ANIMAL MEDIA ALERTS -- JANUARY 2004

DECISION TO ABANDON CAMBRIDGE PRIMATE LABORATORY

The big news in animal rights this week is Cambridge University's decision to abandon controversial plans to build a primate laboratory, slated to become the biggest primate center in Europe. The cost of running the laboratory, particularly of protecting it from animal rights protestors, has been cited in almost all of the UK papers as the reason for the decision.

London's Guardian ran an article by Mark Matfield headed, "A terrible day for patients: We cannot allow animal rights extremists to block vital research." (p 26). We learn from Matfield, "The laboratory was intended to carry out research into diseases that are a big problem, particularly for elderly people"  -- diseases such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.

The success of "bully tactics" is being almost universally acknowledged but lamented by the British media. As the Daily Telegraph put it in an editorial headed "Animal Wrongs," (January 28, p23), "Police had raised fears about public safety at the site, and the cost of providing security weighed with the university in finally dropping the project. It would thus appear that animal rights organisations, from those that conduct peaceful protests to advocates of violence, have an effective veto over new centres for scientific experiments on animals."

In another article from the same paper ("Joy for the activists but research will continue" --  pg. 3)  Roger Highfield tells us "Scientists will despair over how a few fundamentalists, including some who resort to thuggery, have managed to bend the will of the pragmatic majority."

He writes, "Pharmaceutical companies could save hundreds of millions of pounds, and spare themselves threats, late-night phone calls and poison pen letters, by abandoning vivisection. That is why they study alternatives. But animal experiments still remain important for finding ways to alleviate human suffering."

While condemning 'thuggery,' and discussing the importance of animal experimentation (appearing not to include it as part of thuggery), he has acknowledged thuggery's role not just in this immediate victory, but in the long term big-picture effort to encourage the search for alternatives to vivisection.

London's Independent has an interesting take on the issue. Its January 28 "leader" article, is headed, "Violence, Coercion, and Democracy." (p18)  It opens:

"The right decision has been taken over building a new, large-scale facility in Cambridge dedicated to experimentation on primates, but for the wrong reasons."

The paper notes "Scientists claim that the higher primates, because of their similarity to humans, are the best, and in many cases the only, suitable subjects for this work." But the paper argues, "Yet it is this same similarity - of brains, cognitive abilities, behaviour and social needs - that has led this newspaper to seek a ban on all use of the higher primates (monkeys and apes) for physiological research purposes. To keep animals so similar to ourselves in laboratory conditions is an unacceptable cruelty, and to experiment on them is a violation of rights that should be extended to these, our near relatives."

However the article expresses sadness that the decision came from fear "of the unreasoning violence of animal rights campaigners, the same thuggish breed who caused such misery for the employees and investors of the Huntington Life Sciences facility, down the road." 
It concludes by stating that the legislators  "should stop violating the rights of the higher primates because they are persuaded it is wrong, not because they are intimidated by baseball bats and bricks."

Yes, they should. But they haven't.

A piece in The Evening Standard, "Thwarting Science," (January 27, pg 110) points to an argument that rages in our movement -- the question of appropriate tactics:
"Many animal rights protesters are peaceful, but they now find themselves in the morally compromised position of seeing their objectives furthered by the actions of a violent minority."

One could argue about which set of activists are being "morally compromised." Surely history will judge as unconscionable, our society's torturing of members of a closely related species in order to save the elderly of our own species from Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, so that they may die of different illnesses. Can we be sure that those who break laws in order to stop the torture, are morally compromising those who feel that obeying the law is a higher moral duty than intervening to stop evil? Many in our movement would say yes, if the action involves violence -- they would draw the line at hurting any animal, including human animals. But I know intelligent, kind, and moral people, who ask, by way of analogy, whether writing letters and holding up picket signs would have been an appropriate response to the Holocaust -- whether using violence against the Nazis was not justified. (I hope the somewhat shy Rick Bogle won't mind my giving him credit here for his thoughtful and challenging arguments.) To discount such a question, one would have to see primates such as chimps and bonobos as hugely different in sentience or value from humans. Thankfully, an increasing percentage of humanity no longer feels comfortable with that blanket distinction.

Though I cannot unquestioningly support the Evening Standard's suggestion that peaceful animal rights activists are morally compromised by the violent minority, I do share a concern about violent tactics. The press has reacted with outrage at the success of "bully tactics." And I have seen in the press, in response to Cambridge's decision, calls for greater government control of activists. The press both reflects and influences public opinion, so it is fair to guess that we will see some public swing away from supporting anti-vivisectionists, and some public support for a government clamp-down on protests. Thus the Cambridge victory poses the danger of a backlash against us in the war against vivisection.

Those who support the "bully tactics" that brought about the close of this lab, and those who condemn such tactics for fear of a turn of public opinion against our cause, have compelling arguments. Since those who use violence to fight violence are part of our movement, and are clearly here to stay, I would not see any point in condemning them even if I were sure they were wrong. Rather, I suggest we take what we have, the abandoning of plans for a laboratory and the ensuing massive media attention, and we do what we can to get public opinion back on our side, and more importantly, on the side of those being tortured in laboratories.

