misinformation

...now browsing by tag

 
 

The Voice of Agriculture?

Friday, February 5th, 2010

Fighting public opinion, tooth and nail

I’m not even quite sure where to start with this one. Apparently HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) has worked with a company called Sonic, which runs a chain of drive-in restaurants across the United States, to switch to cage-free eggs and pig meat from farms that don’t use gestation crates.

Here’s what the kind and loving folks at the Kansas Farm Bureau (“The Voice of Agriculture”) had to say in a letter to Sonic’s CEO:

When our members learned that the Humane Society of the United States was publicly applauding your decision to begin phasing in cage-free eggs and acquiring pork from facilities that do not use breeding hog gestation stalls, they were upset, to say the very least.

The letter goes on to describe HSUS as

a powerful, well-funded activist organization pursuing what most reasonable observers would consider an extreme anti-animal agenda.

Apparently wanting animals to be able to live with enough space so they can stand up, turn around, and stretch their limbs is “anti-animal.” Of course, in contrast they are saying that “farmers” who confine chickens in battery cages and keep animals indoors, on concrete floors, in crates that prevent them from turning around or engaging in pretty much anything normal pigs do, like rooting in the mud, searching for food, preparing their bed at night and so on, are “pro-animal.”

I’d say maybe “pro-meat” or “pro-suffering” or “pro-profit” but certainly not “pro-animal.” But what do I know? I only grew up around animals, spent a great deal of my life caring for animals, and have experienced animals being able to live with the freedom to be the animals they have evolved to be, not the animals that profit has forced them to be.

They see this small (and I mean tiny) step as a threat to the entire American way of life:

HSUS seeks to remove meat from our dinner tables, leather goods from our closets, animals from zoos and circuses and eventually – pets from our families.

Steve Baccus, the President of the Kansas Farm Bureau, writes of “thoughtful, common sense folks” but he doesn’t seem to realize that public opinion is really moving against the treatment of animals as “production units” who can treated in whatever manner as long as it is profitable.

He really just comes off as paranoid. Meeting these minimal animal welfare standards is a far cry from the horrific apocalypse that he is predicting. I mean, it’s not as if Sonic is switching their menu to vegan or making any real changes. Switching to cage-free eggs is a no-effort switch, since the same suppliers carry both kinds of eggs and the cost is basically the same. Conditions are only marginally better for cage-free hens.

If I lived in Kansas I would be asking my “Voice of Agriculture” why they aren’t on the leading edge of giving consumers what they want instead of making ridiculous claims about how “radical” the most conservative “animal rights” organization in the United States is. Businesses know that making these changes is viewed as positive by consumers, and they wouldn’t risk profits to make these changes. The Farm Bureau would do a better service to their members if they were paying attention to what consumers want instead of fighting change.

Goat for Gold, not a good idea

Thursday, January 28th, 2010

In the last few years–and especially recently–we’ve been hearing a lot about charities that will donate a live farm animal to impoverished people.   Some of these include Heifer International, Oxfam, and more recently, the local Goat for Gold:

B.C. businessmen Joel and Danny Nagtegaal were drinking beer and decided last spring to buy one goat for a poor family in Africa each time the Vancouver Canucks won a playoff game. Other Vancouverites decided to do the same thing and 1,073 goats were purchased for African families. Now, the brothers plan to buy a goat for an African family every time a Canadian wins a gold medal. (Goat for Gold No!, Lifeforce Foundation)

Sounds nice, huh?  I’ll admit that when I first heard of these sorts of programs, I thought the same thing. But it turns out that the charming photos of children holding cuddly baby animals don’t reflect the full truth of the matter.

“Farming animals is an inefficient, expensive and environmentally destructive way of producing food,” Tyler continued.

“Sceptical readers might accuse me of dressing up a concern about animal welfare as a concern for the world’s poor. There are major animal welfare issues involved in sending animals to, for instance, the Horn of Africa, where earlier this year up to 80% of the cattle perished in a drought. Many of the remainder were washed away in the floods that followed.

But this is not about cows taking precedence over people. Reality is that animal gift schemes are, in the words of the World Land Trust, ‘environmentally unsound and economically disastrous.” (Animal Aid director, Andrew Tyler)

Another point is that two-thirds of the planet–particularly the people who live in poverty-stricken nations–is lactose intolerant.  Many of these send-an-animal programs advocate a gift of a cow or a goat, as the animal can be milked (assuming the people can find another animal, for mating purposes) and then slaughtered for her meat.   Even without accounting for the numerous health problems associated with dairy, one might think that there is a better way to feed the hungry than with a product they cannot properly digest.

