Jiv Daya 2000 July December Issue 3 & 4

July-December, 2000 Vol. 4, No. 2

January – June

Inside This Issue

• Guide to Grains — Reed Mangles, Vegetarian Resource Group
• Oops! The Dairy Industry’s Done it Again — Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
• Losing Meat, But Keeping a Child’s Diet Balanced — Excerpts from New York Times on the Web
• Is It Thanksgiving or a Grand Finale of Carnage? — Uttam K. Jain — India Tribune
• Are Brown Sugar and Powdered Sugar Vegan? — Joanne Stepaniak
• Jane Black: Champion Weightlifter and Vegan Activist — Davida Gypsy Breier, VRG
• Getting Fired up About Unfired Fare — Dr. Klaper & Others, North American Vegetarian Society
• The Links Between the Science and Food Industries — Dr. Neal Barnard, PCRM
• A Wake-up Call to the World — Alliance for Bio-Integrity
• The WTO: Have We Traded Away Our Right to Protect Animals? — Humane Society of U.S.

• Consumer Fears Shape the Debate — MSNBC Report from London

• Alcohol is Good for You — That’s What You Think! — The Ministry of Social Welfare, India
• It Ain’t Just for Meat; It’s for Lotion: The Dairy Cows — Life, Usage & Sufferings — New York Times
• Fur-Free Friday — The Fur Facts: Trapping, Farming, and U.S. Trade Economy
• Times Magazine’s “Man of the Century” — Albert Einstein, A Vegetarian Advocate

Guide to Grains
by Reed Mangels, PhD, RD – Vegetarian Journal Sept/Oct 1999

Most of us know that we’re supposed to eat more grains. We’ve seen the Food Guide Pyramid with grains as the foundation; we’ve noted that products boast of their “whole grain goodness”.  Why this push? What’s so special about grains and about whole grains in particular?

Grain products, including breads, cereals, rice, and pasta, are at the base of the Food Guide Pyramid because we need more servings (6 to 11 or more) from this group of foods than from any other group. Grains provide complex carbohydrates, also called starches, which supply energy. These are low-fat, high-fiber foods which also provide a number of vitamins and minerals. Whole grains are more nutritious than refined grains because nutrients have not been lost in processing. Some nutrients have been added back to refined grains, but often not all the nutrients which were lost are added back.

Just what is a grain? Grains are the seed-bearing fruits of grasses. An inedible husk, also called chaff, is the outermost layer of the grain. When this is removed, the resulting product is sometimes labeled “groats” or “berries”. The next layer of a grain is the bran, a protective coating. This layer is rich in fiber. When this layer is removed, the product may be described as pearled or polished. Inside the bran is the endosperm (the starchy part of a grain) and the germ, the part of the grain which is highest in nutrients. When grains are refined, the husk, bran, and germ are removed leaving only the endosperm. Technically speaking, buckwheat, quinoa, and amaranth are fruits and not grains but they are generally included with the grain group.

When you go to buy grains, it will be helpful to know a few commonly used terms. Steel-cut or cracked grains have been cut into smaller bits so they cook faster. Grain flakes or rolled grains are sliced and then flattened between rollers. A grain meal has been ground to a gritty consistency. Bolted meal has been sifted to remove the bran but not the germ. Degerminated meal has had both bran and germ removed. Grits have been steamed and soaked, have had both hulls and germs removed, and have been cut using rollers.

In a hurry? You may think it’s just too much work to cook grains. This is not necessarily true. While some grains do require long cooking, this can be reduced by soaking overnight or pressure cooking. Additionally, grains can be cooked in a crockpot and do not require any attention while they are cooking. Quick-cooking grains, which require less than 30 minutes to prepare, include quick brown rice, couscous, quinoa, buckwheat groats (kasha), teff, and bulgur.

All grains are low in fat and contain no cholesterol. They are low in sodium unless salt is added in cooking. They typically have between 5 and 10 grams of protein per cup. We rated grains in terms of their fiber, riboflavin, vitamin B-6, zinc, copper, and iron content. Vegetarians get significant amounts of these nutrients from grains. Our top choices are amaranth, quinoa, barley, triticale, and bulgur.

Tired of rice and pasta? Try cooking some quinoa or millet. Add herbs and spices, vegetables, tofu, seitan, tempeh, and a variety of sauces to make an unending selection of grain dishes.

Table: Grains are listed from highest to lowest score. Score was obtained by adding up the percentage of Daily Values for fiber (Fib), riboflavin (Ribo), vitamin B-6 (vit B-6), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) and iron (Ir). Foods were ranked for the amount of each nutrient with good sources identified with a +, better sources identified with ++, and the best grain sources identified with +++, na=not available. Grains at the end of the table were missing information for more than 2 nutrients so no score was calculated. Serving size for each grain is 1 cup cooked.

 

Grain	Score	Calories	Fib	Ribo	Vit B-6	Zn	Cu	Ir
Amaranth	184	364	+++	+++	+++	+++	+++	+++
Quinoa	119	254	++	+++	++	+++	+++	+++
Barley, pearled	69	193	+++	++	+++	++	+	++
Triticale	69	322	na	+++	++	+++	++	++
Bulgur	64	151	+++	+	++	++	+	++
Wild rice	62	166	++	+++	+++	+++	+	+
Millet	59	207	++	+++	+++	++	++	+
Oat bran	56	88	+++	++	+	++	+	++
Brown rice	53	218	++	+	+++	++	+	+
Buckwheat groats	52	155	++	++	++	++	+	+
Rolled wheat	45	142	++	++	+	+++	na	++
Rolled oats	43	145	++	+	+	++	+	++
White rice, enriched	35	242	+	+	+	+	+	++
Wheat berries	31	84	++	+	++	++	na	+
Couscous	26	176	++	+	+	+	+	+
Corn grits, enriched	24	145	+	+++	+	+	+	++
Corn grits, unenriched	12	145	+	+	+	+	+	+
Oat groats	na	232	+++	na	na	na	na	++
Rye flakes	na	165	+++	na	na	na	na	++
Steel-cut oats	na	340	+++	na	na	na	na	++
Teff	na	208	+++	na	na	na	na	+++

Some information for this article was obtained from All-American Waves of Grain by Barbara Grunes and Virginia Van Vynckt, Henry Holt and Company, 1997.

********************************************************

No Vegetarian Food at Panda Express

From: [email protected]

Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000

In reference to your question, Panda Express does not offer vegetarian entrees. We use both chicken paste and oyster sauce in the preparation of most entrees. We have reported your request for vegetarian entrees to our Marketing Department.

Chris Cappiello, Guest Relations Supervisor

Top

OOPS! The Dairy Industry’s Done It Again

FTC Urged to Investigate Milk Mustache Advertisements for Making False and Misleading Health and Nutritional Claims

— Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine —

PCRM has filed a new, major complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requesting an immediate investigation of Milk Mustache ads featuring singers Britney Spears and Marc Anthony, Actor Jackie Chan, and other celebrity spokespersons. PCRM has given information to the FTC explaining why the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board, the dairy industry, and the advertising agency which developed the ad campaign (the “Advertisers”) should all be held accountable for what PCRM holds to be false and misleading and, in some cases, fraudulent health and nutritional claims made in the Milk Mustache ads.

Since PCRM filed its previous petition on the milk ads in April 1999, several new ads have appeared. The Dixie Chicks, Mark McGwire, and Venus and Serena Williams, have also appeared in controversial ads. Not only do these ads continue to target ethnic populations with baseless scare tactics, they persist in touting dangerous myths about the benefits of milk consumption.

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates health claims on food package labels, the FTC regulates claims in advertising and it relies on the FDA’s standards in judging fairness and accuracy in ads. For example, the FDA authorizes the health claim that calcium-rich foods cut the risk of osteoporosis, but only in certain populations — Caucasian and Asian women in their bone-forming years (approximately 11 to 35 years of age), menopausal women, and elderly men and women. Therefore, the FDA mandates that when making this calcium-osteoporosis health claim, it cannot state or imply that the risk of osteoporosis applies equally to the general U.S. population. Also, the claim must identify other risk factors for developing osteoporosis besides adequate calcium intake, including sex, race, age, physical activity, and an overall healthy diet.

In sync with the FDA’s regulations regarding a calcium-osteoporosis health claim, the FTC may also require that an ad disclose the same additional information when the advertiser is making this health claim. The FTC’s goal is to prevent the advertiser from oversimplifying the diet-disease relationship and portraying a false impression to consumers.

