One in Eight Americans Used Food Banks in 2009
By SCOTT KILMAN
CHICAGO—A charitable organization estimated Tuesday that 37 million Americans—or one in eight people—turned to food pantries and soup kitchens during the 2009 recession, forcing some sites to cut meal portions and turn away people.
Feeding America, a Chicago-based network of 200 food banks, said in its quadrennial hunger study that 46% more people visited a hunger-relief charity at least once in 2009 than did in 2005. The estimate was based on a survey of officials at 37,000 local feeding agencies nationwide.
President Barack Obama has a stated goal of ending childhood hunger in the U.S. by 2015. But the Feeding America study indicated that high unemployment and growing health-care costs were undermining increases in federal spending on nutrition programs.
As part of the hunger study, the group also interviewed 61,000 patrons at emergency feeding sites from February through June of last year. Among other things, the Feeding America study estimated that 13.9 million children were served by an emergency feeding center in 2009 compared with 9.23 million children in 2005.
Feeding America, which changed its name in 2008 from America's Second Harvest, said its survey showed that 76% of the adults who used a food pantry in 2009 were unemployed, including 3.2 million who had lost their jobs within the past 12 months. Read More
At the same time we are seeing an increase of people who are struggling to afford food for their families, we have food elitists who continue to advocate for a higher priced food supply. I can guarantee you that hungry people aren’t concerned about “food miles” or the technology used to grow it. The people that are worried about those types of things are the ones with full stomachs. So who should we be catering to in this country? Should we use the Pollan plan and turn our backs on the last century of progress in food production and have no regard for how many people we can feed? Or should we concentrate on making food more accessible by keeping it as affordable as possible? I, for one, am much more concerned about the empty stomachs than the full ones.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
HSUS Now Denies Involvement in S.D. Raid
HSUS Reacts To Turner County Decision
Keloland.com
Turner Co, SD
Feb 2, 2010
The case against a Hurley dog breeder is in limbo now that the raid on his property was ruled illegal. A Yankton judge ruled that 172 dogs were taken illegally from Dan Christensen's property because Second Chance Rescue Center of Sioux Falls didn't tell the judge the dogs appeared to be okay just days earlier.
The Humane Society of the United States was also involved in seizing the dogs from Christensen's property. The HSUS was actually sitting at the Turner County Fairgrounds the day Rosey Quinn of Second Chance Rescue Center went to ask a judge to issue the warrant to raid Dan Christensen's property.
Ben Dunsmoor (reporter): Were you aware Second Chance didn't have a warrant when you showed up that day?
"The request that was made to us was specifically for handling animals and so that is what we come in under was that an actual request for physically handling those animals, and not developing the case," Senior Director of the HSUS Puppy Mills campaign Stephanie Shain said.
Tuesday, the HSUS told KELOLAND News it was simply asked by Second Chance to help with the removal of Christensen's 172 dogs and did not have any involvement in the case, obtaining the warrant or making sure what they were doing that day was legal. But back in September, they said they were playing a role in the case.
"We're collecting evidence; we're safely and humanely removing them. Some animals may be fractious. We're providing the animals with all the necessary medical care and the sheltering personnel. Sheltering personnel for 172 dogs is dozens and dozens of people scheduled on a regular daily basis," Scotlund Haisley of the HSUS said on September 3, 2009. Read More
It’s almost comical how HSUS is literally tripping over itself in an effort to distance their name from this fiasco. The fact that these perfectly healthy dogs were confiscated because of an over-zealous humane officer being backed by a publicity hungry animal rights group should be a warning to everyone owns an animal. In the eyes of HSUS and those who support it, if you own animals, you are guilty until proven innocent of somehow mistreating them. It’s unfortunate that this story will probably taint the good work that most of our local dog and cat shelters do, but that’s not really something that HSUS is concerned about.
Keloland.com
Turner Co, SD
Feb 2, 2010
The case against a Hurley dog breeder is in limbo now that the raid on his property was ruled illegal. A Yankton judge ruled that 172 dogs were taken illegally from Dan Christensen's property because Second Chance Rescue Center of Sioux Falls didn't tell the judge the dogs appeared to be okay just days earlier.
The Humane Society of the United States was also involved in seizing the dogs from Christensen's property. The HSUS was actually sitting at the Turner County Fairgrounds the day Rosey Quinn of Second Chance Rescue Center went to ask a judge to issue the warrant to raid Dan Christensen's property.
