WTO and Animal Rights

    Last year animal rights activists joined protests in Seattle against the World Trade Organization for allegedly not doing more to protect endangered species. Ironically, the European Union is trying to use the WTO mechanism to effectively force its regulations of animal agriculture on the United States and other WTO members.

    European agriculture is already relatively non-competitive, requiring massive state subsidies in many parts of the region to be profitable. In an attempt to make its agricultural products more competitive, European nations recently proposed that animal welfare issues be added to the WTO framework.

    The European Union has introduced proposed regulations that would determine the minimum space for battery hens as well as for animals being transported. The EU further argues that such regulations puts their farmers at a competitive disadvantage compared to farmers in countries that don’t have such regulations.

    Rather than dispense with expensive regulations that raise the cost of European-produced food, however, the EU proposes that European farmers be compensated for the additional costs that the regulations impose (in essence the EU is suggesting that it be rewarded for imposing economically inefficient regulations on its citizens). This is directly contrary to the basic framework of the WTO which calls for an end to government subsidies of agriculture.

    In addition, the EU wants the WTO to look at labelling food based on animal welfare issues. The labels apparently would inform consumers that the food was produced in countries that don’t have strong animal welfare laws.

    It would be the height of irony if a free trade pact which animal rights activists almost universally opposed ended up being a protectionist tool for the activists pet views on animal agriculture.

Harry Potter and The Onion

The Onion has a hilarious story poking fun at the controversy over the
Harry Potter books, Harry
Potter Books Spark Rise In Satanism Among Children
(note, the story has
language that is inappropriate for children — and if you are a Christian you
might be offended by some of the made up quotes that mock those opposed to the
book on religious grounds.)

I first started reading the series out of curiousity several months ago when
stories of parents wanting the book removed from libraries were making national
headlines. They are so-so for children’s literature. Definitely a fun read but
I doubt they’ll have the staying power of something like the Narnia Chronicles
or Alice in Wonderland or the Oz series. The main drawback to the series is
one common to a lot of books written for this level of readers — the books
are very superficial. I finished the first book in a few hours, and it had the
same feel as watching a good two-hour made for TV movie (yes, such things are
rare, but they do exist). On the other hand, people who are attacking the books
as pure fluff, satanic, or sexist/racist are way off the mark as far as I am
concerned.

Help Women By Taking All Felons’ DNA?

Sometimes it’s hard to choose which is more annoying — the radical feminists or the traditionalist anti-feminists. Take Amy Holmes who is featured in the July 27, 2000 edition of the USA Today ripping on the National Organization for Women. Why? Because NOW doesn’t advocate mandatory DNA samples from all convicted felons(“Save women: Take all felons’ DNA”).

According to Holmes, the only reason NOW doesn’t want mandatory DNA testing is that “the powerful liberal lobby, the American Civil Liberties Union” opposes it. But there’s an eminently good reason everyone should oppose it — it’s a stupid idea. I outlined the statistical problems with this approach in an earlier essay (Rapists, Thieves and Logical Fallacies), so will just summarize here that widespread DNA testing of all felons would be a) incredibly expensive and b) tend to greatly increase the risk that a false positive DNA match would occur which could greatly undermine the public’s confidence in DNA evidence that is used properly.

Holmes, in fact, doesn’t even understand the evidence she thinks buttresses her case. According to Holmes, “A study of Virginia’s DNA database released this month found that 40% of men arrested for rape previously committed property crimes.” That is in fact false. The study didn’t look at all rapists, but rather only those rapists who were convicted based in part on previous DNA samples in Virginia’s database. Nobody knows what percentage of rapists commit other crimes first, but most studies do indicate that rapists tend to be people already predisposed to commit criminal acts.

In this case, count me in with NOW and the ACLU.