Contrary to the new Marc Anthony ad, which states — “Shake it, don’t break it. Want strong bones? Drinking enough low-fat milk now can help prevent osteoporosis later. You need to know” — the truth is that cow’s milk consumption does not prevent osteoporosis. In fact, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of osteoporosis in the world, as well as one of the highest dairy intakes. Neither does calcium intake affect the development of osteoporosis in young men, a target group of Anthony’s ad. The Anthony ad also fails to warn Latino-American consumers, another target of his ad and the majority of whom are lactose intolerant, that cow’s milk consumption may cause gastrointestinal distress.

Same goes for the brand-new Jackie Chan ad, which targets Asian Americans and men to consume milk. The Chan ad fails to tell the 90 percent of Asian Americans who are lactose intolerant that they too may suffer the extremely unpleasant consequences from drinking cow’s milk while also failing to warn all men that milk consumption has been linked to prostate cancer.

Other milk mustache ads have been even more brazen. An ad featuring Larry King suggested that milk could lower the risk of high blood pressure, a claim specifically rejected by the FDA and not supported by scientific evidence, even the scientific evidence relied on by the Advertisers.

Another very important omission made by many of the Milk Mustache ads — including the Britney Spears, Tyra Banks, Jennifer Love Hewitt, and Sarah Michelle Gellar ads — is that the cause of osteoporosis is not usually inadequate calcium intake but calcium loss. People who consume an animal-protein-based diet tend to lose calcium from their bones surprisingly fast, due to the tendency of animal protein to leech calcium from the bones. Sodium has a similar effect, as do smoking and a lack of exercise.

The solution to this problem is obscured by the dairy industry’s propaganda. Not only do these ads fail to point out accurate information — such as the fact that osteoporosis is very common among people who drink cow’s milk — but they fail to provide any useful information to correct the problem. Trying to cope with bone loss with dairy products is like trying to make up for money that falls through a hole in your pocket by taking a second job. It is better to sew up the hole.

The Harvard Nurses’ Health Study reported in 1997 that, among 78,000 women followed for 12 years, those who got the most calcium from dairy products had approximately double the hip fracture rate, compared to women who got little or no calcium from dairy products. The July 2000 issue of Pediatrics similarly reports that, among girls 12 to 18, calcium intake had no effect on bone density, although exercise did help build strong bones.

Book Introduction

An enchanting collection of stories for children

Full of subtle messages for healthy vegetarian eating; value of love; and environmental impact of modernization and technology

Prince Boulababa was the fattest prince in the world. All he did was eat and sleep — till the beautiful princess Shakira decided to take him in hand and make him her Pricne Charming. And then there was Nimbus, the wild little boy whose best friends were the clouds in the sky. When the wicked king of the land threw Nimbus into dungeon deep under the castle, they rushed to his rescue with the help of their sky-protector Boss, the mighty Cumilonimbus. In ‘The Rainbow’ we meet the six brave princes who brought the sun and the rain together to form the first spectacular bridge across the sky. Also in the collection are a benevolent king who has lost his head to a scheming witch; a lonely kiss whose search for a home ends in the unlikeliest of places; and a magnificent machine that converts bird song into precious jewels with disastrous results.

Funny and sad, prophetic and wise, these are stories that will capture the imagination of young and old alike.

Top

Losing Meat, But Keeping a Child’s Diet Balanced
The New York Times on the Web —- By Mindy Sink

After seeing the movie “Babe” at age 9 and realizing the source of what was on her plate, Lauren Pierpoint of Boulder, CO, decided to stop eating meat. At age 6, Nathan Kessel of Boston, MA, was given a choice by his parents between a vegetarian diet and eating meat regularly; he has been a vegetarian for three years now. With a finicky toddler who would spit out any type of meat, Heidi Feldman of Norcross, GA, decided “almost overnight” to put her entire family on a vegetarian diet. School lessons about endangered species combined with a visit to the zoo persuaded 7-year-old Laura Grzenda of Boulder to stop eating meat.

“Every time I put a piece of meat in my mouth, I felt like the animal was talking to me,” Laura, now 12, said. “It was saying ‘Moo, don’t eat me.'”

For Mrs. Feldman, the choice was a compromise. “Eating became a battleground and it was difficult for me to cook two different meals — one for the three of us who ate meat and a vegetarian meal for Nicole,” she said.

Vegetarian diets for children have become more accepted in recent years by some parents, pediatricians, nutritionists and even the renowned child care authority Dr. Benjamin Spock. In the seventh edition of “Baby and Child Care,” published shortly after his death, in 1998, Dr. Spock recommended that a vegetarian diet begin at age 2, with fortified foods, drinks and daily vitamin and mineral supplements. Dr. Spock believed his own health improved after he switched to a vegetarian diet late in life.

Although Dr. Spock’s push for a nearly lifelong vegetarian diet generated some controversy among his peers, it did not settle the matter of whether a meatless diet was ideal at any age, particularly in children and adolescents.

Yet pediatricians in Colorado and elsewhere said in recent interviews that they were seeing more children and adolescents choosing vegetarian diets.

‘I would say there is definitely a trend toward meatless diets,’ said Johanna Dwyer, a professor at Tufts University School of Nutrition and the director of the Frances Stern Nutrition Center at the New England Medical Center.

The term vegetarian generally means a person who does not eat meat, and instead favors a diet of foods from plant sources. A lacto-vegetarian is someone who eats dairy products but no eggs, meat, fish, poultry or seafood; an ovo-vegetarian eats eggs but no meat, fish, poultry or seafood; a pesco-vegetarian will eat fish but no other meat; a pollo-vegetarian eats chicken but no other meat. One of the more strict diets is the vegan (pronounced VEE-gun), in which someone eats food only from plant sources and may also avoid eating honey or taking animal-based supplements and immunizations or wearing leather clothing.

Ms. Pierson’s daughter, Phoebe, became a vegetarian

at 13 after seeing an animal rights movie, where she learned the origin of veal. “I called it ‘veal to zeal’ and immediately I expected it to last maybe a week,” Ms. Pierson said.

At Ms. Pierson’s house in South Salem, NY, meal times can be chaotic with a pot roast for her husband and stir-fried rice with tofu for her daughter. “Everybody in the family eats different stuff, but I try to have some sit-down meals together,” she said.

Ms. Pierson said her daughter ate a lot of hummus and pita bread, as well as rice and beans, veggie burgers and noncheese pizza for meals and bagels, guacamole and fresh fruit for snacks. Some experts believe these types of healthier eating choices with low-fat, high-fiber foods should be introduced early. “Raising children as vegetarians has the advantage that we as adults tend to continue the diet we’re raised on,” said Dr. David Levitsky, a professor of nutrition and psychology at Cornell. “I find it almost impossible to make a nutritional argument against it.”

The American Dietetic Association has taken the position that “appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”

The younger the children are, the more careful the parents need to be with their diets, said Dr. Nancy Krebs, co-director of Coordinated Nutrition Services at Children’s Hospital in Denver. “Growth can easily be impacted, along with energy and nutritional requirements.” Concern lies with those who do not get enough protein, vitamins B₁₂ and D, iron, calcium and zinc in their diets. All of these nutrients are found in animal sources, in which they are more easily absorbed by the body. Children need all of those elements for energy, cognitive thought and achieving maximum growth potential with proper tissue and bone density. When children are lacking essential nutrients, they can develop malnutrition, rickets, anemia and lack of menstruation in girls.

Adequate caloric intake is an issue in any diet for children. “The big risk for growing children is getting enough calories in,” said Dr. Nanci Grayson, a nutritionist in Boulder, who is raising her two children as vegetarians. “Because children have smaller stomachs, and they need to eat a great deal more bulk of legumes, nuts, grains, soy, beans and other foods. ” To reduce fat in school lunches, the United States Department of Agriculture recently lifted restrictions on how much soy could be used in federally subsidized lunches. Soy, a popular protein source in vegetarian diets, can be found in tofu; soy cheese and milk and other soy foods are also available. Sloppy joes might be replaced by veggie burgers or tofu-filled ravioli in school lunches. Whether it is the choice of the parent or the child not to eat meat, there seems to be increasing support, in children’s books with vegetarian characters, in restaurant and school cafeteria menu choices and in Internet chat rooms. The Vegetarian Resource Group has recently started a parents’ network on its Web site where people can exchange recipes and advice.

“Data show that young adults who consume a vegetarian diet are just as healthy or more so than those who are not, and the key is sufficient variability,” Dr. Levitsky said. Source: http://www10.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/072500hth-children-vegetarians.html

Top

Is it Thanksgiving or a Grand Finale of Carnage?

