Slaughterhouse: The Shocking Story of Greed, Neglect, and Inhumane Treatment Inside the U.S. Meat Industry

Animal Experimentation: A Harvest of Shame makes the case that the current scientific emphasis on the vivisection of animals (inducing injury and disease in previously healthy animals) has not only done tremendous harm to the animals, it has worked to the detriment of patients as well.

Do you want to help protect her habitat?

You can do so by signing up for Red Jellyfish Internet service!

Help Save The Lives of Animals at The Action Blog
Ever wish there was something you could do from your computer to help save the lives of animals? Well now, thanks to TheActionBlog.com, there is!

The Action Blog is a visually stunning site that allows you to take action on behalf of animals everywhere. It's definitely worth checking out and seeing how many animals you can help save.

HORSES NEED OUR HELP
By Cara Coffey

Horses and ponies are elegant, graceful, and helped to build the country, yet are mistreated, abused, starved, and slaughtered. Although a label is put on slaughter-bound horses as "near-death" or "malnourished," this is not the truth. Most horses are bought from livestock auctions and private sales by a middle man for a slaughter company. From there, the animals are loaded onto large cattle trucks and shipped long distances without food, water, or rest. Once the horses reach their final destination they are pushed, sometimes dragged, into long corridors, and onto a "drop box." The horses are then "stunned" and dropped to be inhumanely slaughtered and butchered. Although the sale of horse hooves for glue is untrue, some dog food plants do use horse meat scraps in their food production. Dishes containing about one pound of horse meat can cost $15 on average in some European countries and Japan.

Visit here to sign an online petition to stop the inhumane slaughter of horses.

The state of New Jersey is the only state with legislation requiring the humane treatment of farm animals, and it is in a unique position to play a
leading role toward changing America's shameful neglect of farm animal welfare. The state Department of Agriculture has received roughly 20,000 letters from concerned citizens urging the drafting of humane standards for the treatment of farm animals, including nine from New Jersey state
legislators.

In Jan. 1996, the New Jersey state legislature enacted a law requiring the state Department of Agriculture to, within six months, develop standards for humane treatment of farm animals. Six years later, the standards have not been drafted. Though obviously foot-dragging on the issue, the state still has the remarkable opportunity to improve the lives of millions of animals.

According to Gene Bauston, director of Farm Sanctuary, "Practices employed on factory farms cannot be considered 'humane,' and therefore they must be prohibited pursuant to New Jersey law. On modern factory farms, cows, pigs, chickens and other animals are treated like inanimate commodities rather than living beings. They are packed by the thousands into warehouse-like sheds, in crates or cages where they cannot turn around, stretch their limbs, escape their own waste products or, in some cases, even lie down comfortably."

Such conditions are so cruel they are being outlawed across Europe. But unfortunately, laws protecting farm animals in the U.S. are grossly inadequate. When two live hens were found discarded in a trash can full of dead birds at ISE egg factory in Broadway, New Jersey, ISE was taken to court, but was found "not guilty" of animal cruelty. Shockingly, ISE's lawyer asserted that it is legally acceptable to treat live birds as if they
were manure. When the judge asked, "Isn't there a big distinction between manure and live animals?" ISE's lawyer responded, "No, your honor."

Factory farming has not yet infiltrated New Jersey as it has other states, but some factory farms have moved into New Jersey, making it imperative that the state acts to adopt the humane treatment standards. For more information, including scientific research, regarding problems associated
with intensive confinement agriculture, please visit: FreeFarmAnimals.org. For more information about Farm Sanctuary, visit their website.

The USDA recently agreed to add rats, mice and birds to species protected under the Animal Welfare Act, but biomedical researchers such as the National Association for BioMedical Research (NABR) are actively lobbying Congress to keep it off the books.

For the first time in history, rats, mice and birds would be granted the right to minimal standards of care and treatment in laboratories. But researchers feel the inclusion would impede medical progress.

Animal rights advocates, however aren’t going to let powerful biomedical research lobbies destroy the landmark decision without a fight.

“Despite what this vocal minority would like you to believe, the new law is not a choice between animal protection and scientific research, Dr. John McArdle, director of the Alternatives Research and Development Foundation, an affiliate of The American Anti-Vivisection Society, said in a statement. “The truth is that requiring improved standards for food, water, shelter and pain relief of rats, mice and birds would affect only those testing facilities with substandard animal care.

“There are many accurate and effective alternatives to animal testing currently in use in the United States and in Europe.”

United Poultry Concerns and The American Anti-Vivisection Society, which forced the USDA agreement, are circulating a petition to keep the animals protected. It can be found at www.upc-online.org.

“The more than 90 percent of animals used in laboratories who currently have no legal protection could now be covered by federal law,” said Tina Nelson, AAVS executive director. “This agreement paves the way for more humane, accurate and effective non-animal research.”

