Celestial Group, a natural food company traded on the NASDAQ, with H.J. Heinz owning 16 percent of that company.”

Odwalla wasn't the small company it once was. It is now owned by Coca-Cola.”

Coca-Cola also owns Glaceau, the company once known for its "fresh new approach to bottled water that is inspired by nature and enhanced by science." Glaceau is the maker of Vitamin Water, Fruit Water, Smart Water and Vitamin Energy…”

Pepsi bought Naked Juice in 2006 for $450 million, in order to compete with Odwalla.”

Horizon Organic milk was bought out by the largest diary company in the U.S., Dean Foods Co., in 2005.”

Stoneyfield Farm Yogurt. I knew its socially conscious CEO, Gary Hirshberg, had created major organic brand recognition to become the No. 1 seller of organic yogurt in the United States, but since then Danone, the French conglomerate (which also owns Brown Cow), acquired a majority holding in Stoneyfield. This is the same Danone that had to recall large quantities of its yogurt in 2007 after it was found to contain unsafe levels of dioxins.”

Article:

Burt's Bees, Tom's of Maine, Naked Juice: Your Favorite Brands? Take Another Look -- They May Not Be What They Seem

http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/131910/burt%27s_bees%2C_tom%27s_of_maine%2C_naked_juice%3A_your_favorite_brands_take_another_look_--_they_may_not_be_what_they_seem/?page=entire

By Andrea Whitfill, AlterNet. Posted March 17, 2009.

Confident that you are buying good, socially conscious brands? Find out the real story behind all that marketing money and store visibility.

My first introduction to natural, organic and eco-friendly products stems back to the early '90s, when I stumbled upon Burt’s Bees lip balm at an independently owned health food store in the heart of Westport, Kansas City, Mo.

Before the eyesore invasion of ’98, when Starbucks frothed its way into the neighborhood, leading to its ultimate demise, Westport was the kind of 'hood I still yearn for. It was saturated with historically preserved, hip and funky, mom-and-pop-type establishments, delivering their goods people to people.

I was surprised more recently when I saw Burt's Bees products everywhere -- in grocery stores, drug stores, corner bodegas and big-box stores like Target and Wal-Mart. I thought to myself, fantastic; the marketplace is working, and good for Burt. He has made his mark, and the demand for his products is on the rise.

Needless to say, I was shocked when I recently found out that Burt's Bees is now owned by Clorox, a massive corporate company that has historically cared very little about the environment, but whose main industry is directly associated with harmful chemicals, some of which require warning labels for legal sale.

Clorox; yes, that's right -- the bleach company with an estimated revenue of $ 4.8 billion that employs nearly 7,600 workers (now bees) and sells products like Liquid-Plumr, Pine-Sol and Armor All, a far cry from the origins of Burt.

I now understood. The reason Burt's Bees products were everywhere was precisely because they now had a powerful corporation in the driver's seat, with big marketing budgets and existing distribution systems.

The story of Burt is a charming one gone bad. Burt Shavitz, a beekeeper in Dexter, Maine, lived an extremely humble life selling honey in pickle jars from the back of his pickup truck and resided in the wilderness inside a turkey coop without running water or electricity.

In the summer of 1984, Shavitz was driving down the road and spotted a hitchhiker who needed a lift to the post office. He pulled over and picked up Roxanne Quimby, a 34-year-old woman who eventually became Shavitz's lover and business partner. Quimby started helping him tend to the beehives, and that eventually led to the all natural-inspired health care products made with Shavitz's honey and the birth of Burt's Bees products.

Burt's story and very powerful narrative gave Burt's Bees products their legitimacy in my book. Creative entrepreneurs and knowledgeable consumers together working their magic; not the results of a corporate behemoth out to dominate the marketplace.

However, Quimby and Shavitz's relationship became 'sticky' in the late '90s for reasons unclear, yet probably having little to do with honey. Their romantic break up carried over to the split of their business partnership as well. In 1999, Quimby bought out Shavitz's shares of the company for a small six-figure sum. Quimby then continued, becoming phenomenally successfully and growing sales to $43.5 million by 2002.

In 2003, a private equity firm, AEA investors, purchased 80 percent of Burt's Bees from Quimby, with her retaining a 20 percent share and a seat on the board. In 2006, John Replogle, the former general manager of Unilever's skin-care division became CEO and president of Burt's Bees. The company was sold to Clorox in late October 2007 for $925 million.

