...now browsing by tag

 
 

Way to go, Wipeout!

Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

Okay, so last night I was feeling particularly weighed down by responsibility and I ended up watching Wipeout.  If you don’t know what it is…

Wipeout is an American game show series in which contestants compete in what is billed as the “world’s largest obstacle course”.

Thanks, Wikipedia!  Anyway, Wipeout is always an entertaining waste of time, but it doesn’t usually tackle anything more serious than…er…big balls.

Big Rubber Balls

Told you so.

So the show does brief, funny interviews with a lot of the contestants, and believe me, if they can find some way to mock one, they will.  On last night’s episode they introduced a woman who was planning to donate her winnings to animal protection causes.  Awesome!  Here’s the interview, which I scribbled down afterwards.  (I think I did a lousy job on the verbatim part, but the basic jist is there.):

Interviewer Jill Wagner: So, you’re a vegetarian?

(Awkward pause.)

Contestant Jonelle Tierney: Well, kinda…I eat fish…and chicken.

Wagner: Oh okay, so you’re against animal cruelty–except for chickens and fish!

Tierney: (laughs nervously) Well, yeah.  We had chickens.  We had chickens on our farm.

Wagner: Your farm?  So you’ve killed chickens?

Tierney: No…turkeys.

Wagner: (laughs) Okay, so you’re against animal cruelty except for chickens and fish and turkeys and…anything else?

Tierney: …cows…

Wagner laughed about how the contestant sounded like she was more in favour of animal cruelty than against it, and later on, the announcers joked about her only being concerned about the cute animals, like puppies and kittens.  And until she was eliminated mid-episode, her nickname was “Killer Animal Lover” or some variety of that!  It was pretty fantastic.  So a big thanks to Wipeout for acknowledging one of the most striking examples of cognitive dissonance in the world today and for managing to be hilarious at the same time.

I wouldn’t worry too much about Jonelle, though–most people (including some of the best animal activists in the world!) started out loving some animals and eating others, so maybe she’ll figure things out eventually.

Happiness is a…wait, what?

Wednesday, February 24th, 2010

The meat industry has a history of making wise public relations decisions! (TotallyLooksLike.com)

Today I found out that apparently, the meat industry has a new slogan that they’re preparing to unveil:

Happiness is a Dead Animal

I swear I am not making this up.  In a time when people are more and more concerned about whether the animals they kill for food were treated in a humane fashion, the meat industry has come up a slogan that basically mocks everyone involved.   If this is the best they can come up with, I suggest–nay, I demand–that the industry use it as much as possible.

If the Ag industry wants to win the hearts of those who eat meat, why not show what changes you’re making to decrease animal suffering? Suggestions like this one only prove how nervous the industry is over animal rights campaigns. If only they realized that taking the “moral high ground” meant actually listening and enacting changes rather than weaving death and happiness into a rallying cry. (from VegDaily)

This is going to go over great.

Some light reading…

Saturday, October 31st, 2009

I’ve decided I’m going to jump in on the tradition of doing a weekly “roundup” of interesting links. I’ll try to do mine on Friday evening (sorry, this time it’s Saturday), to give everyone a bunch of reading material for the weekend. If you’d like it on a different day, let me know.

Vancouver Courier: Groups call for a boycott of Petcetera

Vancouver Courier: Meatless on Monday

Better LCDs Trump an Animal’s Right to Live and Be Left Alone?

Food miles: meaningful enviro-activism or wacky nonsense? Wacky nonsense.

The Vegan Theory of Relativity

Ag Industry Calls for Prosecutions of Undercover Animal Activists

The methane makers

The Tiniest Rescues and the Building of Compassion

HSUS Investigation Uncovers Veal Calf Abuse, Closes Plant

Cooperatives Working Together to Kill Cows

There have been a whole bunch of articles by and about Jonathan Safran Foer, mostly around the publication of his new book, Eating Animals.

