Summer 2005

    Issue: Summer 2005

    Table of Contents

    • CheersTo the West Hollywood City Council, for their legislation to expand an existing ban on the declawing of cats. A city attorney has been asked to draw up a bill which would ban other elective animal surgeries, including tail docking, ear cropping, defanging and debarking. (See related “Jeers” item below).To vegetarian actor Minnie Driver, for her criticism of celebrities who don’t stick to their professed animal rights convictions. “What really gets me are all these supermodels who said they’d never wear fur and then did. To me, that’s so incredibly shallow and there’s just no excuse. You just think: ‘How could they?’” In an interview on the “Ireland on-line” Web site, Driver unequivocally stated, “I’ll never wear fur. That’s all I can say. It’s like being a vegetarian. It’s a life choice.”To the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, for their successful campaign in Chile, which led to a new prohibition on the capture or display of sea lions, sea turtles, dolphins and other cetaceans. Since 1999, Chile has denied capture permits for dolphins. This has now become official policy. The ban also prohibits the holding or export of these animals.To the Anonymous for Animal Rights, for their work in Tel Aviv, Israel, to expand a ban on the use of “wild” animals in circuses to include the use of all animal acts. According to the Web site of the European Vegetarian and Animal News Agency, “The mayor of Tel-Aviv, Ron Huldai, instructed the municipality to avoid any future contracts with circuses that use animals of any sort in their shows.”JeersTo the California Veterinary Medical Association, for filing a lawsuit to rescind a ban on the declawing of cats in West Hollywood. This unnecessary and painful amputation was prohibited in 2003. CVMA seeks to invalidate the law and to prevent a proposed ban on other unnecessary surgeries and amputations from being passed.Dr. Jon Klingborg, President California Veterinary Medical Association1400 River Park Drive, Suite 100Sacramento, CA 95815Telephone 916-649-0599Fax: 916-646-9156Email: staff@cvma.netTo Jenifer Lopez, for her “Sweetface” clothing line, which includes mink and fox fur coats. The furs are produced through Saga furs. Charlie Ross of Saga told FashionGates.com, “Sweetface is a luxury label and Jennifer wanted her furs. She told me her favorite piece is a bleached silver fox coat with strips of the fox stitched on to a chiffon back.”ShopJLO.com80 Enterprise AvenueSouth Secaucus, NJ 07094Telephone: 1 866-535-1796Fax: 201-617-8686Web site email: http://www.shopjlo.com/contactus.phpTo AAA, for promoting New Jersey’s Cowtown Rodeo in the March/April edition of their publication AAA World. The article, “Ride ’Em Cowboy!” glorifies one of the three PCRA sanctioned weekly rodeos held in the United States.Al Wall, PresidentAAA 2040 Market StreetPhiladelphia PA 19103Telephone: 1-800-763-9900To the American Association of Retired People, for their promotion of ostrich races. In the March/April edition of their publication, the organization promoted the annual Ostrich Festival, which is held in Arizona. The ostriches are not only exploited for entertainment purposes. The article concludes with the recommendation, “And what bird-watching weekend is complete without hors d’oeuvres like ostrich jerky?”The Mail AARP The Magazine601 E Street NWWashington, DC 20049Email: aarpmagazine@aarp.org

    • “What kind of life a dog … acquires. I have sometimes tried to imagine by kneeling or lying full length on the ground and looking up. The world then becomes strangely incomplete; one sees little but legs.” – E.V. Lucas Dog licensing began in England in 1796. Ostensibly enacted to prevent the spread of rabies, the practice it represented, to the English government, an additional measure of revenue. It also emerged from an interest in limiting the custom of petkeeping to the privileged classes.2The cause of rabies eluded the scientific minds of the day, but as licensing provided some measure of control over the dog population, it also gave the appearance of controlling the disease.3 In addition to being vaguely associated with disease, dogs who lived among the lower economic class were considered dangerous, ill-bred, undisciplined, and conniving.4 Sometimes roaming the streets in search of food, these dogs were subject to pulling carts in return for being fed. And they were exploited for entertainment value, in dogfights. 5The animal welfare and protection movement emerged in the early 19th century, as an outgrowth of humanitarianism. Although it sought to protect animals from wanton cruelty, it accepted — indeed promoted — human domination over all other animals.6 An elite form of philanthropy, it was lax in condemning maltreatment of animals when it perpetrated by the same people who donated to the cause. Some of the most esteemed members of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were fox hunters.7 The RSPCA turned a blind eye to the customs of the well-heeled, including the docking of tails and the cropping of ears of show dogs.8 The group supports only minimal regulation of vivisection. 9Yet the RSPCA actively prosecuted animal cruelty when it was committed by the economically disadvantaged, and rewarded police officers who arrested or reported offenders. 10 RSPCA records include many cases of offenders who were sentenced to jail because they could not pay a fine. 11 Whenever a case of rabies caused alarm, unlicensed dogs could be tracked down and killed. 12In the 20th century, the rabies vaccine became widely available. Once people from all walks of life could have their dogs vaccinated, whether or not they were licensed, canine rabies ceased to be a serious threat to human populations.13By then, dog breeding had become a common custom and a profitable industry. And as the pet population soared, the cost of monitoring millions of dogs surpassed the licensing revenue. Enforcement waned, and the rules were largely disregarded.14 Citing non-compliance and the exorbitant cost of enforcement, the British Parliament abolished dog licensing in 1987.15But other jurisdictions reacted in the opposite way. In New York State, for example — where only ten percent of dogs are licensed16 — animal welfare groups have prompted lawmakers to increase the licensing fee, enforce the rules, and designate some of the revenue to animal care and control.My Day in CourtLate one night in 2001, I walked with my dogs along a quiet side street of New York City. Suddenly I was stopped by police in a patrol car, who wanted to know if my dogs were licensed. Startled, I said no. The officers asked for my identification, and began writing citations.I expected two tickets — one for each dog. I got three tickets for each dog. One because I admitted that my dogs weren’t licensed; one because they assumed that my dogs were not wearing vaccination tags; and one because I wasn’t carrying licensing papers.Sensing my distress, no doubt, the dogs tried to pull me away from the patrol car. The police could see that the dogs were nearly knocking me down; yet, duly fulfilling their role to save animals from my criminal irresponsibility, they kept writing. I sent for the licensing tags and papers on the following day.But before the papers arrived, the dogs and I were stopped one morning by another group of police. I explained that I had submitted my paperwork, that I already received six tickets, and that my dogs were spayed, neutered, and vaccinated, as mandated