Quimby was paid more than $300 million for her stake in Burt's Bees. At the time of that deal, Shavitz reportedly demanded more money, and Quimby agreed to pay him $4 million. Quimby now refurbishes fancy, swank homes in Florida, travels the world and buys massive chunks of land in her free time. Our bearded man Shavitz, on the other hand, now 73 and unchanged, continues to reside amidst nature in his now-expanded turkey coop, which still remains absent of electricity or running water.

The Burt's Bees story is disconcerting. I vaguely remembered long ago that one of my favorite ice cream products, Ben & Jerry's, sold out. Unilever (which also owns Breyers), the giant conglomerate with an estimated market cap of $50 billion and close to 174,000 employees, bought Ben & Jerry's in 2000 for $326 million.

I began to wonder about the other products I liked, trusted and respected for their independence and their social responsibility. How many were really owned by big corporations, who were going out of their way to hide the link between the big corporate company with the small, socially responsible brand? It didn't take long for my list of disappointments to grow and grow.

Upon first meeting someone, I can usually tell a quite a lot about them by the contents of their bathroom. The brand I see most often behind medicine cabinets of people I consider to be environmentally conscious is Tom's of Maine. What Tom's says to me about the person is that they are willing to spend a little bit of extra cash in order to take proactive steps to help green the Earth.

Well, no more. My bathroom assessments will never be the same. Tom's of Maine is owned by Colgate-Palmolive, a massive, tanklike company with an estimated 36,000 employees and revenue of approximately $11.4 billion. Its big products include: Ajax, Anbesol and Speedstick.

I am only left to wonder, is Trader Joe's, popularly known to showcase Tom's of Maine in its hygiene department, just as much in the dark about all of this as I have been? Or is Joe's simply another conduit for big corporate products?

As my curiosity grew, I took a little field trip to the grocery store with one of my friends to be a "brand anthropologist." "Let's get to the bottom of this," I said, aiming to check out all of the brands that I and countless other good consumers were buying in our efforts to support grassroots business and not corporate behemoths. Little did I know how deep the hole was going to be, and in some cases, how hard to find out who owns what.

Thinking Dairy

In the dairy section sit many flavors of Stoneyfield Farm Yogurt. I knew its socially conscious CEO, Gary Hirshberg, had created major organic brand recognition to become the No. 1 seller of organic yogurt in the United States, but since then Danone, the French conglomerate (which also owns Brown Cow), acquired a majority holding in Stoneyfield. This is the same Danone that had to recall large quantities of its yogurt in 2007 after it was found to contain unsafe levels of dioxins. (In an interesting twist, the still-active Hirshberg sits on the board of Dannon U.S.A. Unlike most of the early entrepreneurs, who took the dough and left the scene, Hirshberg is still involved. )

Meanwhile, I learned that Horizon Organic milk was bought out by the largest diary company in the U.S., Dean Foods Co., in 2005.

Thirsty? Juices and Water

Next I ventured to the juice section. Drinking Odwalla juices was an expensive habit I had justified for years because of its healthy California brand. The ubiquitous refrigerators in thousands of stores should have given it away that Odwalla wasn't the small company it once was. It is now owned by Coca-Cola. Almost as soon as Coca-Cola bought the company, back in 2001 for $181 million, it stopped selling the fresh-squeezed OJ that had made Odwalla famous and popular among the healthy set. With its massive distribution system, fresh squeezed wouldn't last the days and weeks the juices are in transit or on the shelf.

Not to be outdone (although it took it a while), Pepsi bought Naked Juice in 2006 for $450 million, in order to compete with Odwalla. Smuckers, the brand we are told is the "brand we can trust", grabbed several juice mainstays from the health food store shelves: After the fall -- R.W. Knudsen and Santa Cruz Organic.

Turns out that Coca-Cola also owns Glaceau, the company once known for its "fresh new approach to bottled water that is inspired by nature and enhanced by science." Glaceau is the maker of Vitamin Water, Fruit Water, Smart Water and Vitamin Energy -- all bottled waters that are adorably marketed and loaded with sugar. It's no wonder Coca-Cola was slapped with a lawsuit in 2006 for making deceptive and unsubstantiated health claims in its Vitamin Water marketing strategies; they are selling glorified sugar water.

As for bottled water, egads! That's a whole article in and of itself. The scourge of bottled water, of course, is an environmental disaster on many levels, as corporations have moved in to take control of water local supplies, while some of the same companies and their mega advertising budgets have created a giant market for bottled water, with enormous waste from plastic bottles and giant carbon foot prints as water is shipped over many thousands of miles from Fiji for example, or Italy, when pretty much no bottled water is needed. Frequently, tap water is of higher quality and more closely tested than bottled water.