By Uttam K. Jain — Chicago, IL (India Tribune, Nov-27-1999)

Millions of sentient beings cramped into huge metal sheds, purposely kept out of the public eye, imprisoned and in pain, too sick and weak, get their first breath of fresh air when they are removed and packed into the metal crates to be loaded on the truck and then hauled, to the slaughter plant. While at the farm, these beings, created — by application of artificial methods of feeding and breeding — with unnaturally enormous weight to profit from such extra flesh, cannot support themselves or hobble to mechanical food or water dispensing facilities. Over 500 million turkeys are bred every year for slaughter in the US.

The horrific living conditions at the farm include: most turkeys being confined in less than three square feet of space and suffering from diseases in filthy and inhumane conditions. Because of their abnormal weight, many die of heart attacks, and many others develop crippling leg and joint disorders. They do not get any medical treatment.

At the slaughterhouse, they are murdered at the rate of 1.4 million birds a day, 58,000 an hour, nearly 1,000 a minute, 16 a second.

The ironic part — I call it the cruelest part — is that, after all this horror and carnage, agony and pain, stress and diseaseful living for turkeys, Americans have symbolized the carcass of this domestically mutilated and mutated bird with a national day of gratitude. Who are we thanking on the day of Thanksgiving? Are we thanking the deceased ones for suffering from the inhumane treatment? Or are we thanking some crazy “God” for providing us with innocent and sentient beings to be mercilessly butchered and then buried in the graveyards of human bellies?

And it isn’t that only Americans celebrate “Thanksgiving” by consuming turkeys; many of our own brethren migrated from the religious and compassionate nation of the exponents of nonviolence, to name a few Mahavir, Krishna, Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, Krishnamurthy, Swami Vivekanand, etc., also do so. Not only that, some even take pride in feeding turkeys to homeless people. I would rather feed an excellent satisfying vegetarian meal, instead.

Cattle, lambs, fish, snakes, frogs, lobsters, shrimps, goats, pigs, etc., go through the same horror before winding up in one’s dinner plate. Around the Christmas time, people sit around their dinner table with big hulk of flesh of what used to be a sentient being, praying such as: “Thank you Lord for all the guests, and thank you for the food… And so on…” All beings are protected by God, and so, we are His protectees. While praying and thanking God for the flesh, are we thanking Him for the flesh, are we thanking him for letting us terrorize, torment and finally murder his protectees and then expect that God would bless us?

Another arrogant, ignorant and stupid incidence I remember is a TV advertisement by some carpet store, around Thanksgiving time, wherein the advertiser — with a live turkey standing next to him — announces a gift of free turkey sale, the turkey quacks and the advertiser assures the turkey: “Don’t worry about it, the sale lasts only three days.”

We complain about the prevalent violent atmosphere of crimes in our society and wonder why? Do we ever wonder if our own actions against the innocent members of animal world have any linkage to it? For our horrendous behavior against the innocent lives, should we feel qualified to attain salvation? And we even malign some God by dragging him into this carnage by thanking him! When human insanity gets to go this far — this far, that, it is considered not only a part of normal life but also something to celebrate — you can be assured of even greater violence in our lives as we move on. Violence begets violence. With flesh of murdered beings lying in one’s belly, neither can he be peaceful nor can he emanate peaceful vibrations towards others. Mahatma Gandhi once said: “The character of a nation can be judged by the way she treats her animals.”

Top

Are brown sugar and powdered sugar vegan?

— Joanne Stepaniak —

Brown sugar is white sugar combined with molasses, which gives it a soft texture. Powdered sugar, also called confectioners’ sugar, is granulated sugar that has been crushed into a fine powder. Brown sugar and powdered sugar can be made from either sugarcane or sugar beets. Bone char filtration is used for roughly half the cane sugar produced in the United States. This means that it was purified through charcoal made from animal bones. (Bone residue does not become part of the finished product.)

There is a split among vegans about whether cane sugar refined with bone char is vegan, and, if not, whether this warrants avoiding all products containing white sugar since it is virtually impossible for consumers to determine the type of sugar (beet or cane) and/or the processing methods used. If we assume that animal-free purity is the criteria for ascertaining whether or not something is vegan, are there any truly vegan foods? In the commercial arena, probably not.

Regardless of how they are grown or processed, most foods eventually come in contact with animal products, directly or indirectly. Insects and worms land on or burrow through fruits, vegetables, and grains as they are grown, occasionally ending up inside them, ground up with them, or packaged with them. Most fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans are flown or trucked in from different parts of the country or world in carriers that may have recently ferried meat and various other animal products. Trucks, trains, and airplanes use tires, lubricants, and plastic parts that most likely contain animal by-products, and they all utilize roads, rails, or runways that displaced animals and destroyed habitat when they were constructed. These vehicles also emit environmentally damaging fumes and pollutants and often inadvertently kill innocent wildlife. Most plant foods are distributed to stores where they will be sold side-by-side with meat, eggs, and dairy products, handled by nonvegan produce workers, placed on a checkout counter that may have deposits from previous customers’ animal-based purchases, and packed by a nonvegan checker into plastic bags that probably contain animal by-products or paper bags that, even if made from recycled paper, are sealed with animal-based glue.

So where do vegans draw the line? The most clear-cut and practical approach is the following: If a plant-based food (unadulterated or processed) contains no overt animal products or by-products, it is deemed vegan.

From an ethical standpoint, this is the most realistic and constructive way to view not only food but other commodities as well. Modern methods of processing and transporting are so pervasively tainted with animal components that it is counterproductive and futile for vegans to be concerned about technicalities. In addition, preoccupation with minutia detracts from the more significant and purposeful aspects of being vegan and makes veganism appear outlandish and onerous to outsiders. Because half the sugar produced in the U.S. is beet sugar and around fifty percent of all cane sugar is refined with bone char, even if vegans were worried about bone char filtration, there is only about a twenty-five percent chance that a product would contain sugar processed in this manner. Searching for prepared foods that do not contain sugar places an undue burden on the average consumer who might be willing to become vegan but is discouraged by what could easily be considered trifling. Your question is an important one, and it is vital that vegans continue to discuss matters of ethical practice. However, it is equally significant to channel energies into those areas of vegan living that are consequential. If vegans avoid products because they disapprove of certain processing methods, no vegans could ride in a car, drink tap water, live in a house, or wear manufactured clothing.

So, are brown sugar and powdered sugar acceptable to vegan? From a reasonable perspective, yes.

Top

Jane Black: Champion Weightlifter and Vegan Activist
By Davida Gypsy Breier — Vegetarian Journal, Jan/Feb 2000

Jane Black has set numerous Master’s National and World records in weightlifting, and in the process has shattered the stereotype of the “frail vegan.” In 1983, she met John Coffee, a gym owner interested in establishing a women’s Olympic weightlifting team to participate in national competitions. The first women’s weightlifting nationals had been held the previous year. Jane passed Joe’s screening test and three months later competed in her first national meet. At the age of 31, she placed 5th, and her team won the women’s title.

Jane became a vegan in 1990. She had been open to the idea, and was further influenced by her girlfriend, Stephanie Miller, an animal artist who has been vegan for more than 25 years. Jane says that, “… for me, reading literature on the dairy industry produced more disgust than killing an animal outright. To me, the dairy industry, coupled with the veal industry, is one of the most embarrassing things human beings participate in.” She expresses a great love for animals and shares her home with her best friend Colleene, a 10-year-old tri-colored collie. Jane believes, “If I am anything of worth for this earth, it is to be nice to other animals.”

Of her many Master’s National and World records Jane explains, “Since the official weight categories have been changed a couple of times, the world records I hold can never be broken … The last time I competed in the Master’s World Weightlifting Championships, in Canada in 1996, I won my class and received the Best Lifter trophy for my age group, 40-44.” Her personal record competitive lifts are a 65 kilo (143 lb.) snatch and an 82.5 kilo (181½ lb.) clean and jerk. At 47, Jane hopes to go to Glasgow, Scotland to compete in the Master’s Weight-lifting World Championships. Jane continues, “I am currently ranked as number one on the US Women’s National Team. I plan to do well, and I hope, set records and win a best lifter award. As my heritage is Scottish, I have always dreamed of going there, and this seems like a perfect reason.” (Unfortunately, she suffered a back injury in mid-June and it was unclear at press time if she would be able to compete.)

Working through The Vegetarian Resource Group, Jane has been helping other athletes interested in becoming vegan or vegetarian. For the past two years, inquiries regarding weightlifting and related sports have been referred to her. She enthusiastically answers questions and discusses her experiences as a vegan competitive athlete, offering another voice to counter dietary myths and similar misconceptions facing athletes.