through the licensing. The police wrote out three new tickets. Licensing violations are covered by the Health Code of New York City, and each violation currently incurs a fine ranging from $100 to $2,000.17When the dogs’ papers arrived, I copied them and sent them to the court. I carried them with me on walks. I was not absolved. Within a few weeks, the police came to my door. I should go with them to court, they commanded, because “if we picked you up on the street, you’d be taken to the ‘Tombs.’” Intimidated by the threat of jail, I went with them.I sat up front to see and hear the proceedings. And as I waited for my turn before the judge, it occurred to me that every person charged with a dog licensing violation was either African American or Latino.18The judge looked up from my paperwork, and dismissed the charges. One of the officers who took me to court handed me a card, telling me to show it to anyone who stopped me with the dogs. I put the card in my pocket, and took the subway home.The police came to my apartment on three more occasions, each time unannounced. They must have told the lobby guard not to alert me. On their most recent visit, at four-thirty in the morning, they showed me a Warrant of Arrest printed in brown archaic letters, a half-circle at the top of the page. Mysteriously, they listed a tenth misdemeanor. I scrambled for the card I had put in my pocket, and gathered the papers to show them. They left.Enforcement as Social ControlIn early 2001, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) spearheaded the promotion of the Dog Enumeration Bill,19 which augmented licensing fees and enforcement. Already, New York City laws subject residents to substantial fines, and as I found out, law enforcement officers can cite multiple provisions when they make a stop.Also notable are the state law provisions; state law would subject a second-time offender to 15 days in jail.20 If the enforcement officers seize a dog for licensing infraction pursuant to the state laws of New York, and the owner doesn’t pay a fee to get the dog back, the owner’s title is forfeited, and the dog can be adopted out, or turned over to the police for training as a guard dog, or killed.21While the Dog Enumeration Bill was vaunted as a means to increase the availability of low-cost neutering, little was said about its harsher effects. The animal welfare community’s support for the bill became a media event, with an appearance by Mary Tyler Moore and “celebrity dog ‘Rags’ from ABC’s Spin City.”22Legislative priorities changed drastically in late 2001, and by 2002 the Dog Enumeration Bill was out of the spotlight. Whenever such bills are promoted, however, they raise questions that an educated and nuanced animal rights movement would take seriously. When activists press for more punishment, are we really asking for more control over certain segments of society?That we might be doing so in this context was evident in the 19th century, and it remains in evidence today. Historically, animal protection and control has villainized people of relatively low income and the dogs who lived among them. And, at least in the courtrooms of New York, low income is closely related to perceived racial or ethnic categories.FootnotesEllie Maldonado is an animal advocate living in New York City. After writing this article, Ellie joined Friends of Animals and now can be reached at our New York office, through emaldonado@friendsofanimals.org. Lee Hall contributed to this article.Harriet Ritvo, The Animal Estate (1987) at 90, 188 [hereinafter “The Animal Estate”].See The Animal Estate at 189. The dog tax could do little to control rabies, as it was enacted before Louis Pasteur created the a rabies vaccine for dogs or demonstrated the first successful vaccination in humans — in 1884 and 1885, respectively.See The Animal Estate at 91-93; 177; 179; 183.See The Animal Estate at 150, 155 (stating that “some people of great local prestige abetted and encouraged the organizers of animal combats”).It also perpetuated ideas associated with social hierarchy by associating cruelty and immorality with low-income groups, who were perceived as dangerous people to be suppressed. See The Animal Estate at 130, 132, 176.See The Animal Estate at 134.See The Animal Estate at 134.See The Animal Estate at 157.See The Animal Estate at 147 (”The society also encouraged the regular police to watch out for cruelty to animals by presenting ‘suitable rewards’ to constables who arrested and reported. Such rewards might be handed directly to the exemplary officers…”).See The Animal Estate at 137 (explaining that the annual RSPCA reports are full of offenders who were jailed for fines that the moderately prosperous could easily afford).See The Animal Estate at 176.According to the Bureau of Communicable Diseases at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, there have been no human cases of rabies in New York City for more than 50 years.Indeed, they had already long been disregarded by the wealthy. See The Animal Estate at 189, stating that evidence from 1877 suggests that fewer than 40 percent of British dogs at that time were registered, and that those “in good position of life” neglected the rules “because their prosperous and respectable appearance guaranteed that the police would never ask to examine them…”House of Commons Library, British Parliament.New York State’s Department of Agriculture & Markets Dog Licensing Unit reports 639,006 dogs registered in the state. As the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals indicates that state-wide compliance with dog licensing is estimated at approximately 10%, there are approximately 6,390,060 dogs in New York State — 5,751,054 unlicensed.New York City Health Code § 11.66 states that a violation of the rabies law is punishable by a fine of from $100 to $2,000. New York City Health Code § 161.04 states that any violations of the licensing requirements are punishable by a fine of from $100 to $2,000.Figures issued in 2004 by New York City’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene show that four out of five dogs in the City are unlicensed; non-compliance necessarily includes a variety of economic and ethnic groups.A.8382/S.4910, promoted as a measure to enforcing dog licensing and simultaneously expand the Animal Population Control Fund to make low-cost spay/neuter services available to low-income residents.Current New York law states that “where a person was found to have two or more such violations within the preceding five years, it shall be punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars and not more than two hundred dollars or imprisonment for not more than fifteen days; or both… ” New York Agriculture and Markets Law, Art. 7, § 119 (“Violations”).Adoption and killing are both codified under New York Agriculture and Markets Law, Art. 7, § 118 (“Seizure of dogs; redemption periods; impoundment fees; adoption”). Additionally, New York General Municipal Law § 88 (“Disposition of stray or unwanted dogs by municipality”) provides that a municipality may, as it sees fit to enact a local law or ordinance, give stray or unwanted dogs to an agency that trains seeing-eye dogs or to a police department which trains dogs as guards. These agencies can requisition dogs that are awaiting destruction after five days of holding at the poundASPCA Press Release, “Proposed Legislation and Licensing Could Save Millions of Animals in New York State: ASPCA spearheads bill known as the Dog Enumeration Bill” (14 May 2001). 