From the Vancouver Humane Society:

  • Animal donation programs can fail (and the animals die) because the recipients don’t have the money to afford proper vet care (if it is even available), and donor programs sometimes don’t account for that in their funding (It costs a lot more than people are willing to pay per goat as donors.)
  • All farm animals require proper nourishment, large quantities of water, shelter from weather, and veterinary care. It is questionable whether it is worthwhile to devote such resources (in critically short supply in many developing countries) to such an indirect way of feeding people.
  • Animal donation programs perpetuate dependency of people on donors (versus working with  recipients to address their own needs, be it acquiring animals or seeds or whatever, but by themselves)
  • Animal donations are easy for donors and make them feel good, but what is needed more are the less “sexy” things like leadership, peace building, psychosocial assistance, basic business training (how to save money and get where you want to be), and training in how people can help themselves out of poverty.
  • Supplying cows, goats and chickens to impoverished people with limited resources can just add to their burden.

More info:

And a few groups that feed the hungry without hurting animals:

Arguments Against Veganism, pt. 7

Wednesday, January 20th, 2010

Read parts 1-6 here.

Can you imagine the world in twenty years if everyone were a vegan?  These poor people are so weak, they can hardly walk. Imagine a 90 lb. Marine trying to defend our country. He couldn’t even carry the gear he needs. Imagine a Iron worker, a connector, who tool pouch weighs more then him…the bottom line is a vegan is not as strong physicaly or mentally as a meat eater.

I’m fairly sure that this guy actually hasn’t met any vegans.  We certainly aren’t any weaker than the general population, and we’re generally in better health.  As far as whether we’re weak, well…

Bodybuilder Robert Cheeke

“In 2002 Robert started Vegan Bodybuilding & Fitness, a company dedicated to promoting the vegan fitness lifestyle, empowering vegan athletes, and living by the words, ‘healthy food defines you.’”  (RobertCheeke.com)

UFC fighter, Mac Danzig

“…the 27 year old Danzig has carved his own path and along the way shattered stereotypical images. The lightweight fighter’s success evidences a fighter can be successful without the consumption of animal products.”  (The MMA Digest)

Dr. Ruth Heidrich

At over 70, Dr. Ruth Heidrich has been a vegan for over 25 years.  She is “a six-time Ironman Triathlon finisher, holder of more than 900 gold medals from every distance from 100 meter dashes to 5K road races to ultra marathons and triathlons.  She has completed more than 60 marathons all over the world…”  Read more here.

Vancouver's own Brendan Brazier

“He’s a professional Ironman triathlete, bestselling author on performance nutrition, and the creator of an award-winning line of whole food nutritional products called VEGA.” (BrendanBrazier.com)

Bodybuilder Kailla Edger

She claims to have “taught and/or taken up pilates, yoga, karate, mountain biking, swimming, water aerobics, step aerobics, kickboxing, bodybuilding, boot camp exercises, jogging…and that’s just the few I can remember right now.”  (VeganBodybuilding.com)

I didn’t stop because I ran out of vegan athletes.  I stopped because unlike them, I’m really lazy.

Note also that the Dieticians of Canada and the American Dietetic Association agree that:

…appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes.

A few more links:

VeganBodybuilding.org

VeganPersonalTraining.com

VeganFitnessTeam.com

Arguments Against Veganism, pt. 6

Tuesday, January 5th, 2010

Parts 1-4 here.

Argument: I keep hearing people argue that some of the more omnivorous among us would flagrantly protest animal cruelty, but that we’re very fond of tearing off huge, tasty pieces of our living cows while they scream for mercy. And I am very much against animal cruelty. I love animals. But guess what? There’s a gigantic difference between shooting your neighbor’s cat and eating pork. Smacking your dog isn’t the same as killing a chicken for the purposes of eating it.

Response: Uh yeah, in one case, you’re abusing the animal yourself. In the other, you’re paying someone else to abuse the animal for you. Oh, and the animals you want to defend are pets, while the ones you want to eat are what are commonly known as “food”. What kind of stupid idiot wrote this thing, anyway?

Oh right. That would be me. Like, eight years ago.

I think it’s pretty common knowledge that often, the angrier and more defensive a person gets when presented with the concepts of veganism, the guiltier they feel about it.

