Category: Uncategorized

Humane Seal of Approval Label

Humane Farm Animal Care has an interesting approach to promoting what it sees as the humane treatment of farm animals. It has begun a labelling program for meat, poultry, dairy and egg producers who meet its criteria for raising farm animals under humane conditions.

The program works like this — farmers who want their products to receive the “Certified Humane Raised & Handled” pay a royalty free, such as 50 centers per pig, as well as pay for annual inspections at $400/day of their procedures. The group also pays the U.S. Department of Agriculture to check documents filed by farmers to ensure the group is actually meeting its standards.

And what are those standards. According to the group’s web site,

The Animal Care Standards require that livestock have access to clean and sufficient food and water; that their environment is not dangerous to their health; that they have sufficient protection from weather elements; that they have sufficient space allowance in order for them to move naturally; and other features to ensure the safety, health and comfort of the animal. In addition, the standards require that managers and caretakers be thoroughly trained, skilled and competent in animal husbandry and welfare, and have good working knowledge of their system and the livestock in their care.

For processors, the standards require that American Meat Institute Standards are adhered to, which are generally more stringent than slaughter standards from the Federal Humane Slaughter Act.

A number of groups are supporting Humane Farm Animal Care’s labelling program, including American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; The Humane Society of the United States; Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Animal People; Dubuque (Iowa) Humane Society; Hawaiian Humane Society; Humane Society of Carroll County (Maryland); Humane Society of Vero Beach & Indian River County (Florida); SPCA Erie County, NY; and, SPCA LA.

So far the group has certified five producers that meet its requirements.

Kara Flynn of the National Pork Producers Council was quoted in an Associated Press story as saying that the program was part of “an anti-meat agenda.” According to Flynn,

It’s saying if you don’t adhere to this, you’re going to be seen as someone who’s not rearing or treating animals humanely, and that’s false.

Flynn’s concerns seem a bit overblown. If a private group wants to define a more stringent definition of “humane” treatment of animals and arrange to label the meat that comes from such producers as “Certified Humane” more power to them. I doubt there will be a big demand for meat labelled in this way, but so long as they are not trying to force it down producer’s throats through regulation or taking the ALF route and terrorizing those farmers they disagree with, I don’t see what Flynn’s so upset about.

Source:

New labels give ‘Humane’ Seal of Approval. Associated Press, May 23, 2003.

?Certified Humane? Food Label Unveiled. Press Release, Humane Farm Animal Care, May 22, 2003.

Certified Humane Certification Program
Frequently Asked Questions. Humane Farm Animal Care, Accessed: June 24, 2003.

Peter Singer Looks Back at 30 Years of Animal Liberation

Peter Singer wrote an article in May for The Guardian looking back 30 after the publication of his essay/book review in The New York Review of Books, “Animal Liberation.”

Singer writes that, “A lot has changed since the appearance of that review and of the book, also called Animal Liberation, that grew out of it.” Of course what has not changed are Singer’s specious arguments. For example, Singer still apparently thinks this is a good argument for animal liberation,

Being able to reason better than another being doesn’t mean that our pains and pleasures count more than those of others — whether those “others” are human or non-human. After all, some humans — infants and those with severe intellectual disabilities — don’t reason as well as some non-human animals, but we would, rightly be shocked by anyone who proposed that we inflict slow, painful deaths on these intellectually inferior humans to test the safety of household products. Nor, of course, would we tolerate confining them in small cages and then slaughtering them in order to eat them. The fact that we are prepared to do these things to non-human animals is a sign of “speciesism,” a prejudice that survives because it is convenient for the dominant group — in this case, not whites or males, but all humans.

It is still difficult to understand how Singer can make the leap from how we treat human beings with differing reasoning capabilities to how we treat members of other species where not a single member of that species shows any evidence of higher-level cognitive skills.

Moreover although Singer concedes later that “evolutionary theory effectively debunks the idea that God gave humans dominion over the animals,” he is apparently oblivious to how other developments in evolutionary thought, including evolutionary psychology, have undercut what little substance there was to Singer’s claim that “speciesism” is mere prejudice. In fact what Singer dismisses as mere prejudice in fact is the best hypothesis yet on the evolution of moral foundations.

Another thing that has not changed is Singer’s selective citing of scientific research, such as his reference in his Guardian article to studies claiming that fish feel pain. In fact that study simply demonstrated that fish are capable of nociception and are able to respond to external stimuli, not that they feel pain.

