A n i m
a l W r i t e s © sm
The official ANIMAL RIGHTS ONLINE newsletter
Publisher ~ EnglandGal@aol.com
Issue # 04/29/01
Editor ~ JJswans@aol.com
Journalists ~ Park StRanger@aol.com
~
MichelleRivera1@aol.com
~ sbest1@elp.rr.com
THE EIGHT ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE ARE:
1 ~ Welfare and Liberation: Mutually
Exclusive?
2 ~ For Better Health: "Got Milk?" Or
"Not Milk!"
3 ~ VegTv.com
4 ~ Animal Tested Cosmetics Banned
5 ~ Farm Sanctuary's 2001 Gala
6 ~ Job Opportunities
7 ~ It's What's For Dinner
8 ~ Memorable Quote
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`
Welfare and Liberation:
Mutually Exclusive?
from murderking@petalist.org
http://www.veganoutreach.org/perspective/welfareandliberation.html
What follows is an essay by the co-founder of Vegan Outreach (www.veganoutreach.org), a group that is dedicated to reducing animal suffering by promoting a vegan lifestyle. The article discusses the successful McDonald's campaign, among other issues.
<> <> <>
<> <>
Welfare and Liberation: Mutually Exclusive?
by Matt Ball
Expanding the Floor of the Cage
The Brazilian Landless Farmers movement has a slogan: "Expand the floor of
the cage before you try to break out." It is a way of saying that
activists should try to improve the status quo in order to have more room in
which to work towards a permanent solution. This belief marks one side of the
controversial divide within the animal rights movement: the "welfare now,
rights later" vs. the "rights now, or nothing at all" position.
In theory, welfare and rights are not mutually exclusive. We can work to
improve the welfare of animals while we work towards their liberation.
However, it is common for piecemeal reforms, such as 'McDonalds recent
agreement
Pain Relief
Have you ever gone to the dentist complaining of a cavity and the dentist
refuses to give you a pain reliever because it's not a cure? "Let the
tooth rot out - that will teach you to treat your teeth better." I hope
not.
Doctors are responsible not only for treating our disease, but also for
reducing our pain until the disease is cured. I like to imagine the same of
animal activists. While our ultimate goal is to end animal agriculture, we try
to reduce the suffering of farm animals along the way. Otherwise, billions of
animals suffer needlessly while we work for their eventual liberation.
Why do we work for liberation? Our motivation isn't an intellectual,
philosophical exercise. We pursue our goals because of the suffering involved
in animal agriculture. In what cases would we not try to reduce the suffering
of farm animals? Only in instances where reforms would clearly and
significantly slow progress toward liberation and thus cause more total
suffering. There are certainly examples of stop-gap measures that retard
efforts to treat the root cause of a problem: home fires became more
frequent after the introduction of fire insurance; football injuries became
more frequent after the introduction of safety equipment. But such "moral
hazards" depend on the person benefiting from the reform - homeowners and
athletes - becoming overconfident. Will chickens volunteer to be slaughtered
because they're in less pain? Animal welfare is clearly not a moral hazard of
this kind.
"It must get worse before it gets better"
Could advances in welfare lead to a moral hazard of a different kind?
Possibly, if people choose not to go vegan because they learn that animals are
being treated "better." But there's more evidence that reforms,
instead, draw the attention of non-vegetarians to the issue, persuading many to
reconsider their ethics.
European countries -- particularly England -- are a counter-example to the
"it must get worse before it gets better" argument. Animals are
treated far better there and vegetarianism is more widespread. There are more
vegetarian restaurants, and non-vegetarian restaurants have more veg options.
The gains made in animal welfare have given both the English welfare and
abolition movements confidence and momentum. And the attention paid to animal
welfare in business practices and legislation has increased the public's
interest in how their food is produced
http://www.newveg.av.org/animals/whathumansowetoanimals.htm ).
The same could become true in the U.S. Reforming a company like McDonald's can
initiate a domino effect throughout the industry. McDonald's competitors now
have a greater incentive to match and exceed McDonald's reforms, thereby
forcing industry-wide improvements in the living and dying conditions for all
animals; no company wants to be singled out, by a widespread and well-supported
campaign, as being the "cruel one." More importantly, when the
industries who use animals make it an
issue, the living conditions of the animals will get far more serious treatment
by the public than animal advocates and partisans could ever hope to achieve by
themselves. If we campaign against companies that in the end fall our
way, then what's the purpose of the boycott if we don't support their new path?