Eating animals is making us sick

Jonathan Safran Foer’s Controversial New Book, Eating Animals

Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals Turned Me Vegan

Eating Animals: Jonathan Safran Foer’s New Book Asks Why Don’t We Eat Pets?

Eating Animals: Why Eating Matters

The Moral Ferocity of Eating Animals

Keep an eye on the Huffington Post. They’re going to be doing a series of responses to JSF’s book. They all seem worth reading so far.

Cruelty, supported by your tax dollars

Tuesday, October 27th, 2009

From a press release [pdf] I received this morning:

The Government of Canada is investing up to $9.6 million to help improve the long-term profitability of Eastern Canada’s largest culled cattle slaughter plant in Quebec. This is the first project announced under Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada’s Slaughter Improvement Program, part of Canada’s Economic Action Plan.

This is a slaughter plant that kills dairy cows that are too old to be profitable. “Cull cattle” are “spent” dairy cows who. Not only do they spend their whole lives (4-5 years of it) producing milk, we thank them by “retiring” them to be slaughtered.

From the website of Fédération des producteurs de bovins du Québec (FPBQ):

A dairy cow’s primary function is to produce milk. But did you know that at the end of their active life, when they are no longer able to give a sufficient quantity of milk, dairy cows will have a “second vocation”? That is when they will be culled. Dairy cows generally are culled at around 5 or 6 years of age. In Quebec, approximately 70,000 dairy cows are culled annually.

No happy fields for them.

The press release continues:

Levinoff-Colbex provides a key service to the bovine livestock sector in Eastern Canada, serving as the only significant slaughter facility for cull cows for producers in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces. Levinoff-Colbex slaughters and processes 150,000 cull cattle per year.

Not only do we send these worn out dairy cattle to slaughter, we transport them hundreds of miles to the slaughterhouse. Dairy cows are often so worn out that many of them become “downers”, unable to walk into the slaughterhouse. The regulations in Canada concerning cows who are too sick to walk as good as non-existant. We aren’t really supposed to load them on the truck to begin with or transport them if they might not survive the trip, but I imagine it’s of economic benefit to the farmer to get as many of the cows to slaughter as possible.

There are also no laws in place in Canada that restrict the slaughter of downer cattle for food. So what economic incentives are there for a farmer to keep his milk machines healthy until they reach the slaughterhouse? Very little, especially if keeping the cows healthy means spending extra money.

In addition, the Canadian “Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of farm animals” are entirely voluntary. There is no law governing the transport and handling of farm animals.

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association is complicit in allowing this:

The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association’s position statement regarding nonambulatory livestock states “If the animal is to be moved to a suitable processing facility, a veterinary inspection of the nonambulatory animal must be performed on the premises of origin. The animal must be accompanied by an antemortem veterinary certificate declaring whether the animal can or cannot be humanely loaded, that the animal is fit for slaughter and that the owner has observed all applicable withdrawal times for drugs used. The loading and transportation of nonambulatory animals must be performed in a manner to avoid pain, suffering and distress to the animal and upon arrival at the processing facility the animal must be humanely stunned or euthanized on the vehicle prior to unloading. Equipment currently being used includes slide boards and mats, forklifts, front-end loaders, hand carts, slings, “cow caddys” and stone boats or sleds. In those situations where the nonambulatory animal is passed for slaughter, but where the veterinarian deems loading and transportation inhumane, the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association recommends on-farm slaughter. Nonambulatory animals deemed unfit for slaughter should be humanely euthanized on-farm and the carcass disposed of in accordance with local regulations.” (from the CFIA website)

Note the part where they describe the use of “forklifts, front-end loaders, hand carts, slings, ‘cow caddys’ and stone boats or sleds” as ways to move a cow without causing pain. Forklifts? A couple of years ago HSUS got some footage from a slaughterhouse that was using front-end loaders and forklifts to move downer cows to the slaughterhouse. It was horrific. I don’t even understand how the CVMA can stand by and allow sick and injured animals to be hauled about as if they are already carcasses without medical care. Veterinarians should be doctors for animals, not apologists for the meat and dairy industry.

