www.Indya.com  * News Bureau * Maryland * March 9, 2001

An irate Indian consumer in the US has discovered that McDonald’s uses beef in its French Fries.

Sanjeev Dahiwadkar, who lives in Columbia, Maryland, was horrified to discover in a book review that the flavoring of McDonald’s French Fries comes from a flavor extracted from animals. That discovery angered Dahiwadkar because he is a vegetarian and very particular about what he eats — especially when it comes to food which is described as vegetarian.

As Fast Food Nation, written by investigative journalist Eric Schlosser, points out, McDonald’s originally used beef tallow to fry its French Fries.

But after switching to vegetable oil in 1990, it began using a natural flavor that, on the record, comes from an “animal product”.

However, in its declaration of ingredients, McDonald’s does not say that any animal extracts are used in its French Fries. Worried after reading this, Dahiwadkar shot off e-Mail to McDonald’s asking the company to comment on the revelation.

The reply he received shocked him.

It said, “….for flavor enhancement, McDonald’s french fry suppliers use a minuscule amount of beef flavoring as an ingredient in the raw product…”

The reply — carrying the reference no. 665483 — signed by a member of the company’s Home Office Customer Satisfaction Department went on to explain that “…beef is not listed as an ingredient because McDonald’s voluntarily (restaurants are not required to list ingredients) follows the “Code of Federal Regulations” (required for packaged goods) for labeling its products. “As such, like food labels you would read on packaged goods… the ingredients in “natural flavors” are not broken down,” it said. “Again, we are sorry if this has caused any confusion,” the reply concluded.

The official list of ingredients of McDonald’s French Fries lists, “potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor, dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to preserve natural color).” They are “cooked in partially hydrogenated soybean and corn oils, TBHQ (to protect flavor)” it adds.

The realization that he has been consuming beef in some fashion, simply because the ingredients did not list them, has angered and shocked Dahiwadkar.

While Schlosser’s book is a savage indictment of many aspects of McDonald’s functioning, Dahiwadkar is worried about the fact that thousands of Indians in the US may have consumed something they didn’t want to simply because the truth wasn’t told on the list of ingredients.

“They think that they are having just a potato chip and they eat it on even at the day of holy fasting,” they said.

Actually, the revelation that McDonald’s uses beef in its French Fries is not a new one, although Schlosser’s book, published in January this year, has drawn attention to the fact.

A January/February 1998 issue of The Vegetarian Journal, for instance, says: “McDonald’s informed us on telephone that the natural flavor in their French fries is a “beef product.” At that time, they declined to send us this information in writing. In July 1997, McDonald’s sent us a fax stating that “the natural flavor used in French Fries is from an animal source,” it added.

McDonald’s claims it does not use beef at all in the food served at the restaurants in India.

(Would you trust their claim? I won’t. They deliberately lied, insulted our religious feelings, and then called us ‘confused!’ — Editor)

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) — P.O. Box 96736 — Washington, D.C. 20077-7541

A healthy person is a blessing on animals. Most sicknesses in western society are cured with drugs made from animals, and/or tested on animals, by the doctors who very likely have acquired their skills by experimenting on lab-animals. Under the circumstances, a compassionate vegetarian must learn how to remain healthy.

Reducing Cholesterol Levels

Q. I have been following a diet recommended by my doctor to lower my cholesterol. It is a 30 percent fat diet with no more than 300 milligrams of cholesterol a day. The diet helped to reduce my cholesterol from 250 to 220. I think that it is still too high, but I can’t seem to get it any lower. I’ve read that adding polyunsaturated fats to my diet, such as vegetable oils, helps to lower cholesterol. Do you think that this would help me? I’d like my cholesterol to be below 200.

There are a number of changes you can make in your diet to lower your cholesterol further, but adding more vegetable fat isn’t one of them.

Since saturated fat raises cholesterol more than anything else in the diet, replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat will help to lower cholesterol. However, the best diet for lowering cholesterol levels is to reduce all the fat in your diet. The reason for this is that most fat is a combination of saturated and unsaturated fats. Animal products and some vegetable fats such as coconut oil and chocolate are very high in saturated fat. And while most vegetable oils are higher in polyunsaturated fat, all vegetable oils do contain some saturated fat. If you consume significant amounts of these oils, the amount of saturated fat in your diet begins to creep up.

Some scientists believe that our blood cholesterol levels should be below 150. Most people cannot achieve this optimal level of cholesterol on a 30 percent fat diet. A diet that is 30 percent fat will result in some reduction in blood cholesterol levels, but by lowering your fat intake more, you can achieve much better results. To achieve a significant decrease in your cholesterol it is probably necessary to reduce fat intake to between 10 and 20 percent of your calories. That means that for every 1,000 calories you eat, you should consume no more than 11 to 22 grams of fat. Since saturated fat and cholesterol both raise blood cholesterol levels, it is best to keep them both as low as possible in your diet. Saturated fat is found primarily in animal products, coconut oil, palm kernel oil, and chocolate. Cholesterol is found only in animal products. This may be one reason why vegetarians have lower blood cholesterol levels than people who eat meat.

HDL and LDL Cholesterols

Q. I have never been very worried about my blood cholesterol level since it has always been between 140 and 150. The last time I went to the doctor, however, he told me that my HDL cholesterol was 32 and that this was too low. Why is it bad for some kinds of cholesterol to be low? What type of diet will raise my HDL cholesterol?

The cholesterol in your blood stream is ferried around by compounds made of fat and protein, called lipoproteins. There are several different kinds of lipoproteins and each has different functions in the blood. High Density Lipoproteins, or HDLs, remove cholesterol from the tissues of your body and take it to the lever to be degraded. They also might protect against the development of atherosclerosis in other ways. Therefore, a higher level of HDL-cholesterol, which is commonly referred to as “good cholesterol,” is associated with a lower risk of heart disease. Low Density Lipoproteins, or LDLs, carry cholesterol to the body tissues. Elevated levels of LDLs are associated with higher risk of heart disease. The best case scenario is a high HDL level relative to the LDL level.