In the end, by not supporting companies' piecemeal reforms, we're telling these
companies we'll attack them no matter what they do. So why should they bother
changing their farming practices at all? Or changing their menus to include
more vegan alternatives?
I have sympathy for those who claim we have to "destroy" McDonald's.
Of course I would love it if vegan fast-food chains spread across the country
and put McDonald's out of business. I would also love it if everyone were to
adopt the ethics I hold. But this is not going to happen. The question then
becomes: am I going to spend my time bitter and critical, demanding that I get
my way absolutely and immediately regardless of the consequences? Or am I going
to work to help lessen suffering as best I can, in the world as it is?
If Abolitionists had been Absolutists
While we all understand the desire to embrace and advocate pure-vegan ideals,
this shouldn't stop us from studying the history of social movements and re-evaluating
our tactics. Successful social movements - abolitionism, the women's suffrage
movement, the civil rights movement, the gay rights
movement - have pushed for reforming the current system while working towards
ultimate goals.
Take abolition and subsequent civil rights work in the U.S. They were built
through successive improvements in the standing of black Americans. Each
improvement brought greater confidence and experience to organizers. If the
movement had rejected all reforms, it's unlikely that it ever could have built
enough momentum to succeed. Imagine if Frederick Douglass had argued
"Equal voting rights or no rights at all. Equal representation in
government and business, or no representation at all." Imagine if Lincoln
had refused to issue the Emancipation Proclamation because it didn't guarantee
an end to prejudice or segregation. Douglass, Lincoln, and others were all
cognizant enough of political realities to realize that such positions would
alienate the mass of the population, condemning abolition to failure.
I would predict the same fate for any movement that did not seize reforms when
given the opportunity. Absolutist movements attract only those already
converted to the cause, and remain confined to a small cadre of dedicated but
isolated activists. This is essentially the state of most animal rights groups
in the U.S. By settling for "nothing short of total liberation," many
groups have condemned themselves to anonymous acrimony and burnout. They cut themselves off from the non-absolutist
public, and do not provide any incentive for change within the animal
industries.
Non-absolutist organizations, on the other hand, have attracted a broad
membership of vegetarians and non-vegetarians. They achieve results because
they can reach out to those who may not share all their opinions, and are
willing to work with businesses. These results, in turn, bring in new activists
who gain confidence and experience. We should recognize, then, that
individuals, businesses, and society progress towards a more compassionate
ethic gradually, through successive stages of increased
concern for animals. As much as we want to believe otherwise, results will not
be achieved all at once.
Purity or Progress
Why else would we not try to reduce the suffering of farm animals? Perhaps because we do not want to compromise
our principles. But do reforms in animal welfare force us to compromise our
principles? Not unless our guiding principle is "Never, under any circumstances,
cooperate with cruel people or businesses." Such a principle is at odds
with another that seems more fundamental and defensible: "Work to reduce
animal suffering." Even ignoring the examples of previous social
movements and the situation for animals in England, it would be bizarre to prefer
that chickens continue to be force-molted and crammed in tinier cages just so
the case of veganism is more "clear-cut." It's not just worse for the
animals, it's not just indefensible ethically, but it is also poor strategy.
Of course, this is not to say that everyone should spend their limited
resources pursuing welfarist measures. I still believe that the way to lessen
the most suffering in the most expedient and efficacious manner is to promote
vegetarianism and veganism. Yet spending one's time and resources attacking
other's efforts as not being "enough" (e.g., "PETA's collusion
with McDonald's is further proof that PETA has become nothing but an
organizational pimp for major corporate exploiters." FoA's ActionLine,
Winter 2000-2001) cannot be expected to accomplish anything positive, for the
animals at any level.
Conclusions
It is logically false to claim that change must come about in toto and
immediately. More people publicly concerned with the treatment of other
animals, as well as the increased convenience of being a veg, can serve to help
decrease suffering now, as well as hasten liberation. If you were
suffering in a prison, would you want an absolutist on your side? Would you
want your suffering to be as bad as possible to give more justification to the
absolutists on the outside? Or would you prefer that someone bring to light
your circumstances and enact reforms that could significantly reduce your
suffering, while also working toward your liberation?
As activists, our first question - in every situation must be: "What is in
the best interest of the animals?" We should support any action that will
help animals, even if all it does is make their lives a bit less miserable or
their death a bit less cruel. We don't stop there, of course, but we can't pass
up the chance to make improvements for animals simply because it's not enough.