Everyone who drinks milk needs to realize that they are supporting this system. Everytime we put milk in our coffee or grab a yogurt from the fridge we are saying, “Yes, please impregnate this cow so that she will produce milk in larger than natural amounts. Then when she’s not as profitable send her to slaughter, transporting her long distances across multiple province. I approve of how the system works. ”

And we all should probably be pretty bothered that our tax dollars are being used to support industries that make a profit on the suffering and exploitation of animals.

Arguments Against Veganism, pt. 5

Monday, August 3rd, 2009

Argument: “All this Veganism stuff can only be adhered to by very wealthy people in a society that is very advanced.”

Response: Fortunately, this is nowhere near true.  Unless you are buying a lot of pre-processed fake meats and cheeses–which are pricey, but shouldn’t be a large part of a healthy diet anyway–veganism is actually quite a bit cheaper than the alternative:

Most of the staples of a vegetarian diet are cheap. In fact, most of the world’s people eat a mostly vegetarian diet made up of inexpensive commodities such as beans, rice and corn.If you drop red meat, poultry and fish from your diet, you’ll find plant proteins cheaper than the equivalent amount of animal protein. (Go Vegetarian to Save Money)

Check out the rest of the article from MSN: Go Vegetarian to Save Money, and this one, Recession Flexitarians, which discusses the fact that the current economy is forcing more people to reduce their consumption of meat and dairy.

How long until we seriously shoot ourselves in the foot?

Sunday, July 26th, 2009
There's nothing safe about meat.

There's nothing safe about meat.

The meat industry is gambling with human lives by using antibiotics in livestock.

The unfortunate fact is that on today’s intensive farming operations, antibiotics are necessary to keep the animals from all getting sick and dying. The only problem is that bacteria mutate rapidly and antibiotic resistant strains pop up here and there.

In an article from Grist, “Antibiotic-resistant salmonella burgers, with a side of flame retardants“, we learn of a recall of tainted meat: “In Colorado, 14 people have fallen ill from hamburger meat tainted with antibiotic-resistent salmonella”.

466,236 pounds of meat were recalled.

The article goes on to describe in detail the rampant antibiotic use in livestock production, and how it is threatening human health.

So are we any safer in Canada? Probably not. Antibiotics are used in livestock in Canada as well, and MRSA (antibiotic resistant staph infections) has been found on pig farms in Canada. In fact, the Canadian beef industry has been lobbying to allow for the import of unregulated antibiotics from the United States – with no thought as to the potential for creating antibiotic resistance bacteria through overuse of the antibiotics.

We need to change our food system before it kills us all.

Buying local will not save the planet

Sunday, July 26th, 2009

Amanda Daniel, who writes a blog called “Into the Eyes of God” sent me a link to a story in Forbes Magazine called “The Locavore Myth.”

Forbes: The Locavore Myth

Forbes: The Locavore Myth

The author, James E. McWilliams, starts off with:

Buy local, shrink the distance food travels, save the planet. The locavore movement has captured a lot of fans. To their credit, they are highlighting the problems with industrialized food. But a lot of them are making a big mistake. By focusing on transportation, they overlook other energy-hogging factors in food production.

Here is one challenge to the goodness of buying local:

Locavores argue that buying local food supports an area’s farmers and, in turn, strengthens the community. Fair enough. Left unacknowledged, however, is the fact that it also hurts farmers in other parts of the world. The U.K. buys most of its green beans from Kenya. While it’s true that the beans almost always arrive in airplanes–the form of transportation that consumes the most energy–it’s also true that a campaign to shame English consumers with small airplane stickers affixed to flown-in produce threatens the livelihood of 1.5 million sub-Saharan farmers.