Ben Dunsmoor (reporter): Were you aware Second Chance didn't have a warrant when you showed up that day?
"The request that was made to us was specifically for handling animals and so that is what we come in under was that an actual request for physically handling those animals, and not developing the case," Senior Director of the HSUS Puppy Mills campaign Stephanie Shain said.
Tuesday, the HSUS told KELOLAND News it was simply asked by Second Chance to help with the removal of Christensen's 172 dogs and did not have any involvement in the case, obtaining the warrant or making sure what they were doing that day was legal. But back in September, they said they were playing a role in the case.
"We're collecting evidence; we're safely and humanely removing them. Some animals may be fractious. We're providing the animals with all the necessary medical care and the sheltering personnel. Sheltering personnel for 172 dogs is dozens and dozens of people scheduled on a regular daily basis," Scotlund Haisley of the HSUS said on September 3, 2009. Read More
It’s almost comical how HSUS is literally tripping over itself in an effort to distance their name from this fiasco. The fact that these perfectly healthy dogs were confiscated because of an over-zealous humane officer being backed by a publicity hungry animal rights group should be a warning to everyone owns an animal. In the eyes of HSUS and those who support it, if you own animals, you are guilty until proven innocent of somehow mistreating them. It’s unfortunate that this story will probably taint the good work that most of our local dog and cat shelters do, but that’s not really something that HSUS is concerned about.
Red Meat Doesn't Cause Cancer
Red Meat Carcinogenicity Examined
2/2/2010 10:10:00 AM
Food Product Design
No association between red or processed meat consumption and cancer has been found according to a new, comprehensive assessment of the scientific evidence.
The report, funded by the Beef and Pork Checkoff program, examines the hypothesis that meat consumption may contribute to human carcinogenesis.
Randomized double-blind controlled clinical trials, the “gold standard” in testing, are not typically conducted on the relationship of meat and cancer and certain other studies can be subject to bias. Published epidemiological studies have often found associations between red meat and processed meat and certain cancers, such as colorectal, esophageal, lung and stomach. However the report points out the following:
Most associations are weak in magnitude
Many associations are null or inverse
Most associations are not statistically significant
Patterns of associations vary by gender and anatomic location of the tumor
Red and processed meat definitions vary across studies
Measures of meat intake and the analytical comparisons are variable
Because researchers believe cancer development is related to a number of genetic, lifestyle, infectious and environmental factors, and usually develops over a long period of time, it makes it difficult to identify the underlying factors of carcinogenesis, according to report author and leading epidemiologist, Dr. Dominik Alexander, PhD, MSPH. Still, he says, “…no mechanism for red meat has been established as being responsible for increasing the risk of cancer in human studies and …the totality of available scientific evidence is not supportive of an independent association between red meat and processed meat and cancer.” Read More
No single food has ever been found to cause cancer. It’s as simple as that. Some people who practice a vegan diet will go to almost any length to convince people otherwise, but the best science available would certainly disagree. It’s important that consumers know the truth about the safety of their food, which is why farmers and ranchers need to help share information such as this.
2/2/2010 10:10:00 AM
Food Product Design
No association between red or processed meat consumption and cancer has been found according to a new, comprehensive assessment of the scientific evidence.
The report, funded by the Beef and Pork Checkoff program, examines the hypothesis that meat consumption may contribute to human carcinogenesis.
