Month: March 2004

Australian Group Recommends Government Allow Xenotransplantation Trials to Proceed

In January, a National Health and Medical Research Council group examining xenotransplantation urged that approval be given for trials of animal to human organ transplantation.

The Working Party on Xenotransplantation announced that its May report will argue that the risks and ethical concerns about xenotransplantation are outweighed by the potential benefits and that human trials of xenotransplantation treatments should be allowed to proceed in that country. In 2002, the Australian government rejected a proposal for a trial using pancreatic cells from pigs to produce insulin in diabetics.

Australia has one of the lowest rates of organ donation in the Western world. In 2001, there were only 801 organs available through donation for almost 2,000 people needing organ transplants.

In its story on the report, CNS News found a religious crackpot in Australia who offered one of the most amusing non-AR explanations of the evils of xenotransplantation that I’ve read yet. According to Peter Stokes, director of Salt Shakers, while it might save lives, xenotransplantation might also make bestiality acceptable! According to Stokes,

We are not ‘animals’ as the humanist would have us believe, therefore we must not allow animal and human tissue to be mixed.

. . .

Image what they would say if we started mixing humans and animal together — this would bolster their [people who support bestiality] argument that ‘we are all the same’ and therefore ‘love between animals and humans is perfectly normal.’

Who could argue with that sort of logic?

Sources:

Animal organs urged. Jen Kelly, Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia), January 14, 2004.

Fed: Pig hearts could be a life-saver. Rosemary Desmond, AAP, February 17, 2004.

Animal organ trials to go ahead. Simon Benson, The Daily Telegraph (Sydney, Australia), January 14, 2004.

Pig-to-human organ transplant trials recommended in Australia. Patrick Goodenough, CNSNews.Com, January 14, 2004.

California SB 1520 – Foie Gras Ban

BILL NUMBER: SB 1520	INTRODUCED
	BILL TEXT



INTRODUCED BY   Senator Burton


                        FEBRUARY 19, 2004


   An act to add Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) to
Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to force fed
birds.





	LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST



   SB 1520, as introduced, Burton.  Force fed birds.
   Existing law authorizes an officer to issue a citation to a person
or entity keeping horses or other equine animals for hire if the
person or entity fails to meet standards of humane treatment
regarding the keeping of horses or other equine animals.
   This bill would establish similar provisions regarding force
feeding a bird, as defined.  The bill would prohibit a person from
force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird's liver
beyond normal size, and would prohibit a person from hiring another
person to do so.  The bill would also prohibit a product from being
sold in the state if it is the result of force feeding a bird for the
purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size.  The bill
would authorize an officer to issue a citation for a violation of
those provisions in an amount up to $1,000 per violation per day.
   Vote:  majority.  Appropriation:  no.  Fiscal committee:  no.
State-mandated local program:  no.



THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:



  SECTION 1.  Chapter 13.4 (commencing with Section 25980) is added
to Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code, to read:


      CHAPTER 13.4.  FORCE FED BIRDS


   25980.  For purposes of this section, the following terms have the
following meanings:
   (a) A bird includes, but is not limited to, a duck or goose.
   (b) Force feeding a bird means a process that causes the bird to
consume more food than a typical bird of the same species would
consume voluntarily while foraging.  Force feeding methods include,
but are not limited to, delivering feed through a tube or other
device inserted into the bird's esophagus.
   25981.  A person may not force feed a bird for the purpose of
enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size, or hire another person
to do so.
   25982.  A product may not be sold in California if it is the
result of force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird'
s liver beyond normal size.
   25983.  (a) A peace officer, officer of a humane society as
qualified under Section 14502 or 14503 of the Corporations Code, or
officer of an animal control or animal regulation department of a
public agency, as qualified under Section 830.9 of the Penal Code,
may issue a citation to a person or entity that violates this
chapter.
   (b) A citation issued under this section shall require the person
cited to pay a civil penalty in an amount up to one thousand dollars
($1,000) for each violation, and up to one thousand dollars ($1,000)
for each day the violation continues.  The civil penalty shall be
payable to the local agency initiating the proceedings to enforce
this chapter to offset the costs to the agency related to court
proceedings.
   (c) A person or entity that violates this chapter may be
prosecuted by the district attorney of the county in which the
violation occurred, or by the city attorney of the city in which the
violation occurred.

Craig Rosebraugh On Terrorism, Animal and Otherwise

In February, the Portland Tribune ran a profile of former Animal Liberation Front/Earth Liberation Front spokesman Craig Rosebraugh. Rosebraugh has taken the whole terrorism ball and run with it to its logical conclusion.

Specifically, Rosebraugh apparently has concluded, correctly, that torching laboratories and construction sites and releasing mink are not going to change society’s approach to animals or the environment. His solution? If civil disobedience doesn’t work and property destruction doesn’t work, then killing people just might.