Even Singer is forced to concede the obvious — 30 years later there is no society on the planet that is close to adopting his view of human/non-human relations,

Still, no society is even close to giving equal consideration to the interests of all animals. The spread of western methods of intensive farming to China and other nations in the developing world is threatening to incarcerate billions more animals in factory farms. After 30 years, the most that can be said is that — at least in the developed world — we are beginning to move in the right direct.

Singer seems to be pinning his hopes here that an increasing awareness of animal welfare issues will inevitably lead to animal liberation. Europe seems the only place where that even has a shot, but even there it is Europe’s increasingly anti-science, anti-technology views that have allowed the animal rights movement to gain ground rather than any serious contemplation of granting animals equal interest.

Source:

Some are more equal: Why do we insist that rights to life, liberty and protection from torture be confined to humans? Peter Singer, The Guardian (London), May 19, 2003.

Occam’s Razor and Avatar Sex Selection in Everquest

Nathan Cochrane has a post today summarizing and selectively quoting a study of the costs of avatars on Everquest by economist Edward Castronova.

Castronova finds that female avatars experience about a 20 percent discount compared to male avatars offered for sale on auction sites. Bilskirnir selectively quotes Castronova as saying that this might be a case of sexism from the real world making its way into the online world.

But Cochrane leaves out the obvious, simplest explanation that Castronova does, to his credit mention,

Alternatively, it may simply be the case that the EverQuest player base, which is primarily single, male, and aged 18-29, prefers to have a male external appearance rather than a female external appearance.

According to Castronova, the player base for Everquest is almost 93 percent male. It isn’t exactly shocking that in a MMORPG with is almost entirely male that there is more demand for male avatars than for female avatars.

More PETA/Holocaust Nonsense

People for the Ethical Treatment’s Matt Prescott was in Boston in May doing his best to defend PETA’s “Holocaust on a Plate” campaign. Frankly this stuff is starting to get boring — PETA’s gotten its 15 minutes out of offending elderly Holocaust survivors; it’s time to move on to the next publicity stunt.

But regardless there Prescott was trying to deny the obvious when speaking to The Boston Herald,

We’re simply saying that the message and mindset of the Holocaust is the same one used to justify the killing of animals — that might makes right.

The Holocaust can be explained by nothing more than “might makes right?” Somebody tell all those Holocaust historians they can go home. Rampant anti-Semitism, authoritarian cultures, Aryan Romanticism, economic chaos . . . forget all that, Prescott says it was all about might makes right and who are we to argue with that?

Prescott continues (emphasis added),

Our goal isn’t to offend, but we do feel people need to be shocked before they can accept their own role in any injustice.

Right, when PETA puts up a sign saying, “To animals all people are Nazis,” it never in a million years had any intention of offending anyone.

Source:

PETA draws scorn over Holocaust campaign. Steve Marantz, The Boston Herald, May 17, 2003.

Ingrid Newkirk's Legal Advice to Activists

The following letter from Ingrid Newkirk giving advice to animal rights activists on how to deal with inquiries from law enforcement official has been circulating around the Internet for a few months now, and was worth reproducing in its entirety here.

It still amuses me to no end to watch someone like Newkirk who has openly applauded and encouraged violent acts by animal rights extremists whine about harassment from the FBI.

Recently, animal rights groups and even our own staff have reported incidents of harassment and information gathering expeditions by the FBI and Homeland Security, even by local police.

The incident below shows one way this works:

An FBI agent, who at first did not identify himself as such, made a call to one of our staff whose name he had simply read in the paper, assuring her that she was “not in any trouble” and asking her to call him back. Quite properly, she did not. It is dangerous to engage in even the most innocuous-seeming discourse with the FBI/ Homeland Security/ a local detective for, rest assured, if you do, you will become a notation in a federal file! The next day, the agent called her at home on her private number at 7:45 a.m. “to chat.” She properly told him she had nothing to chat with him about and told him not to call her at work or home again. That ended it.

As you may know, the FBI has a massive current investigation into the ALF and ELF and, by default, as with McCarthyism, into the entire animal rights community. As new Homeland Security laws make clear, law enforcement is using the climate of fear of real domestic terrorists to collect information on perfectly law-abiding animal rights activists. We should not allow this to happen in what is still supposed to be a free country. There is now a central data bank set up as a resource in the event of any break-in or liberation, i.e. to use to conduct a witch hunt, to harass and intimidate ordinary people. Don’t think this can’t happen, because it already has. Most importantly, please don’t contribute to it.