At the time I wrote that absurd diatribe, I had long since stopped eating fish and pork because I was particularly fond of those types of animals and couldn’t justify killing and eating them.  I didn’t even wear leather, because I felt it was wrong to wear fur, and the two seemed too similar.  Since childhood I’d considered myself a major animal lover.  As a little kid I’d run lemonade stands in an attempt to raise money for the local animal shelter.  Some of my best friends were the neighbourhood cats.  I’d seriously considered a career in veterinary medicine.

Whenever presented with the idea of giving up cows and chicken and turkey, though, (I hadn’t even heard about how cruel the dairy and egg industries are) I would feel vaguely uncomfortable and try to think about something else.  So what in the world inspired me to get so irrationally angry?  I’d found a website that discussed BSE and in an abrasive way suggested that it was the fault of people who were “cruel” enough to eat cows.   I don’t remember a lot of the details, but I do know that I felt defensive and infuriated because I knew I loved animals.  How dare these people suggest that I was cruel to them?

And what brought me around to veganism only a year or so later?  A few volunteers at my university who had a table of literature and stickers, who listened patiently when I told them I didn’t think I could really go vegan, or even vegetarian, because of my food allergies (wheat, soy, and nuts, for anybody having similar concerns), and who cheerfully answered my questions about why people go vegan in the first place.  Hell, I wasn’t even sure I wanted to stop eating animals.  I wasn’t convinced that it was necessary–couldn’t I just eat free-range meat?–and besides, fried chicken was one of my absolute favourite foods, and had been for years.   As of this May, I’ll have been vegan for 6 years.

Think of it this way–every single person you talk is a potential vegan, a potential animal activist. Treat them that way. Be kind. Respectful. Try to remember how veganism was explained to you–what made it seem reasonable and realistic?–and answer their questions accordingly, and politely.

Just don’t wear yourself out.

duty_calls(from xkcd.com)

Lies of the Egg Industry

Monday, November 23rd, 2009

It’s no secret that, having researched “free range” and “organic” farming, I am less than impressed and feel that most consumers have been thoroughly deceived as to what such terms mean. Most people aren’t aware that “cage-free” chickens usually can’t go outside, that “free range” has no legal meaning, and again, doesn’t require that chickens have access to the outdoors, or that even “organic”, which is the highest standard there is, requires routine mutilation and death.  (More here.)

That said, do I believe that it is better to live like this…

freerangeeggs

…than like this?

Battery_Cage_01

Of course I do.  Both types of farming result in considerable and unnecessary suffering for the animals involved, but one is obviously worse than the other.  Most reasonably sane people will be able to agree on this last point.

That brings us to the United Egg Producers, who, like most egg producers on the North American continent, are very concerned with keeping chickens in battery cages.  Why is that?  Because they CARE about chickens.  Who knew?

freerange-uep2Witness the profound absurdity of a company insisting that free-range chickens, who in the very best of circumstances, DO go outside, won’t have any form of shelter and will have to stand around in the rain.

"I miss my warm dry cage, Dolly!"

"I miss my warm dry cage, Dolly!"

Same thing with this brilliant attempt at fooling the public.  Message to the public: apparently egg producers think you are unbelievably stupid.

freerange-uep1Apparently egg producers also think chickens are unbelievably stupid, and will stand around waiting to get picked off by predators.  I guess they haven’t read the studies which demonstrate that chickens actually have different ways to communicate where a predator is coming from, as well as how much of a threat it is.

One more:

freerange-uep3As if chickens lay their eggs for us to eat.  Even life in a battery cage does not destroy the chicken’s desire to create a nest for the babies she expects to have.  Because battery cages are entirely barren, however, they don’t generally have anything to build with–no straw, sticks, leaves, etcetera.

On occasion, however, and because the cages are (literally) never cleaned out:

deadhenFace it, egg producers, chickens don’t care whether their eggs taste like wild onions or like cheap corn meal/flax seed mixes.  They lay them for the same reason that all birds lay eggs–because they are expecting to have offspring.

My thanks to Suicide Food for bringing the ridiculous attempts of the UEP to my attention.

What’s all the hype about calcium in dairy?

Sunday, November 15th, 2009

I was messing around with Wolphram|Alpha today doing some nutritional comparisons of different foods. Here’s the result of the query “calcium 1 cup milk vs 1 cup tofu“:

Calcium in 1 cup of milk vs 1 cup of tofu

Calcium in 1 cup of milk vs 1 cup of tofu

This is pretty astonishing. I never see anything in the milk  ads or on dairy websites that would indicate that tofu has more calcium than milk. They always just say that milk is the best source of calcium. Tofu’s even a better source of iron.