In early 2003, Rosebraugh issued a press release calling for “large scale urban rioting” to stop the war against Iraq, and according to the Portland Tribune, he’s taken the logical next step in his support of terrorism,

Rosebraugh, however, says the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks are defensible because the terrorist acts were meant to send a legitimate message to Americans. He even put a color photo of the second World Trade Center tower bursting into flames on the cover of his book.

But remember, the idea that some animal rights activist care more about animals than human beings is just nonsense invented by far right “animal abusers.”

Source:

Activist indulges capitalistic craving. Jim Redden, Portland Tribune, February 6, 2004.

SNGP's Continued Harassment of the Halls

With all of the attention on Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty’s campaign of harassment against Huntingdon Life Sciences receives, sometimes the nastiness carried out by Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs against the owners of the Newchurch Guinea Pig Farm.

David Hall and family own the farm and raise guinea pigs that are used in medical research. Like HLS, activist opposed to the Halls target associates with threats and harassment in order to attempt to isolate the Halls. As with HLS, this tactic has proven quite effective.

As has been discussed on this site, SHAC often reaches for tangential targets such as companies that provide janitorial services for HLS, but SNGP carries this even further by targeting small-scale shops that the Halls might patronize.

For example, here’s a typical success trumpeted by the SNGP site: the SNGP asked activist to mail, e-mail and telephone The Red Lion — a pub frequented by members of the family. And sure enough, on February 26 the SNGP site published the following letter from the corporate owner of The Red Lion,

Dear Mr. Hall,

.

In the last ten days we have become a target of increased disturbance and threats (relating) to your use of the Red Lion, Newborough, a pub owned by our Company and operated by a tenant.

Whilst we are not in any way condoning the actions, as a responsible business we must take into consideration the safety and well being of our own staff, customers and the staff of our suppliers. To this end we feel we must ask you and your family to cease using The Red Lion, Newborough, with immediate effect. Whilst this situation is regrettable for all concerned we believe this is the most practical solution. We are sure you would not like any of our staff or customers or indeed yourselves to come to any harm as a result of your continued patronage of the Red Lion.

We are sure you will appreciate and respect our position.

Yours sincerely,

Leslie Porter
Secretary
For and on behalf of The Union Pub Company a trading division of
The Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries, PLC R

And still the British government seems unable or unwilling to crack down on such blatant acts of harassment.

Source:

The Halls Are Banned Yet Again! Press Release, Save the Newchurch Guinea Pigs, February 26, 2004.

New Mexico Senate Unanimously Passes Ban on Type of Animal Euthanasia

In February the New Mexico state Senate unanimously approved a bill that would ban the use of intracardiac injection euthanasia in that state. Intracardiac injection kills an animal by injecting barbiturate directly into the heart of the animal.

Sen. Richard Romero, who introduce the bill, said that he sponsored the ban become too often the procedure misses the heart leaving the animals to suffer. Romero told The Albuquerque Tribune,

We need to put a halt to this inhumane practice in our state’s animal shelters right away. This amounts to tormenting and torturing an animal when it’s done without anesthesia or sedation.

The ban will only apply to animal control facilities and animal shelters. The procedure will remain legal in livestock and veterinary facilities.

The full text of the bill can be read here.

Sources:

Senate OKs bill to prohibit type of animal euthanasia. Associated Press, February 11, 2004.

. Albuquerque Tribune (New Mexico), February 12, 2004.

California State Senator Introduces Bill to Ban Foie Gras

In February, California state Sen. John Burton introduces a bill in the state senate to ban the production of foie gras within that state.

After introducing his bill, Burton told reporters that the force feeding of ducks and geese to produce foie gras should be outlawed,

They put a tube down their throat, down their esophagus, and shoot that food down there, whether they want it or not, cram it right down their gullet. And many places, other countries have banned it. The state of Israel has banned it. I just think it’s the right thing to do.

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights issued a press release in early February touting a coalition of animal rights groups that will be doing their part to support the bill and asking activists to contact California legislators with their support for the bill. The press release said,

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) is working with a coalition of groups including Farm Sanctuary, Viva!USA and LA Lawyers for Animals, as the sponsors of this bill.

. . .

We need your help to ensure that this bill is passed into law and this inhumane practice is ended in our state. There is only one foie gras producer in California (Sonoma Foie Gras), but they’ve already hired an attorney to work on their behalf and have recruited exclusive restaurateurs to fight for this high-priced luxury item made from diseased ducks.

The full text of the bill can be read here.

Sources:

Help ban force feeding of ducks in California. Press Release, Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, February 2004.

Sacre bleu! No more foie gras from California?. Spencer Swartz, Reuters, February 12, 2004.