HDLs can be low for a number of reasons. To a certain extent they tend to be controlled by genetics. Obesity and smoking both depress HDL levels. Low-fat diets result in lower levels of both HDLs and LDLs. Replacing saturated fat in the diet with polyunsaturated fat also will lower both of these lipoproteins. However, replacing saturated fat with monounsaturated fats, such as olive oil, seems to lower LDL cholesterol without having much effect on HDL cholesterol.

The level of HDLs in your blood is less important than the ratio of total cholesterol to HDLs. Your ratio of total cholesterol to HDL-cholesterol appears to be the best indicator of your risk of heart disease. Just divide your total cholesterol by your HDL. Ratios that are higher than 4.5 are often seen in people with heart disease. To significantly lower your risk, your ratio should be 3.5 or lower.

Scientists suggest that the reason that HDL levels drop on low-fat diets is that we don’t need high levels of HDL to protect us from incoming cholesterol and saturated fat. So the drop in HDL cholesterol seems to be perfectly normal. Vegetarians tend to have very low levels of HDLs and also have low levels of heart disease. In countries where heart disease is rare, people tend to have very low levels of HDLs also.

A number of studies show that moderate consumption of alcohol raises HDL levels, although it isn’t clear that this, in fact, has any real effect on heart disease risk. The disadvantages of alcohol consumption may outweigh any advantages. For women, this may be an especially inadvisable approach since even small amounts of alcohol may raise risk for breast cancer. Losing weight if you are overweight and giving up cigarettes if you smoke will also help to raise HDL cholesterol.

Two Harvard researchers suggest that the best approach to keeping LDL cholesterol low without lowering HDL cholesterol is to consume a more Mediterranean-style diet — one that is very low in saturated fat and uses moderate amounts of the monounsaturated fat olive oil.

Big companies join international Indian leather boycott, demand enforcement of animal laws
Submitted by: PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)

Nike and Reebok, the world’s top two shoe companies have joined the growing list. So have Peru-based Foresta International and top fashion designer Kenneth Cole. Add, too, the famous US Spiegel catalogue and Cole Haan, a company known for its upmarket shoes and accessories all over the US. Every one of these companies has pledged to PETA that it will no longer purchase leather from India. The companies reviewed documentation provided by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals revealing widespread abuse in the handling and slaughter of buffalo, cattle, sheep, goats and other animals whose skin is exported from India or learned from a PETA representative of the cruelty at the Shoe Market of the Americas fair recently held in Miami. These boycotts come at a time when the Indian leather industry is trying to open new markets in Peru and other Latin American countries.

These companies join retail giants The Gap, Eddie Bauer, Timberland, Casual Corner, Florsheim, J. Crew, Liz Claiborne, Nordstrom, Wolverine Worldwide, Clarks, Fiorucci, Travel 2000, Marks and Spencer and others in asking the Indian government to enforce basic animal protection laws.

“It is against the policies of these companies to support unlawful practices,” says PETA president Ingrid Newkirk. “If the Indian leather industry wants to play in the world market, the least it must do is ensure India’s own basic standards are followed in leather production.”

Investigations by PETA have exposed the Rs. 12,000 crore leather industry’s unlawful slaughter and transport of animals. In slaughterhouses across India, workers saw at animals’ throats with dull blades and frequently begin dismembering and skinning animals even while they are still conscious. Animals transported to slaughter are crammed so tightly into lorries that some suffocate or are crushed beneath others. When animals collapse from exhaustion or dehydration, handlers smear hot chili peppers or tobacco into their eyes and break their tails to force them to keep moving.

To date, Indian Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee and Minister of Commerce and Industry Murasoli Muran have neither required the leather industry to comply with animal protection laws nor compelled officials to enforce the laws. Prime Minister Vajpayee’s only action has been to send a letter requesting state officials fine violators of the law, but his lack of follow up has meant that police, some of whom are known to accept bribes, continue to look the other way. The leather industry, through the Council on Leather Exports (CLE) continues to subsidize the illegal transport and slaughter through its skin purchases.

In an effort to educate slaughterhouse and transport workers, PETA has funded trips of international experts in these fields to speak to government officials, presented training seminars to transporters and slaughterhouse managers and distributed educational materials on humane handling to state authorities. So far, officials have failed to act on our suggestions.

PETA is demanding that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Commerce and Industry issue a follow up directive to state governments demanding that animal protection laws be enforced; that state governments submit concrete action plans and progress reports to PETA, as they had promised-and failed-to deliver to the Minister of Commerce and Industry; and that penalties for animal abuse, which are now minuscule, be strengthened so that enforcement will be effective.

Pravin Shah — Raleigh, NC

Two years ago (May 1995), I visited a dairy farm located on Route 2 about 20 miles north of Burlington, VT. The dairy owns about 150 cows and supplies all its milk to Ben and Jerry for ice cream. Ben and Jerry Company is considered to be an ethical company in the dairy industry. I do not know whether they owned the dairy or not.

Here is the summary of what I saw and learnt:

It was milking time (5:00 p.m.) and the machine was milking the cow at 3.5 minutes per cow, without regard to how hard it was on the cow.

It was extremely difficult for me to watch the cows’ sufferings during the milking. To extract the last drop of milk, sometimes traces of blood got mixed with the milk.

Every morning hormones are injected into the cows to increase their milk yields. Since cows produce the most milk during and after pregnancy, they are kept pregnant for their entire fertile life through artificial insemination.

The pregnant cow delivers a baby after nine months (same as human does). If a male calf, of no use to the dairy industry, is born, he is shipped to the veal industry within two or three days of birth. The evening I was there, the farm was shipping three baby calves in a truck to a veal factory. The mother cows were crying when their babies were separated from them. I cannot forget the scene and can still hear the cries of the mother cows.