And as Michael Blanding notes on AlterNet, "In fact, many times bottled water is tap water. Contrary to the image of water flowing from pristine mountain springs, more than a quarter of bottled water actually comes from municipal water supplies. The industry is dominated by three companies, who together control more than half the market: Coca-Cola, which produces Dasani; Pepsi, which produces Aquafina; and Nestle, which produces several "local" brands, including Poland Spring, Arrowhead, Deer Park, Ozarka and Calistoga. Both Coke and Pepsi exclusively use tap water for their sources, while Nestle uses tap water in some brands.

The Breakfast Nook

Over in the breakfast aisle, my friend was a bit apoplectic when we learned that the "super healthy" Kashi cereals, the favorites of millions of healthy breakfast eaters, was bought in July 2000 for an "undisclosed sum" by Kellogg's, the 12th-largest company in North American food sales, according to Food Processing. I picked up a box of Kashi's "Go Lean Crunch" and searched every word; not one mention of the fact that Kellogg's owns them. That change was rally below the radar. In 2004, Kraft Foods, known for processed cheeses and Kool-Aid, bought the natural cereal maker Back to Nature. Kraft is a subsidiary of Altria, which also owns Philip Morris USA, one of the world's largest producers of cigarettes.

According to the New York Times, "Many of the alternative cereal brands are owned by larger companies, including Kellogg and General Mills."

"Cereals, like milk, are one of the primary entrance points for use of organics," said Lara Christenson of Spins, a market research group for the natural products industry, "which is pretty closely tied to children -- health concerns, keeping pesticides, especially antibiotics, out of the diets of children. These large firms wanted to get a foothold in the natural and organic marketplace. Because of the mind-set of consumers, branding of these products has to be very different than traditional cereals."

These corporate connections are often kept quiet. "There is frequently a backlash when a big cereal package-goods company buys a natural or organic company," Christenson said. "I don't want to say it's manipulative, but consumers are led to believe these brands are pure, natural or organic brands. It's very purposely done."

A little more digging shows that General Mills owns Cascadian Farm; Barbara's Bakery is owned by Weetabix, the leading British cereal company, which is owned by a private investment firm in England; Mother's makes it clear that it is owned by Quaker Oats (which is owned by PepsiCo); Health Valley and Arrowhead Mills are owned by Hain Celestial Group, a natural food company traded on the NASDAQ, with H.J. Heinz owning 16 percent of that company.

The Sweet Tooth

After the Kashi news, I wondered what was next? I didn't have to go any further than the organic chocolate aisle of my favorite deli to find Green and Black's organic chocolate was taken over in 2005 by Schweppes, the 10th-largest company in North American packaged-food sales. And even more surprising to chocolate lovers is that Dagoba Chocolate, which had a little cult chocolate following for a while, is surprise, surprise, owned by Hershey Foods.

There seems to be an apt analogy between the huge growth in the "naturalization" of packaged goods in grocery stores and supermarket aisles and the massive transformation of organic fresh foods. Organic farming began as a grassroots movement to produce food that was healthier and better for the land. But it is now a huge, $20 billion industry, increasingly dominated by large agribusiness companies. Furthermore, when the government certifies food as "organic," it has nothing to do with the original values of locally grown produce, workers being treated fairly, etc.

So it may cheer some to know that on the East Coast, McDonald's has served fair-trade-certified Newman's Own organic coffee in stores, while others may cringe at the words of Lee Scott, former CEO of WalMart, when he said, "We are particularly excited about organic food, the fastest-growing category in all of food."

"What's important to keep in mind is that these big corporations are getting into organics not because they have doubts about their prior business practices or doubts about chemical, industrial agriculture," said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. "They're getting in because they want to make a lot of money -- they want to make it fast." He said the companies couldn't care less about "family farmers making the transition to organic farms."

What does this all mean? One conclusion it is easy to come to is that big food companies and the stores and supermarkets that deliver their goods have stretched and abused descriptions of food until they are sometimes almost meaningless, and consumers believe that they are getting more benefits than they actually are. Consumers "walk down the aisle in the grocery stores' health and beauty area, and they're confronted with 'natural' at every turn," says Daniel Fabricant, vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at the Natural Products Association. "We just don't want to see the term misused any longer."