The USDA estimates that more than 1.2 million animals were used by U.S. research facilities in 1997, but the AAVS puts the figure closer to 22 million.

Andy Summa is a freelance writer in Sugar Land, Texas.

WICKED WHALING
By Andy Summa

Three Japanese whaling boats returned home April 11 with more than 2,000 tons of whale carcasses, sparking out-cry and criticism from around the globe.

“As Japan's whaling fleet returns this week from another hunt, we are reminded again of Japan's continued disregard of the spirit and intent of International Whaling Commission regulations," said Fred O'Regan, president of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. “While Japan claims the hunt is for purely 'research' purposes, its factory ship is due to return to port tomorrow with hundreds of tons of packaged whale meat ready for the country's commercial meat markets.”

A total of 440 minke whales were caught during the five-month hunt in the Antarctic Ocean. Greenpeace estimates the haul will earn about $33
million on the wholesale market.

Last year, Japan caught about 90 endangered Byrde’s and sperm whales, which brought the threat of U.S. sanctions sanctions and consumer boycotts.

Japan is allowed to catch a limited number of whales for scientific research, but critics claim most of the whale meat is sold commercially -- which has been illegal since 1986. The whaling is allowed by the International Whaling Commission.

Japan’s representative to the International Whaling Commission said the recent catches are within legal guidelines.

“This is the maximum we can catch in the Antarctic region, but it will provide valuable samples for our research,” Minoru Morimoto told Reuters.

Animal rights activists fume that whaling should be completely illegal, as most of the whales suffer greatly when harpooned. A recent BBC study found that on Japanese whaling trips, only 30 percent were killed immediately. More than six minutes passed before half the wounded whales were pronounced dead, according to BBC reports.

Some whales took more than two hours to die after the initial harpooning.

For more information, go to IFAW’s anti-whaling site, www.stopwhalingnow.com.

Andy Summa is a freelance writer in Sugar Land, TX

HUMANE SLAUGHTER ACT IGNORED
By Andy Summa

Cattle and hogs are butchered in slaughterhouses while still conscious despite a federal law that requires livestock to be killed humanely, the union of federal meat inspectors said recently.

The meat industry ignores the law “with virtual impunity” because of lax enforcement by the Agriculture Department, according to a petition filed with USDA by the union and several animal rights groups, including the Humane Society of the United States, Progressive Animal Welfare Society and Humane Farming Association.

The Humane Slaughter Act requires that livestock must be rendered insensible to pain before being shackled, hoisted, thrown, cast, or cut. Petitioners contend that many animals are slaughtered fully conscious.

Inspectors should be stationed full-time in areas of the plants where animals are stunned and bled, and plant operations should be stopped any time there are violations, the petition said.

The 41-year-old Humane Slaughter Act is “not a top priority. It’s not a medium priority. It’s not a priority at all,” Arthur Hughes, spokesman for the National Joint Council for Food Inspection Locals told the Associated Press. He said new inspectors don’t even know the law exists.

For more information, go to www.paws.org and www.hfa.org.

Andy Summa is a freelance writer in Sugar Land, Texas.

WAR AGAINST WILDLIFE
By Andy Summa

Environmentalists say a war against wildlife is going on at Riding Mountain National Park in Manitoba, Canada.

Hunting in the area, along with development and a growing number of tourists (more than half a million last year) threaten the integrity of the park, said Roger Turenne, president of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), Manitoba Chapter.

“National parks exist primarily to protect the ecological integrity and biological diversity of unique natural regions in Canada,” he said. “They are among the few places where nature comes first, or ought to. The ever-accelerating pace of development of our landscapes, through agriculture, forestry, mining, and residential buildup, means that our national parks, and Riding Mountain in particular, are becoming increasingly isolated and stressed.”

Hunting along the park’s boundaries is particularly dangerous to the ecological well-being of the park and surrounding areas, Turenne said. Many outfitters advertise “park frontage.”

“The Wildlife Branch claims that hunting around the park keeps bear populations down, thus reducing bear/human encounters and damage to property,” he said. “In fact, their policies accomplish the reverse by luring animals from the center of the park to the surrounding countryside and onto private land.”

Turenne said the bears are baited to the park boundaries by stale doughnuts and food placed there by outfitters. “Baiting also plays havoc with bear ecology,” he said. “Because of the shape of the park, and the fact that bears travel widely, nearly all of the park’s bears are negatively affected by the practice. Their migratory patterns, feeding habits, age structure, sex ratio, and social relationships are all distorted. Not to speak of their longevity. The only place in Manitoba where black bears are supposedly protected, few are allowed to grow old and die a natural death.”

CPAWS is asking the province to implement a unilateral cease-fire and immediately ban the practice of bear-baiting around the periphery of the park.

For more information, check out http://www.cpaws.org/chapters/mb.html.