    • Update July 2006:Since this article was originally published, Whole Foods Market announced that, as of 16 July 2006, the company would no longer sell live lobsters. Ending lobster sales is something no animal advocate would oppose; yet it's good to be aware of the context. Live lobsters don't sell well at many groceries, and whether they are stocked is normally a business decision. Whole Foods Market will continue to sell frozen lobster and crab flesh. Moreover, Whole Foods has left the future open to the possibility that all phases of the supply chain could be made humane. We might read that to mean that lobsters could be a big seller in some region where Whole Foods opens, and the corporation wants to keep its options open. We could not read it as an animal rights statement.Update Summer 2007: Just as we expected, Whole Foods Market’s lobster moratorium did not last. This year, 2007, Whole Foods opened a branch in Portland, Maine — taking over a smaller organic food shop, a common tactic for this chain — and resumed selling lobsters. Some tourists visit Maine primarily to eat lobsters, so there’s a lucrative market there. For more on this, visit our Summer 2007 issue of ActionLine. The Road from Wall Street to Takoma ParkThe latest in the array of offerings for the well-heeled consumer is the brand of “Animal Compassion.” Whole Foods Market, the upscale grocery chain known for organic and additive-free foods, recently introduced a new foundation, designed “to assist and inspire ranchers and meat producers around the world to achieve a higher standard of animal welfare excellence while maintaining economic viability.”[fn]Whole Foods Market press release, “Whole Foods Market Establishes Foundation to Help Achieve More Compassionate Treatment of Animals” (14 Dec. 2004) (stating: “The success of the Animal Compassion Foundation will be measured by feedback from livestock producers.”).[/fn]At once, the marketing idea caught the attention of Wall Street. Whole Foods hit a record high in January, the day it announced the hiring of a director for Animal Compassion standards. [fn]Paul Tharp, “Whole Foods Kills Them Softly” – New York Post (19 Jan. 2005). Whole Foods shares rose 2.7 percent to $97.50 as director Anne Malleau said, “The creation of the Animal Compassion Foundation offers a brighter future for farm animals.”[/fn] As one reporter phrased it, “Analysts said the plan to sell more humanely harvested steaks and chicken breasts will help the bottom line of the chain.” [fn]Ibid.[/fn] And a Newsweek story carried the caption, “Healthy Foods, Healthy Sales: The success of Whole Foods proves people will pay a premium for wild-caught salmon, pasture-fed beef and other high-end offerings.” [fn]Daniel McGinn, “The Green Machine,” Newsweek (21 Mar. 2005).[/fn]Shoppers flocked to their local branches on the company’s twenty-fifth anniversary in January. Heralded with posters depicting the silhouettes of a cow, pig, and chicken, and designated “First Global Five Percent Day,” the last Tuesday in January represented the investment of $550,000 out of the company’s global receipts and into the new Foundation.[fn]Whole Foods Market (Animal Compassion Foundation) press release, “Whole Foods Market to Donate More than $550,000 to Seed Creation of Animal Compassion Foundation” (26 Jan. 2005).[/fn]In response, Friends of Animals representatives distributed information at five Whole Foods locations, including its flagship branch at New York City’s Columbus Circle. We asked shoppers to reconsider the idea of funding a concept that will promote animal research and the unveiling of yet another line of animal products.Whole Foods Market reacted by electronically circulating a press statement headed “Animal Rights Groups Express Support for Animal Compassion Foundation.” The supportive letter, endorsed by 17 animal welfare organizations, was signed by Peter Singer, president of New Jersey-based Animal Rights International. [fn]Letter from Peter Singer, president of Animal Rights International, to John Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods Market, 24 Jan. 2004; a copy of the original letter is available at http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company/pr_01-24-05.pdf. Signatories included Animal Protection Institute (API); Association of Vets for Animal Rights (AVAR); Christian Vegetarian Association; Doris Day Animal League; Farm Sanctuary; Mercy for Animals; and Vegan Outreach. These groups had already begun supporting the corporation’s move more than a year in advance. Whole Foods Market press release, “Whole Foods Market Establishes Foundation to Help Achieve More Compassionate Treatment of Animals” (14 Dec. 2004). Attending meetings with Whole Foods in December 2003 were representatives from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Vegetarian International Voice for Animals! — USA (Viva! USA), Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), and Animal Rights International (ARI). Talks also involved animal welfare scientists Ian Duncan of the University of Guelph and Renee Bergeron of the University of Laval, as well as Steritech, a third-party auditing company.[/fn]And Whole Foods CEO John Mackey wrote to Friends of Animals president Priscilla Feral to defend the foundation. [fn]E-mail from John Mackey to Priscilla Feral regarding Whole Foods’ launch of the Animal Compassion Foundation (19 Jan. 2005), posted on the Friends of Animals Web site under the Jan. 2005 news index.[/fn] In an open letter, Feral replied to Mackey, “What matters most here is that we have the ability to decide whether to keep bringing other animals into existence simply to be sold as food, while using up land and water resources that could be left to animals who really could have free and full lives.”Whole Foods Market’s Animal Compassion Foundation is working with animal welfare groups to “create the ideal environments and conditions” to support “every animal’s” needs. [fn]Whole Foods Market press release, “Whole Foods Market Establishes Foundation to Help Achieve More Compassionate Treatment of Animals” (14 Dec. 2004).[/fn] It’s an odd project to contemplate. Those curious about the treatment standards currently recommended for the live lobsters sold by Whole Foods can check the company’s Web site for this tip: “One tried-and-true method of cooking lobster is by boiling it, which we love because it’s a cinch.” [fn]“Whole Foods Market Recipes: Lobster,” available at www.wholefoodsmarket.com/recipes/lobster.html (visited 23 Mar. 2005). 10 See Prof. Duncanrsquo;s résumé, currently available electronically at www.aps.uoguelph.ca/duncan.htm.