The letters to the editor section is one of the most read sections of major newspapers. Editors view letters received as a barometer of public opinion. (Unless scores of letters have phrases in common and are clearly part of an activist campaign -- which is why 'sample letters' to the editor do more harm than good.) Legislators view the letters pages similarly. And the public can learn about the issues from published letters.

The coverage of Cambridge's change in plans has, so far, focused little on the plight of primates in laboratories. I urge people to write brief letters to the editor that do focus on the primates, rather than on the tactics, and that address the appropriate treatment of members of other species.

Below I will paste links to some of the major articles on the closure, and addresses for letters to the editor. Always include your full name, address, and telephone number when sending a letter to the editor. And do not be deterred if you cannot think of more than a line or two to write -- shorter letters are more likely to be published.

The Daily Telegraph, "Animal Wrongs":
http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/01/28/dl2802.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/01/28/ixopinion.html

The Telegraph takes letters at: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk

Guardian, "Cambridge abandons plans for primate lab":
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1132570,00.html

The Guardian takes letters at: letters@guardian.co.uk

The Financial Times, "Campaigners hail victory as monkey lab plan scrapped":
http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=040128001256&query=cambridge&vsc_appId=totalSearch&state=Form

And Financial Times Leader (editorial) -- "Defending Science":
http://search.ft.com/search/article.html?id=040128000664&query=cambridge&vsc_appId=totalSearch&state=Form

The Financial Times takes letters at: letters.editor@ft.com

The Independent, "Violence, Coercion, and Democracy":
http://argument.independent.co.uk/leading_articles/story.jsp?story=485381

The Independent takes letters at: letters@independent.co.uk

Evening Standard, "Animal Rights Victory":
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/8827812?source=Evening%20Standard

The Evening Standard has a current affairs message board where the issue is being discussed:
http://ichat.thisislondon.co.uk/messageboards/forum.jsp?forum=18

LOS ANGELES TIMES LEAD ARTICLE ON FACTORY FARMING

The Wednesday, January 21, Los Angeles Times has an excellent article on the cover of the Food section (pg F1), headed "The high price of cheap food." The commentary piece, by Times staff writer Emily Green discusses the down-side of factory farming -- how factory farming methods have led to mad cow disease, and also an over-abundance of cheap food and an obesity epidemic.

 It is a lengthy, informative article, perhaps best summed up in the following paragraph:

 "The drive for cheap food has gone beyond a brave experiment into a potentially catastrophic gamble. The stakes: the environment and public health. But none of the government officials charged with overseeing agriculture and environment is publicly suggesting the obvious fix: slowing down our intensive food production, treating the land and animals with more respect, producing less food, better food, more carefully."

 Though that paragraph mentions treating animals with more respect, the article does not focus on the treatment of animals. However, it opens the door for letters to the editor that do. Many people who do not eat animal products were moved to make the change when they learned about the cruelty of modern farming. We must, therefore, take every opportunity to educate the general public.

 A great source of information on factory farming is http://www.factoryfarming.com/ The site includes shocking photographs.

 You can read Green's full piece on line at:

http://www.latimes.com/features/food/la-fo-meat21jan21,1,3197493.story?coll=la-headlines-food 

 Letters appreciative of Emily Green's article, but which give more information on the suffering of factory farmed animals, can be sent to

letters@latimes.com

 Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

DATELINE ON PREMARIN CRUELTY

The Dateline story about Premarin aired Sunday January 18, and was excellent. It covered the treatment of horses used in the production of the drug or discarded by the industry and sent to slaughter. You can read the text on line at:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3995076/

(Note: It looks like you can actually view the TV segment on the website, but when I clicked on the link it kept switching instead to IOWA caucus coverage. Perhaps the glitch will get ironed out later.)

 One of my favorite parts of the piece was a quote from actress Stockard Channing:

 "Everyone I have ever mentioned this to goes -- they say what are you talking about? It's not like, yeah, I heard about that. They literally don't know."

 Last night, Dateline made sure that millions more people know. And you can increase that number by making sure your friends or family members who might be taking Premarin see the story on the web.

 Please thank Dateline for spreading the word.

 Dateline takes comments at: Dateline@NBC.com

CHICAGO TRIBUNE -- FUR'S HOT AGAIN

There is a dispiriting article on the front of the Style section of the Sunday, January 18, Chicago Tribune (pg Q1), headed, "Fur's hot again: The animal rights message has skipped a generation.

 Writer Wendy Navratil tells us that "the average age of fur buyers has dropped to 35 from 45" and "about 20 percent of buyers are under age 34." We learn that "at $1.7 billion in 2002, fur sales have climbed almost to the same record levels of the 'Wall Street'/'Dynasty' era."

 The lack of focus on this issue by animal rights activists is discussed. Activist and philosopher Tom Regan is quoted, noting that "those particular organizations whose primary focus was fur have just disappeared. And no one has stepped in to take up the slack."