The veal industry is the most cruel meat industry in the world. It produces very tender meat for delicacy meal. The baby calves are raised in the darkness in a very confining crate, which allows practically no movements, and are fed an iron-deficient diet. This way the meat stays very tender and properly textured. They slaughter the baby calves after six months. There is enough literature available about the cruelty in the veal industry.

Within two months of delivery, the cows are made pregnant again. I did not have the stamina to watch the process of artificial insemination that the farm was showing off to us.

About four to five times a year, this farm would take the cows outside for a walk. Otherwise, the cows are tied in one place and they have no choice but to defecate where they are confined. It badly stunk when I was there; the farm would wash the confinement areas once or sometimes twice a day, and the remaining times the cows would then live in their own waste.

The life expectancy of cows is about 15 years. However, after 10 years, their milk production drops significantly so these cows are sent to the slaughterhouse for meat.

Last year (Nov. 1996) I visited India and also visited a dairy farm near Bombay. I observed similar things; overall, things were actually probably worse because there are few enforced regulations.

In the past (before the birth of a high-tech dairy farm) in India, cows were treated like a part of the family, and after feeding the baby calf, leftover milk was consumed by humans. However, as my daughter Shilpa always says, cows’ milk is for baby cows and not for humans or their babies; no other animal consumes the milk of another species. We do not have the right to consume cow’s milk for our benefit, and furthermore milk and its products are not essential for our survival.

As I learned about cruelty in the dairy industry, I at first found it hard to believe. On a personal level, I feared that it would be impossible for me to become vegan. How could I eliminate milk, yogurt, butter, ghee, and cheese from my diet? To become vegan means that I cannot drink tea, eat any Indian sweets, pizza, milk chocolate, ice cream, eggless but dairy-containing cake, and many other items.

However, needless to say that the dairy farm tour made me an instant vegan.

Look at my Health Report: I was 55 years old when I became vegan. I had a concern that my health may suffer if I stop using dairy products. However, after becoming vegan I feel more energetic. I do not have any calcium deficiency. However, one should monitor his or her own body chemistry after becoming vegan. My doctor is very pleased with my results and has not put me on any vitamins or calcium substitutes. Following is the summary of my health data after I became vegan:

Before Vegan (1995) After Vegan (1997)

Cholesterol 205 160

HDL 34 42

Triglyceride 350 175

Religious view:

Nonviolence is the highest principle of our religion. However for our survival, the religion permits certain violence only by the lay people.

Our scriptures clearly indicate that:

For our survival, the survival of our ascetics, and the survival of our religion (scriptures, temples, libraries, upasrayas etc.) limited violence to one sensed (Ekendriya) souls such as vegetables, water, fire, earth, and air are allowed only by the Jain lay people (sravaks and sravikas).

However, under any circumstances violence to two to five sensed (Tras) souls such as animals, birds, and humans are not allowed even by the lay people.

Ascetics should be totally nonviolent.

The cow is a five-sensed (Panchendriya) animal and cruelty to a Panchendriya animal is considered the highest sin and is totally prohibited even by the Jain lay people (Sravak and Sravikas).

In today’s environment I do not see the difference in cruelty between meat and milk production. In the production of meat, cows are killed instantly. However, during milk production the cows are not killed instantly but they are tortured badly during their prime life and ultimately slaughtered before the end of their natural life. The dairy cows have no chance to escape from this cruelty.

Usage of Dairy Products in Jain Temples:

Both Swetambar and Digambar sects use milk and its products in temple rituals. This is an old tradition and as I mentioned above that in the past the milk was not produced using the modern day dairy technology which tortures the cows and ultimately slaughters them.

One should reevaluate the usage of milk in the temple rituals under the new technological environment. The tradition should not be followed blindly. The highest Jain principle of nonviolence should not be compromised under any circumstances.

With regards to Swetambar tradition I can definitely say that no scriptures support the usage of milk in the temple rituals.

When we consume dairy products for our personal use, we are personally responsible for our actions and the resulting karma or sins. However, when we use and allow others to use dairy products in the temple, the entire community is involved in committing the highest sin.

The intention of our rituals is to inspire us to grow spiritually and become more religious. The net outcome of the rituals should result in the reduction of our ego, greed, anger, lust, and attachments. Dairy products are not essential in the rituals to accomplish the above result. We can substitute the regular milk with simple water or soya milk, and sweets with various types of dry nuts and grapes.

Our youths will appreciate such changes in our rituals.

If you would like to further discuss with me, please call me at 919-469-0956 or send me E-mail with your telephone number.

Pravin K. Shah President, Jain Study Center, Raleigh, NC 401 Farmstead Drive, Cary NC 27511-5631 USA

E-mail — [email protected]

My Visit to a Sugar Factory…

Last month I visited the Domino Sugar’s Baltimore Refinery. I was shocked to see that they use bone-char (it is actually roasted animal bones) to decolorize and to remove the unwanted color from the organic, inherent in the sugar syrup. Spent bone-char is regenerated by roasting in kiln, to remove the organic. The clear liquid sugar is then evaporator concentrated and sent to be crystallized in large vacuum-pan vessels. I am sure, there are other processes to remove organic, which do not involve animal organs or animal extracts. I was not aware that the raw sugar is refined using animal-bones. (We discussed this sensitive issue in-depth in April-June-1997 issue, page 14.

— Editor)

Apparao T. Lengade — Ellicott City, MD

Investigating the Cruelty Connection
PETA’s Animal Times, Winter 1998

In July 1998, Russell Eugene Weston walked into the U.S. Capitol, pulled out a gun and started shooting. When he was done, two police officers were dead and a bystander was wounded. Hours earlier, Weston had been involved in another shooting. That time his targets were cats, more than a dozen strays cared for by his father.

