Category: Uncategorized

Group Asks IRS to Investigate PETA's Tax Filings for 1997, 1998

In March the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service asking it to revoke the tax-exempt status of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. CDFE’s Ron Arnold argued in that complaint that, “PETA openly and actively induces and encourages unlawful acts by planning.” This month CDFE amended its complaint to ask the IRS to look into PETA’s 1997 and 1998 tax filings.

According to the amended complaint,

We have discovered irregularities in reporting grants and allocations by PETA that reinforce our request to revoke recognition of PETAÂ’s tax-exempt status under I.R.C. Section 501(c)(3):

  • PETA failed to provide a schedule of its grants and allocations to other organizations in addition to the totals in Part III of the Form 990, for the fiscal year ending July 31, 1998; and
  • PETA failed to provide a schedule of its grants and allocations to other organizations in addition to the totals in Part III of the Form 990, for the fiscal year ending July 31, 1997.

Based on examination of PETAÂ’s Form 990 annual reports for those two fiscal years, we find that the public inspection copy now on file with the IRS contains no detailed accounting for nearly one million dollars of PETA funds in grants and allocations to other groups. No schedule of grants and allocations was attached containing any list of any grant amount, any recipient, and any purpose. There is no evidence that such a schedule was ever filed with the IRS for either of the two fiscal years in question. PETA, however, did attach such a schedule to its Form 990 for the fiscal years before and after the two fiscal years in question. This irregularity in reporting prompted this complaint.

Rather than confirm or deny whether or not PETA had filed these forms, as required by federal law, Ingrid Newkirk simply attacked the complaint as irrelevant, telling CNSNews.Com that, “Nobody much cares about it, put it that way, except outlets that are perhaps sympathetic to this kind of thing.”

Source:

Group issues additional call for IRS investigation of PETA. Jason Pierce, CNSNews.Com, May 2,2002.

Re: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc.. Ron Arnold, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, May 1, 2002.

Neal Barnard on Media Distortions

The most laugh-out-loud press animal rights press release yet this year had to be the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’s press release chastising the media coverage of a New York couple charged with keeping their infant daughter on a strict and extremely unhealthy vegan diet.

PCRM’s Neal Barnard whines in the PCRM press release that,

In the wake of reports of a misguided New York couple who refused to breastfeed or provide baby formula for their infant daughter, many reporters have mistakenly suggested that the couple was following a “vegan” diet. Headlines have implied such a diet is not healthy. Because a vegan diet is safe, increasingly popular, and nutritionally superior to other diets, the PHysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine wants to prevent further misunderstandings.

Huh? I though PCRM’s entire reason for existence was to spread misunderstandings. It certainly has no qualms about distorting and outright lying about the results of animal research.

Barnard is correct that the diet this child was eating was not vegan, since it included cod liver oil. But if Barnard wants the media to be accurate, maybe he should try leading by example and direct his organization to stop intentionally perpetuating the same old tired myths and lies about medical research.

Source:

Physicians say vegan diet healthy, safe, superior. Press Release, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, May 3, 2002.

Vegans starved toddler, cops say. Jesse Graham, New York Post, April 30, 2002.

PETA Child Watch: Condon Elementary

In March 2002, Ingrid Newkirk appeared on CNN’s Crossfire and denied Tucker Carlson’s accusation that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals crossed a line by targeting children. According to Newkirk, “… everything we do is based at adults. We’re asking adults [to] be responsible.” Apparently, elementary students are now adults if this PETA press release is accurate,

Babe, it’s not. But when kids see the graphic pig farm video that PETA will show at Condon Elementary, they may not be so keen on eating the hot dogs, ham, bacon, and other unhealthful products now being heavily promoted to school cafeterias by the Pork Council. PETA members, accompanied by a giant “pig” holding a sign reading, “If You Can’t Look — Go Veg,” will show the shocking undercover footage . . .

Apparently the animals used in research that PETA itself champions are not really animals, and elementary school students are not really children. At least PETA is consistent in its obfuscation and deception.

Source:

Cafeteria is the newest battleground in war between PETA and Pork Council. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, April 26, 2002.