But, you say, the calcium in milk is more easily absorbed by our bodies? Perhaps not. I looked around and found this chart of calcium bioavailability (how readily absorbable it is by our bodies) of different foods from the Linus Pauling Institue at Oregon State University. Note that the serving sizes of the different foods are all much smaller than the serving size of milk. For example, 8 oz of milk is 227 grams, while 1/2 cup of tofu is only 130 grams. That makes the serving of milk almost twice the size of the serving of tofu. 130 grams of tofu is a bit less than 1/2 a package of tofu, while 8 oz of milk is a full glass of milk.

Bioavailability of calcium in different foods

Bioavailability of calcium in different foods

You might notice that 1.2 servings of tofu has the same amount of bioavailable calcium as 1 serving of milk. And that serving of milk is a bit larger than the serving of tofu. You might also see that Chinese cabbage has the same amount of bioavailable calcium as 1 serving of milk. Considering that 1 serving of Chinese cabbage is smaller than 1 serving of milk, this means that Chinese cabbage has more calcium than milk.

So, why does everyone promote milk as such a great source of calcium, when there are better sources? It’s a mystery to me (although I’d bet it involves substantial influence by the dairy industry on universities and agencies that study nutrition). Dairy production has a far greater impact on the environment and animal suffering than either tofu production or Chinese cabbage farming, so it really doesn’t make sense that this information isn’t more readily available.

I also came across this chart on the “Dairy Goodness” website (a production of the ubiased folks over at the Dairy Farmers of Canada).

The calcium contained in selected sources in decreasing order of the amount absorbed by the body.

The calcium contained in selected sources in decreasing order of the amount absorbed by the body.

Here’s the tricky part: notice that they order the chart by column 5 “Calcium absorbed (mg).” But also note that the serving of milk is twice the size of the serving size of the rest of the foods.  They also don’t mention tofu, of course! This chart is an example of misinformation – an effort by the dairy industry to skew the facts available to make milk look like the best choice, when in fact it is not. A clear case of “whitewashing” (pun intended).

Also, with so many easy and more nutritious alternatives, is there any excuse to support the dairy industry, which directly causes the veal industry and the horrors detailed below?

A Trip to the PNE, Part Two: the Lies

Wednesday, September 23rd, 2009

In the first part of this blog post, I ended by mentioning that my co-volunteer, Joanne, had asked one of the attendants about the mother of the hundreds of baby chicks.  Well, what answer did she receive?  Not the truth, certainly: the attendant informed her that the mother chicken was “at the farm”.

A few of the hundreds of chicks at the fair.

A few of the hundreds of chicks at the fair.

This isn’t true, of course; the attendant forgot one crucial word–”factory”.  That’s right, she was from a factory farm.  Unlike most of the vendors at the fair, who dropped their names at every opportunity, the chicks had no source whatsoever.  This leads me to believe that the chicks are likely from a generic, local factory farm, and will probably end up at the slaughterhouse/processing plant at Hastings and Commercial Drive.

The attendant also forgot to mention that there isn’t one mother chicken, but many, and none of them will ever see their babies born.  Here is more info on the spectacularly horrifying life of the broiler breeder chicken, who will live her life intentionally starved and in the dark, crowded in with thousands and thousands of other birds.

Oh, and they had a sign at each of the crates of chicks.  It stated that the chicks…

…belong to a commercial breed of chicken…bred mainly for meat.  …This breed grows very fast and by the time they are 40 days old they weigh 40 lbs.

Admittedly, these aren’t outright lies, but they’ve left a few things out.  Let me help:

…[these chicks] belong to a commercial breed of chicken…bred mainly for meat.  …This breed grows very fast as a result of genetic manipulation and by the time they are 40 days old they weigh 40 lbs.  That’s right–these chicks, which you are all gushing about and petting, will be they slaughtered in just over a month.   Many of them will not make it that long.  Due to their unnnaturally fast growth, some of them will die when their hearts or lungs fail or their bones break under their immense weight.

Gee, I can’t see why they left that part out.  Learn more here.  And here’s a relevant video from Compassion Over Killing:

45 Days: the Life and Death of a Broiler Chicken

There was also a section of the fair called the Kidz Discovery Farm, and it was perhaps the worst part of the entire fair.  There, children could wander through a fake farm, helpfully provided by the BC Egg Marketers Board and the BC Milk Producers Association.  First up was the Egg Barn.  Here’s what it looked like on the inside:

Look, honey!  Battery cages aren't so bad after all!