Ally Walker, star of U.S. TV’s The Profiler, knows these two events were not unrelated and that Russell Eugene Weston is not a lone statistic. In a new public service announcement for PETA, she hopes to spread the word that violence toward animals is linked to violence toward humans.

“According to the FBI, 80 percent of violent criminals start off abusing animals,” says Ally in the PSA.

Among that 80 percent are Albert De Salvo, the “Boston Strangler” who killed 13 women in 1962-63 and reported that, in his youth, he trapped dogs and cats in crates and then shot arrows through the crates. Carroll Edward Cole, executed in 1985 for five of the 35 murders of which he was accused, said his first act of violence was the strangulation of a puppy. Serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer confessed to the childhood killings of neighbors’ dogs and cats. Richard Allen Davis, the man charged with abducting a California girl from her bedroom and murdering her, reportedly set cats on fire and used dogs as targets to practice knife-throwing. More recently, a rash of deadly school shootings had one thing in common: They were preceded by acts of violence toward animals.

Alert animal control officers are aware of this trend. In San Francisco, officers are trained to recognize child abuse because of the parallel between animal abuse and child abuse. According to the San Francisco Child Abuse Council, people are often quicker to report animal abuse because it is more visible and because people “do not wonder what the animal has done to provoke [it].”

“Animal abuse is a serious crime with serious consequences for all of us,” says Ally Walker.

School Shootings Linked by Animal Cruelty

May 1998/Springfield, Ore.: Kip Kinkel killed his parents and two classmates and injured 22 others. He had a history of animal abuse and torture, having boasted about blowing up a cow and killing cats, squirrels and others by putting firecrackers in their mouths.

March 1998/Jonesboro, Ark.: Mitchell Johnson and Andrew Golden shot and killed four students and a teacher. A friend says Andrew “shoots dogs all the time wit a .22.”

December 1997/West Paducah, Ky.: Michael Carneal shot and killed three classmates at a prayer meeting. Carneal had talked about throwing a cat into a bonfire.

October 1997/Pearl, Miss.: Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death, then shot and killed two classmates and injured seven others. In his diary, Woodham wrote that he and a friend beat, burned and tortured his dog, Sparkle, to death.

Most serial killers have a known history of killing animals. Jeffrey Dahmer killed and strangled neighborhood dogs and cats. Ted Bunty tortured animals as a teenager. Carroll Edward Cole strangled a puppy. David Berkowitz “Son of Sam” shot a neighbor’s dog.

Have We Traded Away Our Right to Protect Animals?
– HSUS (The Humane Society of the United States) – (source: www.hsus.org)
Activists Geared Up For World Trade Meeting in Seattle

Last year after Thanksgiving, some 5,000 delegates from 134 countries gathered in Seattle to convene a meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO). That meeting would have profound implications for food safety and environmental laws in the US, and the future of genetically engineered foods worldwide.

The WTO was set up in 1995 at the formal end of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It is now the most powerful trade body in the world, providing legally binding rules for international commerce and trade policy. The WTO also settles trade disputes in closed panels, with members of the press, general public and citizen groups prohibited from observing, much less participating.

The WTO trade dispute panel has consistently ruled against strong health and environmental laws. For example, it recently ruled against the European Union, which has banned the import of US hormone-treated beef because of health concerns. The WTO’s power has also pressured the US to water down dolphin protections and clean air regulations; Guatemala to weaken its implementation of the UNICEF baby formula marketing code that protects babies from disease caused when mothers mix infant formula with contaminated water; and South Korea to lower food safety standards on produce inspection and the shelf life of meat.

US Department of Agriculture and US Trade Representatives have repeatedly told the media that they hope to use the WTO to force open European markets to accept US grown genetically engineered crops. The European Union has placed a moratorium on approving new genetically engineered crops, and the EU, Australia and Japan have developed or are in the process of developing labeling laws.

Therefore, the Seattle meeting was protested hugely by some 300 organizations. The diverse group of environmental, labor and consumer organizations were calling for a reduction in the WTO’s powers and wanted to ensure that countries retain the ability to enact and maintain their own public health and safety laws. However unfortunately, poor handling by police and the reactions by the protesters got out of the control. The result was a big chaos, for the whole world to witness.

Activists have passed some impressive animal protection laws in the last two decades. The United States banned dolphin-deadly tuna and enacted sea turtle protection laws. The United Nations set a global moratorium on high-seas driftnet fishing, and the United States followed up with the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act. Meanwhile, the European Union (EU) banned the use of the steel-jaw leghold trap and the testing of cosmetics on animals where alternatives are available. Too bad none of these laws could withstand the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In the WTO, a group of nations made a deal: they will obey WTO laws in exchange for trade without barriers. In the world of the WTO, free trade is king.

The WTO may have been great for free trade, but as far as animals are concerned, the WTO is the single most destructive international organization ever formed. WTO rulings can reach any animal, anywhere, and at any time. Nothing is sacred in the eyes of the WTO, so regulations on handling, slaughtering, and care of animals as well as those governing trapping, pollution, and habitat destruction are all fair game. And whenever a nation has challenged an animal protection regulation, the WTO has ruled that regulation to be an illegal trade barrier. The nation that has enacted the offending rules must either change its law or pay a heavy financial penalty. The nation usually prefers to change the law.

