meat

...now browsing by tag

 
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

Foie gras – part of the larger debate

Sunday, May 17th, 2009

A week ago the Ottawa Animal Defense League got some media coverage about their foie gras campaign. One article, Foie gras ban does little to address cruelty by Joanne Chianello ran in The Ottawa Citizen on May 10, 2009. While this was a reasonably balanced article, the closing couple of paragraphs seemed somewhat odd to me.

In the grand scheme of groceries, outlawing foie gras is a marginal gesture, unless it leads to a wider — and, frankly, unlikely — candid conversation about where the rest of our meat comes from.

The real question, then, is: Will the possible disappearance of foie gras mark the beginning of a big debate, or the end of a little one?picture-2

This confuses me because the beginning of the article does actually mention that many of the restaurants are “[committed] to using more ethically raised meat.” This in itself would seem to indicate that the debate is already happening. If it weren’t, why would these restaurants even be using words like “ethical” and “humane” or be trying to source locally and organically?

Additionally, the author ignores (or neglects to see) the debate over meat production in the United States, with the passing of Proposition 2 in California and other states moving to enact similar legislation. Proposition 2 will essentially prohibit the use of battery cages, veal crates, and sow stalls. This resolution was passed by a 2/3 vote.

Michael Pollan’s book, The Omnivore’s Dilemma, has been on the NY Times bestseller list for about 90 weeks. The debate about food sources has led to the growth of farmers markets in cities across the country.

Additionally, the environmental impacts of animal agriculture are becoming much more well known and discussed in the mainstream media.

Foie gras campaigns are simply a part of the larger debate. One only has to look at the campaigns of larger organizations like Farm Sanctuary and The Humane Society to see that this is indeed the case.

Perhaps Ms. Chianello was just trying to make a point about the small amount of impact campaigns against foie gras may have? If so, she is certainly letting her own opinions colour her reporting. How genuine was her question?

Almost Earth Day

Thursday, April 16th, 2009
Roger, Michelle, and me

Roger, Michelle, and me

On Wednesday we started our week-long “Meat Free Earth Day” campaign.

It’s a pretty low-key campaign this year. We started with a 1 hour launch event which went pretty well. The weather was great.

This afternoon we were out doing some rush hour leafleting. We gave away all of our leaflets in just an hour!  We’re going to be out tomorrow at Commercial Drive skytrain station, then again on Monday and Tuesday, in different locations.

The fun part comes on Earth Day, when we will be giving away free vegan mini cupcakes. I hope a lot of people come by to try the cupcakes.

Now, why are we doing all of this?

The evidence keeps mounting that animal agriculture (the production of meat, eggs, and dairy) is causing immense harm to our planet: pollution, climate change, rainforest destruction, errosion, desertification, and more.

One of the facts that blew me away was the fact that beef production is the leading cause of rainforest destruction.  Even Greenpeace has a campaign about this issue.

I also learned when doing research that it takes over 3,000 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce 1 egg, while it only takes about 160 calories of fossil fuel energy to produce a serving of tofu of the same calories. Eggs are as bad as beef! Another shocker is that cheese is about twice as bad as beef, largely because it takes so much milk (which comes from cows) to produce such a small amount of cheese.

Beef is already a massively inneficient food. Cheese is phenomenally bad. There is no way that anyone who is concerened about the environment should be eating cheese. One single serving of cheese is equal to a litre and a half of gasoline.

We’ve produced a new leaflet for the occasion. Download it and have a look.

We are hoping that many people will consider going meat-, egg-, and dairy-free this Earth Day, since it is the easiest and most effective thing we can do to help the environment.

Respect for animals

Thursday, March 19th, 2009

I’ve been wondering a lot lately about people who say that they love animals and respect them, but then eat them.

How does this work? Are they just using these words to mean something other than what I think they mean?

Love would seem to indicate that they care at least as much for the animal’s life and happiness as they do their own. If I say that I love my wife, I am not getting ready to bash her in the back of the head with a hammer. But if I’m saying I love my rabbits – I could mean this?

What does respect mean if it’s said about a relationship of exploitation, ending in death? And what sort of respect does it show to use all parts of an animal? Would I be happy to be respected by someone who’s going to kill me, as long as all of me gets used?

I think I would pass on this sort of respect. And this sort of love.

What it reminds me of is an abusive relationship, where the abuser claims to love the abused – and he’s only doing what he does out of love, right?

No matter how “nice” the animal’s life was, he will be betrayed, slaughtered, dismembered, and eaten. This really just shows that all the “love” and “respect” are a simple, deluded lie.

Links from around the web

Wednesday, January 7th, 2009

Here are some links from around the web that you might find interesting.

Audubon magazine has a fantastic article about the environmental impacts of meat-eating.

So why in the world am I a dedicated vegetarian? Why is meat, including sumptuous pork, a complete stranger to my fork at home and away? The answer is simple: I have an 11-year-old son whose future—like yours and mine—is rapidly unraveling due to global warming. And what we put on our plates can directly accelerate or decelerate the heating trend.

No one can call themselves an environmentalist if they’re still tucking into the steak or chicken wings.

Read the whole article here:
http://www.audubonmagazine.org/features0901/viewpoint.html

The latest post on Animal Person has some interesting thoughts on non-human language, and includes the cutest video EVER:
http://www.animalperson.net/animal_person/2009/01/on-the-communication-of-sentient-nonhumans.html

A darkly humorous look at what an animal might think of being slaughtered by a small farmer:
Thank God we were slaughtered by a local farmer instead of one of those big, impersonal corporations!

Ok, I guess I must have been living under a rock for a while, but I never realized Gene Baur had a blog. How crazy is that? Here’s his latest post, as always thoughtful and articulate:
http://www.genebaur.com/blogengine.net/post/2009/01/Big-Problems-e28093-Simple-Solutions.aspx
(If only we could all be as smart and well-spoken as Gene.)

This next article has been popping up on blogs all over the internet. It’s from Newsweek, and it’s about how hunting is altering or reversing evolution, making the weak and sickly MORE likely to survive than the big strong animals. Because we keep killing all the big strong ones and we don’t kill the weak ones. We’re smart that way.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177709/page/1

Here’s a nice piece on activism. I know a lot of the time when I’m out doing any sort of outreach I get angry a lot. Mostly because people just aren’t changing as soon as I want them to. Changing my perspective could change how I interact with other people and could make me more effective.
http://loveallbeings.org/blog/activism-as-being-not-doing/

Lastly, this isn’t an article or a blog post, but rather a whole website: Altweb: Alternatives to Animal Testing. It’s sponsored by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health. For those of you who are working on issues of animal testing, this could be a good resource.

That’s it for today. Enjoy!