Animal Rights

Pailia_bird.jpg

Nearly all native birds in Hawaii in peril

“The basic, fundamental problem that we have is a lack of funding to do what we need to do. If we had a lot more funding than we do, we would be able to recover most, if not all, of the species that we have that are endangered.”

Source: Yahoo News    Written By AUDREY McAVOY    Posted by: Elizabeth Fiend

HONOLULU – Hawaii’s native avian population is in peril, with nearly all the state’s birds in danger of becoming extinct, a federal report says.

One-third of the nation’s endangered birds are in Hawaii, said the report issued Thursday by the Interior Department. Thirty-one Hawaiian bird species are listed as endangered, more than anywhere else in the country.

“That is the epicenter of extinctions and near-extinctions,” said John Fitzpatrick, director of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology, which helped produce the study. “Hawaii is (a) borderline ecological disaster.”

Hawaii’s native birds are threatened by the destruction of their habitats by invasive plant species and feral animals like pigs, goats and sheep.

Diseases, especially those borne by mosquitoes, are another killer.

One of those in trouble is the palila, a yellow-crowned songbird that lives on the upper slopes of Mauna Kea. Its population plunged by more than 60 percent from 6,600 in 2002 to 2,200 last year.

(more…)

No Comments »

Government Agencies Must Consider Endangered Species Before They Act

endangered_species.jpg

Bid to Undo Bush Memo on Threats to Species

Source: New York Times

Posted by Elizabeth Fiend

By CORNELIA DEAN

A few weeks before he left office, President George W. Bush told federal officials that, in effect, they did not have to bother getting the advice of wildlife experts before taking actions that might harm plants or animals protected by the Endangered Species Act.

On Tuesday, President Obama said that, in effect, they did.

At a visit to the Interior Department marking its 150th anniversary, the president said he had signed a memorandum directing the Interior and Commerce Departments to review a regulation that the Bush administration issued Dec. 16.

The regulation lifted longstanding requirements that agencies contemplating actions that might affect endangered species consult with scientists from the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service and to take their guidance into account.

Until the review is complete, Mr. Obama’s memorandum says, agencies must return to the former practice of seeking and acting on scientific advice.

In brief remarks, the president said he had signed the memorandum to “help restore the scientific process to its rightful place” in the working of the Endangered Species Act.

(more…)

1 Comment »

Biotech Behomoth Dumps GMO Growth Hormone :-)

Maker of Prozac & Cialis Buys :-(

By Elizabeth Fiend

monsanto2.gif

In a stunning consumer victory the biotech behemoth Monsanto announced on August 8th that they want to dump their business of producing rBGH and hope to find a buyer for the product. rBGH is a lab produced, genetically modified artificial growth hormone that is being administered to about 15-17 percent of America’s milk producing dairy cows. r = recombinant which means it’s artificially produced in a lab; BGH, Bovine-Growth-Hormone is the common description for the hormone bovine somatotropin (BST) sold to dairy farmers under the commercial name of Posilac. The label on a bottle of Posilac lists 20 possible toxic effects. Posilac was approved by America’s Food and Drug Administration in 1993 but the product has always been banned in the European Union, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia and other countries that have more sense than our own.

The beef with rBGH? Many farmers and animal advocates believe this growth hormone is harmful to cows and many mothers worry that it might actually cause cancer in humans — all this just to get cows to pump up their production of milk by one gallon a day?

rBGH did pump up Monsanto’s bottom line, for awhile. But due to continued consumer backlash many corporations that sell milk and dairy products like yogurt and cheese are realizing that their customers do not want to feed their children milk containing genetically modified growth hormones and have discontinued selling milk that contains rBGH. Thank you Wal-Mart (did I really just say that?!?!) and a shout out to Starbucks, Kroger supermarkets and Kraft who have all announced earlier this year that they were going to only source their milk from dairy processors that have rBGH-free cows. And the Nurses, again on the forefront, have passed an official resolution at the latest American Nurses Association stating that they support state laws and policies that aim to reduce rBGH. This is a huge issue because many states, including Pennsylvania, have tried to pass (or have already passed) laws that would make it illegal to label milk “rBGH Free.” The nurses go even further and announce they favor hospital and health care industry purchases of rBGH free products — in other words, the whole shebang anything that will reduce the use of rBGH. [So Doctors, what’s up with you?]