 Unfortunately the article has quotes by those delighted with fur, such as this one from 26 year old Merritt Ames: "My grandmother used to wear this out and about in the '40s. Every time I wear it I get a ton of compliments and people asking where I got it. It's special. I'd love to give it to my daughter."

 And there is a quote from a model: "I don't even think of it as fur. The fashions are so trendy--the little boas, scarves."

But there is no information on the cruelty of the industry.

 We learn, instead, that the fur industry has worked with the American Veterinary Medical Association to develop "the best methods of feeding and housing and managing disease and even euthanizing the animals."

 This is not surprising given the AVMA's general stance on animal welfare issues. It opposes most animal friendly legislation, such as bans on veal and sow crates. It won't even take a stand against forced molting -- the withholding of food and water from hens, for days, in order to shock them into a last round of laying. But unfortunately the average Chicago Tribune reader learning of the alliance will be under the impression that it points to humane treatment of fur-bearing animals.

 You'll find the Chicago Tribune article at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/lifestyle/q/chi-0401180464jan18,1,1091114.story

With letters to the editor, we can share the truth about the fur industry with Chicago Tribune readers.

The PETA website http://www.furisdead.com/ has loads of information on the issue. If you click on "Campaign Center" you'll find links to horrifying footage.

 (Much more fun to watch is the delightful and informative Fund For Animals animated video, "There's a Fufanu in my collar too" at: http://www.fund.org/fur/pop_up_flash.asp )

 The Chicago Tribune takes letters at:

ctc-TribLetter@Tribune.com or http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform

 Please put together a few lines in support of those who shun fur, or on the cruelty of the industry.  And please be careful not to use any of my exact phrases from this alert in your letter, and never forward a media alert to activists, with a sample letter to the editor attached. Reams of letters from activists, clearly part of a campaign, are largely ignored by newspapers, whereas a few thoughtful lines will often be printed.

 Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

TWO DENVER EDITORIALS OPPOSING CIRCUS BAN

As a sign of the paradigm shift, our society's changing attitude regarding the appropriate treatment of other species, we see another large city attempting to ban circuses that use captive exotic animals. (You'll find a list of those with bans already in place at http://www.api4animals.org/632.htm ) The Tuesday, January 13, Rocky Mountain News, and Denver Post, both carried articles on a hearing held Monday night, in which animal advocates and circus representatives debated the merits of a ballot initiative that would ban exotic animal circuses. We learned that the signature gathering effort, to get the measure on the ballot, was led by a 15-year-old activist, Heather Herman, head of Youth Opposed to Animal Acts. The Rocky Mountain News article, "In Center Ring, Mayhem," (Pg 6A) mentioned USDA reports citing Ringling Brothers for acts of cruelty, including a report from 1999 that found  "'large visible lesions on the rear legs' of two baby elephants that were caused by rope burns as trainers fought to separate them from their mothers.""

Denver residents will get a chance to vote on the initiative on August 10. We can expect much more coverage on the issue in the meantime.

Sadly, today, January 14, both papers ran editorials (an editorial gives the paper's opinion) against the initiative.

The Rocky Mountain News piece, "Don't ban circuses from Denver," voiced skepticism about the mistreatment of circus animals. It cited the late 2002 case in which a Ringling Brothers trainer was charged with animal cruelty for causing a ""nickel-sized red bloody spot" on an elephant's leg. The editorial states,
"Complaints were brought by an officer with the Santa Clara County Humane Society, which has police powers, and a San Jose policewoman, but during the trial the two failed to convince the jury they had actually seen any abuse."

The editorial seems to discount the American jury system's assumption that one is innocent until proven guilty. That the jury were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of Gebel's guilt should hardly be used as proof of his innocence, or that of the circus system.

The Denver Post editorial, "Let the circus come to town" doesn't even argue that the circus is not cruel, but instead states, "If Denver was to ban the display of exotic animals, Ringing Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus most certainly would try to find another suitable metro area venue. If none was available, they'd set up stakes somewhere else along the Front Range, bypassing the Denver area completely.
The circus would go on - and whatever abuses Herman and the others believe are happening would continue. The only difference is Denver would lose out on an estimated $8 million economic windfall."

It says that animal cruelty is an important issue, but that the city should simply inspect circuses that come to town. It closes with:

"Denver would need to hire an independent contractor, which could cost the cash-strapped city. It wouldn't be enough to please People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, but it could ease the mind of parents who want their children to enjoy the circus without patronizing businesses that abuse animals."

That suggestion ignores the rearing and training of animals, when the worst abuses take place, far from the eyes of the public which supports it with ticket sales.

The website http://www.circuses.com/ is a superb source of information on circus cruelty. If you click on "Carson and Barnes Elephant Training" you will be taken to a page including a link to an unforgettable video. You will see trainers sinking bullhooks into elephants, and using electric prods to get them to do familiar tricks such as running around the ring holding each other's tails. You'll hear a trainer telling an apprentice to "make 'em scream" and saying that it has be done there in the barn -- it can't be done in front of 1,000 people. The video is hard watch, and likely to make you regret your childhood circus outings, but it is something everybody should see.