Bruce G. Friedrich
Vegan Campaign Coordinator
http://www.peta-online.org
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
For Better Health: "Got
Milk?" Or "Not Milk!"
Chef Jeff's Weekly Health Update
contributed by Trevor Chin - tmchin@yahoo.com
They
are at it again.
The dairy industry and their misleading advertisements that make false health
claims about their products.
The dairy industry is running and ad campaign now claiming that low-fat dairy
product consumption is beneficial to people suffering from high blood pressure.
The ad claims "Dairy Makes the Difference in DASH." This is a
reference to the Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension multicenter study
funded by the federal National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. The DASH
Study did not conclude that dairy product consumption is responsible for a
reduction in blood pressure. Its design did not isolate dairy products
for examination. In fact, in 1998, the Food and Drug Administration
denied the dairy industry permission to make the claim that low-fat dairy
products protect against hypertension.
This advertisement, which is running in medical journals, is unsupported by
scientific studies and is in direct violation of the FTC Act. "Dairy
products do not lower blood pressure to any meaningful degree, and ads that
imply that they do are pushing potentially deadly advice," says Amy Lanou,
Ph.D, nutrition director for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
(PCRM).
Hypertension, also known as "the silent killer," affects 50 million
American adults, and is especially prevalent among African Americans and
elderly individuals. "In the absence of appropriate treatment,
hypertension is a major contributor to fatal heart disease and stroke.
The suggestion that dairy products can cause a clinically important reduction
in blood pressure is false and poses the danger that hypertensive individuals
may be less likely to seek effective treatment," states Dr. Lanou.
In a petition that was submitted on the March 28, 2001 before the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is
calling on the agency to halt a dairy industry ad claiming that low-fat dairy
product consumption is beneficial to people suffering from high blood pressure.
PCRM says that the dairy industry is also twisting the findings of a report of
sporadic cases of rickets (a disease caused by vitamin D deficiency) to scare
people into drinking cow's milk.
The report, released last week by the federal Centers for Disease Control and
discussed in the April issue of Pediatrics, attributed cases of rickets to a
decrease in sun exposure (sunlight on the skin creates vitamin D naturally) and
to an increase in breast-feeding (breast milk can be short on vitamin D).
The report also attributed one case of rickets to a milk alternative, which was
not fortified with vitamin D. Given the many health problems associated with
dairy consumption, PCRM is concerned the
public is being misled into thinking that dairy is the best way to prevent
rickets.
"Insisting that our children drink cow's milk to get their vitamin D is
like encouraging them to play in traffic to get their exercise," says Amy
J. Lanou, Ph.D., and PCRM nutrition director.
"Yes, cow's milk is fortified with vitamin D, but it's also jam-packed
with saturated fat and problematic proteins," says Dr. Lanou. "And
cow's milk is hardly the only food fortified with vitamin D. It's readily
available in much healthier foods, such as fortified soy and rice
milks." A study conducted last Friday by PCRM shows that most soy
and rice milks, such as Silk and Pacific Soy, have 25 percent of the daily
requirement of vitamin D, the same as cow's milk.
PCRM doctors and dietitians, who have included such well-respected child health
experts as the late Benjamin Spock, M.D., have long maintained that cow's milk
is not a health food. In children, dairy consumption is linked with anemia,
colic, allergies, constipation, and juvenile-onset diabetes. In adults, it's
related to heart disease, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer, and possibly breast
cancer.
"Milk is the least healthy source of vitamin D," says Neal D.
Barnard, M.D., PCRM president. "Rather, we should encourage increased
outdoor activity, which would not only help children produce enough vitamin D
naturally, but would help strengthen their bones, improve fitness, and reduce
obesity. For kids who do not get enough
sunlight, any typical multivitamin will do the job."
The national advertising slogan being used by the dairy industry "Got
Milk?" should be replaced with one that is really in the best interest of
public health. It should be "Not
Milk!"
Founded in 1985, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a
nonprofit health organization that promotes preventive medicine, especially
good nutrition, and higher standards in research.
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
VegTv.com
Source - BHGazette@aol.com
A
new streaming video network has just launched on the Internet. It offers a
groundbreaking development in America's health movement. After 2 years in
development, VegTv.com formally debuts with a series of videos that show
Americans how to switch to a healthier, plant-based diet.
With Mad Cow disease making the covers of national magazines and with obesity,
heart disease and stroke taking a growing toll on America's health, VegTv.com
offers a smart alternative.
