Quote of the Week
Oct 30, 2009
Center for Consumer Freedom
Last night in Los Angeles, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) president Wayne Pacelle showed why he’s been able to turn a group that sounds as if it’s all about protecting puppies and kittens into an animal-rights lobbying force with talons. He’s looking to sink those talons into people who have the audacity to eat or sell meat, wear leather, go to circuses, or enjoy hunting and fishing – in other words, 99 percent of America.
In front of a hand-picked crowd of HSUS supporters who attended last night’s “town hall meeting” at the Ebell of Los Angeles, Pacelle rallied the troops with a fight song:
"We have to create a clamor for change ... You can get further with a kind word and a gun than a kind word alone."
He attributed the latter quote to notorious gangster Al Capone, who seems like an odd inspiration for a supposedly peaceful movement. But animal-rights extremists are far from peaceful. One of Pacelle’s own staffers, Josh Balk, told the HSUS-sponsored “Taking Action For Animals” that “there are very few instances that companies just refuse to move with a friendly conversation … The animals can’t wait for people to come to a revelation themselves. Sometimes it does take force.”
HSUS sounds more and more like PETA and the terrorist Animal Liberation Front every day.
It’s been well documented that HSUS spends only a tiny fraction – less than four percent – of its budget directly funding animal shelters. If you’re wondering how it spends the other roughly $100 million in its budget every year, you might consider the cost of renting out the posh Wilshire Ebell Theatre, providing the supporters-only crowd with a catered coffee service, and hiring four burly security guards to keep out the riff-raff.
Sorry, Wayne. We got in anyway. Link
For someone who constantly tries telling the ag community that they aren’t trying to eliminate animal agriculture, it seems quite odd that he would be advocating the use of violence to do so. Apparently the HSUS is prepared to use violence against anyone who disagrees with them on animal rights.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Antibiotics Increase Food Safety
November 1, 2009
Restrictions could make food less safe
By Don Villwock
Livestock farmers across Indiana and the U.S. are absolutely committed to the production of safe, affordable and abundant food. To do this, farmers must have access to approved, safe and effective technologies, including animal health products.
That's why Farm Bureau opposes HR 1549 and S 619, the legislation currently before Congress that would restrict the use of antibiotics. Rather than protecting the efficacy of antibiotics and the safety of our food, the legislation:
Won't reduce the incidence of antibiotic resistance.
Won't result in a safer food supply.
Will make it harder for farmers to raise healthy animals that will, in turn, produce healthy food.
Might result in food that is less safe for human consumption.
Livestock farmers do not routinely overuse antibiotics in animals. When Indiana Farm Bureau saw the accusations against livestock farmers being used as justification for this legislation, we asked livestock producer members if they use antibiotics at the levels that critics claim. The answer? A resounding "no." Read More
Antibiotics are a great tool that, when properly used in livestock, benefit all of us. These exaggerated claims of livestock being pumped full of antibiotics are frustrating to hear when we know it isn’t the truth. In addition to that, the reasons that antibiotics are used is much different than the claims that say it’s because of the diet we feed them. This is absolutely one of the most commonly asked questions I get from consumers. It’s a confusing subject for those not involved in animal agriculture and it’s especially important that we share this information with them.
Restrictions could make food less safe
By Don Villwock
Livestock farmers across Indiana and the U.S. are absolutely committed to the production of safe, affordable and abundant food. To do this, farmers must have access to approved, safe and effective technologies, including animal health products.
That's why Farm Bureau opposes HR 1549 and S 619, the legislation currently before Congress that would restrict the use of antibiotics. Rather than protecting the efficacy of antibiotics and the safety of our food, the legislation:
Won't reduce the incidence of antibiotic resistance.
Won't result in a safer food supply.
Will make it harder for farmers to raise healthy animals that will, in turn, produce healthy food.
Might result in food that is less safe for human consumption.