Randomized double-blind controlled clinical trials, the “gold standard” in testing, are not typically conducted on the relationship of meat and cancer and certain other studies can be subject to bias. Published epidemiological studies have often found associations between red meat and processed meat and certain cancers, such as colorectal, esophageal, lung and stomach. However the report points out the following:
Most associations are weak in magnitude
Many associations are null or inverse
Most associations are not statistically significant
Patterns of associations vary by gender and anatomic location of the tumor
Red and processed meat definitions vary across studies
Measures of meat intake and the analytical comparisons are variable
Because researchers believe cancer development is related to a number of genetic, lifestyle, infectious and environmental factors, and usually develops over a long period of time, it makes it difficult to identify the underlying factors of carcinogenesis, according to report author and leading epidemiologist, Dr. Dominik Alexander, PhD, MSPH. Still, he says, “…no mechanism for red meat has been established as being responsible for increasing the risk of cancer in human studies and …the totality of available scientific evidence is not supportive of an independent association between red meat and processed meat and cancer.” Read More
No single food has ever been found to cause cancer. It’s as simple as that. Some people who practice a vegan diet will go to almost any length to convince people otherwise, but the best science available would certainly disagree. It’s important that consumers know the truth about the safety of their food, which is why farmers and ranchers need to help share information such as this.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
AR Groups Says Majority of Farmers Abuse Livestock
Animal rights group says a majority of farmers treat animals poorly
By Debra J. Groom / The Post-Standard
January 27, 2010, 8:50PM
Syracuse, NY -- An official with animal rights group Mercy for Animals said Wednesday morning the dairy industry is known for treating cattle cruelly and abuse scenes shown in an undercover video shot by a group member are scenes that exist at farms across the country.
Matt Rice, the New York campaign coordinator for Mercy for Animals, showed a video the group says was shot at Willet Dairy in Genoa, Cayuga County, to bolster its claims that cows are routinely abused at dairy farms. The video was shown during a news conference at the Renaissance Hotel in Syracuse.
The video shows cows with open sores, calves and heifers getting their horns burned off and tails docked (cut short) without painkillers, calves being dragged away from their mothers shortly after birth and cows being beaten, kicked and hit by employees.
Rice said the goal of the Willet Dairy video campaign is to "expose the public to abuses at a modern dairy" and push for laws to protect the animals. He said once people see what is happening at dairy farms, they will see "the best thing anyone can do is remove dairy from their diets."
Jessica Ziehm, speaking for the state Department of Agriculture and Markets, said it is outrageous to say a majority of dairy farmers treat their cows poorly.
"Cows are their livelihood and they do all they can to make their cows comfortable, happy and healthy," she said. Read More
To claim that a majority of farmers abuse their livestock shows a complete lack of understanding about animal welfare and performance. I have previously heard claims by uneducated people that claim abuse and poor management can be covered up with modern production methods. The fact of the matter is that the laws of nature can’t be superseded. If the comfort and care needs for an animal aren’t being met, they will not be productive. Year after year, we see our ability to produce food increase while using fewer natural resources. The real story here is that no matter how many livestock live on a farm, they have to be properly cared for so the farm can continue to be profitable.
By Debra J. Groom / The Post-Standard
January 27, 2010, 8:50PM
Syracuse, NY -- An official with animal rights group Mercy for Animals said Wednesday morning the dairy industry is known for treating cattle cruelly and abuse scenes shown in an undercover video shot by a group member are scenes that exist at farms across the country.
Matt Rice, the New York campaign coordinator for Mercy for Animals, showed a video the group says was shot at Willet Dairy in Genoa, Cayuga County, to bolster its claims that cows are routinely abused at dairy farms. The video was shown during a news conference at the Renaissance Hotel in Syracuse.
The video shows cows with open sores, calves and heifers getting their horns burned off and tails docked (cut short) without painkillers, calves being dragged away from their mothers shortly after birth and cows being beaten, kicked and hit by employees.
Rice said the goal of the Willet Dairy video campaign is to "expose the public to abuses at a modern dairy" and push for laws to protect the animals. He said once people see what is happening at dairy farms, they will see "the best thing anyone can do is remove dairy from their diets."
Jessica Ziehm, speaking for the state Department of Agriculture and Markets, said it is outrageous to say a majority of dairy farmers treat their cows poorly.
"Cows are their livelihood and they do all they can to make their cows comfortable, happy and healthy," she said. Read More
To claim that a majority of farmers abuse their livestock shows a complete lack of understanding about animal welfare and performance. I have previously heard claims by uneducated people that claim abuse and poor management can be covered up with modern production methods. The fact of the matter is that the laws of nature can’t be superseded. If the comfort and care needs for an animal aren’t being met, they will not be productive. Year after year, we see our ability to produce food increase while using fewer natural resources. The real story here is that no matter how many livestock live on a farm, they have to be properly cared for so the farm can continue to be profitable.
Farmers Know Best
Farmers, not bureaucrats, know best (Rep. Steve King)
By Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) - 01/26/10 11:43 AM ET
Chances are you may have heard about antibiotic resistance and the “threat” it poses to public health. Antibiotic resistance is a serious issue. However, finger pointing and meritless attacks on America’s farmers as the culprit for declining human health is misguided at best, and at worst, a travesty.