Public Effort Decodes Mouse Genome

In February 2001, Celera Genomics announced that it had completed sequencing the mouse genome. This week researchers at British and American universities announced they had finished their sequencing of the mouse genome which they promptly posted on the Internet for anyone to use.

Because mice are so similar to human beings, the freely available mouse genome will have far reaching impacts on research into human diseases. Sanger Institute researcher Tim Hubbard told The BBC,

The mouse is a key model organism for humans. Their genomes are so similar that you can just compare the two directly. If there are mouse genes we know something about, we can now find genes that look the same in humans.

In fact contrary to what was thought before the sequencing of animal genomes, both mice and humans have roughly the same number of genes. Of course mice are also quite different from human beings, but those differences also will give researchers important information. According to Hubbard,

The mouse has a fantastic sense of smell and you can already see that in the genes. It has a lot more genes than humans connected with olfactory receptors.

So, the animal has its specialties and even looking at those differences will help us understand those things which are critical to humans that mice don’t have. But the basic biology, the basic physiology, is very similar to humans, and having this new information is going to consolidate our understanding of what are the key parts for making a vertebrate.

Hubbard told New Scientist that progress in understanding such functions will improve even more once more mammalian species have their genomes sequenced. Hubbard said the rat genome should be sequenced by the end of this year.

Source:

Mouse code laid bare. The BBC, May 6, 2002.

Mouse’s genetic code made public. Andy Coghlan, NewScientist.Com, May 7, 2002.

Alex Beam on SHAC Tactics

In a recent article Boston Globe columnist Alex Beam addressed the tactics advocated by groups such as Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty.

Beam specifically mentioned SHAC harassment of executives of State Street Corp. State Street Corp. held significant shares of Huntingdon Life Sciences.

As Beam notes, “Here’s the kicker: These tactics work.” In April, State Street put out a press release announcing it would no longer hold shares of HLS and SHAC’s Frank Hampton said “We’ve declared victory over State Street.”

Should companies allow themselves to be blackmailed by this sort of harassment? Beam quotes an unidentified Life Sciences official as saying,

Americans have this tendency to be such cowards. Here we are fighting for the right of people not to be terrorized, yet we fear these activists who are posting the names of officers’ children on their Web site . . . The world of political activism is watching this campaign, because SHAC is doing something that has never been done before: They are using free speech to make people worry that they might be harmed. What is their objective? To instill terror.

That’s a concise description of the challenge in cracking down on this sort of activity — finding a way to discourage harassment without impinging on legitimate First Amendment rights.

Once the Supreme Court finally ways in on the limits of RICO statutes, the status of this sort of speech that falls into a gray area will hopefully become a lot clearer.

Source:

Animal rights and wrongs. Alex Beam. The Boston Globe, April 25, 2002.

California Proposes Restricting Family Visits to Drug Offenders

Salon.Com has a disturbing article about a change in prison visitation rules being proposed by the California Department of Corrections. The change would forbid people convicted of drug-related crimes other than simple possession of having any direct contact with visitors for their first year of imprisonment.

The CDC wants to keep down the amount of drugs smuggled into its prisons and keep drug offenders off of drugs. But is this really the best approach?

Probably not. As writer Nell Bernstein reports, prison officials tend to think that most drugs come in through such visits, but there does not seem to be a lot of evidence for this claim. Florida recently completed a study of contraband incidents that according to Bernstein, found that “While 46 percent of corrections officers surveyed believed that most contraband came from visitors, only 2.5 percent of contraband incidents statwide in fiscal year 1997-1998 were actually attributable to visitors.”

Even California, CDC spokespoerson Russ Heimerich tells Bernstein that of 800 documented drug-related contrapand incidnets in its system last year, only 150 involved visitors (though those incidents did account for half of the total amount of drugs coming into the prisons).

Offset that with the fact that what the CDC is proposing is that the 43 percent of women in the correctional system due to drug-related offenses will not be able to so much as hold an infant or child on their lap for the first year of their prison term.

Even law-and-order types should be concerned about that since a 1972 study of California prisoners found that those inmates who had regular, ongoing visits with family members were six times less likely to reoffend during the first year after their release.

Source:

Punishment for the whole family. Nell Bernstein, Salon.Com, May 8, 2002.