[/fn]The Animal Compassion Foundationrsquo;s executive director, Anne Malleau, has a MBA in agribusiness. The foundation is promoting the work of Ian J.H. Duncan, Malleaursquo;s former advisor at the University of Guelph in Ontario. [fn]In a 31 July 2005 letter concerning animal welfare standards, Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals recommends to a Wendyrsquo;s representative, ldquo;We hope that you will take on people like Dr. Ian Duncan.rdquo; Letter to Denny Lynch, available at www.peta.org/feat/wendys/pewen0731letter.html (visited 1 April 2005). In a 2 September 2003 letter to Yum! Brands, Inc., Friedrich refers to Duncanrsquo;s involvement in the development of Animal Care Standards and participation in the ldquo;farmed animal welfare panel.rdquo; Letter to CEO David Novak, available at www.kentuckyfriedcruelty.com/letter-novak090203.asp (visited 1 Apr. 2005). Prof. Duncan provided expert commentary for slaughterhouse videotape footage on the welfare grouprsquo;s Website (July 2004; video of Kentucky Fried Chicken supplier in Moorefield, West Virginia), available at www.peta.org/feat/moorefield/ (visited 1 Apr. 2005).[/fn] Professor Duncan has, over the years, served as an expert on animal welfare for both agribusiness and animal protection organizations. [fn]See note 10 above.[/fn]According to a university biography, Professor Duncan currently focuses on ldquo;developing methods of asking animals what they feel about the conditions under which they are kept and the procedures to which they are subjected.rdquo; [fn]ldquo;High-frequency versus low-frequency fluorescent lights: Hens do not mind the flicker.rdquo; Widowski, T.M. and Duncan, I.J.H. Presented at the American and Canadian Branches Meeting of the International Society for Applied Ethology (Guelph, June 1994); see www.usask.ca/wcvm/ae/archives/jun01-30.94 (visited 17 Mar. 2005).[/fn] These procedures and conditions range from the tail-docking of pigs and forced-molting of chickens to the effects of fireworks on egg production. Duncan has tested hens on their preference for low-frequency or high-frequency florescent lights and concluded that they donrsquo;t really care about the matter. [fn]ldquo;Animal Rights Issues in the Poultry Industryrdquo; Presented at the Sixth Interdisciplinary Conference on Human Relations with Animals and the Natural World, Food Animal Husbandry and the New Millennium: Ethical, Environmental, and Societal Impacts (5 Nov. 1999); see www2vet.upenn.edu/research/centers/cias/sixth/duncan.html (visited 17 Mar. 2005).[/fn] In a summary of the battery cage segment of his talk ldquo;Animal Welfare Issues in the Poultry Industry,rdquo; Duncan argues, ldquo;Cages do have some welfare advantages such as hygiene and small group size. Rather than banning cages outright, a solution might be to modify them to solve their short-comings while retaining their advantages.rdquo; [fn]I. Duncan, Abstract, ldquo;Poultry Welfare: Science or Subjectivity,rdquo; British Poultry Science (Dec. 2002).[/fn]Duncan believes that ldquo;[t]he poultry species are capable of feeling several states of suffering including fear, frustration and pain.rdquo; [fn]The first aim listed on the Web site of the International Society for Applied Ethology is to ldquo;to encourage and support basic and applied research into the behaviour of animals as related to the use of animals by humans. This includes domestic, laboratory, zoo, companion, pest and captive animals or managed wild animals.rdquo;[/fn] One can imagine countless varieties of conditions in which one might attempt to measure pain, and Duncan, Mallaeu and others have made their careers in this field. Known as ldquo;applied ethology,rdquo; the field addresses the ways in which other animals react to given sets of environments and stimuli. [fn]ldquo;What is the bottom line for the animal-human hierarchy?rdquo; asks Professor MacKinnon. ldquo;The place to look for this bottom line is the farm, the stockyard, the slaughterhouse. Catharine A. MacKinnon, ldquo;Of Mice and Men: A Feminist Fragment on Animal Rightsrdquo; in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions 270 (Cass R. Sunstein and Martha C. Nussbaum, eds., 2004).[/fn]We often hear that people concerned with principles of humane treatment believe that humanity ought to avoid causing other animals unnecessary suffering. Yet what meaning does applied ethology bring to the food industry, given that eating other animals isnrsquo;t necessary at all? While it is true some methods of producing animal products cause more pain and discomfort than others, every new animal bred to satisfy consumersrsquo; preferences represents additional suffering. And all the analyses of handling methods aside, the bottom line, as Catharine MacKinnon candidly puts it, is at the slaughterhouse. [fn]The average person the in United States, according to the Department of Agriculture, consumed about 57 pounds more animal flesh than the average person living in the 1950s.[/fn]The Road from Wall Street to Takoma Park Since the 1950s, global consumption of animal products has been on the rise. [fn]The Agriculture Fact Book, United States Dept. of Agriculture (2001-2002).[/fn] This traces an increase in income levels, says the government, while ldquo;the meat industry has provided scores of new brand-name, value-added products processed for consumersrsquo; convenience.rdquo; [fn]Phuong Ly, ldquo;The Other Red Protein: Meat Is Rare No More in Takoma Parkrdquo; – Washington Post (20 Mar. 2005).[/fn] But what of the suburban health-conscious set mdash; those who prompted the rise in organics that offered Whole Foods a viable consumer base in the beginning?Takoma Park, Maryland has traditionally attracted an Earth-conscious, vegetarian set of residents. In March of this year, the Washington Post checked up on them. [fn]For a chronology of the corporationrsquo;s inconsistent view regarding employeesrsquo; unions, see ldquo;The Whole Truth about the Whole Foods Union,rdquo; ISTHMUS: The Daily Page, available at www.thedailypage.com/features/docfeed/archive/2002/27/ (visited 1 Apr. 2005).