You can read the editorials at:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_2574281,00.html and

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~1888921,00.html

They are an unfortunate start to the public debate, but we can write informative and persuasive letters giving the citizens of Denver more information on circus life. I particularly urge those in Denver to write, and to keep writing, whenever the issue is in the paper.

One or two tips: Though it is tempting to berate the papers for their stance, studies have shown that papers are loathe to publish letters that attack them. Also, it is important that we, as representatives for the animals, come across well. So please hold your tempers when sitting at your keyboard.

And please, do not use any phrases from this alert in your letter, and never attach a sample for a letter to the editor. Reams of letters from activists, clearly part of a campaign, are largely ignored by newspapers. Worse, the efforts of those willing to spend a little time putting together a few original lines are compromised as their letters get lost in, or ignored with, the cookie-cutter batch.

The Rocky Mountain News takes letters at: letters@rockymountainnews.com

The Denver Post takes letters at: letters@denverpost.com

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

Finally, ending on a fun note, I give you Dan Piraro's view of using wild animals for our entertainment, as published in his Bizarro cartoon of January 2, 2004:

DANGER OF SALMON AND TUNA CONSUMPTION

While mad cow disease continues to dominate the news, another big story on food safety broke during the last week. The January 9 edition of the journal 'Science' includes a study on the danger of eating farmed salmon. It is only available on line to journal subscribers, or for a $10 fee.  However, the story made the front page of the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and London's Guardian and Daily Telegraph on January 9. It continues to make news around the world, appearing in about sixty of the largest papers on Monday, January 12 and today, Tuesday, January 13. There have been over 300 articles about it in leading newspapers during the last week.

 As many people, fearing BSE, consider a switch from eating beef to other animals, the information on the dangers of eating fish can be useful to include in our letters to the editor recommending a diet free of animal products for the sake of the animals, the environment, and human health. The current big news is about salmon, but a Washington Post article, cited below, also deals with warnings about tuna.

 It might seem obvious that a diet free of fish is better for the fish, but there are many, even those concerned about cruelty, who eat fish under the false impression that those animals, who seem so different from us, do not suffer. If you did not receive a DawnWatch alert, or any articles last April on the study demonstrating that fish feel pain, you might want to take a look at the alert, still available on this page under Fish Feel Pain.

 The Friday, January 9, front page Los Angeles Times story is long and informative. And the web-page includes links to other valuable information, such as a December 9, 2002, article on the environmental disaster caused by salmon fish farming, headed, "Fish farms become feedlots of the sea." There is also a link to a two part video about the environmental effects of salmon aquaculture. You'll find the January 9 article, and the links to the others, on line at: http://www.latimes.com/la-me-salmon9jan09,1,6283045.story

 The January 9 article was written by Kenneth R. Weiss and is headed, "Report Cites Health Risks of Farm-Raised Salmon."

 It begins:

"Salmon raised in ocean feedlots, the main source of supply for American consumers, contains such high levels of PCBs, dioxins and other toxic chemicals that people should not eat it more than once a month, according to an extensive study reported today in the journal Science."

Weiss writes, "None of the high levels exceed standards set in 1984 by the Food and Drug Administration for commercially sold fish. But they are higher than the guidelines set by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1999 for recreationally caught fish, which are 40 times more restrictive."

In case you are wondering who to believe, we find out later in the article: "While the EPA only considers human health risks, the FDA is required by law to consider a range of factors, including the economic impacts of its standards on the food production system."

We learn that the salmon farming industry "now produces most of the fresh salmon sold worldwide and supplies more than 80% of America's third most popular seafood, after shrimp and canned tuna."

The opinion of Charles Santerre, a food toxicologist industry consultant is noted: "He said any slightly elevated risk of cancer pales in comparison with the advantages of consuming salmon rich with omega-3 fatty acids, which help prevent heart attacks."

Weiss counters his view with, "The study's team of six scientists doesn't dispute the benefits of omega-3 fatty acids, but says consumers should opt for wild salmon or other sources, such as canola and flax oil."

The article touches on the environmental impact of attempting to switch to wild salmon: "Atlantic salmon almost always comes from a farm because wild Atlantic salmon is extremely rare due to overfishing.

We read about a warning from David O. Carpenter, one of the study's co-authors: "Aside from a slightly elevated cancer risk from these potential carcinogens, he said, the chief concern is that pregnant women can pass on these contaminants to their fetuses, impairing mental development and immune-system function."

Today's Washington Post story, "Fish Alert: What's the Net?" (January 13, Pg HE02) provides similarly bad news about tuna, another extremely popular fish. Sally Squires writes, "In a draft warning issued in December but still not finalized, the FDA and the Environmental Protection Agency said young children and women of childbearing age should limit intake of tuna and other fish and shellfish to 12 ounces a week. Experts say albacore tuna generally has more mercury than canned light tuna. In December, David Acheson, an FDA medical officer told The Post's Eric Pianin that women who are pregnant, nursing or thinking of becoming pregnant should eat no more than four to six ounces of tuna weekly. Experts also advised consumers to vary the kind of fish they eat."