The U.S. dolphin protection legislation is a typical example of what happens when an animal protection law runs up against the WTO: Animal protection advocates, consumer groups, and concerned citizens worked for nearly twenty-five years to pass certain dolphin protection provisions of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act. These provisions were a way for the American people to stop the tuna industry’s slaughter of millions of dolphins. The impetus behind this law clearly was animal protection rather than the erection of trade barriers. Tuna fishing fleets, primarily those from Mexico, that didn’t use dolphin-safe fishing methods were unwilling to change the way they fished and resented losing access to the U.S. tuna market. The WTO made it easy for them — traditionally WTO dispute panels interpret an animal protection law as nothing more than an unfair trade barrier. Believing that dolphin-protection provisions couldn’t survive a WTO dispute panel, the U.S. government chose to rewrite those provisions so that it could open the U.S. market to dolphin-deadly tuna. The new definition of dolphin-safe now includes chasing, harassing, and injuring dolphins. By rendering dolphin protection basically meaningless, the U.S. government avoided an ugly, unwinnable trade dispute.

In the name of free trade, governments are abandoning protective legislation. Are these governments serving their citizens well? What they are doing is betraying their citizens to keep the faith with the WTO. To mask this betrayal, legislators will alter legislation to make it appear that they are not going against the public will, just rephrasing the regulations a bit or responding to new scientific data that supports a weakening of animal protection — a weakening that, before the threat of a WTO challenge, was unacceptable to that very same legislative body.

There may be a way out of this pattern of compromise and betrayal. The HSUS has issued recommendations that would make a place for animal protection in the framework of the WTO rules. In the form of Article XX, GATT already provides the groundwork for animal protection. However, Article XX has yet to be an effective means of exempting animal protection laws from the ban on trade barriers. The HSUS is calling for a new WTO rule stating that all animal protection laws are presumed to meet the requirements of Article XX. If adopted, it will mean that animal protection laws would be exempted from the WTO rules, thereby eliminating them as unfair trade barriers.

The HSUS is not opposed to free trade. Where the WTO goes astray is in giving commercial interests the power to change national and international animal protection laws and, in the process, destroy necessary protections for animals and the environment. Where the dispute resolution panels go wrong is in the assumption that it is necessary to destroy animals and the environment in order to have free trade. WTO member nations must let go of their short-sighted obsession with completely unfettered trade if we are ever to have a living, thriving planet in which fair treatment of all creatures still has a place.***********************************

Merritt Cliffton — Animal People – October, November 1998

“You will be happy to know that I have finally gotten the animal welfare department, which is the first of its kind anywhere in the world,” People For Animals founder Maneka Gandhi e-mailed to ANIMAL PEOPLE. “It is now a part of my ministry,” Maneka said, as welfare minister for the government of India, “and I would like to make it into a full-fledged department.”

A senior independent member of the Indian par1iament, representing her New Delhi district since 1989, Maneka is among the power brokers in the coalition government of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party. She may actually have more clout now than she did during two appointments as environment minister while a member of the Janata Dal party, from which she was ousted in 1996 for denouncing alleged corruption among fellow ministers.

To create an independent animal welfare department has been Maneka’s first ambition since she entered politics, she told ANIMAL PEOPLE over lunch during the 1997 national conference of the Animal Welfare Board of India.

The Animal Welfare Board has advisory authority, a small budget, some deputized inspectors, and a constitutional mandate to prevent animal suffering, but it cannot actually make and enforce policy. The chief inspection powers pertaining to animals in India, as in the U.S., are split among departments with other mandates — and often inherent conflicts of interest.

Maneka explained to ANIMAL PEOPLE that she would like to bring all of the animal-related inspection services together in one branch of government which would answer to no other, would vigorously implement the recommendations of the Animal Welfare Board, and would uphold the unique provision in Article 51-A of the Indian constitution that the people of India have a moral obligation to prevent animal suffering.

Whatever Maneka is up to, though, the timing for animals couldn’t be better. Noting the success of the Animal Birth Control program pioneered 30 years ago by the Blue Cross of India in Chennai (Madras), and actively encouraging it through most of the years since, the Animal Welfare Board in December 1997 recommended that India should pursue achieving no-kill animal control nationwide by 2005. No-kill policies were already in effect in Chennai, Mumbai, Delhi, Jaipur, and several other major cities.

The recommendation was ratified by the government in power then — but that government was toppled by the Bharatiya Janata coalition in March 1998.

MANEKA MAKES NEW WAVESManeka has announced draft regulations to ban the use of pound animals in biomedical research, and published a ban on certain uses of animals in entrainment. She has also banned the import of dolphins and sea lions for exhibit in India. She has banned cattle transport by train, hoping to end the export of cattle to slaughter in West Bengal. And then she has banned the transport of poultry and other birds by train, striking at the wild-caught bird traffic.

The draft regulations focus on a two-paragraph prohibition of pound seizure, which apply to an estimated 200 animal research laboratories.

Such is expected of Maneka, who won the shift of the animal welfare department from the agriculture ministry to the ministry for social justice and empowerment. The department attempts to implement the policies set by the Animal Welfare Board of India.

“According to our information,” said Susi Wiesinger of Ahimsa (an animal rights organization in Mumbai), “she is also trying to get a separate ministry for animal welfare. It is very fortunate to have a minister for animal welfare who is actually a dedicated animal rights activist,” Wiesinger added. “We all have big hopes, and do expect dramatic changes for the animals.” Whether or not Maneka can get as much from the Bharatiya Janata government as she seeks, animal protection groups have high hopes.

The sources of this information are FDA; Wall Street Journal; and New England Journal of Medicine (3,4).

TIME Magazine, Oct-26-1998, Page 108 — Submitted by Dilip Doshi, Rego Park, NY.

Sangeeta Kumar — Compassionate Living, San Diego, CA

From the depths of our hearts we can hear the cry of countless animals being slaughtered we can feel the hands of starving children reaching out. In our own dwellings we can taste the toxins in the water, and in our own cities we can smell the pollution in the air.

The animals, the children and the earth are calling for us.

How will we answer their calls?

There are so many things that you can do to answer this call. The following are some of the things that we here at Compassionate Living are doing to raise awareness in the community.

Educational Program

Teaching kids is one of our favorite projects. This is very rewarding work because many children after our presentation are inspired to make lifestyle changes and go vegetarian!