Many athletes are concerned about adequate protein intake. Explaining her experiences, Jane says, “According to various elite weightlifting coaches, the protein requirement for a highly competitive weightlifter is 2 to 2½ grams per kilo of body weight. If I adhered to that, I would be eating about 150 or so grams of protein, which I feel is ridiculous. I eat probably about 60-75. I have never had a problem building strength. The variables for strength building vary greatly for individuals — genetics, general state of health, and training program. All of these factors and more must be monitored ongoingly if a person wants to take on a sport, or build strength or explosive power, which Olympic lifting is all about. I fully believe that a person can be incredibly strong as a vegan. If you are going for a bodybuilder ‘look,’ i.e., extreme hypertrophy, low body fat, a vegan diet will have its drawbacks, but then I would challenge you to ask yourself why that is important to you. Most of the pictures of contest-ready bodybuilders on popular magazines [used] a ton of unnatural and pathological dietary practices to achieve that look.”

As for her diet Jane says, “I do not organize my diet around protein content. Tofu is on the scene with great regularity. I am not a big salad person. For grains, organic brown rice leads the way. I try to vary vegetables. I guess if there is one thing I try to do more than anything it is to include a dark green leafy vegetable once a day or so. I love Boca Burgers, which are great if you want protein, low in fat, and carbohydrates. Apples are the main fruit I eat. I do drink a lot of water.”

Non-leather shoes and accessories are another concern for vegan and vegetarian athletes in many sports. The Vegetarian Resource Group publishes “A Shopper’s Guide To Leather Alternatives” to help consumers find other options. The guide includes information on non-leather running shoes and baseball gloves, and the next update will include information on vegan bowling shoes. Jane has not been able to find non-leather weightlifting shoes, commenting, “… when I started lifting I used leather weightlifting shoes. Shoes designed specifically for weightlifting are surprisingly important to balance and stability. Three years ago, I ritualistically buried my Italian weightlifting shoes and belt and began to train in non-leather shoes, non-weightlifting shoes also. Six months ago, after a persistent foot problem, I made the decision to train in lifting shoes that contain leather. There is no synthetic shoe available. Adidas, which supplies more weightlifting shoes than any other manufacturer, has not produced a vegan-friendly model. Although I am not happy about my choices, this sport has been a big part of my life for many years, and I feel that I do good in the world representing a vegan lifestyle as a strength athlete. I mean, somebody’s got to do it, and it might as well be me! I encourage everyone who reads this article to write Adidas and express your interest in the production of a non-leather lifting shoe.”

Currently Jane is in the process of publishing her first novel. This multi talented woman also enjoys playing the drums. We wish her a full and speedy recovery and hope she makes it to the Master’s Weightlifting World Championships in Scotland!

If you would like to contact Adidas to persuade them to consider producing a non-leather weightlifting shoe, their toll-free number is 1-(800)-448-1796. You can also email them at [email protected]. For more information on A Shopper’s Guide to Leather Alternatives visit our guide on the VRG website or see the catalog.

The City of Redmond, WA, Bans Exotic Animal Circuses and Acts

The Redmond City Council banned exotic animal acts and did it unanimously with a vote of 7-0 despite a letter writing push from anti-animal groups nationally. There was even discussion among the city council of possibly including rodeos in future legislation. A local group called Citizens for Cruelty Free Entertainment has been working on the issue in various cities throughout the Seattle area. Redmond, perhaps best known as the home of Microsoft is the first city to pass a ban locally.

Source: Northwest Animal Rights Network , http://www.narn.org October 19, 1999.

Bush or Gore ? ? ?

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush is an avid hunter. In childhood, he would go to a lake to shoot at frogs or put firecrackers on them to blow them up! Safari Club International named him for “Governor of the Year” award in 1999, for his support of trophy hunting.

Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Albert Gore aided and abetted the 1993 resumption of Norwegian commercial whaling, and the October 1999 resumption of international elephant ivory sales after a 10-year suspension, and is reputed chief architect of the Invasive Species Council, to pursue the extermination of non-native wildlife.

Source: Animal People

Top

GETTING FIRED UP ABOUT UNFIRED FARE
WHY SOME VEGETARIANS ARE EATING MORE RAW FOODS
Vegetarian Voice, 1998, No. 1 — North American Vegetarian Society

Your being healthy is important for Jiv Daya, because most modern medicines and treatments are developed and/or produced using animals. Nutritious food helps you keep a doctor away.

INTRODUCTION

Michael Klaper, MD
Nutrition Task Force of the American Medical Students Association American Academy of Nutrition Founding Director, Institute of Nutrition Education and Research

Sing the glories of food-as-grown! It is exciting to see the increasing awareness by the public, the medical and nutrition professions, and the vegetarian communities that whole fruits and vegetables — as fresh out of the garden as possible — are absolutely essential for good health.

Nutrients such as Vitamin C, many of the B complex vitamins, minerals, fiber, water and other essential molecules are needed for vital reactions all over the body, from blood formation and muscle contraction to nerve conduction and wound repair. Calorie for calorie, raw plant foods contain more of these substances than any other food.

All forms of cooking degrade vital nutrients in varying degrees. It is true that light steaming destroys only minimal amounts of nutrients, but for most people, “cooked,” means a whole lot more than light steaming. Just flip through the pages of practically every cook-book on the market (including the vegetarian ones) or peek into the kitchen of any restaurant, and you will usually see veggies being fried, stewed, baked, simmered, grilled, roasted, or boiled.

Fiber, too, is degraded by heat — even light steaming. This may actually be beneficial for some people (more on that later), but first let’s consider the vast majority of our population. Once it’s fiber is broken down, food becomes easier to eat. To illustrate this, imagine two equal heads of broccoli, one cooked and one raw. Consider the amount of time that each of them would take to eat. The cooked bunch could be reduced to a bowlful and eaten in a few fork-fulls (i.e. you are particularly hungry!), and if you eat it too fast, then you might even opt for more, before your stomach has a chance to say, “I’m full!” On the flip side, if you envision your self spending at least half an hour crunching away on the raw bunch, then you have likely discovered one of the advantages of raw food: It’s possible to eat large quantities of highly nutritious food without consuming excess calories, and this is great news for anyone familiar with the consequences of overeating.

More people than you may realize actually do eat whole plant foods in their simple form without spicing, dicing or cooking. Many of these people consistently report that once fresh, raw plant foods are regularly consumed au natural, their original unadulterated flavor becomes absolutely unsurpassable.

However, for those who covet creative dishes made with a variety of flavors, there is a cornucopia of ways to prepare whole foods — without using heat. Starchy vegetables can be made palatable when finely shredded, and then enjoyed in salads and lettuce wraps, served with tasty dressings or sauces. When soaked in water for several days, barley, wheat and other grains become soft enough to chew, and then they can be added to salads, pureed into pates, seasoned and pressed into “cheeses,” and used in many other creative and tasty ways. Also, if you rinse and drain grains regularly for several days, they will sprout — which greatly increases their digestibility. Sprouted grains can be made into “raw” sun-dried breads, pie crusts, and a myriad of other delectable dishes.

When discovering the number of cookbooks that contain predominantly raw food recipes, one might ask, “Are there people out there who only eat raw foods?” Yes, there are a few, but most people tend not to go the “100 percent raw” route. This is because it is difficult to get sufficient calories on an all-raw diet without heavily relying on nuts (high in fat) or fruit (high in sugar).

So, how do these “mostly raw” people get sufficient calories? They eat some grains, yams, and other fibrous, high calorie foods — cooked. Remember the broccoli story? Once food is cooked, it’s easier to eat a lot more of it. In other words, it’s a great way to increase calorie consumption. This is very significant for people who are underweight, for children on vegan diets who need more calories, and for senior citizens with poor appetites. Conservatively cooked starches are a highly nutritious, low-fat, low-sugar calorie alternative to nuts and sweet fruits.

We do, of course, need fat in our diet to create cell membranes, hormones, skin oils and other vital substances, and raw nuts and seeds are an excellent source of essential fats for any diet. Flax seeds, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds and walnuts are especially nutritious with their bounty of omega-3 fatty acids (the human body can not make this substance which is required for hormone balance and cell membrane formation). Raw nuts and seeds are beneficial in other ways too; for example, a handful of raw, green, organic pumpkin seeds contains plentiful zinc, and almonds are an especially rich source of calcium. Fortunately, however, with the addition of some steamed rice, sweet potatoes, or other calorie-dense foods, people who need additional energy sources calories don’t have to depend solely on nuts and seeds.

I know people who are sustaining themselves on predominantly raw foods — and they seem healthy and extremely energetic. They report clearer thought patterns and greater productivity in their daily lives. I respect and honor them for their commitment to their health, as well as their ability to manifest a nearly all-raw cuisine in their diet. In my own experience, there is no question that the more raw food I eat, the lighter and more energetic I fell.