VegTv.com founder, Jane Velez-Mitchell, an Emmy award-winning Los Angeles
television news anchor, has applied her two decades of TV news experience to
teaching Americans how to switch to plant-based foods.
VegTv.com produces video recipes featuring America's top soy cookbook authors:
-- Marie Oser, author of "Soy of Cooking" and "More Soy
of Cooking";
-- Patricia Greenberg, author of "The Joy of Soy"; and
-- Akasha Richmond, celebrity chef and caterer, author of "The Art
of Tofu."
A growing number of health-food companies, like Mori-Nu Tofu, are working with
VegTv.com to establish a video presence on the Internet. VegTv Correspondents
fan out across the country, profiling America's top vegetarian restaurants and
health-oriented events, like the recent World Health Expo 2001 at the Anaheim
Convention Center and L.A.'s Genesis Awards.
VegTv.com has gathered a group of like-minded professionals from the
television, Internet and health-food industries to form an Internet Video
Production House that develops video demonstrations of healthy, plant-based,
cruelty-free, environmentally friendly products.
VegTv.com has formed a strategic partnership with the high-traffic movie site
Movieflix.com, which syndicates all of VegTv's content under its
"health" category. VegTv.com is also in the process of syndicating
its content to other sites. VegTv.com is featured on Vegsource.com, rated
by Media
Metrix as the most visited vegetarian site on the World Wide Web, with millions
of unique visitors.
VegTv.com also sponsors national health campaigns. VegTv.com is producing
a video for the SoyHappy.org Campaign to get veggie dogs into America's
baseball stadiums, a video that will be distributed to stadiums across the
country.
VegTv.com profiles the growing number of celebrities who've switched to a
plant-based diet, from author and intellectual Gloria Steinem to actors like
Dennis Weaver, Alicia Silverstone and James Cromwell.
VegTv.com President Jane Velez-Mitchell and Marketing Director Marie Oser are
available for interviews.
NOTE: Multimedia assets relating to this story will be available for
journalists to download beginning today at www.newstream.com and at
www.businesswire.com
NOTE: A Photo is available at URL:
http://www.businesswire.com/cgi-bin/photo.cgi?pw.041001/bb9
CONTACT:
VegTv.Com
Marie Oser, 805/446-2908
Marie@VegTv.com
Jane Velez-Mitchell, 310/210-6696
Jane@VegTv.com
Fax: 310/823-9321
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
Animal-Tested Cosmetics Banned
BRUSSELS,
Belgium (AP) - The European Parliament voted [recently] to ban sales of all new
cosmetic products tested on animals, including makeup, shampoos and shower
gels. Pending approval from the 15 European Union member nations, the
legislation would immediately prohibit cosmetics for which alternative testing
exists. By January 2005, the ban also would apply to all new cosmetics using
animal-tested ingredients, even if alternative tests have not been developed.
"Those products should no longer be sold,'' said German socialist member
Dagmar Roth-Behrendt, who wrote the bill. The ban also would apply to
imported products. The 8,000 animal-tested cosmetic ingredients already on the
market would not be affected. The 626-member European Union assembly
meeting in Strasbourg, France, easily approved about 30 amendments to
strengthen EU rules on cosmetics. The Parliament also passed an amendment to
label animal-tested products rather than those using alternative methods such
as clinical cell or bacterial testing. The European Parliament and the
European Commission have been wrangling over the issue since they postponed a
1998 plan to ban animal-tested products because companies
lacked alternative methods. The only EU countries that ban cosmetic
animal testing are Britain, Austria and the Netherlands. Most of Europe's
cosmetic testing is done in France and Italy.
The European cosmetic industry, with annual sales around $39 billion, has
opposed the ban, arguing that they still do not have many alternatives to
animal testing. The legislation goes the 15 EU governments for
consideration and return to the Parliament for a final vote.
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
Farm Sanctuary's 2001 Gala
Sunday, May 20, 2001, New York, USA
Farm Sanctuary is holding its first black-tie
gala in New York City at The Plaza and will be presenting U.S. Congressman Gary
Ackerman (D-NY) with a "Congressional Friend of Farm Animals Award"
for his dedication to animal protection. This event will raise funds for our
"Say No To Veal" advertising campaign in New York and will be hosted
by Grant Aleksander, Linda Blair, James Cromwell, Rue McClanahan, Kevin Nealon,
Stefanie Powers, Ally Sheedy and Lily Tomlin, and Internationally Renowned
Artists Sue Coe and Peter Max. We're also pleased to announce our Guest of
Honor, Mary Tyler Moore. With a gourmet vegan dinner, a silent auction, award
presentation, entertainment and star-studded company the event promises to be
an evening to remember. Ticket price is $250.
