|
ANIMAL MEDIA ALERTS -- APRIL 2004
WASHINGTON TIMES -- "AVOWEDLY VEGAN" The Metro section of the Tuesday, April 27, Washington Times, has a wonderful article, by Jen Waters, headed "Avowedly Vegan." It mentions that many people choose a vegan diet for ethical reasons but it mostly discusses the health benefits. For example it tells us: "The diet is known to decrease risks of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis and high blood pressure, says Paige Allen, a registered dietitian at the Washington Hospital Center in Northwest. Studies on the subject were published in 1999 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and in 2003 in the Journal of the American Dietetics Association."
It presents a great opportunity for appreciative letters to the editor, perhaps discussing the ethical reasons for choosing a vegan diet. The Washington Times takes letters at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/contact-us/ Choose 'letter to the editor' from the pull-down menu. I send a big thank you to wonderful activist, Cheryl Kucsera (she also sent me three letters of hers recently been published in various papers) for making sure we saw this article.
LOS ANGELES TIMES ON ANTI FOIE GRAS BILL Good news from
the California legislature appears on the front page of the Metro Section
of today's Los Angeles Times (Pg B1). The headline reads, "Activists
Win One in Battle Over Pate Foie Gras; Senate panel votes to ban
sale of delicacy produced by the force-feeding of ducks and geese. Fans
of the dish are concerned."
LETTER IN READER'S DIGEST POINTS TO FISH PERSONALITY Many people who would never eat a mammal, are happy to eat fish. A friend of mine ate fish for years after giving up other animals, having done extensive research which reassured him that fish simply don't have nervous systems like ours and don't feel pain. But last year a study was published that made it clear that fish do feel pain. (See http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99993673 ). Still, they seem so different from us, it can be hard to work up real compassion for them. And since their faces show nothing that looks to us like emotion, we tend to assume they experience none. So even some who acknowledge that they do feel pain assume that their experience could not really be defined as suffering. I have always preferred to give them the benefit of the doubt and to avoid eating them. My friend Steve, a committed carnivore, recently validated my choice. He told me one night, as he dug into his medium rare steak, that he never eats grouper. He is dive master and says that an aversion to eating grouper is common amongst divers. It seems the aversion is similar to that which Westerners have towards eating dogs -- we don't like to eat our friends. He tells me that Grouper will come up to divers, hang out, rub their bodies against them, and let themselves be petted. Since Steve is hardly the sentimental type, I thought his tale was probably true. Now in the May edition of Reader's Digest (page 24) we see a similar account on the letters page. (A big thank you to Judy Carmen for calling it to our attention.): "A Fish Tale "As an avid scuba diver, I got a kick out of your photo essay 'Fish Face.' It may be hard to believe, but fish really do have personalities. While scuba diving in the British West Indies, I met a fish who was such a character he had been given a name--Alexander--by a dive guide. The friendly grouper waved his fins as if to say, 'Hello!' and swam with me as I explored. When I ventured out of his territory, he waited patiently until I returned. Alexander made a lasting impression on me--and on my diet. No more seafood buffets for me." Ann Marie Giunti, Newport News, VA. If you feel like writing a supportive letter in favor of fish, Reader's Digest takes letters at: letters@rd.com. It would be great for Reader's Digest to get some fish friendly letters. But I passed this on mostly to spread the word on behalf of the fish.