[/fn] The result was jarring. The Sunday farmers market, once a veganrsquo;s paradise, now offers lamb sausages, veal chops and eggs. ldquo;Down the street, the food co-op mdash; breaking with a 20-year tradition mdash; is peddling flesh, too,rdquo; announced the Post. ldquo;The embrace of food-with-a-face in this peace-rallying, tree-hugging, self-declared nuclear-free zone has become so enthusiastic that some residents wonder whether a counter-counter-revolution is afoot.rdquo;ldquo;We could start to be part of the revolution for lovingly and humanely raised and culled meat,rdquo; said Jennifer Gillispie, a Takoma Park yoga teacher who ldquo;never imagined that meat consumption would become so conspicuousrdquo; mdash; and who, after ten years of being a vegetarian, went to Whole Foods, ordered half a roasted chicken, and found a table.After asking ldquo;forgiveness for the chicken,rdquo; Gillipie bit. ldquo;It was like all my cells exploded, lsquo;Yes!rsquo; I ate the whole thing, bones and all. I couldnrsquo;t get it into my mouth fast enough.rdquo;Professor Stephen Havas, an epidemiologist at the University of Maryland Medical School, suggests that people who say they feel healthier after renouncing vegetarianism are going through something psychological. ldquo;Physicians knowledgeable about nutrition literature know that not eating meat is healthier than eating meat,rdquo; Havas told the Post.The Takoma Park food co-op has evidently been going through something psychological too. Last spring, 71 percent of co-op members voted against safeguarding the term ldquo;vegetarianrdquo; in the storersquo;s mission statement. Shortly afterward, chicken patties arrived on store shelves. The co-op ldquo;needed to start selling meat,rdquo; its manager told the Post, pointing out the competition from several nearby Whole Foods Markets.Going through Something PsychologicalThe success of Whole Foods Market in bringing organic and natural foods into the mainstream cannot be ignored. The company draws shoppers who hope to make healthful and socially responsible purchases, and that is a welcome move.The direction taken by the store in its regard for the other animals of the planet, however, is less than responsible. [fn]According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, animal agriculture produces 61 million tons of waste each year mdash; about 130 times the volume of human waste. Amy Sapp and Shannon McDonald, ldquo;Production and Consumption of Meat: Implications for the Global Environment and Human Health,rdquo; Human Health and Global Environmental Change, Harvard School of Public Health, http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/course/papers/sapp.pdf (13 Dec. 2001).[/fn] Making animal products look good is an affront to animal advocacy. It also runs counter to the principles of maintaining good health, understanding world hunger, and preserving what we can of the global environment.However they are raised, animals used for food become a source of methane, a particularly potent greenhouse gas.[fn]Amy Sapp and Shannon McDonald, cited above.[/fn] Their waste causes one of our most serious water pollution problems. The production, transport, processing and packaging of animal products agriculture require an extraordinary amount of fossil fuels.[fn]See ldquo;Press Release: Tedrsquo;s Montana Grill to Offer Ready-To-Serve Chili at Whole Foods Atlanta rdquo; (announcing that the restaurant founded by media entrepreneur Ted Turner and restaurateur George McKerrow, Jr. ldquo;will soon offer its famous BisonChili with Beans at select Whole Foods Markets in the Southeastrdquo;), available at www.tedturner.com/download/press_release.pdf (dated 1 Mar. 2005; visited 1 Apr. 2005).[/fn]The land we take up on the face of the earth is expanded greatly because of the way we farm. On these great, grassy lands, bison once roamed. Will sightings of these animals now mainly occur at Whole Foods Markets? [fn]George Monbiot, ldquo;Why Vegans Were Right All Along,rdquo; The Guardian (24 Dec. 2002).[/fn]When we talk about population figures, we should consider too that we breed so many animals into existence as food that they now outnumber us three-to-one.[fn]my Sapp and Shannon McDonald, cited above.[/fn] No wonder a third of the worldrsquo;s surface is taken up with animal grazing rdquo;nbsp; ironically, expanding the space we allot for confined animals may worsen the situation. In any case, expanding the space makes for more expensive products, and contributes to the idea that taking up space is a badge of happiness and affluence. This, in turn, contributes to the devastation of habitat critical to the survival of free-living animals.For all of these reasons, we might think twice before accepting the idea that activism is compatible with the business decision made by companies looking to enhance a niche market for animal products.The story of the Takoma Co-op is a parable for our time. In communities throughout North America, it seems that people are going through something psychological. The idea that killing can be done ldquo;lovinglyrdquo; does not indicate the beginning of a revolutionary idea, but rather a crisis of conscience. As people who make daily decisions on ethical grounds, it is up to members of the animal advocacy community to restore a vegetarian business ethic to our local activities.

    • MOVEMENT WATCH is an update on recent and current campaigns in the animal advocacy movement, with brief, rights-based analyses. MOVEMENT WATCH does not provide a full overview of any listed advocacy grouprsquo;s work. Campaigns and news items are selected for their legal and social significance.Thanks to our friends at Ánima for providing this document in Spanish on their web site.Canadian Activists Abdicate, Ask U.S. Shoppers To Campaign Against Seal HuntThis year in Newfoundland, tens of thousands of seals have already perished in the largest slaughter of seals in half a century.In March, the Canadian representative of the Animal Protection Institute urged U.S. shoppers to stop buying Canadian fish products until the seal-hunting policies change, calling such a move ldquo;the only kind of impact that will get through to the governmentrdquo; of Canada.[fn]The Toronto Star noted the view of Geoff Regan, minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that the boycott ldquo;will only serve to add to the level of unemployment in an area already suffering economic hardship.rdquo;[/fn]The call for a boycott was most prominently taken up by the Humane Society of the United States, which asked supporters to delay buying Canadian marine animals, including swordfish, cod, lobsters, and snow crabs. The assumption here is that people who care enough to act for the seals were eating cod and other Canadian marine life all along mdash; even though the main excuse for killing seals has been the depletion of cod.[fn]Although stating ldquo;Sea Shepherd discourages the consumption of any seafood,rdquo; the sea life advocacy group backed the boycott of Canadian fish products mdash; a boycott thatrsquo;s designed to be lifted if and when Newfoundlanders stop killing seals. And boycotted companies got a loophole: Sea Shepherdrsquo;s Internet boycott page announced, in capital letters, ldquo;Itrsquo;s easy to GET OFF OUR BOYCOTT TARGET LIST!rdquo; Write two letters opposing the seal hunt, instructs Sea Shepherd, and ldquo;we will HIGHLIGHT YOUR OPPOSITION to the seal hunt and SEND BUYERS YOUR WAY!rdquo; Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, ldquo;Seal Campaign,rdquo; available at www.seashepherd.org/seals/seals_boycott.html (last visited 29 Mar. 2005). A group named Sea Shepherd sending buyers to fishmongers? Come to think of it, real-life shepherds did send sheep to vendors…[/fn]Canadians themselves must organize strong, unequivocal opposition to the hunt in order to get results from their officials. To date, the primary focus has been on international animal welfare groups requesting permission to obtain video footage and measure compliance with humane standards. Canada clarified its Marine Mammal Regulations in early 2003 to require hunters to apply a ldquo;blinking testrdquo; by touching a sealrsquo;s eye to ensure a seal is dead before skinning, and animal welfare groups have spent resources to demonstrate that hunters donrsquo;t comply.