(more…)

3 Comments »

If The Meat On Your Plate Was From a Cloned Animal, Would You Eat It?

jumping_cow_dolphin.gif

Cloned animals and their offspring have been declared safe to eat; how soon will their meat be on sale in the US?

by Ed Pilkington
The Guardian
April 21 2008

Posted by: VaLerie K

It is an absurdly pretty setting. A row of conifers borders snowbound fields that stretch for miles to a low horizon. Birds are nesting. Magnificent Angus cattle meander under a metallic blue sky, with the sweet smell of silage hanging over everything.

A sign nailed to one of the cattle pens provides the first clue that this picture postcard view is not as quaintly old-fashioned as it looks: “For Biosecurity: Authorised Personnel Only.” The second clue comes in the form of two young red Holstein heifers, identified by eartags as numbers 306 and 307, sitting quietly on a bed of straw. By their perfect bone structure and proportions, a breeder could tell that these are very fine animals; to me they are just absurdly pretty, like their surroundings. Their fluffy rust-red-and-white coats and pink wet noses are programmed to make you smile involuntarily. Then you notice that they are the spitting image of each other, the same white blazes running down their foreheads and the same doe-like eyes.

These are not twins, though they do have identical genetic makeup. They were created from separate embryos containing the DNA extracted from a prize-winning red Holstein cow, Miss Leader Red Rose. In short, 306 and 307 are clones.

(more…)

1 Comment »

High Levels of Toxic Industrial Chemicals Contaminate Cats and Dogs

pets.jpg

Source: Environmental Working Group

Posted by Elizabeth Fiend 4/08

In the first study of its kind, Environmental Working Group found that American pets are polluted with even higher levels of many of the same synthetic industrial chemicals that researchers have recently found in people, including newborns.

The results show that America’s pets are serving as involuntary sentinels of the widespread chemical contamination that scientists increasingly link to a growing array of health problems across a wide range of animals—wild, domesticated and human.

Just as children ingest pollutants in tap water, play on lawns with pesticide residues, or breathe in an array of indoor air contaminants, so do their pets. But with their compressed lifespans, developing and aging seven or more times faster than children, pets also develop health problems from exposures much more rapidly. The National Research Council has found that sickness and disease in pets can inform our understanding of our own health risks (NRC 1991). And for anyone who has lost a pet to cancer or another disease potentially linked to chemical exposures, this sentinel role played by pets becomes a devastating personal loss.

In recognition of the unique roles that pets play in our lives, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) undertook a study to investigate the extent of exposures pets face to contaminants in our homes and outdoor environments. In a novel study representing the broadest biomonitoring investigation yet conducted in pets, what we found was surprising.

(more…)

2 Comments »

bunny.jpg

Sigh. The European Union is way ahead of us as far as animal rights, improving the environment and regulating unhealthy food products and methods. Regulations have already been passed, and in effect since 2004, that would step by step outlaw animal testing on cosmetics in EU countries. Why can’t we do that here in the U.S.?

Imprisoning, strapping down and dropping noxious chemicals in to a bunny’s eye all to develop a new scent of shampoo is a totally unacceptable practice.

Developing new ways to test cosmetics, without torturing animals, is a great place for business growth. Send me your thoughts on why America can’t ban cosmetic testing on animals too. Leave a comment after the jump. Love, Elizabeth Fiend

(Complete schedule for EU Cosmetic Directive scroll to the end.)

Chips could put lab rats out of work

Source: CNN.com TROY, New York (AP) — The lab rat of the future may have no whiskers and no tail — and might not even be a rat at all.

Scientists are working to develop special chips that can be used instead of animals to test product safety.

With a European ban looming on animal testing for cosmetics, companies are giving a hard look at high-tech alternatives like the small, rectangular glass chip professor Jonathan Dordick holds up to the light in his lab at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

The chip looks like a standard microscope slide, but it holds hundreds of tiny white dots loaded with human cell cultures and enzymes. It’s designed to mimic human reactions to potentially toxic chemical compounds, meaning critters like rats and mice may no longer need to be on the front line of tests for new blockbuster drugs or wrinkle creams.