During a recent briefing on Capitol Hill, old misconceptions and half-truths were resurrected about production agriculture and the use of antibiotics used to keep farm animals healthy. Under the guise of protecting human health, the briefing was billed as a discussion about the economics and public health effects of antibiotics in food animal production.
The briefing also was held to support H.R. 1549, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter on March 17, 2009. Rep. Slaughter’s bill would prevent farmers from introducing antibiotics to livestock for purposes of disease prevention.
When Europe decided to ban one use of antibiotics, more animal deaths and disease outbreaks that required additional use of antibiotics to treat diseases ensued. At the same time, no evidence has been produced showing benefits to human health in the form of reduced antibiotic resistance.
The American Veterinary Medical Association said that Denmark’s voluntary ban on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion “has not resulted in a significant reduction of antibiotic resistance in humans,” while disease and death in hogs increased. Ultimately, animals suffered and humans did not benefit. Growth promotion is a benefit of disease prevention, proving again the American axiom that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Read More
Rep. Steve King has always impressed me with his common sense and his uncommon understanding of agriculture. When it comes to the issue of antibiotics, we shouldn’t rely on knee-jerk reactions to make good decisions. Almost every single one of us uses a product that is designed to kill bacteria everyday. Everyone would agree that we don’t want to eliminate the effectiveness of antibiotics, but I would hope that all of us could also agree that we need to develop strategies that accomplish that goal rather than picking the low-hanging fruit.
By Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) - 01/26/10 11:43 AM ET
Chances are you may have heard about antibiotic resistance and the “threat” it poses to public health. Antibiotic resistance is a serious issue. However, finger pointing and meritless attacks on America’s farmers as the culprit for declining human health is misguided at best, and at worst, a travesty.
During a recent briefing on Capitol Hill, old misconceptions and half-truths were resurrected about production agriculture and the use of antibiotics used to keep farm animals healthy. Under the guise of protecting human health, the briefing was billed as a discussion about the economics and public health effects of antibiotics in food animal production.
The briefing also was held to support H.R. 1549, the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2009, introduced by Rep. Louise Slaughter on March 17, 2009. Rep. Slaughter’s bill would prevent farmers from introducing antibiotics to livestock for purposes of disease prevention.
When Europe decided to ban one use of antibiotics, more animal deaths and disease outbreaks that required additional use of antibiotics to treat diseases ensued. At the same time, no evidence has been produced showing benefits to human health in the form of reduced antibiotic resistance.
The American Veterinary Medical Association said that Denmark’s voluntary ban on the use of antibiotics for growth promotion “has not resulted in a significant reduction of antibiotic resistance in humans,” while disease and death in hogs increased. Ultimately, animals suffered and humans did not benefit. Growth promotion is a benefit of disease prevention, proving again the American axiom that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Read More
Rep. Steve King has always impressed me with his common sense and his uncommon understanding of agriculture. When it comes to the issue of antibiotics, we shouldn’t rely on knee-jerk reactions to make good decisions. Almost every single one of us uses a product that is designed to kill bacteria everyday. Everyone would agree that we don’t want to eliminate the effectiveness of antibiotics, but I would hope that all of us could also agree that we need to develop strategies that accomplish that goal rather than picking the low-hanging fruit.
Vegetarians Enjoying Meat Week
Carnivores, Delight: It's Meat Week
Barbecue Lovers from 16 Cities across the Country Settle in for 8 Straight Nights of Smoked Meat
(CBS) The organizers of Meat Week know what you are thinking.
Eight straight days of eating barbecue?
Could this be real?
Yes, yes it is.
"We know it is stupid," said Derek Atkinson, the organizer of the New York City chapter of Meat Week. "It's eight nights of barbecue. It's unhealthy - it's horrible for you. But it's delicious. But it's about getting together with your friends and eating the hell out some smoked meat - and sometimes potato salad."
Meat Week was conceived by two bored coworkers in Tallahassee, Fla. Back in 2005, Erni Walker and Chris Cantey were using a word generator on Cantey's Web site that came up with the "holy combination" of "meat" and "week." "From the day we sat down and wrote 'Meat Week' in our planners, that was the day we decided to do this weird thing, and we decided that every year for the rest of our lives we'd do Meat Week now," said Walker, who now works with Cantey for a production company in Los Angeles.