Livestock farmers do not routinely overuse antibiotics in animals. When Indiana Farm Bureau saw the accusations against livestock farmers being used as justification for this legislation, we asked livestock producer members if they use antibiotics at the levels that critics claim. The answer? A resounding "no." Read More
Antibiotics are a great tool that, when properly used in livestock, benefit all of us. These exaggerated claims of livestock being pumped full of antibiotics are frustrating to hear when we know it isn’t the truth. In addition to that, the reasons that antibiotics are used is much different than the claims that say it’s because of the diet we feed them. This is absolutely one of the most commonly asked questions I get from consumers. It’s a confusing subject for those not involved in animal agriculture and it’s especially important that we share this information with them.
USDA Closes Vermont Processor
USDA closes plant after HSUS undercover investigation
By Drovers news source Friday, October 30, 2009
The Humane Society of the United States released the results of an undercover investigation documenting animal abuse at a Vermont slaughter plant. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture took decisive action and immediately suspended operations at the plant, pending a continuing investigation. The HSUS is cooperating with agencies, and provided undercover footage and some preliminary findings to them earlier this week.
According to HSUS, videotape from the investigation reveals that veal calves only a few days old—many with their umbilical cords still hanging from their bodies—were unable to stand or walk on their own. The tape shows that the animals were kicked, slapped and repeatedly shocked with electric prods and subjected to other mistreatment. After reviewing the undercover footage obtained by the HSUS investigator in August and September 2009, animal scientists Dr. Temple Grandin and Kurt Vogel pronounced that, “the handling practices and attention to insensibility at this plant are unacceptable and must improve.” Link
There is no excuse for the mishandling of livestock. In our industry, we have spent millions of dollars on educational programming for all different segments of the livestock business so that there are no excuses for mistreatment. I am proud to be in the beef business, but there are members of our team that don’t always do things the right way. Because of that, we will continue to devote as many resources as we can to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The HSUS will use this to claim that we shouldn’t eat meat at all. But, we don’t stop going to the doctor when someone is convicted of malpractice and we don’t stop driving cars because someone used it to commit a crime. If these allegations are true, I am glad that it was brought to the attention of proper authorities and that it will get corrected.
By Drovers news source Friday, October 30, 2009
The Humane Society of the United States released the results of an undercover investigation documenting animal abuse at a Vermont slaughter plant. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture took decisive action and immediately suspended operations at the plant, pending a continuing investigation. The HSUS is cooperating with agencies, and provided undercover footage and some preliminary findings to them earlier this week.
According to HSUS, videotape from the investigation reveals that veal calves only a few days old—many with their umbilical cords still hanging from their bodies—were unable to stand or walk on their own. The tape shows that the animals were kicked, slapped and repeatedly shocked with electric prods and subjected to other mistreatment. After reviewing the undercover footage obtained by the HSUS investigator in August and September 2009, animal scientists Dr. Temple Grandin and Kurt Vogel pronounced that, “the handling practices and attention to insensibility at this plant are unacceptable and must improve.” Link
There is no excuse for the mishandling of livestock. In our industry, we have spent millions of dollars on educational programming for all different segments of the livestock business so that there are no excuses for mistreatment. I am proud to be in the beef business, but there are members of our team that don’t always do things the right way. Because of that, we will continue to devote as many resources as we can to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The HSUS will use this to claim that we shouldn’t eat meat at all. But, we don’t stop going to the doctor when someone is convicted of malpractice and we don’t stop driving cars because someone used it to commit a crime. If these allegations are true, I am glad that it was brought to the attention of proper authorities and that it will get corrected.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Pollan Caught In A Lie
Michael Pollan's Prius-Hummer Blunder
By Maura Judkis
Posted: October 29, 2009
What a soundbite it was, for all of two days: Michael Pollan, sustainable food guru and author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," told the crowd at the 2009 Poptech conference, "Our meat eating is one of the most important contributors we make to climate change. A vegan in a Hummer has a lighter carbon footprint than a beef eater in a Prius.”