Ongoing Protests

We often are approached by national and local groups to organize protests on various issues. Usually a month does not go by where we have not organized several protests. These are very important because in one protest we can get on two or three TV stations and get the message out to the public. For example we were interviewed by several TV stations on our protest against animals for experimentation. They gave us some time to talk about why we think it is wrong. That one protest therefore reached over 100,000 people who were not physically there, but saw the report on the news, or newspaper, or heard it on the radio.

What you can do

Here are a few ideas for you to help spread the word for the animals. If you would like some advice please email us at [email protected] or call us at 619-495-1723.

Write Right… alright?

If you see an article against animals in the paper write a letter to the editor to your local paper, make it short and to the point, and your letter has a good chance of being published. You can reach thousands this way!

“Check Out Wildlife Groups. Before you support a “wildlife” or “conservation” group, ask if it supports hunting. Such groups as the National Wildlife Federation, the National Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Izaak Walton League, the Wilderness Society, the World Wildlife Fund, and many others are pro-hunting.

“Speak Up. When you see cruelly produced clothing and accessories in stores, please let the clerks and managers know you object to the sale of animal parts.

“Contact Your Newspaper. Ask your local paper to write a story on the advantages of a vegetarian diet or the cruelties of the factory farm, or write a letter to the editor on the subject.

“Act on Principle. When bus driver Bruce Anderson stuck to his vegetarian principles and refused to give riders coupons for free hamburgers, he was fired by the Orange County (California) Transit Authority (OCTA). Anderson was reinstated when he won a lawsuit ruling that all vegetarians and vegans are entitled to protect their beliefs and rights.

“Write Letters to the Editor. Write letters to the editors of your local papers telling them why you won’t attend a circus that forces animals to perform tricks.”

“Enter Competitions. Enter your vegan recipes into cooking competitions and bake sales, and make it clear that no animal ingredients were used. Dan Handley, a chef at the Virginia Beach Hilton Hotel, won a barbecue cookoff contest with his vegan recipe!”

Compassionate Living 4867 Mercury Street

San Diego, CA 92111-2104

By Neal D. Barnard, M.D. — PCRM’s “Good Medicine” — Winter, 1997

When researchers examine the differences in breast cancer rates in various countries, a surprising factor lurks in the background. In addition to the factors already under suspicion — dietary fat, alcohol, hormone treatments, and chemical exposures — several studies have implicated milk and other dairy products as possible contributors to breast cancer risk. It is just not the grease dripping out of a cheese pizza that is under scrutiny. Even skim milk is implicated.

Jessica Outwater of Princeton University looked into why milk might cause cancer. In her research at PCRM, she found that cow’s milk is veritable cocktail of cancer-causing chemicals. Her report, published in Medical Hypotheses in December, explains these surprising, potentially lifesaving findings.

The First Clues

Milk is designed by nature to help infants grow. Human milk brings an infant to the stage where he or she can eat solid food. Cow’s milk nurtures a baby calf until he or she is big enough to graze. Just as an old-fashioned choke adjusts the gasoline mixture to help an automobile get started, mother’s milk helps a tiny body to grow rapidly. And just as a car’s choke is harmful at highway speeds, it may be that the growth factors in milk can be risky for adults, perhaps even encouraging the growth of cancer cells.

Many human population studies have shown that dairy product use correlates with breast cancer rates. One interesting example comes from Seventh-day Adventists. Nearly all Adventists avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine, and are generally health conscious. But about half are vegetarians and half are not. As you would expect, the vegetarians have much lower rates of many diseases, including some forms of cancer. But breast cancer rates are about the same for the both Adventist group — vegetarians and non-vegetarians.

These vegetarians, however, are not generally vegans. While they avoid the animal fat in burgers and fried chicken, they will get much of it back in a cheese casserole. When breast cancer rates among Adventists are compared to dairy product consumption, a pattern emerges: the more dairy a woman consumes, the higher her risk.

Most other population studies show the same pattern. The higher the dairy product consumption, the higher the breast cancer risk. In some of these studies, the higher risk remains even when the effect of fat is removed, suggesting that the animal fat in milk may not be the only problem. Rather estrogens, chemical contaminants, and a growth-promoting peptide called IGF-I are the prime suspects in breast cancer investigations.

Estrogens in Milk

Farmers impregnate dairy cattle every year because a pregnant cow produces more milk. (When the calves are born, needless to say, the females join the dairy herd; males end up on the veal counter.) A pregnant cow produces extra estrogens that end up in her milk. Farmers actually look for these estrogens in milk as a sign that the impregnation was successful.

Excess estrogen is well-known for making breast cancer cells multiply, which is why doctors avoid prescribing estrogen supplements to cancer patients. Drugs that counter estrogen’s actions, such as tamoxifen, are important in breast cancer treatment.

A liter of milk contains 4 to 14 nanograms of 17-b-estradiol. Whether these hormone traces have biological effects remain unclear. In addition, the fat in milk — like fat in any food — rapidly causes excess estrogen to be produced in a woman’s body. The effect is rapid. Within a few weeks of increasing or decreasing the fat content of the diet, the estrogen level in the blood stream is readjusted higher or lower. Milk also has no fiber at all, and fiber is part of nature’s way of eliminating excess estrogens.

IGF-I

Of even greater concern is a compound called insulin-like growth factor, IGF-I. As its name indicates, IGF-I stimulates growth in a child’s body. The amount of IGF-I declines as years go by.

Unfortunately, IGF-I not only encourages growth of normal cells; it also encourages breast cancer cells to multiply. Mixed with cancer cells in the test tube, it causes them to reproduce; IGF-I is even more potent in this regard than estrogens. A little IGF-I goes a long way. Growth-promoting effects occur at concentrations of just one microgram per liter. IGF-I may also be able to cause normal cells to transform into cancer cells.