[fn]International Fund for Animal Welfare Press Release: New Seal Hunt Regulations Hollow Without Enforcement, Consistency; IFAW Video Shows New Laws Already Ignored by DFO and Sealers (10 Apr. 2003), reporting an ldquo;abysmal record of enforcement mdash; no charges for cruelty offences in the past five years despite IFAWrsquo;s submission of 660 infractions caught on taperdquo;).[/fn]At the time of this writing the Canadian authorities appear to be on the verge of announcing a five-year plan, which could mean the slaughter of over a million seals.[fn]ldquo;Largest Seal Cull in Half a Century Reaches Bloody Climax,rdquo; note 1 above.[/fn]Ánima of Argentina Speaks Out for SealsÁnima is Argentinarsquo;s premier animal rights project, founded by lawyer and author Ana María Aboglio.[fn]Ánima of Argentina, www.anima.org.ar/. Ellie Maldonadorsquo;s work on this project is gratefully acknowledged.[/fn] This year, Ánima wants a word with the Canadian prime minister. Ánima says: ldquo;The time has come to support an economy that acknowledges the interconnected biocommunity, and the inherent worth of every sentient being.rdquo;Noting that we already have more than enough videos and pictures that prove the inhumane quality of Canadarsquo;s seal hunt, Ánima launched a Spanish-language campaign in April together with Friends of Animals, asserting that continued tweaking of the Marine Mammal Regulations are irrelevant, for ldquo;Estas matanzas no son sólo crueles. Son inmorales.rdquo; (These killings arenrsquo;t just cruel. Theyrsquo;re immoral.rdquo;)Outlining key points for Spanish-speakers to tell Canadians and their government, Ánima stated: ldquo;The reason that moves us to oppose the seal hunt is the concept that human beings ought to be capable of respecting these animalsrsquo; interests in freely enjoying the experience of their own lives.rdquo;Chimpanzee Use: The Animal Welfare ConnectionIn 2000, the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection (CHIMP) Act assigned federal funds to store laboratory chimpanzees deemed surplus to immediate experimental needs, and mandated a flow of private funds as part of the maintenance money mdash; in effect turning charity groups into indirect supporters of biomedical research on nonhuman great apes.A newly formed entity, Chimp Haven, won the contract to house chimpanzees released from laboratory protocols, and is now ready to accept the first arrivals.When the National Institutes of Health posted the proposed regulations in preparation for public commentary, ten animal welfare groups wrote to tell the federal government:[fn]The groups included the New England Anti-Vivisection Society, the Fauna Sanctuary, Save The Chimps, Center for Great Apes, the Chimpanzee and Human Communication Institute, the Humane Society of the United States, and In Defense of Animals. ldquo;NEAVS [New England Anti-Vivisection Society] Spearheads Comments on Proposed Regulations for Chimpanzeesrdquo; (Mar. 2005).[/fn]ldquo;We ask that DHHS agree to provide any and all chimpanzees retired into the federal sanctuary system with permanent protection from any further research. mdash; We firmly believe that the chimpanzees sent into retirement should be provided permanent protection from further research as was the original intention of the CHIMP Act.rdquo;Permanent protection from further research was not the ldquo;original intention of the CHIMP Act.rdquo; Such a law would have transferred the titles of the chimpanzees to private sanctuaries. That intent never appeared in the proposed or final law.Why is this point so important? Because surely activists should want to be aware of the limits of a law when deciding whether to back it. Many advocacy groups ignored or dismissed the problems inherent in the CHIMP Act when it was being designed, and now precious private dollars help to prop up the high-maintenance chimpanzee experimentation field. If the primate protection community cannot or will not see that it took a wrong turn to the extent that it backed this deal, it is destined to repeat the mistake. A prominent blood researcher testified for this law. The reason? Scientists wanted someone else to maintain used chimpanzees, in order to make room for younger research subjects.The animal welfare community continues in symbiosis with research in many ways. The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) describes itself as ldquo;a non-profit charitable organization founded in 1951 to reduce the sum total of pain and fear inflicted on animals by humans.rdquo; The goal of reducing pain and fear mdash; a negative mission mdash; is a completely different from respecting animalsrsquo; interests in freedom. The grouprsquo;s website devotes much space to articles about primate cage space, lighting, manipulative instruments, and social housing, largely through articles written by AWI primatologist Viktor Reinhardt.[fn]Laboratory Primate Newsletter (Oct. 1997); Environmental Enrichment for Nonhuman Primates Resource Guide (Jan. 1992 – Feb. 1999).[/fn]The Primate Foundation of Arizona (PFA) was once considered a sanctuary for cast-off chimpanzees. But it ran into financial trouble, and began leasing chimpanzees to biomedical research. Recently, it agreed to further breeding and experimentation with the University of Texas. By incorporating PFA into the work of the Department of Veterinary Sciences in Bastrop, Texas, researchers ldquo;can significantly increase the number of chimpanzees under an experienced, coordinated veterinary care, management, and research programrdquo; and ldquo;significantly increase the likelihood of satisfying the proposed need for a stable long-term national resource of chimpanzees for biomedical research.rdquo;[fn]Grant No. 5U42RR015090-05, ldquo;Project: Establishment/Maintenance of Biomedical Research Colony; University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Centerrdquo;(project dates 1 Sep. 2000 – 31 Aug. 2005).[/fn] Researchers point out that they can now meet ldquo;societal expectations for the humane care and use of chimpanzeesrdquo; and, with PFArsquo;s help, refine techniques ldquo;to increase voluntary cooperation of chimpanzees with numerous research and investigative procedures.rdquo; The researchers also state their plans to ldquo;improverdquo; chimpanzee genetics.[fn]Ibid.