FINANCIAL TIMES FRONT PAGE STORY ON RESEARCH ALTERNATIVES An important development is covered on the front page of the Friday, April 23, Financial Times (London): "Research centre to develop animal testing alternatives." It is continues on page 11 as "Beasts of Burden face test." The whole story appears in the US edition on page 9 headed, "Medical beasts of burden face a different test: Ways to conduct more animal experiments that use fewer of them are being explored by institutes and companies." David Firn writes: "A centre to develop alternatives to animal testing is to be set up by the government in an attempt to address public concerns over vivisection and undermine support for militant animal rights activists. "Lord Sainsbury, the science minister, is finalising the 3Rs project - an effort to refine, reduce and replace the use of laboratory animals in research. It will be launched within weeks. "The announcement has been held up by disagreement over who should be in charge of the project, which is intended to improve the welfare of laboratory animals and reduce unnecessary testing, according to groups involved in the project....Lord Sainsbury is understood to favour giving a lead role to the Medical Research Council, which set up its own unit to develop more humane animal testing two years ago. However, animal welfare groups, such as the RSPCA, argue for a body outside of the medical establishment." The following quote from Vicky Robinson, head of the MRC's efforts to improve animal research, helps us understand the concern animal groups would have about MRC involvement: "If we are to unravel the genetic code, the use of animals will increase." The front page article tell us, "The 3Rs project is a response to a House of Lords report which said not enough was being done by scientists to reduce the number of animals used in research." However the page 11 story, which also appears in the US version, details the other factors behind the project: "Simon Festing of the UK-based Association of Medical Research Charities is hopeful that the creation of a high-profile centre for research into the 3Rs will make animal lovers less likely to fund the activities of the 30 or so violent animal rights extremists behind a string of vicious attacks on scientists and staff of animal testing companies in the UK." Given the impact those extremists seem to be having on the future of vivisection Europe (I think of the recent decision to abandon the planned Cambridge primate laboratory, for fear of animal rights violence, and now the formation of this center) it is hard to share his hope. Even with the goal of reducing support for activists (a nod to the power of those activists) the formation of the center, as long as it is not in the hands of the MRC, would appear to be very good news. Since the general stance of the animal rights movement (as opposed to the animal welfare movement) is to not find any painful or terminal animal experimentation acceptable, the center's goal of simply reducing the numbers used is not exactly in line with the animal rights view. However, it is clearly very good news for those animals who will be not be used in experiments, and we can hope the numbers will eventually be reduced to zero. You can read the front page story on line at: The US edition of the story, which appears on page 9, is at: It is longer and more detailed as it includes the information from the page 11 UK edition story, which is not available on line. This is a terrific opportunity for letters appreciative of the coverage and against vivisection. The Financial Times takes letters at: letters.editor@ft.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.
TERRIFIC ANTI CIRCUS COLUMN IN PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS The Tuesday, April
20, (pg 34) The Philadelphia Daily News published a wonderful article
by Stu Bykofsky, headed, "Circus Fun. Except for the animals between
'cage & stage.'" Also,
great news -- An article headed "Cruelty under the big top?"
was on the front page of Monday's (4/19) Albuquerque Journal. I
cannot find a link to it on line but am happy to send my Nexis version
to anybody in New Mexico who wishes to write a letter.
DEBRA SAUNDERS ANTI CLONING PRO CAT COLUMN San Francisco Chronicle
columnist Debra Saunders rarely misses an opportunity to make snide,
even hostile comments about animal rights. Those familiar with her general
stance might be surprised to read today's column in which she turns her
wit against those who would clone cats. In her column headed "Hello
Kitty or Frankenpet," Saunders writes,
And thanks to Patrick Kwan for providing this Tiny URL: http://tinyurl.com/39q5e for the same article.
SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE ON WORLD WEEK FOR LAB ANIMALS DEMO The Tuesday, April 20 San Francisco Chronicle, has an article, by Charles Burress, headed "Activists denounce research on animals; Cops stop shovel protest above UC's underground labs." It covers a demonstration by the group "In Defense of Animals" in honor of World Week for Animals in Laboratories.
The San Francisco Chronicle takes letters at: letters@sfchronicle.com and recommends, "Please limit your letters to 200 or fewer words ... shorter letters have a better chance of being selected for publication." Always include your full name, address, and daytime phone number when sending a letter to the editor.