"Our normal meat volume throughout the year makes meat week more special," Cantey said of his diet which includes - gasp! - tofu, tempeh and other meat substitutes.
In fact, many participants at Meat Week are vegetarians. The draw for many is the communal, family-style environment that is the hallmark of many Southern-style barbecue restaurants.
Read More
Does it seem odd to anyone else that these vegetarians are taking the week off from their dietary convictions in order to enjoy Meat Week? I think it really goes to show you how much of vegetarianism is really just an act that some people think makes them look more “stylish”. While Meat Week may be a little over the top, the fact of the matter is that a healthy balanced diet will always include meat and dairy products, eaten in the proper amounts everyday.
Barbecue Lovers from 16 Cities across the Country Settle in for 8 Straight Nights of Smoked Meat
(CBS) The organizers of Meat Week know what you are thinking.
Eight straight days of eating barbecue?
Could this be real?
Yes, yes it is.
"We know it is stupid," said Derek Atkinson, the organizer of the New York City chapter of Meat Week. "It's eight nights of barbecue. It's unhealthy - it's horrible for you. But it's delicious. But it's about getting together with your friends and eating the hell out some smoked meat - and sometimes potato salad."
Meat Week was conceived by two bored coworkers in Tallahassee, Fla. Back in 2005, Erni Walker and Chris Cantey were using a word generator on Cantey's Web site that came up with the "holy combination" of "meat" and "week." "From the day we sat down and wrote 'Meat Week' in our planners, that was the day we decided to do this weird thing, and we decided that every year for the rest of our lives we'd do Meat Week now," said Walker, who now works with Cantey for a production company in Los Angeles.
"Our normal meat volume throughout the year makes meat week more special," Cantey said of his diet which includes - gasp! - tofu, tempeh and other meat substitutes.
In fact, many participants at Meat Week are vegetarians. The draw for many is the communal, family-style environment that is the hallmark of many Southern-style barbecue restaurants.
Read More
Does it seem odd to anyone else that these vegetarians are taking the week off from their dietary convictions in order to enjoy Meat Week? I think it really goes to show you how much of vegetarianism is really just an act that some people think makes them look more “stylish”. While Meat Week may be a little over the top, the fact of the matter is that a healthy balanced diet will always include meat and dairy products, eaten in the proper amounts everyday.
Monday, February 1, 2010
HSUS Launches Attack on Ohio's Family Farmers, Voters
Ohioans for Humane Farms Petitions to Put Measure on November Ballot Protecting Animal Welfare, Food Safety, Family Farmers and the Environment
-HSUS Press Release - Feb 1, 2010
Ohioans for Humane Farms submitted a petition—including signatures from Ohio voters in 48 counties, demonstrating broad and regionally diverse support—to Ohio's Secretary of State in support of placing an anti-cruelty measure on the statewide November ballot. The proposed measure would allow voters to require the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to adopt certain minimum standards that will prevent the cruel and inhumane treatment of farm animals, enhance food safety, protect the environment and strengthen Ohio family farms.
Utilizing a large volunteer base, the group will seek to collect more than 600,000 signatures of registered Ohio voters upon approval of the petition forms by the Secretary of State. The ballot measure is backed by The Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, Ohio SPCA, Toledo Area Humane Society, Geauga Humane Society, Ohio League of Humane Voters, Center for Food Safety, United Farm Workers, Consumer Federation of America, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and a growing list of organizations. Read More
We all knew it was probably coming. The HSUS, run by a man with a history major, thinks he and his organization know more about animal husbandry than Ohio’s family farmers and ranchers do. Not only that, but they also think they know more than all of the citizens of Ohio that overwhelmingly decided just a few months ago that they wanted their own citizens to handle this issue through a Livestock Standards Care Board. As if we needed any more proof, this cements the fact that they aren’t concerned about the welfare of animals. If they did, they would be willing to at least let this board be appointed and become functional. No, their main concern is money and power. Remember that HSUS has a stated goal of forcing veganism on society. Pacelle himself has even written, and bragged, about this policy. So, once again, the Humane Society of the United States launches an attack on family farmers. ~Troy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)