Hmmm… had we thought of that when we were hunting for locally grown beans? I know rice is another example. It’s far less energy intensive to fly rice from Asia to Canada than it is to try to grow rice in California and ship it a much shorter distance because so much energy has to go into creating the environment for rice through irrigation – an environment that exists naturally halfway around the world.

Proponents of local food often don’t take economies of scale into account:

To take an extreme example, a shipper sending a truck with 2,000 apples over 2,000 miles would consume the same amount of fuel per apple as a local farmer who takes a pickup 50 miles to sell 50 apples at his stall at the green market. The critical measure here is not food miles but apples per gallon.

Then there’s the issue of meat:

Until our food system becomes more transparent, there is one thing you can do to shrink the carbon footprint of your dinner: Take the meat off your plate. No matter how you slice it, it takes more energy to bring meat, as opposed to plants, to the table. It takes 6 pounds of grain to make a pound of chicken and 10 to 16 pounds to make a pound of beef. That difference translates into big differences in inputs. It requires 2,400 liters of water to make a burger and only 13 liters to grow a tomato. A majority of the water in the American West goes toward the production of pigs, chickens and cattle.

The Canadian meat industry is pretty much the same as the American. We deal with essentially the same geography and irrigation issues with ranching and intensive farming.

So, what does he conclude?

If you want to make a statement, ride your bike to the farmer’s market. If you want to reduce greenhouse gases, become a vegetarian.

Yup. Enough said.

More thoughts on a world with animal rights

Saturday, July 25th, 2009

I’m thinking about farmland this time – the wonderfully fertile soil where we now grow tons and tons of corn and soy and not much else.

Currently, most of the corn and soy grown in North America (Canada and the US are virtually identical in this case) feeds animals raised for food. In Canada I’ve heard that about 70% of the grain grown feeds livestock. Soy is probably similar.

Cornfield

Cornfield

If we were not feeding all of this corn and soy to animals, if we were not using these thousands and thousands of acres to grow this two crops, we could be growing a wonderful variety of vegetables, grains, and legumes to feed humans.

Imagine driving through the midwest United States and instead of seeing miles and miles of corn, you see peas and beans and squash, lettuce, kale, tomatoes, potatoes, chickpeas, and any number of other edible plants. Think of the colours and variety.

Think of how healthy we could all be with the amazing variety of foods we are capable of growing.

Penguins at risk – what can we do?

Saturday, July 25th, 2009

Emperor Penguins

Scientists have stated that the magnificent Emperor Penguin may be extinct within the century due to loss of ice caused by climate change. As the earth warms, we are going to start seeing more and more animals becoming extinct.

What can we do to help? One of the easiest and most effective ways that we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions is to switch to a plant-based diet. It is far more effective than even switching from a car to a bicycle or buying all local meat, milk, and eggs.

The UN reported that animal agriculture is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. That’s several percentage points higher than transportation.

The demise of the Emperor Penguin may not be so much caused by your SUV, but rather by the burger on your plate.

Our food choices matter

Saturday, July 25th, 2009

Richard Schwartz recently posted an article on the Veg Climate Alliance website, “Global catastrophe or sustainable future?“.

A cow on a dairy CAFO

A cow on a dairy CAFO

It’s worth looking at if for nothing more that the extensive list of sources. He really looks into how exactly a shift towards a plant-based diet would reduce ghg emissions enough to give us time to solve the additional problems of transportation and energy production. It would give us some “breathing room”.

Since methane contributes a significant amount of GHGs (in CO2 equivalents) [12] and since farmed animals and their manure are by far the major source of methane, and since methane is in the atmosphere for only a short time, a major societal shift to plant-based diets would have a substantial and very rapid effect in reducing global climate change. Having major world leaders call for such a change, preferably after publicly announcing suitable changes in their own diets, could very dramatically increase awareness of the threats of global warming and the need for major dietary and other lifestyle changes. Such changes could provide some breathing space, during which other important changes could be made.

There is a lot more in there that is useful and informative. Definitely worth reading.