That line was blogged and tweeted countless times over the next few days. The only problem? It isn't true.
Reuters' Adam Pacisk refuted the claim shortly after, and here's his math:
Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin of the University of Chicago published a 2005 paper in the journal Earth Interactions that looked at the relative carbon footprints of plant-based and red-meat diets. They found that the difference between an heavy meat-eating diet and a vegan diet was about 2 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person per year. The difference between a Prius and an SUV (they used a Suburban, which gets about the same mileage as a Hummer) was 4.76 tons per year. Pollan’s claim, said Eshel, “is emphatically wrong. If you’re looking at the mean American driving habits and eating habits, it’s not even close.” Read More
It seems that Michael Pollan was once again sensationalizing his story about agriculture and food production. But this time he got caught by the several in the media with his fabricated story. Pollan has regularly and admittedly sensationalized his version of agriculture in order scare people about their food and promote his own books. It’s another reason why we shouldn’t be relying on a reporter for our information about agriculture.
By Maura Judkis
Posted: October 29, 2009
What a soundbite it was, for all of two days: Michael Pollan, sustainable food guru and author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," told the crowd at the 2009 Poptech conference, "Our meat eating is one of the most important contributors we make to climate change. A vegan in a Hummer has a lighter carbon footprint than a beef eater in a Prius.”
That line was blogged and tweeted countless times over the next few days. The only problem? It isn't true.
Reuters' Adam Pacisk refuted the claim shortly after, and here's his math:
Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin of the University of Chicago published a 2005 paper in the journal Earth Interactions that looked at the relative carbon footprints of plant-based and red-meat diets. They found that the difference between an heavy meat-eating diet and a vegan diet was about 2 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per person per year. The difference between a Prius and an SUV (they used a Suburban, which gets about the same mileage as a Hummer) was 4.76 tons per year. Pollan’s claim, said Eshel, “is emphatically wrong. If you’re looking at the mean American driving habits and eating habits, it’s not even close.” Read More
It seems that Michael Pollan was once again sensationalizing his story about agriculture and food production. But this time he got caught by the several in the media with his fabricated story. Pollan has regularly and admittedly sensationalized his version of agriculture in order scare people about their food and promote his own books. It’s another reason why we shouldn’t be relying on a reporter for our information about agriculture.
Sen. Landrieu's Inconsistent Animal Management Policies
Landrieu pushes to control wild pigs in coastal La
Associated Press - October 29, 2009 5:34 AM ET
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu is pushing a bill to keep in check the wild pig population in coastal Louisiana.
The senator says wild pig populations are "eating away" the coast.
The Democrat sponsored the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Act on Wednesday. Landrieu says the rising population of non-native feral swine poses a threat to Louisiana because they are competing with native wildlife for resources, preying on domestic animals, eating the wetlands and spreading harmful bacteria. Link
The hypocrite of the day award needs to go to Sen. Mary Landrieu from Louisiana. As you might recall, the Senator is one of the main sponsors of a bill that will make it illegal to transport horses to be processed for human consumption, including government owned feral horses. Yet when the non-native feral swine in her state become overpopulated she is very quick to introduce legislation to eradicate them. Both the swine and the horses in question are over-populated, non-native and feral. One species she wants to protect and one she wants to eradicate. It’s proof positive that she is using the “cute and cuddly factor” to make her animal management decisions in Congress rather than using any type of sound scientific data.
Associated Press - October 29, 2009 5:34 AM ET
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu is pushing a bill to keep in check the wild pig population in coastal Louisiana.
The senator says wild pig populations are "eating away" the coast.