Dordick and fellow chemical engineering professor Douglas Clark, of the University of California, Berkeley, lead a team of researchers planning to market the chip through their company, Solidus Biosciences, by next year. Hopes are high that the chip and other “in vitro” tests — literally, tests in glass — will provide cheap, efficient alternatives to animal testing.

No one expects the chips to totally replace animals just yet, but their ability to flag toxins could spare animals discomfort or death.

“At the end of the day, you have fewer animals being tested,” said Dordick.

(more…)

2 Comments »

Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler

mc_ds.jpgPosted by: Elizabeth Fiend

Source: The New York Time

By MARK BITTMAN

A SEA change in the consumption of a resource that Americans take for granted may be in store — something cheap, plentiful, widely enjoyed and a part of daily life. And it isn’t oil.

It’s meat.

The two commodities share a great deal: Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government. Like oil, meat is subject to accelerating demand as nations become wealthier, and this, in turn, sends prices higher. Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production increases, and becomes increasingly visible.

Global demand for meat has multiplied in recent years, encouraged by growing affluence and nourished by the proliferation of huge, confined animal feeding operations. These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse gases and require ever-increasing amounts of corn, soy and other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.

(more…)

No Comments »

cow_1_resize.jpg

The Jan. 17th, 2008 decision of the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture to revise its ruling banning farmers from labeling their milk so consumers can tell whether or not it comes from cows injected with artificial hormones, has brought milk into the limelight again. But it’s not the first time there’s been a tiff between the factory farming industry and small farmers over milk production practices, and it won’t be the last. Proposals of similar rulings are being fought in Washington State, Missouri and Ohio.

The story begins with pharmaceutical giant Monsanto, who produces the artificial hormone, which for some reason has several different nick-names - rBST, rBGH, BGH, BST. Let’s just use the commercial name Monsanto came up with: Posilac (cute, huh? Fusing ‘positive’ with ‘lactate’ - man, they are good). Is this a story of corporate greed? Or are the organic milk farms unfairly stealing business from Monsanto, by making gullible consumers think artificial, genetically-engineered hormones are BAD?

Most of the tellings of the story kind of go like this: the FDA has gone out of its way to prove that milk containing traces of Posilac is not harmful to humans, plus the use of Posilac allows struggling farmers to increase their production of milk without increasing the number of cows (Isn’t Monsanto thoughtful?), and the organic farms are making big bucks anyway just for putting the word ‘organic’ on the cartons, so why all the fuss? Well, let me tell the story from a slightly different angle. Big factory farms with thousands of cows produce so much milk they drive down the price and squeeze out the small family farms, then a pharmaceutical company seizes the opportunity to offer a ray of hope the the struggling small farmer: a drug that will make their cows make more milk. But like all drug dependencies, the downsides are a) diminished health - health of the cows, health of the humans who drink the milk of the cows, b) empty pockets - as the struggling farmers keep struggling, the drug sellers just get richer, and c) broken relationships - as word of the possible dangers of these drugs spreads across the land, consumers abandon farmers who use the drugs, up goes the demand for drug-free milk, and the drug sellers start seeing a drop in sales. Uh oh.

And if you’re still unsure that there could maybe, just possibly be a potential for health problems associated with ingestion of milk tainted with Posilac, antibiotics, growth factors, more antibiotics, pesticides and pus (eewwww!), think about this: Canada, and all 25 countries of the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand have banned the use of artificial hormones in dairy farming.

And hey, besides finding sources of milk without potential toxins, it’s not a bad idea to skip milk altogether, or at least vary it up, and BiG TeA PaRtY has been promoting other sources of calcium and vitamin D since day one - check out our video with Elizabeth Fiend’s recipe for Vegan French Toast [click here]. Consider cutting down on dairy consumption and adding these other great sources of calcium to your diet: *collard greens, *blackstrap molasses, *spinach, *soy beans and soy products, even *1/2 cup of white beans has 96 mg of calcium (the others I mentioned all contain way over 100 mg of calcium in a standard serving; so say the USDA dietary guidelines).

But since cow’s milk is still the leading food source of Calcium and vitamin D for American children (I’m not just being nationalistic here, many other countries have already banned the use of artificial hormones on cows), it’s worth investigating what’s in there. Ciao, VaLerie K

Sour Grapes Over Milk Labeling

By Kristen Philipkoski
Source:
Wired

Stanley Bennet, president of Oakhurst Dairy, says he will fight the lawsuit brought against his company by Monsanto. He said the company has no plans to change its labels.