There are about 30 micrograms of IGF-I in a liter of cow’s milk, although the amount varies with the stage of pregnancy. It is identical to human IGF-I and is not destroyed by the process of pasteurization.

Little is known as to the extent to which humans absorb IGF-I from cow’s milk. While it was once thought that protein fragments were completely broken apart during digestion, it is now known that proteins and peptides are often absorbed intact. In fact, several different proteins from cow’s milk are known to pass from the digestive tract into the blood stream and even into the breast issue of women who drink milk. Similar compounds, such as epidermal growth factor, are not destroyed by stomach acid and are apparently absorbed, suggesting that the same is true of IGF-I.

IGF-I is a normal part of mother’s milk and of infants’ diets prior to weaning. However, milk consumption after the age of weaning means prolonged intake of IGF-I.

If IGF-I is a problem, bovine growth hormone (BGH) will make it worse. BGH is used by some dairy farmers to increase milk production. BGH-treated cows produce two to four times more IGF-I, with a corresponding increase of the peptide in milk.

When the Food and Drug Administration approved BGH for use, it was aware of its tendency to increase IGF-I concentration, but approved the hormone anyway because IGF-I did not seem to cause a major effect on the body weight of rats. The experiments, however, had little relevance to humans.

As for BGH itself, traces of it are found in cow’s milk even after pasteurization. Needless to say, financial interests overwhelmed both science and good sense when BGH was approved. BGH manufacturer Monsanto made payments to the American Dietetic Association and the American Medical Association, both of which issued favorable statements about BGH on the same day.

Organochlorines

Because pesticides and industrial chemicals tend to dissolve into fat, they end up in the mammary gland’s fatty tissues and easily pass into milk. This is true for human breast milk and also for cow’s milk. When three carcinogens found in Israeli milk (DDT, a-BHC, and g-BHC) were banned in that country, breast cancer deaths dropped. While this may be a mere coincidence, evidence for a casual relationship comes from the fact that organochlorines have estrogen-like effects. Moreover, the tissues surrounding human breast cancers have been found to have higher concentrations of organochlorines than other tissues.

We have looked at the link between milk and cancer of the ovary, which appears to result form a breakdown product of the milk sugar, galactose. Other parts of dairy products may exert damaging effects to other parts of the body.

It may be that the weaning process has an important biological function — that of stopping the exposure to compounds that help during infancy but are dangerous on long-term exposure.

Healthy Calcium Balance

With all the criticism milk has earned for its artery-clogging fat and sensitizing proteins, the dairy industry rests its case on one last selling point: calcium. Yet that supposed benefit is suspect as well.

True, milk contains calcium. But only 30 percent of it is absorbed by the human body, less than for typical green leafy vegetables. In fact, green vegetables and beans provide plenty of calcium, along with vitamins, fiber, complex carbohydrates, and essential fatty acids that milk lacks.

Surprisingly, population studies show that a high calcium intake does not insure against osteoporosis. Countries with a high calcium intake, such as Sweden or Finland, tend to have much higher fracture rates than Asian countries where milk is not commonly consumed.

The most important step in maintaining calcium balance is to stop calcium losses caused by these five factors:

Animal protein. Eliminating animal proteins from your diet can cut your calcium losses in half.

Excess salt. Cutting your sodium intake in half can reduce the daily calcium requirement by about 160 milligrams.

Caffeine. If you have more than two cups of coffee per day, drink decaf.

Tobacco. Smokers increase their hip fracture risk by over 40 percent.

Lack of exercise. Sedentary people lose bone tissues.

Don’t forget vitamin D, which is important for healthy bones. Ten minutes of summer sun on the face, hands, and arms two or three times per week produces all the vitamin D you’ll need. For those who get infrequent sun exposure, any common daily multivitamin provides adequate vitamin D.

A historical perspective by Cres Vellucci, one of the founders of this event.

“Fur-Free Friday” was created in 1986 by Trans Species Unlimited (TSU), based in Pennsylvania with West Coast offices in California, as a way to focus on department stores’ decision to sell fur.

Prior to Fur-Free Friday, there were sporadic fur protests in the early and mid-1980s.  However, activists with TSU felt there needed to be some kind of coordinated action to increase the intensity of protest against the cruelties of the fur industry.  TSU also wanted activity that was more dramatic than passing out flyers.

In creating Fur-Free Friday, the intent was to provide grassroots activists all over the U.S. the opportunity to participate in a coordinated direct action against department stores.  The focus was also placed on acts of nonviolent civil disobedience at these stores, similar to the lunch counter sit-ins and other civil rights actions.

In 1985, in a prelude to this organized event, two groups of activists — one in the New York Macy’s and another in the Sacramento Macy’s – did the first-ever coordinated, non-violent civil disobedience activity protesting fur in the U.S.  The arrests totaled several dozen. The following year, the dedicated anti-fur activists hit stores on what is widely known as the busiest shopping day of the year, the day after Thanksgiving. 

Since then the day after Thanksgiving has become known in the movement as Fur-Free Friday.

At its height of popularity among activists, Fur-Free Friday involves dozens of grassroots groups in more than 30 states, all engaged in non-violent protests that result in hundreds of arrests.  Meanwhile, as Fur-Free Friday grew, fur sales slumped.  In the 1980s, fur sales topped more than $2 billion a year and, likely due to protests such as Fur-Free Friday, have dwindled to about half that currently.

By the early and mid-1990s, Fur-Free Friday had been recognized in the animal movement as being one of the most widely attended U.S. protests against animal suffering.  Nationally recognized organizations such as In Defense of Animals (IDA) have been significant promoters of the movement-wide event by providing anti-fur posters and informational literature.

In 1997, Fur-Free Friday saw a range of activities, including non-violent civil disobedience.  More than 100 dedicated activists were arrested while making their statements of protest against fur.  Fur-Free Friday is one of the few nationally recognized days in the animal movement with “ownership” belonging to grassroots activists determined to halt the cruel fur industry and retailers of its products.