The Democrat sponsored the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program Act on Wednesday. Landrieu says the rising population of non-native feral swine poses a threat to Louisiana because they are competing with native wildlife for resources, preying on domestic animals, eating the wetlands and spreading harmful bacteria. Link
The hypocrite of the day award needs to go to Sen. Mary Landrieu from Louisiana. As you might recall, the Senator is one of the main sponsors of a bill that will make it illegal to transport horses to be processed for human consumption, including government owned feral horses. Yet when the non-native feral swine in her state become overpopulated she is very quick to introduce legislation to eradicate them. Both the swine and the horses in question are over-populated, non-native and feral. One species she wants to protect and one she wants to eradicate. It’s proof positive that she is using the “cute and cuddly factor” to make her animal management decisions in Congress rather than using any type of sound scientific data.
Answering Questions About OH's Issue 2
October 29, 2009
For Issue 2, the livestock board
Animal panel belongs in Constitution
By Rep. William G. Batchelder
Recently some individuals and groups have come out in opposition to Issue 2 on the grounds that the state constitution is not the proper place for the Livestock Care Standards Board. However, as a student of the Ohio Constitution for more than four decades, both as a legislator and as a Court of Appeals judge, I believe that Issue 2 should be part of the Ohio Constitution rather than treated as a statute, or regular law.
First, inclusion of such a provision in the constitution is not at all unique. The Ohio Constitution has at least 12 similar provisions, several of which establish councils as part of state government. Such important state functions as the State Board of Education and the Workers' Compensation Board are found in the same part of the Constitution as the Livestock Care Standards Board will be when voters approve it.
The content of the proposed amendment governs cost, quality, safety, and supply of food for Ohioans. That is, this provision provides for one of the most fundamental aspects of human life.
Second, some have objected to Issue 2 on the grounds that the constitution is difficult to alter should the board ever need revision. But Issue 2, like the State Board of Education, sets forth the form of the board, not the details. Those details would later be established via the administrative procedure and safeguarded by legislative requirements as found in Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Another safeguard to keep the process responsive to the people is found in the appointment process: The members of the board are appointed by the governor, which requires the advice and consent of the Senate. Read More
Opponents of Issue 2 in Ohio claim that this issue isn’t worthy of being place in the constitution. Part of that claim suggests that this affects only a small portion of the state’s residents. But this lawyer, legislator and judge, with significant knowledge of the Ohio constitution suggests otherwise. And the last time I checked, everyone in Ohio was eating on a daily basis. Issue 2 absolutely affects everyone because it deals with food production. The campaign that the HSUS has run in different states is drastically affecting our ability to grow food. Ohio residents will be very wise to protect their ability to grow food by passing Issue 2 next week.
For Issue 2, the livestock board
Animal panel belongs in Constitution
By Rep. William G. Batchelder
Recently some individuals and groups have come out in opposition to Issue 2 on the grounds that the state constitution is not the proper place for the Livestock Care Standards Board. However, as a student of the Ohio Constitution for more than four decades, both as a legislator and as a Court of Appeals judge, I believe that Issue 2 should be part of the Ohio Constitution rather than treated as a statute, or regular law.
First, inclusion of such a provision in the constitution is not at all unique. The Ohio Constitution has at least 12 similar provisions, several of which establish councils as part of state government. Such important state functions as the State Board of Education and the Workers' Compensation Board are found in the same part of the Constitution as the Livestock Care Standards Board will be when voters approve it.
The content of the proposed amendment governs cost, quality, safety, and supply of food for Ohioans. That is, this provision provides for one of the most fundamental aspects of human life.