Given the information provided in the Los Angeles Times article about the FDA's requirement to consider "the economic impacts of its standards on the food production system," one might have real concern over how high the mercury levels would have to be for the organization to draft a warning for women of childbearing age.

You can read the rest of the Washington Post short report on fish at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11108-2004Jan12.html

The Post takes letters at: letters@washpost.com

The Chicago Tribune front page story on the issue (Friday, February 9) can be found on line at:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-0401090399jan09,1,5459909.story

The Tribune takes letters at: ctc-TribLetter@Tribune.com 

and the London Daily Telegraph front page story is at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/01/09/nfish09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/01/09/ixportal.html

The Telegraph takes letters at: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk

The  journal "Science" article and all of the articles based on it, compliment the mad cow disease stories as perfect jump-off points for letters to the editor singing the praises of diets free of animal products.

If you have any trouble finding an email address you need for a letter to the editor, feel free to ask me for help. Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

ANOTHER GREAT ANTI FUR BIZARRO

Today's Bizarro comic (Sunday, January 11) is another delightful animal rights comment:

They say "you can't take it with you," but guess what - the animals and I decided to let you keep all those furs you own. 

 I have pasted it above but for those who only receive text in their emails: We see a picture of hell, hot, flames everywhere. The devil is talking to a woman draped in layers of fur coats; she has sweat pouring off her. He says, "They say 'You can't take it with you' but guess what -- the animals and I decided to let you keep all those furs you owned."

 Bizarro is a syndicated newspaper cartoon that appears in approximately 200 newspapers around the world. In the US, those papers include the San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Dallas Morning News, Miami Herald, Boston Herald, San Diego Union Tribune, Denver Post, Washington Times, Chicago Tribune, Detroit News, St. Paul Pioneer Press, Las Vegas Sun, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Pittsburgh Post Gazette, Nashville Cit Paper, Houston Chronicle, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. In Canada they include the Vancouver Sun, Toronto Globe and Mail, and the Montreal Gazette.

 If your paper carries the cartoon, you have a perfect excuse for an anti fur letter to the editor, citing the cartoon, expressing appreciation for the anti-fur sentiment, and perhaps adding some anti-fur facts. PETA has two great fact sheets on fur:

 Fur Factory Farms: Captive Cruelty --- http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fswild3.html 

and

Trapping: Pain for Profit -- http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fswild2.html

  If you have any trouble finding the correct email address for a letter to the editor, don't hesitate to ask me for help.

 If your paper does not carry Bizarro, you might want to contact the paper and try to change that. Bizarro is not specifically an animal rights cartoon -- it is a superb, wacky, award winning cartoon, featured in hundreds of papers. But since its creator, Dan Piraro, is an outspoken animal rights activist, it frequently has an animal rights theme. What better way to reach people than with humor?

 If you go to Piraro's website, http://www.bizarro.com/ and click on "Animal Stuff" you are in for a treat. You'll find a short essay, "Why I'm Vegan," another headed, "Are Humans Carnivores?" some great quotes, and....LOTS OF ANIMAL FRIENDLY CARTOONS that have appeared in papers all over the world! Check it out.

MASS SLAUGHTER OF CIVET CATS TO CONTROL SARS

Having removed a previous ban on the live market sale of exotic animals such as civet cats, the Chinese Government, in response to a new outbreak of SARS, has started exterminating animals. The story is on the front page of the Thursday, January 8, International Herald Tribune, headed, "SARS disrupts unsavory trade; A low-profit day at animal market." New York Times writer, Jim Yardley, opens with a description of general conditions at the Xinyuan market:
"The Xinyuan wild game market reeks of animal waste and death. Trucks arrive daily with animals jammed into cages -- cats, dogs, pigeons, boars, ostriches, even rats."

On Tuesday, writes Yardley, "The resolve of officials here in Guangdong Province to slaughter an estimated 10,000 civet cats and other animals as a preventive measure against SARS was on vivid display. Even as international health officials urged caution, Chinese media reported that workers in protective suits and goggles were plunging caged civet cats into pools of water to drown them."

"The extermination campaign, expected to be finished by Saturday, came as government news outlets announced that the 32-year-old SARS patient here whose case rekindled fears of another outbreak will be released from the hospital on Thursday. He has recovered, though experts still do not know how he contracted the virus."

The article notes animal rights opposition to the market:
"The conditions endured by the animals at Xinyuan and similar markets have long been condemned as barbaric by animal rights activists. On Tuesday, a truck delivered a shipment of dogs from Henan Province that eventually will be eaten. Dealers had jammed as many as three dogs, some large, into cages 1 foot, or 30 centimeters, by 3 feet."

Indeed, Animal Rights Asia is campaigning to have the market permanently closed. You can learn more about the campaign at the organization's website: http://www.animalsasia.org/

You can read the whole IHT article on line at:
http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=124050&owner=&date=20040108141555

Yardley has a follow-up in today's (Thursday, January 8, pg A6 ) New York Times headed: "Rats Hunted in SARS Episode in China; New Case Is Confirmed." He opens,

"The confiscation and slaughter of civets continued in Guangdong Province, where officials trying to prevent a new outbreak of SARS also unveiled plans for a 'patriotic campaign' to eradicate rats. Meanwhile, health officials announced that a new 'suspected' case of SARS had been confirmed in Guangdong.