On the other hand, Roger Cowe, a financial commentator states: "If you want to change what people consume on a grand scale, you have to penetrate mass markets. And you can't do that if you're a small, specialist brand stuck in the organic or whole-food niche, even if that means you are on supermarket shelves. It is a familiar dilemma: stay pure and have a big impact on a small scale, or compromise and have a small impact on a grand scale."

Some think that socially responsible business sellers don't lose it all when selling out. Both Craig Sams from Green and Black chocolate and the late Anita Roddick from the Body Shop ( sold to L'Oreal/Nestle -- one of the most vilified of multinational companies) have said that they believe that an acquired ethical company can influence its new parent to improve its corporate behavior.

Others are not so positive about this turn of events. Judy Wickes from the Social Venture Network describes corporate takeovers of socially responsible businesses as "a threat to democracy when wealth and power are concentrated into a few hands." And David Korten, in his book, When Corporations Rule the World, explained how sustainable business "should be human scale -- not necessarily tiny firms, but preferably not more than 500 people -- always with a bias to smaller is better."

It is clear that so-called organic brands are a rapidly growing portion of the consumer dollar, and that every major food corporation has invested deeply in buying these already-established brands.

Marketing strategies have been fooling us to trust that the niche brands continue to be small, environmentally conscious businesses that combine ecologically sound practices with a political agenda to put products out on the market under a business model of "the Greater Good."

In fact, they are frequently cogs in the giant corporate wheel. I like to refer to this "other" business model as "We've Been Had." It is time for we, the consumer, to question how much the ownership and neglectful marketing of these "pseudo" responsible brands warrant crossing them off our shopping list.

And it is time to find products more in tune with our values, which include thinking small. At least until they, too, get bought out by some large conglomerate.

The Obvious Cruelty of Keeping Chimpanzees in Captivity: Will it Ever End?

I’ll let this opening quote from the story below state it all: “Nobody should own a chimpanzee. Not in America. Not even in Africa, home of all chimpanzees not born in captivity.”

Overall, a great article that points out the obvious.

Article:

Chimps R Us: How Much Longer Are We Going to Keep Our Cousins as Pets?

http://www.alternet.org/story/131900/chimps_r_us%3A_how_much_longer_are_we_going_to_keep_our_cousins_as_pets/


By G. Pascal Zachary, AlterNet. Posted March 17, 2009.

A life of captivity is too cruel for chimpanzees and dangerous for their owners. We should give them the freedoms we grant ourselves.
Nobody should own a chimpanzee. Not in America. Not even in Africa, home of all chimpanzees not born in captivity.

The gruesome attack by an adult chimpanzee on its Connecticut owner last month provided a vivid reminder of why Congress should impose a complete ban on keeping chimps as pets. .

Twenty states still permit this dubious instance of animal loving. Last month, the House has passed a bill ending this option. Now the Senate must do the same. The debate in Congress centers on practical reasons against keeping chimpanzees. They are simply too dangerous to live alongside humans; and caring for them properly, in a private home, is virtually impossible.

The utilitarian case against pet ownership obscures a wider moral lesson about relations between chimpanzees and their human kin. They are too much like us not to be included in our what intellectual historian David Hollinger calls "the circle of we.".

A close genetic relative to humans, chimpanzees are intelligent, sensitive, solve problems and form coherent social relationships. They plan, they improvise, they endure. For those who closely study or assist chimpanzees, either in the wild or in African sanctuaries, come to believe, as I do, that chimpanzees are as glorious as humans -- and deserve to exist on some roughly equal plane as us.

"Chimpanzees deserve to be treated with the same dignity as a human being," says Sheri Speede, an Oregon veterinarian who runs a large chimp sanctuary in the West African country of Cameroon. "They are entitled to the same quality of life as we are."

If Speede is correct, should not chimpanzees be as free as humans? Should the nation debate -- with the same energy shown in the national conversation over the practice of keeping chimpanzees as pets -- ending the incarceration of the 269 chimpanzees now captive in 35 American zoos?

I perhaps have no standing to ask this question. I am not an expert in chimpanzees, nor have I been a militant defender of their rights and entitlements. At least not for very long.

My first close encounter with a chimpanzee came eight years ago. On a whim, I visited the zoo in Accra, Ghana. I saw an African woman inside a small enclosure, playing with an orphaned 1-year-old chimpanzee named Jimmy. Hunters had killed his mother.

The woman, named Chizo, was his surrogate mother. She joined Jimmy in his cage -- under the supervision of a primate expert from Europe -- bringing him some measure of natural development, since unrelated chimpanzees would not likely befriend him.