Look, honey! Battery cages aren't so bad after all!

Wait a second…that doesn’t look anything like any battery cage I’ve ever seen.  There are one or two birds in every cage…and some of them are just hanging out on top!  They’ve even got nice, straw bedding!  I guess battery cages are pretty okay!  Oh, wait.

Battery_Cage_01

Hey...

One more time.  A PNE battery cage farm:

Hey...

Fake.

Well, that looks pretty good!  Oh wait, what’s this?

Real.

Real.

The next exhibit was the Dairy Barn.  Here’s what it looked like:

Cozy.

Sorry about this.

Admittedly, this is a lousy shot.  But you can see in the forefront the wooden cow, which children could “milk”.  In the back is a view of an industrial dairy farm.  Even while in the barn, you could barely make out the cows in the picture.  There was also a bucket with free pints of milk for the 60% of the population who don’t get sick (well, not as a result of lactose intolerance) from consuming dairy products–which I forgot to get a shot of.

Barn 3 was the “Beef Barn”, which for whatever reason was strangely empty during the period that I was there.  I don’t know if it was the location or if most parents were less-than-eager for their children to make the connection between the cuddly baby cows at the fair and the rubber hamburgers you could pick up in the barn.

Seriously, the other barns were packed.

Seriously, the other barns were packed.

There was also a section were you could pick up plastic vegetables, but there wasn’t much to it–probably because the fruit and vegetable council wasn’t a major sponsor of the event.

So there you have it: my trip to the PNE.  Sigh.

Dairy, a lot of words, and the absence of meaning

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

The recent Time article about industrial agriculture has some large-scale “farmers” up in arms about some of the claims. I came across this response today, and was surprised at how little information it really contains. There really aren’t any actual facts in it at all, except that the author considers himself a farmer and that he has a cell-phone. It would have been interesting to see a response that dealt with the claims made in the Time article with some evidence to back it all up.

Free from the cycle of exploitation

Free from the cycle of exploitation

I would invite you to check out the original Time article and then read through this post. For now, I’ll just take issue with a few points.

Modern technology enhances individual animal care; for example, I can access whole-health history for each cow from my cell phone. Modern freestall housing keeps our animals comfortable and healthy – protecting them from weather extremes, predators and disease. Also, a veterinarian frequently checks on our herd.

Suggesting that keeping cows indoors for their entire lives, never letting them experience any sort of natural life, is “animal care” is a bit like saying that prisons are a paradigm of individual human health care.

Being able to access health records also is really no indicator of concern for welfare. It only makes sense to maintain accurate and up-to-date records for any piece of equipment, and to dairy farmers cows are really just milk-producing machines, not living beings with any life or meaning of their own.

As a keeper of many animals throughout the years, I’ve had mixed experiences with veterinarians. The American Veterinary Medical Association hasn’t really shown themselves to be concerned with animals in and of themselves, but rather in assisting people who use animals to maximize their profits.

The AVMA has historically been reluctant to adopt a position that conflicts with current practice. Some notable controversial practices that the AVMA has not come out in opposition to are forced molting and gestation crates. They have also approved of such practices as tail docking and ear notching of pigs, and they also approve of battery cages for egg-laying chickens [pdf]. They have consistently positioned themselves on the side of industry, rather than on the side of animals. More information about the AVMA’s positions on animal welfare issues can be found on their website, avma.org.

I’m also struck by the absence of photos or video to back up these claims. What this really indicates to me is an effort to spin words to present a happy picture of content cows happily giving their milk – all the while hiding the calves taken from them right after birth, their milk taken from them by machines, sent off to slaughter when their milk production drops off and they are no longer profitable. Let’s look at the whole picture and let’s really ask the farmers who are producing our food to open up and show us the truth. Let’s stop accepting this sort of hazy misinformation as any sort of answer.

The truth – that’s all we ask.

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.

Leaving someone out…

Wednesday, July 29th, 2009

I love reading the Chicken Farmers of Canada blog – largely because it really highlights the ways that agribusiness twists information by leaving vital pieces out.

Take the latest post, “A Visit to the Farm” for instance.

This post purports to be all about the author’s visit to a chicken farm. While she raves about how “clean” the barns are and how “the chickens looked pretty content to me” there is no actual evidence of this included in the post. What she does include is a picture of a field with a big hay roll.

Where's the chicken?

Where's the chicken?

If the barns are so nice and the chickens are so content and healthy, why not include a picture? What does hay have to do with chicken at all?