"The new case is a 20-year-old waitress who works at a restaurant that apparently serves civet."

Meanwhile we learn that the man who was mainland China's first SARS case of the winter "told the Chinese media that he had never eaten civet, and that his only contact with wild game was with a mouse. He apparently threw a mouse out a window at some point before he became ill. "

We are reminded that, "Guangdong officials have estimated that they plan to confiscate and kill about 10,000 animals by Saturday."

Of course, those seized animals were destined to die for dinner anyway. However, Yardley closes with:
"The disclosure that the first SARS patient in Guangdong had come into contact with a rodent apparently prompted officials in the provincial capital of Guangzhou to turn their attention to rats. The Guangzhou Daily reported that residents would be encouraged to put out rat poison from Jan. 10 to Jan. 13 as part of a 'patriotic campaign' to exterminate vermin."

You can read the whole article at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/08/health/08SARS.html

Both New York's Newsday, and the South China Morning Post reveal that the government's kill-all-the-animals reaction might not be prudent. The Newsday article, by Laurie Garrett (pg A 16) is headed "WHO: Civet Cat Slaughter May Spread SARS."

She writes, "Scientists are questioning China's decision to slaughter 10,000 masked palm civet cats as a SARS control measure, saying it is biologically unwarranted and actually may spread the disease."

She quotes Dr. Wolfgang Preiser who has conducted SARS analysis for the World Health Organization, who says that by slaughtering the civets, "they are literally destroying the evidence."

A World Health Organization spokesman, Ian Simpson, says: ""We haven't seen any evidence that demonstrates conclusively that the virus originates in civets. Our belief is that the scientific evidence isn't sufficient to justify a cull of civets."

The Newsday article tells us that the authorities have responded to the second suspected case of SARS in Guangdong  by closing the region's exotic animal markets. And it discusses how the virus mutates as it spreads between species.

It closes with the warning, "WHO's Simpson also expressed concern that the slaughter would spread the virus. Chinese television coverage shows that most handlers lack appropriate protective gear, such as respirator masks and goggles."

You can read it on line at:

http://www.nynewsday.com/news/printedition/newyork/nyc-hssars083616447jan08.story


The South China Morning Post article is headed,

"Storm grows over culling of civets. Guangdong is accused of acting too fast without waiting for data on the animals' link to Sars outbreak." (By Leu Siew Ying in Guangzhou, pg 6.)

It tells us, "The World Health Organisation described the Guangdong plan to kill all the civets as radical, adding that the civet had not been confirmed as spreading the Sars virus. The global health organisation said it was concerned that the cull would eliminate evidence of the spread of the disease." The full article is only available on the web to subscribers.

This prominent story in many papers gives us an opportunity for letters to the editor with regard to our society's treatment of animals. We can write against live animal markets, or in favor of vegetarianism.

When one reads Yardley's distressing description, in the International Herald Tribune, of dogs crammed three to a tiny cage, one is reminded of what billions of animals endure on factory farms. Egg-laying hens, for example, in the United States, live crammed together in tiny cages unable to stretch their wings.  We might use the current suffering of animals in China as a jump-off point for letters to the editor discussing the way animals are treated in the United States (or Australia, or the UK) on factory farms. The  http://www.factoryfarming.com/   website has great information and a photo gallery, on the suffering of farmed animals. Here is a picture from that website, of egg-laying hens in battery cages:

http://www.factoryfarming.org/gallery/hens7.htm


(The United Poultry Concerns website also has loads of information on the life of a battery hen at:
http://www.upc-online.org/batthen.html)

Here are addresses for letters to the editor of the papers cited above:

International Herald Tribune:  letters@iht.com
New York Times: letters@nytimes.com
Newsday -- post on the web at: http://cf.newsday.com/newsdayemail/email.cfm 
The South China Morning Post takes letters at: scmplet@scmp.com

 And your local paper will also no doubt be carrying stories on SARS which may mention the animal slaughter. Don't hesitate to ask me for help if you have any difficulty finding the correct address to email a letter to the editor. Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor. Shorter letters are more likely to be published.

NEW YEAR BEGINS WITH BAN ON DOWNED ANIMALS FOR FOOD

As expected, mad cow disease has dominated the news over the holiday period. I was pleased to find at least a dozen letters in major papers discussing the cruelty of the meat industry and recommending a switch to a plant based diet. I will paste one at the end of this alert.

 I was surprised to see a quote from a vegetarian advocate cautioning vegetarians from "using mad cow disease as a recruiting tool."

True, trying to persuade a person to go vegan based on fear of the disease is unlikely to have useful long-term effects. That person will surely start eating a different species thought to be free of the disease, and return to eating cows if the beef supply is ruled safe by the authorities. And though I support almost all tactics aimed at persuading people to stop supporting the animal cruelty inherent in the meat and dairy industry, I am not convinced that human health is necessarily the best argument. Is it not safe to assume that Carrie Bradshaw knows she is likely to die of lung cancer? Yet still we have seen her smoke countless cigarettes on Sunday nights on HBO. I don't know that the threat of mad cow disease will have any more effect than the threat of lung cancer, once the hysteria dies down.