Baby chimpanzees are smarter than humans at the same age, research has shown (and orphaned chimps, given human care can be even smarter; one study, published in February, found that such chimps recorded higher scores on IQ tests than many human infants). As I returned to the zoo in successive days in order to strike up a friendship with Chizo, I came to agree with the scientific consensus, marveling at Jimmy's intelligence.

He quickly concluded, for instance, that I was a rival for Chizo's attention. And with an eerie insight, the afternoon that I first asked her on a date, Jimmy mounted a vigorous effort to prevent her from departing his cage, blocking the escape door over and over, even threatening to break out with her.

He kept me waiting on the other side of the bars. Time and again, I thought he'd planned this whole stalemate, simply to upset me. (Indeed, researchers in Sweden this month published a study documenting the "contingency plans" made by one adult chimp in a Swedish zoo.)

Chizo worked closely with Jimmy more than a year. Their partnership was ended by Chizo's decision move with me to the U.S. Before we left Ghana, we both felt sorrow over leaving Jimmy behind.

An effort by a global network of chimpanzees activists failed to secure Jimmy's release to a sanctuary, where he could live in a natural environment, while still under the protection of humans. After we settled in the U.S., another serious attempt was made to gain Jimmy's release, but again the government of Ghana refused.

The recent controversy over pet chimpanzees made me think about the hundreds of chimps in zoos in America and around the world -- and of Jimmy, too. He remains in a zoo in Ghana, although he's been joined by another orphan, a younger female, also rescued and brought to the zoo after the slaughter by hunters of her parents.

In September, Chizo and I visited Jimmy and his new friend. Jimmy instantly recognized Chizo from a distance of more than 100 feet. Jimmy, now 7 years old, is too big and strong to permit Chizo to join him in his cage. Yet they played anyway, hugging and dancing separated by steel bars. Jimmy showed off, jumping from a high perch onto a trampoline and doing endless somersaults.

He remembered me, too, though with less affection. Shrewdly drawing close to him by extending one hand in friendship, I approached the bars, looked in the eyes -- and then watched in astonishment as he three a hand full of waste at me. I ducked, adroitly, causing him to miss.

For a few hours, we played a game of cat and mouse. He drew me closer through acts of kindness, and then turned against me. Sometimes, he tossed waste at me with an unnerving accuracy, other times he spat in my direction.

Those days visiting Jimmy in the Kumasi zoo convinced me that, while he could not understand why Chizo and I had vanished from his life, he had felt long and hard our absence -- and now celebrated our return.

Before I departed, I asked the zoo director might he ever release Jimmy? I offered, as others have before, to arrange his transfer to sanctuary -- a kind of "gated community" where chimps experience something akin to living in the wild, yet are protected from hunters, each other and truly wild chimps who might attack them with lethal force.

I've visited Speede's sanctuary in Cameroon and seen up close the excellent care the chimps receive -- and their happy communion with each other and the forest. There are two other chimpanzee sanctuaries in this West African country, and together they are searching for land where a select group of their chimps can be released into a freer environment.

Releasing chimps, grown accustomed to the comforts of a sanctuary, is fraught; their survival skills diminished, these chimps can fall prey to other animals, hunters or even disease.

Speede, for instance, gives chimps medical care, and her sanctuary has special fencing, even at the canopy of the forest, to keep wild chimps from mounting attacks.

Lovers of chimpanzees worry of course that these human relatives are doomed to extinction as the lush forests they inhabit get cut down by loggers, bisected by roads and infiltrated by hunters. Trade in so-called bush meat, while illegal and constrained, continues. Demand comes from wealthier city dwellers, some of whom live in Europe or America.

Speede believes that sanctuaries -- and "release" programs of the sort she's preparing -- may be the only means of preventing the ultimate destruction of chimpanzees and their extraordinary ways of being.

If she's right, should Americans consider supporting such sanctuaries rather than the zoos where we now visit chimpanzees? In the case of Jimmy, I'm certain he would prefer to live in one of the two dozen sanctuaries around Africa. His cage in Ghana is small and has a cold concrete floor. The zoo director's desire for Jimmy to impregnate a female at the zoo strikes me as unwise. Given the longevity of chimps, Jimmy could easily live 30 or more years in his cage -- outliving me, easily, yet serving as a source of amusement and education for visitors to the Kumasi Zoo.

"He's our top attraction," the zoo director told me, when he once more rejected the idea of letting Jimmy go.

To free the 269 chimpanzees in American zoos is perhaps less urgent, because these zoos long ago switched to larger, more flexible enclosures that produce an illusion of open space. I do not doubt that the 269 chimpanzees residing in these advanced enclosures are unaware of their captivity.