But in the world of “real eating,” what’s best? Fortunately, you don’t have to completely change your dietary habits or “go raw” to reap the advantages of raw foods. It’s easy to include large portions of fresh, raw foods at every meal; you don’t even need a special cookbook. Sliced fruit can be added to hot or cold cereal in the morning, and a large mixed salad or raw vegetable cup, can accompany lunch or dinner. Dried fruit and nut mix, just-juiced vegetables, or a crunchy apple with almond butter make great snacks — and smoothies or fresh fruit topped with sorbet can satisfy sweet cravings at desert time. So, there really are plenty of opportunities to eat more fresh, raw foods during the day — it’s just a matter of cultivating our appreciation for the taste of whole, unadulterated, unfired foods — just as nature made them. Of course everyone has different schedules and preferences and we all have to listen to our body and our common sense when deciding how much raw food to eat.

Perhaps the best advice about raw foods (and cooked foods, for that matter) is to Chew! Chew! Thorough chewing is absolutely essential to breaking down the fibers of raw foods to allow complete mixing with digestive enzymes. If raw foods are going to constitute a large proportion of your daily diet, then be prepared to become a masterful masticator.

“Chewing your food to a cream” has benefits beyond increasing the absorption of nutrients. It also drives out the air that permeates all whole foods. This is important because the most common cause of bothersome flatulence and intestinal gas is swallowed air — the gaseous molecules that are inevitably trapped between the grains of rice, within the folds of lettuce, amid the broccoli florets, etc. The more we chew, the quieter our tummies. When eating fresh, uncooked foods, don’t be in a hurry. On the contrary — linger, chew, and enjoy.

Recent scientific studies have verified the beneficial effects from the nutrients in raw foods, and I predict that soon there will be research confirming that eating raw foods causes increased energy and better concentration. (Forget about that post-lunch urge to nap!) In the meantime, let the good times and raw fruits and veggies roll. Crunch ’em, munch ’em, get ’em in any way you can — every cell in your being will benefit. And do all in your power to assure that the fruits and vegetables you eat are grown as organically — actually, “veganically” — as possible. The fewer chemicals, slaughterhouse products, sewage sludge, and other toxic “fertilizers” used for the production of our produce, the better for all of us, for the animals, and for Mother Earth.

THE HYGIENIST PERSPECTIVE
James Michael Lennon
Director, American Natural Hygiene Society

For the past 160 years, the American Natural Hygiene Society (ANHS) has been the leading advocate of diets that include large amounts of raw foods. However, the ANHS does not recommend a totally raw food diet because people typically fare poorly over long periods of time on such diets, totally raw food diets are hard to implement from a practical standpoint, and there is no credible evidence showing that a whole-food, plant-based diet that is entirely uncooked is more healthful than one that includes conservatively-cooked vegetables and starches.

This may come as a surprise to many people who thought that the Natural Hygiene diet has always been an all-raw diet. But the various doctors who championed Natural Hygiene in the 19th century actually advocated a wide range of diets, and one or two of them were not even vegetarian.

A common argument in favor of an all-raw diet is that “no other species on the planet cooks its food.” Without question, raw fruits and vegetables are nutritional powerhouses. But an attempt to live exclusively on raw foods can present some challenges, such as having to “graze” (constantly eat all day long) in order to get sufficient calories. This may be fine for cows in pasture, but humans are usually busy with other activities, like working and going to the theater. Hence an underlying problem with all-raw diets — in the attempt to “stock up on” concentrated calories, people may consume large quantities of fruit and/or nuts, thereby creating a high sugar and/or high fat diet.

Noting that all people are different and that diets should be designed to meet individual needs, current general ANHS dietary recommendations are to eat a whole-food plant-based diet that consists primarily (by volume) of fresh fruits and vegetables; plus steamed vegetables, hard squashes; and the variable addition of (raw, unsalted ) nuts, whole grains, and legumes.

THERE’S MORE TO LIFE THAN SALADS!
Cherie Soria
Internationally known cook, foods instructor, lecturer, food columnist

When I first became a vegetarian, everyone asked, “Where do you get your protein?” Later on, when I went vegan, people wanted to know, “How do you get you calacium?” Now, if I say I eat raw foods, everyone says, “Don’t you get tired of salads?”

I love salads; salads with tender young greens and salads with no greens at all; salads with raw sweet corn and salads with crisp shredded Jerusalem artichokes; sprouted legume salads and sprouted grain salads. I love fruit salads and salads of tomatoes, olives, and fresh herbs. But if salads were all there was to a raw food diet, it might indeed become boring.

Fortunately, nature’s diet — one consisting primarily of uncooked foods — is varied, innovative and delicious, as well as healthful and rejuvenating. A natural, raw food diet offers easy-to-make nut and seed cheeses, which can be used for everything from sweetened cream cheese frosting and creamed soups to savory dips, spreads and sauces. Even pasta and lasagna can be enjoyed raw using finely julienned zucchini or thinly sliced eggplant in place of processed noodles. Sprouted grain pilafs, date-walnut scones and sprouted grain crackers are a few examples of the unlimited variety of grain dishes which can be made simply, without cooking. Even ethnic foods, like humus, falafels and burritos can be prepared “in the raw.”

Of course, preparing these gourmet delights requires a change in thinking and a large dose of creativity. On the other hand, most of these delectable creations are as easy or easier to make than their cooked counterparts — and there won’t be any dirty pots and pans to clean! In fact, if you don’t like cooking, expanding your raw foods repertoire may be the way to go. If you love to spend time in the kitchen and create new, delicious treats for friends and family, then you will definitely enjoy this new cuisine. And, if you want to experience better health and increased vitality, you’ll appreciate the rejuvenating benefits of raw living foods.

PROFILE OF A DIETARY CHANGE
Elysa Markowitz
Lecturer and health educator, and author of several books

Seven years ago, if you asked me what I though raw foods were, I would have said salad. In fact, for most people, raw does only mean salad, or perhaps sushi. Since then I have learned so much about how to prepare uncooked food. One gem of wisdom I discovered early on is don’t eliminate, substitute. So, rather than feeling deprived by taking out the foods that I loved, I began a journey translating my Beverly Hills gourmet Jewish culinary background into that of a gourmet Jewish culinary background into that of a gourmet living foods cuisine.

It’s been a rewarding journey. Texture has translated into grating, blending and juicing, and many other nuances of changing the presentation of food. For example, making a nut fluffy by blending pecans with dates and putting it in the dehydrator creates pecan mousse. I enjoy this dish as a warmed breakfast pudding on chilly mornings, and as a desert in the summer months. Also, I can take that same nut — a pecan — and make a creamy pate by blending more vegetables into the “batter,” or a crunchy patty, by adding finely minced vegetables.

In the morning, using my blender, juicer and sprouting jars, a whole new world of breakfast foods has replaced my former diet. Now, my choices include a wide array of fresh fruits blended to perfection with sprouted nuts and flax, sesame, sunflower, or pumpkin seeds. And my desire for grains is satisfied with sprouted, blended (smooth or crunchy) kamut, wheat, oats, barley, millet, or quinoa.

Even though my diet sometimes reaches over 95 percent raw, I still lead a life that allows me to eat out with non-raw friends without putting them on the defensive about their eating habits. When I was starting to eat raw, one of my friends who also ate raw was adamant that eating cooked foods meant going straight to hell — what a delightful thought. He would lecture others about what they were eating, and it really put people off. In contrast, I believe that enjoying the differences among people is an important challenge in life, and that loving ourselves, learning to listen, and transitioning ourselves from a possibly unhealthy diet to one that better agrees with us, is more important than the foods that enter our bodies. Eating a meal with someone who makes food choices completely unlike mine is fine with me. As the saying goes, “it’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but what comes out of it.”

When I eat at restaurants, I enjoy a wide variety of both cooked and raw foods. I prefer vegan cuisine, and most restaurants will at least make a salad and pasta primavera with pesto and very lightly steamed vegetables. At Mexican restaurants, I usually order a tostada with mainly raw ingredients — salsa, guacamole and romaine lettuce — and then a bit of cooked beans or rice on the bottom.

Joy is simplicity, and eating can simply be fun when it’s uncomplicated. So whether or not all raw is the issue, more raw can be included with ease and delight — and the fuss and bother of cooking can be eliminated when you want to enjoy it as nature’s gift to us all.

Top

The Links Between the Science and Food Industries

On NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO’s program “Morning Edition,” Wednesday, May 17, 2000, journalist Rebecca Perl examined the links between the science and food industries. She interviewed various representatives of these industries but gave center stage to Dr. Neal Barnard of the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Here are Dr. Barnard’s remarks:

“The egg industry, the dairy industry, the meat industry, the olive oil industry — they are all there. They’ve got money. And their biggest allies and best allies are scientists.”