The calls from distressed dairy farmers come nearly every day, and John Bunting does what he can to help.

A mother of 14 tells Bunting that her husband feels like a failure because he can’t provide for his family on milk sales alone. Another farmer says he had to sell one of his cows to repair a broken tractor. They know Bunting, who talks to them on a cordless phone while milking his cows, will lend a commiserative ear. He might also write about them in Milkweed, the dairy publication to which he is a contributor.

By some accounts, the past 18 months have been the worst in history for the U.S. dairy farmer. Milk prices have not increased enough to adjust for inflation in the past decade, and many family dairies have shut down. Sick cows don’t get treatment because farmers can’t afford a vet, or, worse, the vet won’t come anymore because he didn’t get paid last time.

Many small farmers place much of the blame on agribusiness giant Monsanto and a bovine drug called Posilac the company sells to increase the amount of milk a cow can produce.

(more…)

4 Comments »

TECHNOLOGY, FOOD, ANIMAL RIGHTS, HEALTH:

I Scream Clone

FDA approves farm animals for cloning.

clone-dog-bird.jpg

 

By Elizabeth Fiend 12/12/7

In 1952 a special tadpole was born. It was the first animal ever cloned. After that breakthrough, scientists spent many years and many millions of dollars on unsuccessful cloning attempts. Then, in 1997, it was ‘Hello, Dolly,’ when this sheep became the first successfully cloned mammal. Since Dolly’s celebrated birth, scientists have cloned many different animals including goats, cows, horses, pigs, rabbits and mice. A guar (an exotic ox native to India) named Noah was the first endangered animal to be cloned, but unfortunately he lived only 48 hours.

There’s also been a big push to clone our beloved pets, for love and profit. The cat came first, then a dog. But it wasn’t easy and as it turns out, the cloning of pets wasn’t as profitable a business as some had hoped. Now the biotechnology industry has turned much of its attention to cloning barn yard animals for future human consumption.

The Food and Drug Administration has released an 800-page report which concluded that the milk and meat from cloned cattle, pigs and goats and their offspring is as safe to eat as the food we currently consume. They also added that they won’t recommend special labels for food from a cloned source, because the food from cloned animals is “virtually indistinguishable” from conventional food.

(more…)

30 Comments »

Good news for once!!! Animal rights activists, vegetarians and vegans have been honing and transforming the grass roots political efforts of the ‘70’s into large, multimillion dollar strategies – and they’re really having a positive effect on how we view meat and treat animals. I’ve posted an article from the New York Times that explains some of the ways activists of today are causing positive change in animal rights. Love, Elizabeth Fiend

Bringing Moos and Oinks Into the Food Debate
From: The New York Times

By KIM SEVERSON
Watkins Glen, N.Y.

THE first farm animal Gene Baur ever snatched from a stockyard was a lamb he named Hilda.

That was 1986. She’s now buried under a little tombstone near the center of Farm Sanctuary, 180 acres of vegan nirvana here in the Finger Lakes region of upstate New York.

Back then, Mr. Baur was living in a school bus near a tofu factory in Pennsylvania and selling vegetarian hot dogs at Grateful Dead concerts to support his animal rescue operation.

Now, more than a thousand animals once destined for the slaughterhouse live here and on another Farm Sanctuary property in California. Farm Sanctuary has a $5.7 million budget, fed in part by a donor club named after his beloved Hilda. Supporters can sign up for a Farm Sanctuary MasterCard. A $200-a-seat gala dinner in Los Angeles this fall will feature seitan Wellington and stars like Emily Deschanel and Forest Whitaker.

As Farm Sanctuary has grown, so too has its influence. Soon, due in part to the organization’s work, veal calves and pregnant pigs in Arizona won’t be kept in cages so tight they can’t turn around. Eggs from cage-free hens have become so popular that there is a national shortage. A law in Chicago bans the sale of foie gras.

And earlier this month, the New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear a case concerning common farming practices that a coalition led by Farm Sanctuary says are inhumane.

All of these developments reflect the maturation and sophistication of Mr. Baur and others in a network of animal activists who have more control over America’s dinner table than ever before.
(more…)

No Comments »