Second, some have objected to Issue 2 on the grounds that the constitution is difficult to alter should the board ever need revision. But Issue 2, like the State Board of Education, sets forth the form of the board, not the details. Those details would later be established via the administrative procedure and safeguarded by legislative requirements as found in Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Another safeguard to keep the process responsive to the people is found in the appointment process: The members of the board are appointed by the governor, which requires the advice and consent of the Senate. Read More
Opponents of Issue 2 in Ohio claim that this issue isn’t worthy of being place in the constitution. Part of that claim suggests that this affects only a small portion of the state’s residents. But this lawyer, legislator and judge, with significant knowledge of the Ohio constitution suggests otherwise. And the last time I checked, everyone in Ohio was eating on a daily basis. Issue 2 absolutely affects everyone because it deals with food production. The campaign that the HSUS has run in different states is drastically affecting our ability to grow food. Ohio residents will be very wise to protect their ability to grow food by passing Issue 2 next week.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Reporter Eating Meat Makes You Sick
Eating animals is making us sick
By Jonathan Safran Foer, Special to CNN
New York (CNN) -- Like most people, I'd given some thought to what meat actually is, but until I became a father and faced the prospect of having to make food choices on someone else's behalf, there was no urgency to get to the bottom of things.
I'm a novelist and never had it in mind to write nonfiction. Frankly, I doubt I'll ever do it again. But the subject of animal agriculture, at this moment, is something no one should ignore. As a writer, putting words on the page is how I pay attention.
If the way we raise animals for food isn't the most important problem in the world right now, it's arguably the No. 1 cause of global warming: The United Nations reports the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.
It's the No. 1 cause of animal suffering, a decisive factor in the creation of zoonotic diseases like bird and swine flu, and the list goes on. It is the problem with the most deafening silence surrounding it.
Perhaps in the back of our minds we already understand, without all the science, that something terribly wrong is happening. We know that it cannot possibly be healthy to raise such grotesque animals in such grossly unnatural conditions. We know that if someone offers to show us a film on how our meat is produced, it will be a horror film. Read More
Foer is desperately trying to jump on the anti-agriculture bandwagon that was hitched by Michael Pollan. If it wasn’t so serious, it would almost be comical how people like Foer repetitiously use indefinable buzz words like factory farming (more than 20 times in this piece) throughout their articles. He never does tell us what a factory farm is. All of this is in an effort to scare people about the safest food supply in the world. Our livestock aren’t sick or tortured. True torture will come if people like Foer get their way and we have to watch our fellow human beings starving to death because we aren’t growing enough food. People like Foer and Pollan are the true picture of greed. They are the ones advocating reckless policies that will cause a decrease in the food supply at the very time when we should be doubling it.
By Jonathan Safran Foer, Special to CNN
New York (CNN) -- Like most people, I'd given some thought to what meat actually is, but until I became a father and faced the prospect of having to make food choices on someone else's behalf, there was no urgency to get to the bottom of things.
I'm a novelist and never had it in mind to write nonfiction. Frankly, I doubt I'll ever do it again. But the subject of animal agriculture, at this moment, is something no one should ignore. As a writer, putting words on the page is how I pay attention.
If the way we raise animals for food isn't the most important problem in the world right now, it's arguably the No. 1 cause of global warming: The United Nations reports the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.
It's the No. 1 cause of animal suffering, a decisive factor in the creation of zoonotic diseases like bird and swine flu, and the list goes on. It is the problem with the most deafening silence surrounding it.
Perhaps in the back of our minds we already understand, without all the science, that something terribly wrong is happening. We know that it cannot possibly be healthy to raise such grotesque animals in such grossly unnatural conditions. We know that if someone offers to show us a film on how our meat is produced, it will be a horror film. Read More
Foer is desperately trying to jump on the anti-agriculture bandwagon that was hitched by Michael Pollan. If it wasn’t so serious, it would almost be comical how people like Foer repetitiously use indefinable buzz words like factory farming (more than 20 times in this piece) throughout their articles. He never does tell us what a factory farm is. All of this is in an effort to scare people about the safest food supply in the world. Our livestock aren’t sick or tortured. True torture will come if people like Foer get their way and we have to watch our fellow human beings starving to death because we aren’t growing enough food. People like Foer and Pollan are the true picture of greed. They are the ones advocating reckless policies that will cause a decrease in the food supply at the very time when we should be doubling it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)