“We’ve seen studies with the egg industry where they have found results showing that if you have the occasional egg it doesn’t really raise your cholesterol to any substantial degree. And that’s true if you’re following a typical fatty American diet — an egg here, an egg there. What’s the real difference? But on the other hand, if you take a person who isn’t consuming a huge load of fat and cholesterol, those eggs really do affect your cholesterol.”

“I think it’s reasonable for industry to fund studies. They have the money. Why not plug it into some research to test whether or not their foods help or hurt. The problem is that there is tremendous pressure on a researcher to come up with industry friendly findings. If you don’t, you’re never going to get re-funded.”

“The press release will usually say who paid for it (the study). But once it’s reported on radio, on television, that may get lost. And what’s remembered in the mind of the viewer, of the listener, of the reader, sometimes, is just what bottom line industry wanted you to have, and that it plugged in its PR machine to get into your mind.”

Besides actually paying for studies, Barnard said industry “can also put you on a paid advisory board. It can pay for you to give a special lecture. It can send you on a nice trip. It can give you a consulting fee. And the bigger the industry, the more of these they do. And they go right to the top.”

Ms. Perl ended the segment with coverage of Robert Cohen of the Dairy Education Board. She said that he confronted members of the advisory committee “armed with what he considered some damning connections between industry and members of the committee, that some were associated with the dairy industry in one way or another as lecturers, on advisory boards and through grants.”

We heard from Dr. Cohen, “All connections to the dairy industry. What’s going on here? First part I want to tell you that we’re not pleased about these conflicts of interests. I sat with the vice president of the United States and with Senator Barbara Boxer, and we’re all not pleased. Can’t you come up with a committee that doesn’t have these conflicts?”

Perl’s signoff remark was, “And this routine leaves one wondering: When the new dietary guidelines are announced later this month, will they reflect the best food science possible or has the science been tainted by business as usual?”

Please thank Rebecca Perl and Morning Edition (on behalf of millions of vegetarians in this country) for covering this important issue and for letting us hear from Dr. Neal Barnard. Comments can be sent to [email protected].

Top

 A WAKE-UP CALL TO THE WORLD
Do you know that a handful of giant agri-chemical companies have launched a massive venture to genetically restructure the world’s food supply?

Do you know . . .

• that your fruits, grains, and vegetables are being implanted with conglomerations of genes from viruses, bacteria, insects, and animals?

• that this genetic tampering threatens the health of consumers and also the health of the environment?

• that the governments of the United States and many other nations permit these experimental foods to be mass marketed without safety testing and labeling?

• that the assumptions on which this lax policy is based affront both science and religion?

To learn more about the hazards of genetically engineered foods and how our organization is working to curb them, explore our web site, www.bio-integrity.org.

Purpose and Goals

The Alliance for Bio-Integrity is a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization dedicated to the advancement of human and environmental health through sustainable and safe technologies. To this end, it aims (a) to inform the public about technologies and practices that negatively impact on health and the environment and (b) to inspire broad-based, responsible action that helps correct the problems and uphold the integrity of the natural order. In approaching these issues, it integrates the perspectives of both science and religion and coordinates the participation of both communities.

The Alliance’s initial project is to gain a more rational and prudent policy on genetically engineered foods. This entails (a) educating the public about the unprecedented dangers to the environment and human health posed by the massive enterprise to genetically reprogram the world’s food supply; (b) securing a scientifically sound system for safety-testing genetically altered foods; and (c) securing a meaningful system of labeling in order to protect the right of consumers to avoid such foods.

Achieving the latter two objectives requires an action at law, since current U.S. Food and Drug Administration policy exempts genetically altered foods from the testing required of new food additives and also permits these foods to be marketed without identifying labels. Although respected groups such as Consumers Union, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Environmental Defense Fund have strongly criticized this policy as scientifically flawed and unsound in several other respects as well, the FDA staunchly refuses to revise it. Accordingly, the Alliance has organized an unprecedented plaintiff group to bring a lawsuit against the FDA to effect the necessary changes. The plaintiffs include eminent scientists, public interest organizations, and people from diverse faiths who reject genetically altered foods on the basis of religious principle. The suit was filed May 27, 1998 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. and is being managed by the legal department of the International Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, which shares the Alliance’s concerns about genetic engineering and has an impressive record in public interest litigation.

The Alliance welcomes (and depends on) donations. It is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization to which contributions are tax deductible. Your gift will help uphold bio-integrity. Please mail your donation to:

Alliance for Bio-Integrity P.O. Box 110 Iowa City, IA 52244

Send us e-mail: [email protected]

Top

The World Trade Organization:
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.***********************************

Top

One species’ gain is another species’ loss.
Human progress at animals’ expense?

Consumer Fears Shape the Debate
In Europe, Green campaign shakes trans-Atlantic trade

LINCOLN, England — In the conflict over the future of food, this rural corner of Britain is where you can see the battle close up. On the one side: agri-business, genetic engineers and bio-science corporations, inspired with a vision to revolutionize farming with a new green revolution of cunningly engineered crops. On the other: consumers, supermarkets and an equally visionary group of organic farmers who are discovering that there is money to be made catering to a public clamor for “real” food.

THE BATTLE BETWEEN the two sides has already seen a huge shift in consumer behavior and it is threatening to escalate with implications for world trade. Here’s the surprise: so far, the greens are winning.

They are fighting in the supermarkets, they are fighting in Parliament, they are fighting in the courts and they are fighting here in Lincolnshire’s potato fields. This arable coastal plain in an eastern corner of Britain, England’s answer to Idaho, is where the future of food was supposed to unfold. Here, a new generation of high yielding, disease- and pest-resistant genetically modified (GM) crops was to point the way to a millennial agriculture.

HIGH HOPES, HIGH ANXIETY

For Prime Minister Tony Blair, “GM food” was going to be the next big thing after computers. Amazing developments were foretold — crops with built-in resistance to herbicides, crops with genetic protection against disease, crops that yield better and that grow better in conditions that are more demanding. This was how the world would feed itself, it was claimed. After winning the 1997 election, Blair appointed a minister for biotech, denounced nascent anti-GM “hysteria,” and promised to issue the necessary experimental licenses.

Two years later, nothing has gone to plan. England’s arable belt from Northumberland to Norfolk — with Lincolnshire in the middle — has become a fiercely contested battleground in a collision of science, agribusiness, consumerism and pressure group politics. The combatants on the side of the greens include Prince Charles, who has promised that no GM food will pass his lips, and Sir Paul McCartney, whose late wife Linda was an outspoken vegetarian. With the support of large sections of the media, including the powerful Daily Mail newspaper, which has launched its own bare-knuckled campaign against “Frankenstein” foods, they appear to have the public with them.

THE BATTLE OF LINCOLNSHIRE

To observe this battle, I drive over flat fields recently emptied of potatoes, hay and rape seed oil and drop by the farm of David Carmichael, who wants to plant genetically modified crops. Carmichael says the clamor against GM is anti-scientific nonsense and points out that humans have been breeding plants for thousands of years. He says he intends to press ahead with GM crops because “I’m bloody minded” — and also he says because he is determined that scientific results should speak louder than “unfounded and hysterical objections that have no basis whatsoever.”

On the other side of the fence it is a different story. Farmer Dave Leech, in the office of his own potato farm, makes a case of his own. “Once released into the fields, genetically-modified organisms can cross-pollinate with natural species, changing them forever,” he says. Widespread growing of genetic crops would make it impossible for him to retain the organic certification of his own farm, which has been painstakingly converted to this form of agriculture.

Organic farming is profitable because of strong consumer demand, but it takes several difficult years for a farm to become officially organic — free of herbicide and pesticide use and limited to growing crops that do not contain genetically modified organisms. Whatever the rights and wrongs of GM organisms, says Leech, widespread GM farming would deprive him of his chosen way of farming, a way of farming that is both environmentally sound and commercially successful.

GENTLEMEN FARMERS

Carmichael and Leech are level-headed men who continue to speak with civility of one another, but the battle between the points of view represented by the two farmers has a potential for violence. A new round of experimental GM plantings provisionally authorized by government ministers has the potential to lead to civil disturbances at a time that the countryside is already unsettled over a general farming crisis and moves (driven by animal rights activists) to outlaw foxhunting. In Lincolnshire, police fear the county could tip into serious disorder as saboteurs attack experimental GM fields and police are called upon to stop them. Says Richard Childs, the chief constable of Lincolnshire: “I can’t guarantee that these fields are going to be safe.”