Cres Vellucci can be contacted via email at: [email protected], or website www.FurFreeFriday.com.

The Fur Facts: Trapping

• 10 million animals are trapped for their fur each year. The United States, Canada, and Russia account for most of the world’s wild
        fur production.

• Approximately two non-target animals are caught for every one furbearing animal.  These non-target animals include
       squirrels, opossums, dogs, cats, and even endangered species and birds of prey that are attracted to baited sets.

• The steel jaw leghold trap is the most common trap used by the fur industry, followed by the wire snare, and the Conibear
        body gripping trap which crushes the animal.

• 88 countries and 5 states have banned the leghold trap because of its inherent cruelty and because it is non-selective and
        traps whatever animal steps into it.

• Congress has failed to pass anti leghold trap legislation, despite public opinion surveys showing that 74% of Americans oppose
        this device. These polls are verified by the fact that when given a chance, voters in CO, MA, and AZ voted to ban trapping.

• Animals are left in these traps from anywhere from 1 to 3 days, and sometimes longer. Many times these animals will die      from starvation, hypothermia, dehydration, or predation by another animal. Otherwise the trapper will shoot them, stomp them, or

       club them.

• Many animals will chew off their own limbs in a desperate attempt at escape.  This is especially common in raccoons. A 1980
       study found that as many as 1 out of every 4 raccoons caught in a leghold trap would chew his foot off to escape.

• Some companies manufacture padded leghold traps for cosmetic purposes.  These padded traps still have to slam shut with      enough force to restrain a fighting mad wild animal. Animals caught in padded traps are still exposed to the elements and predators

       until the trapper returns to kill them. Studies show that padded traps cause injury to 97% of the coyotes that they ensnare.

• Many animals knock out their teeth as they bite at the jaws of the traps. In Sweden a study was conducted where 645 foxes were      caught in leghold traps.  514 of the foxes were considered seriously injured, and 200 of them had knocked out teeth as they bit at

       the trap.

• There are 150,000 trappers in the United States.

• Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are the leading trapping states.

The Fur Facts: Farming

• 31 million animals are raised and killed on fur farms each year. Mink account for 26 million, fox 4.1 million. Chinchillas, raccoon
       dogs (not to be confused with the North American raccoon), fitch and sable make up for most of the other ranch raised furbearers.

• Mink are usually killed by gassing, neck breaking or poison injection.  Most foxes are killed by anal electrocution, while
       chinchilla breeders recommend either neck breaking or genital electrocution.

• Mink and fox are genetically wild animals that are not adapted to a life in captivity. Whereas a wild mink would range a territory
        that is approximately 3 square kilometers in size, a ranch raised mink is confined to a cage that is 12 inches wide by 18 inches long.

• The intensive confinement leads to self mutilation, cannibalism, and a high level stress which breaks down the animals’
        immune systems.

• Approximately 17% of ranch raised mink, and 20% of ranch foxes die prematurely as a result of these factors.

• There are 415 mink farms in the US, which account for 10% of world production.

• Scandinavian countries account for 80% of world fox production and 54% of world mink production.

• Wisconsin, Utah and Minnesota are the leading mink producing states in the U.S.

• Fur farmers have used inbreeding to develop mutant color phases in fur animals. This has led to genetic defects including white
       mink that are deaf and pastel mink with nervous disorders.

• Many fur farms will feed the corpses of the skinned animals back to the live animals to save on feed costs. This sort of
        forced cannibalism was banned in the cattle industry because it was believed to cause Mad Cow disease.

• Ferrets are raised on fur farms in Europe. Their skins are marketed as fitch fur. Studies show that as many as 2/3 of the ferrets
       on fur farms come down with disease as a result of the poor living conditions.

The Fur Facts: U.S. Trade Economy

• Fur imports into the US declined 8.9% in 1997. Imports account for 60% of US retail sales.

• The fur industry claims that their annual sales are at $1.27 billion. This figure includes revenue from fur storage, cleaning, and
        repair, as well as from the sale of fur trim, leather, and shearling. Actual fur sales are much lower, probably at about $700 million.

• 51% of all US fur sales take place in the Northeast, followed by 25% in the Midwest.

• Fur trade journals described the winter of 1997-98 as the “most disappointing retail fur season in recent memory.” Fur World      magazine chastised industry PR groups for giving them false hopes for a good season. This came after the Fur Information

       Council of America pitched numerous stories which falsely proclaimed that “fur was back.”

Source: Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) Website http://www.banfur.com Email: [email protected]

“FUR FARMS FACE SHUTDOWN OVER NEXT THREE YEARS IN U.K.”

By John Deane, Chief Political Correspondent, PA News
Source: Radio 4’s Today programme; [email protected]; on behalf of; [email protected]

The British Government was today publishing a Bill which will ban fur farming by the end of 2002. The UK’s remaining 13 fur farms, all in England, currently slaughter around 100,000 mink for fur each year.  Farmers will receive compensation, although the amount has yet to be decided.  Today Agriculture Minister Elliot Morley explained why the Government was so determined to press ahead with the Bill, unveiled in last week’s Queen’s Speech. “We did give an undertaking that we would phase out fur farming, and indeed although there’s only mink farming at the present time, it’s still legal to farm other animals like Arctic fox … so I think it is important that we do take a decision to end fur farming in this country,” said Mr. Morley. “If we don’t legislate, even if they all declined and eventually closed, in the future there would be nothing to stop another one opening.” Compensation would be determined on a farm by farm basis, dependent on their size and assets, he said. Fur farming was particularly intensive. “It’s an intensive method of farming with battery cages … so it is a kind of farming that many people find unacceptable.  Many people find it morally unacceptable because it’s just for fur, and you don’t really have to farm animals for this reason,” he told BBC.