[/fn]From Darwin to Dawkins, with a Milk MoustacheAn international conference named ldquo;From Darwin to Dawkins: The Science and Implications of Animal Sentiencerdquo; took place in London in March of this year, to ldquo;focus on important new scientific discoveries about the sentience of animals and the profound effects these might have on all areas of human life.rdquo; The keynote speaker was Jane Goodall.Also present were representatives of the Farm Animals Sustainable Agriculture department of the Humane Society of the United States; Temple Grandin, who has worked on McDonaldrsquo;s welfare standards; and Professor Joy Mench of UC Davisrsquo;s Animal Science department, who performs husbandry-related research on chickens and ducks. And there was Ian Duncan, professor of applied ethology at the University of Guelph and holder of the oldest University Chair in Animal Welfare in North America. Duncan ldquo;is developing methods of asking farm animals what they feel about the conditions in which they are kept and the procedures to which they are subjected.rdquo;[fn]Speakers list, Compassion in World Farming Trust (CIWF Trust), available at www.ciwf.org/conference2005 (last visited 7 Apr. 2005).[/fn]ldquo;The study of animal sentience is one of the most exciting and important in the whole of biology,rdquo; said Oxfordrsquo;s Professor Marian Dawkins.[fn]Julianna Kettlewell, ldquo;Farm Animals lsquo;Need Emotional TLCrsquo;rdquo; – BBC News (18 Mar. 2005), describing this type of study as ldquo;exploring the minds of animalsrdquo; and monitoring their suffering and alleviating their pain.rdquo;[/fn]ldquo;My plea is that, when we make decisions and regulations about animals and campaign for them, the animalsrsquo; voices should be heard and heard strongly.rdquo;One might wonder if animalsrsquo; voices might really be saying, ldquo;What are we doing in a place like this?rdquo; but the BBC only heard the voice of Cambridge Professor Donald Broom when it came to an account of training cows to push levers to gain food rewards. Apparently unaware of the irony, Professor Broom said that the experiments prove that ldquo;we need to have a certain amount of respectrdquo; for cows.[fn]Ibid.[/fn]ldquo;The handlers donrsquo;t have to be really mean and hit the cows,rdquo; said Edmund Pajor of Purdue.[fn]Ibid.[/fn]Pajorrsquo;s reason? Cows produce significantly more milk if their handlers donrsquo;t shout and push them around.Conference materials thanked leading British grocery chain Tesco for funding. Tesco sells meat and milk; and in collaboration with the University of Bristolrsquo;s veterinary science clinic, Tescorsquo;s Welfare Fellowship provides courses in Animal Welfare and Production Science.[fn]Tesco was also recently linked to the sale of products from Japanrsquo;s Nissui and Kyokuyo whaling companies. Environmental Investigation Agency and Greenpeace, ldquo;Press Release: Tesco-Owned Store Sells Whale Meat in Japanrdquo; (3 Mar. 2004). The International Whaling Commission (IWC) implemented a moratorium on all commercial whaling in 1986, yet these companies own shares in the whaling fleet used for Japanrsquo;s so-called scientific whaling research and sell much of the meat from the hundreds of minke, Brydersquo;s and sei whales that are killed each year. After pressure from Greenpeace, Tesco had the products removed mdash; but claimed they took the decision to remove the whale meat ldquo;due to a lack of customer demand.rdquo; Greenpeace International, ldquo;Tesco Stops Whale Sale, but Japan Keeps Killingrdquo; (24 Nov. 2004).[/fn] According to the universityrsquo;s Web site, one of the clinicrsquo;s most popular training courses developed for the industry is the Animal Welfare Officer course.[fn]Department of Clinical Veterinary Science (The Division of Farm Animal Science), University of Bristol, available at www.vetschool.bris.ac.uk/langford/dfas/training.html (site updated 20 Aug. 2004; last visited 7 Apr. 2005).[/fn] Since 1993 there have been over 20 such courses at sites across England, Scotland, Ireland, and Spain. ldquo;Particularly attractive to the industryrdquo; is the ldquo;emphasis given to the links between good welfare and good meat quality.rdquo; An additional Animal Transport Officer Course details ldquo;aspects of commercial and non-commercial animal transport that directly affect animal welfare and subsequent carcass and meat quality.rdquo; Successful completion results in a University of Bristol certificate endorsed by the Meat Training Council.All of this raises the question: Do activists suggest the standards for industry and convince corporations to apply them? Or is it the other way around?British Pig Sellers Start Welfare Ad WarBritainrsquo;s location, with the relative ease of import and export, means heightened competition for farmers. ldquo;We have actually seen a decline in the size of the British industry of about 40% in the last five years and an enormous increase in import,rdquo; said Mick Sloyan of the British Pig Executive.[fn]The British Pig Executive consists of 12 people nominated by industry to work with the Meat and Livestock Commission, a public body funded through the collection of levies on sheep, pigs and cattle slaughtered for human consumption or exported live.[/fn]So this year, the pig industry plans to launch a public relations effort that capitalizes on its welfare standards.[fn]ldquo;Farmers in lsquo;Pig Welfarersquo; Ad Warrdquo; – BBC News (16 Jan. 2005).[/fn]British shoppers should know, says the Meat and Livestock Commission, that only British farmers are currently prohibited from keeping pregnant pigs in single stalls. [fn]Ibid.[/fn]Advocates Praise Gas ChambersMcDonaldrsquo;s is testing gas chambers to kill the ten million chickens it uses each year in Britain.[fn]Jonathan Leake, ldquo;McDonaldrsquo;s Chickens Sent to Gas Chamberrdquo; – The (London) Sunday Times (9 Jan. 2005).