Andy Summa is a freelance writer in Sugar Land, Texas.
 

THE STORY OF ALBINO RABBITS,
the Draize Test, and a Good Reason to Choose Nontoxic, Cruelty-free Products

For 56 years and counting, albino rabbits have been restrained in stocks, had chemicals injected directly into their eyes, been then monitored for changes (such as redness, swelling, tearing, and screaming in pain) over seven days, then been killed and analyzed for internal damage. Albino rabbits are chosen because they are gentle and unlikely to bite, and because they have big eyes.

This eye irritancy “research” is called the Draize Test, and such animal cruelty is being perpetrated to determine the degree to which a substance such as a cosmetic or pharmaceutical irritates human tissues. Although some countries require the Draize Test by law, it is not required in the United States. Many U.S. companies use the Draize Test at the recommendation of their insurance and legal departments. In the instance of the Draize Test, a PETA  fact sheet seems accurate when it notes that "animal tests protect companies, not consumers."

Leading ophthalmologists report that rabbits' eyes are considerably different from those of humans and for this reason not only are Draize Test results highly suspect as determinants of chemical effects on human eyes, but could actually be dangerous since something that is safe for a rabbit may not be for humans. In an added twist of irony, emergency room personnel are highly unlikely (if ever) to consult Draize Test results in the case of accidental poisoning, making the rabbits’ sacrifice even more meaningless.

Alternatives to the Draize Test have been developed. In vitro tests use human or animal cells specimens which can be grown in a laboratory. Cell and tissue samples can measure irritancy and toxicity. Choosing products made of nontoxic and natural ingredients will take you a long way towards finding products made of ingredients that don’t need safety testing to begin with.

To avoid being a silent partner to animal cruelty, you need to read the labels on everything from floor wax, dish detergent, oven cleaner, lipstick and lip gloss. Look for “cruelty-free,” or “not tested on animals.”

Look also for this international cruelty-free logo that designates that the product and its individual ingredients were not tested on animals.

THE HUMANE SEAL OF APPROVAL

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) was founded in 1985, and is a non-profit organization with over 5,000 physicians and 100,000 laypersons as members. PCRM advocates research that is opposed to unethical human experiments and alternatives to animal research. The PCRM advisory board includes such popular doctors as Dean Ornish, Neal D. Barnard, and Andrew Weil.

This year PCRM has launched a program to promote higher medical research standards called The Humane Seal of Approval. By looking for this seal, consumers can easily identify cruelty-free charities. PCRM licenses the Humane Seal of Approval only to those charities where the only animal research permitted is naturalistic, meaning that the animals are observed without interference.

Supporters of PCRM receive Good Medicine Quarterly. Some archived articles on the PCRM website from the newsletter include "March of Dimes Challenged to Drop Animal Experiments," There's No Room for Chicken in a Health Diet," "A New Initiative on Birth Defects," "New Cell Tests Beat Animal tests," and more...

There are also books for sale on the PCRM website that focus on cancer prevention diets (low-fat, vegetarian cookbooks), animal cruelty, research into natural progesterone, breast cancer prevention, mad cow disease, spiritual approaches to weight loss, and avoiding milk.

Click here for the PCRM website.

MODELS WITH CONSCIENCE

“Radiantly representing cruelty-free products,” Models with Conscience  is an international group of fashion models founded by model Heather Chase in 1998. The models specialize in promoting  cruelty-free cosmetics, fragrances and hair care products, and share a genuine compassion for animals. They won’t wear fur or promote products that involve animal testing.

ANIMAL TESTING AT UNIVERSITY
By Andy Summa

University of Colorado regents are debating the usefulness of dog labs in their medical school. Eighty-five of the 126 U.S. medical schools have already eliminated animal testing for training doctors.

Schools in the United Kingdom, the Medical Academy of Warsaw and the University of Poznan in Poland have also banned the use of dog labs to train medical students.

“I feel very strongly the university has got to make some concessions in this area,” CU Regent Jim Martin told Scripps Howard. “I think shedding light on this issue by the board will make the School of Medicine a bit more attuned to our constituents.”

Though the Board of Regents won’t vote initially to ban animal testing, the debate is the first formal discussion of the controversial issue.

Animal labs have been attacked by animal rights activists who say vivisection is cruel and unnecessary. Two-thirds of American med school programs, including Harvard, Stanford, Columbia and Yale, have already eliminated animal testing in favor of modern, cost-effective computer programs.

Almost 100 first-year medical students at the CU School of Medicine in Denver are using 36 dogs this year in cardiovascular and respiratory laboratories. The dogs are anesthetized, vivisected, injected with numerous medications and then killed.

To contact the regents, go to http://www.cu.edu/regents/. For more information on vivisection, check out the American Anti-Vivisection Society at www.aavs.org.

Andy Summa is a freelance writer in Sugar Land, Texas.