TUFTS TERMINAL DOG EXPERIMENTS ON BOSTON GLOBE MAGAZINE COVER The cover of the Sunday, April 18, Boston Globe Magazine reads, "When should animals die in the name of science?" The story inside, by Douglas Starr, headed "A Dog's Life," opens: "When scientists at the Tufts veterinary school fractured the legs of six dogs to see how they healed, and then euthanized the dogs, all in the name of research, the ensuing outcry reopened the argument over how far is too far when it comes to using animals to advance medicine." The article offers good information and makes important points. What I dislike about it is the notion it furthers that the lives or suffering of these six dogs matters more than the suffering of other animals who die in laboratories -- the millions of rodents, for example, who are not even covered by the laws aimed at protecting laboratory animals from undue suffering. I hope, therefore, that letters to the editor from animal activists will address the suffering of all laboratory animals, not just dogs. The story centers on the activism of four students at the Center for Animals and Public Policy at the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine: "Last fall, all four - (Tara) Turner, Dana Zenko, Diana Goodrich, and Michelle Johnson - had volunteered for a program in which students walk dogs kept on campus for practice in noninvasive clinical exams. One day, they noticed some other dogs in a kennel marked 'Do not touch.' These animals, they discovered, were part of a study to learn whether loosening an external metal splint at a certain point in the healing process causes bones to heal faster and stronger. The process, called dynamization, had long been anecdotally observed but needed a definitive study, according to vet-school faculty members. Professors Randy Boudrieau and Karl Kraus planned to perform an osteotomy, or surgical fracture, on both hind legs of the anesthetized dogs, and treat one leg with a tight splint and the other with a loosened splint. The final step would require euthanizing the dogs so the researchers could stress-test the bones and microscopically examine the bone cells." "Something about this did not seem right to the four women, especially given their school's reputation. Recruiting about two dozen like-minded veterinary students, they met with the school's Animal Welfare Committee, a student-faculty group that oversees the well-being of animals on campus. The committee's chairwoman, Dr. Alicia Karas, a noted veterinary anesthesiologist, explained to the students the purpose of the research and the great lengths taken to minimize the dogs' pain....The faculty saw the meetings as a teaching opportunity - a chance to explain the complexities of animal research. The students saw the meetings as a chance to win the research dogs a reprieve. If only they could suggest another endpoint to the researchers - such as a bone scan or other high-tech detection device - they thought they might have a chance at saving the dogs' lives. In early December, Kirker-Head invited them to submit an alternative proposal, although, he warned them, its chances of success were slim." The dogs were killed. The long and detailed article offers some interesting information on shifts within the veterinary profession. The profession was traditionally male, and set up to treat 'farm animals.' The farmed animal industry was the main employer. The now outdated anti animal welfare policies of the American Veterinary Medical Association reflect that core. But we learn: "As Americans moved away from farms, vets became more small-animal centered. Today, a majority of the vets in practice work primarily on family pets....The profession has also become strikingly more female. A recent census of the profession...found that 70 percent of veterinary students were women....At last summer's annual meeting of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the membership challenged the all-male, middle-aged executive board on several animal-protection issues. Members succeeded in passing a resolution to investigate more humane housing for pigs." And there is enlightening information about pound seizure laws -- laws that ban the selling (for a nominal fee) of dogs from pounds to laboratories. Since specially bred laboratory dogs suffer just as much, the laws seemed to me to do little more than make people dropping family members at the pound feel better about the choice. However, according to this article, such laws reduce the number of dogs used in research: "When, in the 1980s, Massachusetts and other states repealed pound seizure laws that allowed pounds to sell animals to researchers, labs had to start buying expensive dogs bred for research use." But then there is this paragraph: "Scientists developed substitutes for animals, such as software that mimics biological processes and plasticized models of animal organs. Furthermore, as genetics becomes the centerpiece of medicine, researchers are shifting from companion-sized animals to laboratory-engineered mice to study disease." To the extent that the pound dogs are replaced by rodents there is no overall reduction in suffering. But if they are replaced by non animal research, the laws have a wonderful effect. There is a nice quote from Steve Wise, regarding the use of animals in experiments to help animals: "You'd never euthanize some human patients to help others." Because of enlightened stances in some fields, such as against the use of wild animals in circuses, there are those in the animal abuse industries who have tried to paint the Humane Society of the United States as an animal rights organization, closely aligned with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Quotes from Andrew Rowan, chief of staff at HSUS, should clarify that organization's position "for now" as more welfare than rights: "Most universities see the animal- research issue as one big negative. No matter how much they explain things, typically the story comes out that 'those bad people are torturing dogs.'" And "We look forward to the day when we can put an end to using animals in research, but for now we're focusing on achievable goals." Starr explains "those goals include promoting the 'Three R's' outlined in the Animal Welfare Act, the federal law that regulates the care and use of lab animals - replacing or reducing animal experimentation wherever possible and refining the research to minimize suffering." A worthy short-term goal, I believe. But he is citing the Animal Welfare Act, not the animal rights act. You can read the whole article on line at: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/magazine/articles/2004/04/18/a_dogs_life/ It provides a great opportunity for anti vivisection letters to the editor. The Magazine section takes letters at: magazine@globe.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.