[/fn] Gassing, known as ldquo;controlled atmosphere killing,rdquo; means that chickens are transported into a giant gas chamber where they are knocked out by nitrogen and argon mixed with carbon dioxide. It is said to ensure they are dead before their throats are cut.Sean Gifford of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals said: ldquo;We have been pushing for a switch to gas and welcome this move by McDonaldrsquo;s.rdquo;The companyrsquo;s move, explained the Sunday Times, ldquo;is part of an attempt by the chain to improve its image that has included the addition of salads to its menu and the removal of supersized portions following criticism that it has contributed to an epidemic of obesity.rdquo;Peter Bradnock, chief executive of the British Poultry Council, notes problems with regular slaughter methods mdash; problems that gas could fix. For example, ldquo;when they are electrocuted, their convulsions can break their bones and blood vessels, which damages the meat.rdquo;Welfare groups, when sharing a feel-good mission with big business, often claim that an agreement with a large company can pave the way for industry-wide reform. This is not the case here. Bradnock believes gas will work only for chicken processors in contracts with big companies like McDonaldrsquo;s, because of the high price tag on gas chambers.Itrsquo;s probably safe to say that most people are unaware of that.In this scenario, the corporation makes a trade-off: It spends money up front, but get less product damage, and becomes the exclusive beneficiary of praise and publicity for its apparent humane enlightenment. Anyone who raises the inconvenient notion of animal rights is waved off as a killjoy. Readers of the Times will not feel threatened by this limited reform. If a change were meaningful, it would be unwelcome to the traditional media mdash; as those who thrive on media attention know.European Union to ldquo;Improve the Image of the Egg Industryrdquo;The Adas corporation, Britainrsquo;s largest consultancy firm for agriculture and food, says EU legislation to outlaw conventional cages starting in 2012 will improve the image of the egg industry, bringing benefits for producers.[fn]ldquo;Better Hen Cages Can Help Egg Producersrdquo; – The Journal (Trinity Mirror, Newcastle upon Tyne, Britain; 7 Apr. 2005), reporting on the European Union Directive EC99/74.[/fn]Andrew Walker, head of Animal Health Welfare in Adas, said the directive will offer the birds more room to exercise. Costs will rise, but Adas believes that long-term positive economic effects will ldquo;far outweigh any negative impactsrdquo; as ldquo;enriched cages will bring an opportunity for the industry to capitalize on a new and improved image.rdquo;Violent Pornography, Dogfighting, and the LawThis year, a jury found Robert J. Stevens guilty of three counts of selling depictions of animal cruelty mdash; dogfighting videos mdash; under a federal law passed in 1999 but never before tested in court.[fn]Torsten Ove, ldquo;Virginia Man Guilty of Selling Depictions of Animal Crueltyrdquo; – Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (14 Jan. 2005).[/fn]The statute was originally motivated by a California campaign to ban crush videos, in which legs, feet, and sometimes spike heels are seen crushing small animals to death for the sexual gratification of viewers. The law allows sentencing of up to 15 years in prison.After advertising dogfight videos in an underground magazine, Stevens sold some of them, along with scenes of dogs attacking pigs, to undercover agents.The public defender arguing Stevensrsquo;s case claimed that the videos are protected speech under the First Amendment, under an exception to the law for depictions with ldquo;serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical or artistic value.rdquo; The jury disagreed. But one might ask how such a loophole got into a crush video ban at all.The provision derives from the traditional list shielding various images of sexual violence from legal penalties. Pornographers have long argued that restrictions on their sales would interfere with freedom of expression; and our legal system, refusing to see the issue as one of civil rights or basic human rights, has generally agreed with them.[fn]See ldquo;Of Mice and Men: A Fragment on Animal Rightsrdquo; in Catharine A. MacKinnon, Womenrsquo;s Lives, Menrsquo;s Laws (2005).[/fn] Social acceptance of discrimination against women has supplied excuses for those who violently discriminate against other animals. Now, filmmakers who add a prayer or a snippet of documentary to images of animal abuse, or artists who use such films, might well evade penalties entirely, regardless of the fate of the animals involved.

    • Since the debut of Pukk in January 2005, vegetarians can relax and enjoy a Thai feast without asking about the sauce or stock in the classic vegetable dishes. Pukk — Thai for “vegetable” — wants people know that vegetarian food is exciting. And for starters, there’s something exciting about entering the first entirely vegetarian Thai restaurant in New York City.The glass doors offer a full view to a sleek, 36-seat restaurant with modern-Zen décor. The white-tiled floor and dark wood tabletops contrast with green gel seating pads to create a distinctly spa-like ambience. Recessed lighting in the ceilings and floors combines with flickering candle light from each table. A gold, reclining Buddha figure, suspended from the ceiling and bathed in yellow-green light, is a symbol for the traditional-meets-modern style that Pukk creates in both atmosphere and cuisine.It works. The service is impeccably timed, the dishes are beautifully presented, yet the prices are remarkably reasonable.“Eat More Greens,” the menu suggests, and one of the owners is happy to reinforce the idea: “Green is good for your health,” says Tanya. “You can still have spicy, tasty food.” To that end, Pukk’s menu includes a few Asian vegetables not normally associated with Thai restaurants. When customers come to Pukk before learning that it’s a vegetarian restaurant, Tanya tells them, “Try the food; if you don’t like it, don’t pay.” And Pukk’s variety of faux chicken, duck, and salmon dishes, in addition to unique items such as Tofu Water Chestnut, is winning these visitors over.A highly recommended appetizer is the Soft Green Rice Crêpe, with basil and mint marinara sauce, served on a bed of raw cabbage. The crêpes melt in the mouth, their tangy filling cooled by the smooth mint marinara.A small order of the Sautéed Assorted Vegetables in Mushroom Sauce offers delicately cooked vegetables in a rich sauce. The Thai Papaya Salad, with young papaya and carrot topped with chile-lime vinaigrette, is tangy, crisp, and fresh, with a spicy bite. A cool compliment is the sweet and creamy Thai Iced Tea, made with soymilk.Perhaps the best-known of Thai noodle dishes is Pad Thai. Here, it appears with smoked tofu, radish, scallion, bean sprout and peanut, with a choice of mock chicken, duck, beef or tofu. Pukk’s version is light and refreshing to taste, yet at the same time satisfying and supremely authentic.The Perfect Protein Duck, with chickpeas, radish, onion, pepper, peanuts and bean sprouts, is an explosion of flavors and colors. The seitan-based faux-duck is both tender and chewy, with a rich, sweet-and-sour tamarind sauce. The soft and crisp textures of the dish merge perfectly.A spectacular addition to Vegetarian dining in New York City, Pukk will have diners returning again and again to “eat more greens” and experience its modern charm. Highly recommended.Pukk71 First Avenue (between 4th & 5th Street)New York, NY 10003Tel: 212.253.2741 or 212.253.2742Pukk is open seven days a week, with a Lunch Menu offered daily.Monday-Thursday 11:30am – 11pm | Friday-Sunday 11:30am – 11:45pm

    Older posts