Contact 607-583-2225 ext. 281 or
office@farmsanctuary.org if you would like more information about the event,
sponsorship opportunities, advertising, or to receive an invitation.
Samantha Ragsdale
Development Program Manager, Farm Sanctuary
PO Box 150, Watkins Glen, NY 14891, Tel: 607-583-4511,
Fax: 607-583-4349
Visit us at http://www.farmsanctuary.org
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
Job Opportunities
from KimberlyD@fsap.org
CRUELTY
CASEWORKER - Non-profit seeks cruelty caseworker with shelter or humane
association work experience to assess various allegations of animal abuse
reported to PETA and intervene as necessary. Caseworkers educate the
public on humane treatment of animals through the development and distribution
of literature and information packets and representing PETA to the media.
Candidate must have strong writing, research, and organizational skills as well
as the ability to handle multiple
tasks and prioritize work. Candidate must also be able to handle cruelty
complaints in a professional and confidential manner. A degree in a
related field is preferred. Animal Friendly. Competitive salary and
benefits. Please send resume with cover letter to PETA, Attn: Human
Resources, 501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510; or fax 757.628.0789.
INTERNATIONAL GRASSROOTS CAMPAIGN COORDINATOR - People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) seeks an experienced candidate to coordinate PETA's
campaigns work with animal rights activists throughout the country. The
candidate must have activist experience, a thorough knowledge of animal rights
issues, an outgoing and personable manner, and the ability and willingness to travel
often. PETA offers a competitive benefits package. Rewarding
work. Send cover letter and
resume to:
PETA,
Attn: Human Resources, 501 Front Street, Norfolk, VA 23510; or fax to
757-628-0789.
Kim DeWester
Human Resources Coordinator
The PETA Foundation
kimberlyd@fsap.org
Phone: 757.622.7382 X 1404
Fax: 757.628-0789
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
It's What's for Dinner
by Michelle Krapf - Krzygurl83@aol.com
Hundreds of them, loaded into
the small truck.
The conditions are too cold,
But who cares? They are inferior.
They squirm under the conditions,
Under our arrogance and our abuse of power.
Loud and squealing, they are noisy.
There is fright on their adorable little faces.
Crying, they are forced out of their last chance.
Chunks of flesh are ripped off, frozen to the truck.
They know where they are going.
They are not as stupid as we think.
They walk to their deaths,
As if they were going to the gas chamber in a Nazi concentration camp.
Trying to fight an instinctual battle of survival.
Who cares though?
Their feet still kicking and mouths still screaming,
They are hung up.
Their throats are slit.
Pours out the blood, the life; while it feels
The last thing it will feel in its life - PAIN.
But who cares?
Not us, it's just another holiday ham.
Pork: the other damn white meat.
We don't care how it got to the plate
As long as it's there.
Who cares about the pig?
It's just a trip to the slaughterhouse;
A journey to the end of life.
Dinner's ready.
*“`³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`*“`³¤³“`*:»«:*“`³¤³“`*:»³¤³“`*:»§«:*“`“`*:»«:*³¤³“`³¤³“`
Memorable Quote
"Cow's milk is not suited for human consumption. Milk causes constipation,
biliousness, coated tongue, headache, and these are the symptoms of intestinal
auto-intoxication. Soybean milk, and nut milks are excellent substitutes, and
have practically the same analyses, and the danger of disease is removed."
~ Jethro
Kloss, Back to Eden, 1939
«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»
Susan Roghair - EnglandGal@aol.com
Animal Rights Online
P O Box 7053
Tampa, Fl 33673-7053
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/1395/
-=Animal Rights Online=-
&
Advisory Board Member, Animal Rights Network Inc.,
not-for-profit publisher of The Animals' Agenda Magazine
http://www.animalsagenda.org/
The Animals' Agenda Magazine: WebEdition
«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»§«¤»„«¤»
(Permission Granted To Quote/Forward/Reprint/Repost This Newsletter
In
Whole Or In Part with credit given to EnglandGal@aol.com)
* Please forward this to a friend who
you think
might be interested in subscribing to our newsletter.
* ARO gratefully accepts and
considers articles for publication
from subscribers on veg*anism and animal issues.
Send submissions to JJswans@aol.com