CHICAGO TRIBUNE EDITORIAL ON BARCELONA VOTE AGAINST BULLFIGHTING The Saturday, April 17, Chicago Tribune had an informative editorial on some very encouraging news from Spain: Barcelona's vote against Bullfighting. The news has been making the rounds on the Internet, sometimes giving the false impression that bullfighting has actually been banned in Barcelona. The Chicago Tribune editorial, headed, "Barcelona's stab at bullfighting" (pg C20) clarifies the situation: "Barcelona's city council recently declared itself against bullfighting. The vote doesn't ban bullfighting, only the provincial council can do that. But even so, the condemnation was a shocker." The editorial gives some details about the resolution: "In its resolution, the city council noted that bulls are 'sensitive both mentally and physically,' a kind but incendiary concept in Spain, where taunting, torturing and killing these poor beasts is a sacred spectacle. Last summer, the Catalan regional council also voted to keep children under 14 from attending bullfights to limit their exposure to violence." It describes a bull "fight": "In a real bullfight, things look bad for the bull from the get-go. Picadores on horseback lance the bull on the back to provoke and weaken him. Then a banderillero sticks the bull with barbed darts, or banderillas. Following that, the toreador removes his hat and asks the presiding officer for "permission" to further taunt the bloodied bull with his cape and ultimately kill him by thrusting a sword to the heart." And it ends with this animal friendly line: "It's all macho enough to captivate a Hemingway but too barbaric for lesser humans. Whatever its motives were, Barcelona's city council deserves an 'Ole!' No ears or tails, please." (Toreadors are sometimes rewarded with cut off ears or tails.) You can read the whole editorial at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0404170072apr17,1,4656322.story You can submit an appreciative letter to the editor at: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/letters/chi-lettertotheeditor.customform
STYLE WEEKLY COVER STORY ON EGG PRODUCTION Paul Shapiro, Of Compassion Over Killing, has forwarded the April 14 cover story of "Richmond's weekly magazine of News, Culture, and Opinion." You can see the fabulous cover at: http://www.styleweekly.com/ You'll find the
story, by Laura LaFay, at: It is headed, "Into
the Frying Pan SEAL HUNT CARTOON AND COVERAGE The Canada seal
hunt got underway yesterday (Monday, April 12). It has been covered, yesterday
and today, in every Canadian paper, every major Australian paper, and
many papers in the UK and the US. One bit of coverage we can all enjoy,
thanks to Joan Sinden who put it on her server for us, is an editorial
cartoon that appeared in the Tuesday, April 13, Halifax Chronicle Herald.
It is by Adrian Raeside. Apparently it is a syndicated cartoon so it should
have also been in other papers. You can view it at: POSITIVE REVIEW FOR FOIE GRAS SPECIALTY RESTAURANT IN CHRONICLE Sonoma Saveurs
was trashed by animal rights activists last August, setting off a spate
of publicity which has culminated in an anti foie gras bill in the California
legislature. Since the bill has not yet passed, the restaurant has opened
and is positively reviewed, by Michael Bauer, in the Sunday, April 11,
San Francisco Chronicle. (Chronicle Magazine, Dining Out, page 24.) You can read the
full review on line at: 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.
BISON SLAUGHTER AND SEAL HUNT IN CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR The Wednesday,
April 7, Christian Science Monitor has two strong animal related articles.
"BFC offers a 24-hour service for residents to call for help in moving bison off their land and offers free labor to fix fences broken by bison. Volunteers along highways ask motorists to slow down when bison are present and have made signs for residents to post on their land telling the Livestock Department that animals are welcome."
I send thanks to Mary Palisi- Schuelke for making sure we saw that article.
You can read the whole piece on line at: http://search.csmonitor.com/search_content/0407/p09s03-coop.html Either or both of these articles provide great opportunities for letters to the editor about the way we treat members of other species. Papers are encouraged to run stories on topic about which they receive a lot of feedback. The Christian Science Monitor takes letters at: http://search.csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/encryptmail.pl?ID=CFF0C5E4 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.
CANADA SEAL HUNT ON FRONT PAGE OF NEW YORK TIMES The Canadian Seal
Hunt is on the front page of the Monday, April 5, New York Times. The
article is headed, " New Demand Drives Canada's Baby Seal Hunt."
TOM REGAN AND ANIMAL RIGHTS ON FRONT PAGE OF CHICAGO TRIBUNE AND IN MINNESOTA DAILY How nice to see
a thoughtful discussion of animal rights make the front page of one of
America's leading newspapers. Philosopher Tom Regan is speaking, tonight,
Monday, April 5, at the Harold Washington library, (6pm). The Chicago
Tribune ran an article about him on yesterday's front page (Sunday
April 4), and an interview on page 2. Both stories are by Wendy Navratil.
|