 That doesn't mean we cannot use the disease, indirectly, as a recruiting tool. The letters to the editor section is one of the best read sections of most newspapers. And it generally only carries letters about current stories. A letter about farmed animal cruelty, sent out of the blue, unrelated to any story in the paper, is unlikely to get published. However, though it is little mentioned in the mainstream articles about mad cow disease, animal cruelty is highly relevant to this story. Animal welfare advocates have been trying to get the slaughter of downed animals banned for years. In an op-ed appearing in the Baltimore Sun (Consequences of Cruelty, Dec 31, pg 13A), and many other papers, HSUS's Wayne Pacelle writes, "The coarse handling of downers is one of the cruelest aspects of industrial agriculture. When sick animals collapse in the livestock trucks or the holding pens on the way to slaughter, they are routinely beaten, shocked, dragged with chains or pushed with bulldozers. Those that don't pass visual inspection by federal authorities at slaughterhouses become living garbage, condemned to expire slowly and painfully, alone or on a dead pile."

 (You can read the whole op-ed at:

http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.disease31dec31,0,3249459.story?coll=bal-oped-headlines 

or in the Chicago Tribune at http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0312250101dec25,1,3510101.story 

or in  Newsday at: http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-vppac293603445dec29,0,5683106.story?coll=ny-health-headlines  or the Hartford Courant at:http://www.ctnow.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-madcow0102.artjan02,1,2588268.story?coll=hc-headlines-oped)

But there is money in the slaughter of downed cows, and the meat industry managed to defeat legislation banning the practice even after the legislation had been approved by the House and the Senate.

 If the legislation animal protection groups have been proposing for years had been approved, a downed cow, with BSE, would not have been slaughtered on December 9 and entered the American food system. We can write letters pointing that out, and recommending that people give up eating meat, not because they are frightened of contracting BSE, but because the meat industry is cruel, and vegetarianism is a great choice. Now topical, because of the discovery of mad cow disease in a cruelly slaughtered downed cow, such letters are likely to get published. Also topical, are letters making it clear that shunning beef but eating dairy is no way to avoid supporting the cruelty of the meat industry; many Americans were surprised to learn that a dairy cow had ended up in the meat supply.

 The slaughter of downed cows for human consumption has now been banned. Those pushing for the ban are pleased with the development, however, since it is based on human health rather than cruelty concerns, celebration may be premature. If downed cows can still be dragged to slaughter so that their bodies may be used for purposes other than human food (leather for example) the new law will not help the animals. So we can also write letters reminding people it is preferable to live in an ethical society, where the slaughter (rather than painless euthanization) of downed animals should be banned regardless of the intended distribution of body parts. Those letters might also still remind people that choosing a lifestyle that contributes to no slaughter is the kindest choice.

 A large proportion of letters sent to small and medium sized papers are published. And large papers will always publish a letter or two on a topic about which they receive many. So please write. And please ask me for help if you have any trouble finding the correct email address for letters to the editor on your paper's website.

 Taking a quick look at some of the major stories on the issue:

 The Monday, January 5, New York Times has a huge front page story headed, "Mad Cow Forces Beef Industry to Change Course, " by Michael Moss, Richard A. Oppel Jr. and Simon Romero.

 It opens, "The financial motive that drove the industry to defend practices like selling downers has been turned on its head by the discovery of mad cow disease. Now, in an attempt to rescue the market for American beef, the industry is being forced to accept regulation it has long fought."

It discusses the financial incentives for slaughtering downed cows. It also mentions another danger to human health: "advanced recovery systems" which use "hydraulic pressure to force extra pounds off cow carcasses, producing filler for processed foods like hamburger, hot dogs and pizza toppings." We read,  "Consumer groups initially complained that bone was getting into the advanced meat recovery product and argued that the product should not be labeled as beef. Then, in 1997, federal agriculture officials announced that they had found spinal cord tissue in some of the meat. Concerned that the nerve tissue could increase the public's risk of contracting mad cow disease, consumer groups asked the government to ban the technology, said Linda Golodner, president of the National Consumers League. But both the industry and government regulators resisted, arguing that the absence of the disease in the United States showed that there was no problem."

 You can read the whole article on line at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/opinion/05MON3.html

 The Monday, January 5, New York Times also includes an unusual op-ed on the issue, which, more than any major media story I have seen, discusses the suffering of dairy cows. The story, by Verlyn Klinkenborg, is headed "Holstein Dairy Cows and the Inefficient Efficiencies of Modern Farming."

It spells out the beef/dairy connection:

"There was nothing anomalous in that Holstein's slaughter. Beef cattle and dairy cattle represent two different types of animal, but their fates are identical. What most Americans do not realize is that nearly every dairy cow eventually becomes either hamburger or the cheaper variety of steak when her profitability drops."