For the introduction of GM foods, the timing could not have been worse. British consumers are hypersensitive about their food following the BSE scare, in which many of Britain’s cattle herds were revealed to be suffering from an incurable brain disease that appeared to be transmissible to humans. The pleas of most scientists that the dangers to humans are statistically insignificant have fallen on unresponsive ears. Even the GM industry concedes that they are losing the argument.

In the shopping centers around Britain, all of the major supermarkets have declared themselves GM free, or working to get there. In Brussels, Belgium, Greenpeace is demanding a total Europe-wide ban on genetic modifications in both human food and animal feed.

Meanwhile, British fears over GM are transmitting themselves to consumers in continental Europe and even to the United States and Australia. The U.S. disputes with the European Union over bananas and beef pale into sideshows compared to the problem of biotech. “Biotech will make bananas look like peanuts,” observes an official of the World Trade Organization, requesting anonymity. And indeed the issue was expected to arise at the WTO summit in Seattle, where agriculture in general would be the hottest debate.

The strength of public opinion caught politicians and the GM companies by surprise. At first, they attempted to dismiss the protestors as crackpots. This quickly proved a serious underestimation, as the “crackpots” have proved resilient and well organized. Next, Monsanto Co., the St Louis-based biotech giant, tried a robust advertising campaign to confront its critics. It backfired badly.

“Monsanto has just made things a lot worse,” said one competitor, who blamed the Americans for riling European consumers. Monsanto, meanwhile, seemed bemused: Genetic modifications had been introduced without any real murmur in the United States, so why were the British being so difficult?

In part, at least, because this is a country that has lost much of its faith in experts. After the disasters of salmonella in eggs, BSE in beef and even E. coli in apple juice, consumers are readily willing to believe that food really was better before the scientists became involved. The subsequent PR battle has been one-sided. The BBC recently turned over much of its most popular and longest-running radio soap opera, “The Archers,” to the story of an idealistic young organic farmer arrested for destroying a GM crop which he feared would cross-pollinate his own natural crops, destroying forever a delicate ecosystem. The jury returned a verdict of innocent — accepting the defendant’s pleas that he was acting to protect his own farm from danger.

“It’s scientific rubbish but it’s not been any help,” says a spokesman for AgrEvo, a major European seed producer anxious to push ahead with field trials.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace have flooded the streets with canvassers, distributing hundreds of thousands of tightly designed and edited pamphlets, backed up with a Web page.

Lord Melchett, the media-friendly head of Greenpeace UK, claims 81 percent public approval for its campaign against GM food. Melchett is one of two dozen anti-GM protestors currently on bail charged with leading a criminal damage attack on a GM crop.

The publicity from this case has been worth millions to Greenpeace and the fear of the GM industry is that — as on “The Archers” — no jury will convict him, after which it becomes an open season on GM crops. They have asked if future crop trials can be held in secret, although that seems a far-fetched idea.

BUSINESS EQUALS RISK

The question now becomes whether the industry dares to go ahead with its series of new and highly controversial field trials, each of which is likely to bring down an organized attack from militant GM protesters and the certainty of many arrests and more politically exploited court trials.

For the moment, a legal technicality has halted the latest planned plantings in Lincolnshire but the prospect that any of them will proceed without a major incident is fading. Monsanto recently appeared to be calling for a cessation of hostilities, when it called on the organic industry to discuss possible joint projects in the natural breeding of plants. The idea received a cautious welcome from Britain’s powerful Soil Association, which accredits organic produce, but both sides remain highly wary of one another.

“The reaction against GM food is bad news, even for those who would no sooner eat a Big Mac than a manure burger,” complained The Times of London, one of the few papers that has openly pressed the case for GM. Douglas Hurd, a former Tory cabinet minister, called the crop wreckers on trial “Luddites” after the rebels who smashed machines during Britain’s industrial revolution. Genetic scientists plead in vain that their discoveries will bring great environmental benefits, but they are hardly believed.

“What would you rather eat: Food that’s been engineered by mad scientists or food that is natural? In PR terms, the contest is not equal,” admitted one despondent GM industry spokesman.

In the marketplace, the consumers are not in doubt. At the GM-free Asda supermarket in Grantham (part of the British chain recently acquired by Wal-Mart), a mother paying 79p (roughly $1.20) for a cucumber that in non-organic form cost 49p (75 cents) explained: “I like to buy the organic cucumbers because I just think they are more natural.” Organic sections in Asda and all other British supermarkets are expanding rapidly, limited only by the supply of organic foods.

In desperation, the GM industry has privately tried to tell people that organic food may not be the panacea some believe. “Wait until someone gets hit with E. coli after eating some animal dung-fertilized organic lettuce,” one GM man sneered. But until that happens, the revolt against GM and rush to adopt organic methods looks unstoppable.

Normally, the advice of the British on what to eat may not seem immediately compelling. This is the country whose most famous contribution to world cuisine is the chip. On current trends, the British chip of the 21st century will still be greasy, but it will likely be GM free.

Jonathan Miller reported for MSNBC.com from London.

Top

Besides, alcohol is not even vegetarian!
It Ain’t Just for Meat; It’s for Lotion
The Dairy Cows — Life, Usage, and Sufferings
Submitted by Pravin K. Shah — Raleigh, NC
Based on an article in New York Times – By J. Peder Zane – May 12, 1996

An average cow at slaughter weighs 1,150 pounds. It weighs 714 pounds once the head, hooves, hide, and intestines are removed. The remaining carcass yields about 568 pounds of beef and 49 pounds of organs and gland, some of which – like the liver – make their way to the dinner table. The rest is mostly fat and bone, and turns up in everything from floor wax to pet food.

According to the Agriculture Department, ranchers were getting about $632 per head (cattle) last week, while meat packers, who butcher the animals, were getting about $644 for the meat and $101 for the byproduct

Chopping sheep brains… That’s what made the British cows mad, and could have killed the Englishmen who ate them, scientists believe.

While American farmers and ranchers assure the public that no sheep passes their Elsles’ lips, some folks might be surprised at what American livestock, swine and poultry are fatted upon. Besides corn, soy or other grains, their diets often include heaping helpings of dried blood, pulverized feathers, crushed bone, leftover french fry grease from fast-food joints and meat meal — which may include mashed pancreas, kidney and heart, and those parts that even packers, wouldn’t dare shove into luncheon meats or head cheese.

Cannibalism down on the farm? You betcha… Baby chick is growing strong and healthy on what’s left from mom after she’s been shipped off as atomic wings, drumsticks and boned breasts.

“We use everything but the squeal, the cluck and the moo,” says Dr. Raymond L. Burns, coordinator of the alternative uses program for the Kansas Department of Agriculture in Topeka.

Welcome to the world of offal, rendering and carcasses, an industry that gives a new meaning to the phrase “You are what you eat.”

It asks:

Once you have carved away the T-bone steaks and London broils, the pork chops and sides of Canadian bacon, the leg and the rack of lamb, what to do with the rest? With the hearts, kidneys and pituitary glands? The horns, hoofs, toenails, skulls and intestines? How about the “paunch material” — undigested stomach contents?

Answer:

More than you can imagine. The abattoir’s detritus is used in a dizzying array of products, including life-saving medicines, life-enhancing beauty aids, soaps, candy, clothing, upholstery, shoes and sporting goods. Not to mention crayons, floor waxes, antifreeze, matches, cellophane, linoleum, cement, photographic paper and weed killers.

For while the renewed outbreak of mad cow disease in Britain led to no small panic as humanity imagined a world without Big Macs or Quarter Pounders, the fact is, the doomsday scenario is much worse. “Take away cows or pigs and you change life as we know it,” half-kids Dr. Jerry Breiter, vice president of allied products for the American Meat Institute, a trade association.

Although mad cow disease is not a threat to the United States cattle industry, there are other concerns. Persistent problems are E. coli bacteria — which killed three children in 1993 who ate undercooked hamburgers at Jack In The Box restaurants — and salmonella contamination afflict many thousands of Americans a year.

And, there are ever-present ethical questions, even for those who do not think meat is murder. The industry’s cold-eyed view of animals as products to be optimally exploited is no doubt disquieting to many people. It’s worth keeping in mind, however, that no animals are slaughtered just to make floor wax or lipstick — 80 to 90 percent of a cow or pig’s value is in the meat people eat. And, as cattle prices have slid to their lowest levels in a decade, prompting President Clinton to try to shore up beef prices last week, meat packers are all the more concerned with squeezing out every penny.

“Selling the byproducts means the difference between profit and loss for the industry, and affordable and unaffordable meat for the consumer,” says Dr. Breiter.