The question is how long can we, the jailers, allow that to continue?

Cruel Australia will Resort to Shooting Kangaroos to Deal with Population Issues

Again, a group taking a very limited view of how to deal with an issue. Going straight to the “let’s kill it away” proposal.

Article:


Kangaroos in the firing line in Australia

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090317/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_shooting_kangaroos_3

By ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press Writer Rod Mcguirk, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 17, 7:48 am ET
Kangaroos are seen in a field outside of government house in Canberra, Australia AP – Kangaroos are seen in a field outside of government house in Canberra, Australia Oct. 23, 2006. An official …

CANBERRA, Australia – Australia's capital is plagued by too many kangaroos, and the best solution is to shoot them, an official said Tuesday. Horrified conservationists vowed to demonstrate if authorities followed through.

Canberra has among the densest populations of the common eastern gray kangaroo in Australia, and they are regularly seen hopping in parks and other places around the city.

The kangaroo is a national emblem of Australia, but it can also be a nuisance. The animals munching grass and shrubs around Canberra are degrading their own habitats and adding to threats posed to rare insects and lizards.

Kangaroos hopping across streets are a frequent traffic hazard in the city, and they can pose other problems — as one family in the area discovered last week when a confused and panicked kangaroo leapt through a bedroom window and bounded around the house until it was thrust out the front door.

Jon Stanhope, the chief minister of the Australian Capital Territory where Canberra is located, released a draft plan Tuesday describing how his government would reduce numbers the city's kangaroo population by shooting them — a method that has long divided this community of 330,000 people.

The plan does not say how many kangaroos should be killed.

Supporters say the absence of more effective biological controls leaves shooting as the most humane way to control kangaroo numbers.

"There are probably more eastern gray kangaroos in Canberra now than any time in the last 100 years," Stanhope told reporters. "I think we have perhaps tried too hard not to cull."

The population of kangaroos in the area is hard to determine because the animals move frequently, according to the availability of grass and water.

The territory's government has been involved since 1998 in research to develop an oral contraceptive for kangaroos but none is yet effective in the wild.

Stanhope said the research to develop humane alternatives to shooting would be encouraged.

The report ruled out trapping and trucking kangaroos to where they are less abundant because the process was expensive, unproven and illogical given there was no threat to the species' survival.

Pat O'Brien, president of the Wildlife Protection Association of Australia, warned that authorities would be met by protests if they tried to shoot kangaroos.

"The whole thing is a propaganda exercise to try to get public support for killing kangaroos," O'Brien said. Kangaroo number were high, "but there's certainly not too many of them."

The killing of 400 kangaroos out of 600 at an abandoned military site in Canberra last year triggered several heated protests.

Those kangaroos were killed with lethal injections because firearms were judged to be too dangerous at the site, which was within Canberra's city limits.

Recent government surveys said some 17 percent of Canberra drivers had reported colliding with a kangaroo at sometime in the past, though 82 percent of respondents considered it important that wild kangaroos continue to live in the city.

Lion Shot and Killed at Australian Zoo

Just another posting in the “why zoos are unnatural and unnecessary” segment.

Article:

Lion shot after escaping Australian zoo enclosure

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090318/ap_on_re_as/as_australia_lion_escape_1

Wed Mar 18, 3:43 am ET

SYDNEY – A lioness was fatally shot after breaking out of its enclosure at an Australian zoo and forcing visitors to hide in nearby buildings, a zoo official said Wednesday.

The 9-year-old lioness was shot on Tuesday by an employee of Mogo Zoo in Mogo, about 190 miles (300 kilometers) south of Sydney, the zoo's business manager John Appleby said.

The lion, named Jameila, never reached a public area, but officials were concerned the animal might and decided to shoot it, Appleby said.

"She was moving quite slowly towards a public area, but under the circumstances a decision was made to put her down," he said. "Because it was a lion, it was considered a dangerous animal, and protocol is if there is any potential risk to the public a decision would be made."

Zoo officials did not immediately return calls seeking comment on how the animal escaped its enclosure.

About 30 people were visiting the zoo when the lion broke loose. After being alerted by zoo officials about the escape, visitors hid in buildings throughout the grounds until the animal was killed, Appleby said.

"I wouldn't say there was any panic — I think it was all very controlled," he said.

Staff members were devastated by the death of the cat, which was born at the zoo.

"It's an absolute loss," Appleby said. "The team are still quite upset."