Many scholars have written regarding social cause movements, like the civil rights movement and the peace movements and the FBI’s crude and sometimes downright illegal tactics in dealing with them. PETA itself has a history of FBI and ATF harassment. We suffered through (successfully) defeating subpoenas to examine our membership and volunteer lists, and many of us were compelled to give handwriting samples and photographs and to appear before grand juries without lawyers present. Wire taps were put on our telephones (dollars to doughnuts they are there again now, and that’s not being paranoid, just practical), our telephone records were seized at source, and the postal authority turned over our mail for pre-sorting. All this happened because, unable to come up with real evidence and pinpoint anyone in particular, the FBI set out to “troll” through the most outspoken animal rights group and see if they turned up anything. Doesn’t sound very much like the America we know and love, but there you are.

I don’t say any of this to alarm you, for you will probably never receive any communication from the FBI/Homeland security/local law enforcement but to warn you that if you do, it is not at all smart to think you can outwit them, convert them, or just give them “harmless” information and they’ll go away. By allowing an FBI agent to write in his book, “Spoke for 20 mins to (your name here).” instead of “She had nothing to say,” you have helped keep the chain alive. If you talk to them, they write things like “(your name here) confirmed that she `knows all about the ALF’ and is familiar with the recent mink liberation,” when, in fact, you simply answered “Yes” to the question “Do you know what the ALF is?” and “Yes, I read about it in a newspaper clipping” to the question “What do you know about the mink liberation?” If you invite them in, talk to them, and so on, you will almost certainly be used in the future.

One reason people disregard this advice is because the first reaction most of us have is to think “well, we have nothing to hide, so what’s the harm?” Or, my favorite, “But, they seemed so nice!” How far would they get with us if they said, “I hate animals” or “I’m out to get you?” One of our staff recounts how an FBI agent came and sat next to him when he was detained after a protest. The agent was very friendly, slouched in his chair and called the police who had been at the demo, “jerks.” He acted as if he and our staffer were old friends and casually asked our fellow for his name, his age, how long he’d worked at PETA, if he traveled much in his work, if “higher ups” decided how a demo was going to go. When our person said he wasn’t answering and would need to speak to an attorney, the FBI agent acted offended and said, “Wow, we were just having a conversation here.” He then told our staffer that he’d heard him on the radio and that “you were articulate, fantastic. That one caller – he was an idiot.” When it was clear he wasn’t going to get answers, he left the room.

Here is exactly what seasoned attorneys suggest most strongly that you do if approached by an FBI agent, other Homeland Security or other law enforcement officer: who wants to “just chat: ” Say politely but firmly and without hesitation, “I have nothing to say” and then hang up, walk away, close the door. Do not be coerced or charmed into helping them by “just answering a few easy questions.” If anyone tries to detain you, ask “Am I under arrest?” If they cannot say “yes,” you are free to go. Walk or drive away.

If they ring or knock or approach you again, say “Please leave me alone. You are harassing me.” Say nothing more. It seems rude, but law enforcement officers are used to hearing it and won’t take it personally. They will go away. If you converse with them you will be called/visited again.

In light of the constitution, you have the freedom to associate with whomever you choose, and the right to say what you believes in without fear of reprisal, and they have no right to harass those who object to exploitation, war, racial discrimination, animal slavery and the like.

Thank you.

Ingrid Newkirk

Jane Goodall Buries Her Head in the Sand

Primate researcher and sometimes animal rights activist Jane Goodall recently contributed an article condemning war. In the article, Goodall writes,

It is desperately important that the general public should have access to the facts. Unfortunately, a common response is to shy away from such knowledge. People prefer not to know, not to think about such things but rather, like some gigantic flock of ostriches, bury their heads in the sand. As more and more of that sand becomes contaminated as a result of war and the preparations for war, the outlook for the ostriches – and for all life on Earth – will become increasingly desolate.

Goodall might start with her own apparently limited knowledge. Ostriches, of course, do not bury their heads in the sand except in cartoons and comic strips.

Perhaps Goodall was relying on this vast store of animal information of hers earlier this year when she said that if researchers had simply “stretched our brains” then they could have found ways to do medical research without animals.

But perhaps Goodall has indulged in a bit too much brain stretching.

Source:

Devastating The Earth. Jane Goodall, Resurgence, May/June 2003.