Dr. Bums adds: “If we didn’t develop markets for these products, we would have to dispose of them, which would create a different set of problems.”

Still, visiting a modern meat-packing operation can inspire awe as well as a new appreciation for vegetarianism — just as more people would probably cook at home if they could peer into the kitchen of their favorite bistro.

On an average day in America following animals/birds are killed:

130,000 cattle, 7,000 calves, 360,000 hogs, and

24,000,000 chickens

Modern slaughterhouses are part assembly line, part chop shop. An efficient plant processes 250 cows an hour, 16 hours a day, breaking them into dozens of parts as the carcass flow down the line on steel hooks.

First, the cows are led up a ramp. Their heads are placed in a holder and they are zapped unconscious. A worker, called the “sticker,” plunges a sharp blade into the animal’s jugular vein. As the cow dies, the spurting blood is collected in a trough; later it is baked to a dark red powder that is protein-rich animal feed.

Next the hooves are removed and the hide is stripped for sale as leather and suede (if the cow is pregnant, the unborn calf’s hide is stripped to make the top grade of leather, called slunk). Then the head is sliced off, the chest split open and the internal organs removed.

The organs — called offal — are sent to the offal room and placed on something akin to a conveyor belt, where workers in splattered smocks segregate the parts: one group collects stomach linings, another lungs. Other workers remove hearts, pancreases or thyroids. Most of the bones and hooves are rendered — that is, baked to make bone meal, a fertilizer and high-protein animal feed; the rest are sold, primarily to manufacturers of collagen, gelatin and pet toys.

A parallel process operates in the “fabrication area” where workers carve away the edible meats — the round, the top round, the loin, strip steaks, rib, chuck. Like car parts, each piece of the animal has its own price and market. Cow lips, which sell for 58 cents a pound, for the most part are shipped to Mexico, where they are shredded, spiced, grilled and used for taco filling.

Many cow hearts, 27 cents a pound, are exported to Russia to make sausage. Much of the meat from the cow’s cheek, 55 cents a pound, is sold to American meat processors for sausage and baloney. Of course, many of these “varietal meats” are sold to pet-food companies, which prefer to buy the separated parts.

Fetal blood from cows (roughly $40 to $50 a quart) remains an important tool for the development of drugs and medical research.

Other medications — and markets — are made by extracting hormones and other compounds from the cow’s glands. The pituitary glands ($19.50 a pound) are collected to make medicines that control blood pressure and heart rate. Twenty different steroids are made from fluids pulled from the adrenal glands ($2.85 a pound). The lungs (6 cents a pound) go into Heparin, an anti-coagulant. And the pancreas (63 cents a pound) is still a source of insulin for diabetics allergic to the synthetic kind; it takes about 26 cows to maintain one diabetic for a year.

The highest price is fetched by the most dubious product: cattle gallstones, which are sold for $800 an ounce to merchants in the Far East who peddle them as an aphrodisiac.

It is no small paradox that much of the excess gristle and fat is sold to companies that promise to make people beautiful. Lipstick, makeup bases, eyeliners, eyebrow pencils, hair rinses and bubble baths wouldn’t be the same without fat-derived tongue twisters like butyl stearate, glycol stearate and PEG-150 distearate.

Collagen, a protein extracted from the hides, hooves and bones, is the key ingredient in age-defying moisturizers and lotions; dermatologists inject it into people’s faces to fill out crow’s feet and laugh lines. It is also used to make breast implants and as a medium in which cells can be grown.

Soaps are made mostly from animal fats. Indeed, the word soap is said to derive from Mount Sapo, a prime spot for animal sacrifice in ancient Rome. The locals who washed their tunics in the nearby valley streams noticed that the runoff of animal fat and ashes made their whites whiter and their colors brighter…

During the last 30 years, fewer Americans have had the hankering to dine on cow brains, pig’s feet and bull testicles. But our appetite for hooves — which are used to make gelatin, is insatiable. An odorless, tasteless protein, gelatin is used in hundreds of products including Gummy Bears, ice cream, hard candies and, of course, Jell-O. It is also the secret behind many “fat free” products. “Gelatin gives the creamy mouth feel people want without the calories,” says John Barrows, manager of marketing communications for Nabisco Inc.

A back-to-nature movement among pet lovers has treated another expanding market for animal by products. Squeaky plastic toys are giving way to knuckle joints and beef tendons, ox tails and toenails, chew hooves and 10-pound mammoth bones taken from cows’ thighs.

Which leaves one question. What do they do with the undigested paunch material? Until now, not much. But Dr. Bums of the Kansas Department of Agriculture says, there’s an exciting development just around the corner. “I can’t spill the beans just yet,” he says. “But pretty soon we’ll announce for a new process for converting it back into animal feed.”

Cows’ Body Parts, Common Usage, and Sale Prices

Body Part Price $/Lb. Common Usage Bones 0.42 Gelatin, Collagen, Bone meals Tallow (fat) 0.19 Cosmetics, Candles, Soap, Floor wax Ovaries 7.50 Medication to regulate menstruation Hide 0.75 Footwear, Upholstery, and Cloths Hooves & Horn 0.42 Gelatin and Collagen Kidney 0.17 Human consumption and Pet food Thyroid 2.00 Medicines Trachea 0.20 Pet food Lungs 0.06 Heparin, an anti-coagulant Pancreas 0.63 Insulin and Pet food Adrenal gland 2.85 Source of 20 steroids Spleen 0.12 Human consumption Femur 0.42 Bones for fogs Intestines 0.21 Human consumption Stomach lining 0.41 Human consumption Heart 0.27 Sausage Lips 0.58 Taco filling Cheek 0.55 Sausage and Baloney Dried blood 4.40 High protein animal feed, Drug research Liver 0.43 Human consumption, Vitamin B12, Heparin Tail 1.39 Human consumption Pituitary gland 19.50 Medicines-blood pressure, heart rate

Gallstones 600.00/oz Jewelry and Aphrodisiac

Top

The Fur-Free Friday
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.

Top

Time Magazine’s
“MAN OF THE CENTURY”
Vegetarian advocate and theoretical physicist
ALBERT EINSTEIN

“Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a VEGETARIAN DIET.” — Albert Einstein

“There will come a day when men such as myself will view the SLAUGHTER of innocent creatures as horrible a crime as the MURDER of his fellow man.” — Albert Einstein

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” — Albert Einstein

“Our task must be to free ourselves…by widening our circle of COMPASSION to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty” — Albert Einstein

“Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.” — Albert Einstein

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” — Albert Einstein

“Try not to become a person of success, but try instead to become a person of value.” — Albert Einstein

“In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.” — Albert Einstein

Imprisoned Without Trial
by Manish Vipani

Most of us know that we do to animals what we would never do to people. We understand that people have certain rights that keep them from being eaten, worn, or experimented on by other people.

In 1904, the Bronx Zoo displayed a Congolese Pygmy in a cage with a Orangutan. He spoke no English and no one spoke his language. He eventually committed suicide. Do we have the right to imprison other beings simply because we would not see them otherwise?

Zoos are a major cause of extinction by being the major purchasers of endangered species. Up to 10 animals die from capture and transportation for each one purchased. These animals loose their survival techniques over a period of time and any attempts made to reintroduce them into the wild are dismal failures.

Zoos are unnatural, depriving, often filthy, overcrowded, dismal, monotonous, cramped, and hopelessly depressing to the imprisoned animals. They destroy the animal’s natural zest for life. Boredom causes inmates to become psychotic and neurotic. Zoo animals are so depressed that they rarely breed or care for young born in captivity.

The popular view is that zoos are educational. But what they really teach us is how cruel and inhumane humans can be to animals.

Many people suffer from illusions about effects of alcohol. And they think they know!
Medical science has conclusive evidence to show that these beliefs are baseless.

Here are some illusions — and their reality :

Illusion — Alcohol warms you up on a cold night.

Reality — Alcohol by dilating blood vessels produces false sense of warmth but in reality impairs regulatory mechanisms and makes you more prone to catching cold.

Illusion — Alcohol sharpens appetite.

Reality — Alcohol in fact reduces appetite and desire for essential food-stuffs and thus leads to malnutrition.

Illusion — Moderate intake of Alcohol is not harmful.

Reality — The development of Liver disease is not proportional to amount of alcohol ingested; even small intake of alcohol can lead to cirrhosis.

Illusion — Alcohol increases sexual pleasures and performance.

Reality — Alcohol decreases inhibitions and increases the desire. It leads to decreased levels of male hormone thereby leading to decreased sexual pleasure and performance.

Issued by: Information and Mass Education Division
Ministry of Social Welfare

Top

January – June