We learn about the dairy cow's life:

"After poultry and pigs, the dairy industry has become one of the most concentrated forms of agriculture in America. The old mental picture of a herd of Holsteins standing hock-deep in pasture bears no relation to the way milk is produced in much of America. Some herds, especially in the West and Southwest, number in the thousands, which means the animals spend their lives in barns on cement where they are milked automatically, in some cases on huge rotating platforms that look like something out of science fiction.

"For all their adaptability, even Holsteins can put up with only a certain amount of this. By the time they mature, at around 5 years old, many begin to break down from leg and foot problems. Dairy organizations distribute locomotion charts to help workers assess lameness, which can lead to reproductive failures -- another reason for culling animals. Other cows begin to fail from the stress of carrying an udder that can weigh as much as a full-grown man. To prepare them for slaughter, the cows must be given time to get any residue -- the word means traces of drugs -- out of their systems.

"As always, the goals of industrial agriculture create a perverse logic. Instead of adapting the agricultural system to suit the animal, we try to adapt the animal to suit the system in order to eke out every last efficiency. We may take it for granted that dairy cows will eventually be slaughtered. But strange as it sounds, it makes greater financial, ethical and social sense if we subscribe to the cows' notions of efficiency, which do not include living on concrete or eating anything but grass and grain, rather than to ours. The animals would be healthier, their milk would be better, and we would not have to worry quite so much about what was in our food.

"At some point Americans will begin to judge agriculture not by its intentions but by its unintended consequences. ...The consequence has also been to breed an animal that can barely sustain the way she is forced to live."

You can read the whole piece on line at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/05/opinion/05MON3.html

 The New York Times (January 2) and the Minneapolis Star Tribune (January 5) ran an op-ed piece by Eric Schlosser, author of the best-seller, "Fast Food Nation."

He  writes of the USDA: "Right now you'd have a hard time finding a federal agency more completely dominated by the industry it was created to regulate." He gives details of the unfortunate connections, and writes, "The Agriculture Department has a dual, often contradictory mandate:  to promote the sale of meat on behalf of American producers and to guarantee that American meat is safe on behalf of consumers."

You can read the whole piece on line at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/02/opinion/02SCHL.html 

or http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/4302387.html

 And finally, while there is much misinformation coming from the press about prions and the virtual impossibility of contracting the disease, The Wall Street Journal covered the issue responsibly in an article, by Antonio Regalado, headed "Scientific Data Offer No Proof Of Beef Safety" (Dec 29. pg B1)

It tells us, "Steaks and hamburgers made from beef muscle haven't been shown to be dangerous, but some leading experts in Europe and the U.S. say the risks of meat from sick cattle remain unknown, and new studies have implicated muscles in other species."

(I thank Lew Regenstein for making sure we knew about the article.) Wall Street Journal articles are not available on line to non subscribers, however, there is a thorough article on the issue, by Dr Michael Greger, which you will find at:

http://organicconsumers.org/madcow/Greger122403.cfm

Greger tells us, "It is unconscionable that the USDA and the beef industry continue to insist that the deadly prions aren't found in muscle meat."

Unconscionable, but when one takes into account Schlosser's information, hardly surprising.

 Mad cow disease will continue to be in every paper for some time to come. I will close, urging activists to take this opportunity to  write letters discussing the cruelty of the meat and dairy industries, and to recommend dietary changes that avoid supporting the cruelty.  Below, I will paste a letter to the editor from activist Syd Baumel, who does it beautifully:

 The Vancouver Province (British Columbia), January 5, Editorial; Pg. A15

'Spare a thought for the cows'

In our preoccupation with making beef safe for people, let's spare a moment to think about making beef safe for Canadian cows.

Most beef and dairy today is produced within a ruthlessly competitive industrial farming system that reduces sensitive animals to production units, decimates small farms and rural communities, squanders land, fresh water and energy to fatten nearly a billion reluctant animals for slaughter every year in Canada alone.

These factory farms or CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) and the laxly regulated animal transport and slaughter industry that serves them have become the new mills of industry, exposed and denounced by everyone from ecologists to environmentalists to clergy and media such as the New York Times.

Several years ago, the Humane Society of the United States wrote a simple prescription for consumers who don't want to swallow this morally unpalatable new agriculture: reduce, refine and replace.

Reduce means eat fewer animal foods. Refine means eat more humanely and sustainably produced animal foods (such as those certified by local and national humane societies).

And replace meat with a veggie burger, a curried lentil dish or a bowl of soy ice cream instead of a pork chop, a hot dog or a milkshake.

It's a prescription that challenges and empowers people to at least "go humane" if not vegetarian.

As Canada's beef industry teeters on the brink of failure and a rapidly growing ethical consumer movement strives to put conscience back into the kitchen, a timely, morally principled and government-supported transition to a humane and sustainable new Canadian agriculture could be a life raft for us all.

It's time we put culture back into agriculture.

Syd Baumel, Winnipeg

-----

Syd's letter is beautiful, however, shorter, less eloquent letters, appealing to the ethical sense or mercy in readers, are just as likely to be published and to have a positive impact. In fact, short letters are more likely to be published.

Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor.