Posts
I didn't write this but I feel that this is a very important message in dealing with animal advocacy:
I hope animal advocates will allocate a lot more resources to farmed animal issues because 99 percent of exploited animals are dying to be eaten. Here are some things I've learned about practical advocacy. Nothing is cheaper than teaching by example. Since we are the ambassadors for animals and people don't separate the message from the messenger, we need to be and look like the kind of people other people will want to be and look like - "he looks great and he's vegan!"
I used to say I would "die" for animals but wasn't even willing to wear a nice shirt for animals - my identity was more important to me than being an effective advocate. To be effective we need to be as close to other people as we can. Lecturing on diglycerides to people who are gnawing on an animal's leg bone, giving them lists of 100 ingredients to boycott, is not effective. We should applaud people for even small steps, which for them may be big steps, like being vegetarian 3 days a week or choosing a "free-range" egg over a battery-hen's egg. Imagine if we could bring each person down from consuming 300 eggs a year to 200 - what a downturn for the egg industry! At the same time, we should not encourage people to substitute one animal for another - that's not progress. Here's a list of some of the cheapest, easiest ways to promote veganism:
* Leafleting on busy street corners and campuses.
* Letters to the editor and op-eds.
* Library displays including free literature: many libraries are delighted to have attractive free displays.
* Feed-Ins - choose a place to feed people delicious vegan "chicken nuggets," say, and bring the box.
* Restaurant Outreach: going to restaurants and getting one or more vegan meals on the menu; getting your local deli to carry mock turkey and ham; getting the meat distributor to carry mock meats to receptive outlets. These are all things that COK has done, and does, success-fully in Washington DC. It works better than picketing the meat distributor.
* Put videos on cable access: it's usually free and people watch!
It's important to show people exactly what happens to animals as a result of meat, dairy, and egg consumption. Even if we don't do undercover investigations ourselves, we should use the footage that COK and other groups provide. We must show people that meat means misery. The least we can do is to bear witness. As I lie in my comfortable bed at night, I think of the hens on wire mesh floors with no comfort ever. People should know exactly why we are so adamant about standing up for animals.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Eating Liberally
If you read my blog even somewhat routinely, you'll see that I've not been posting a lot lately. Well friends ... there's a reason. Myself and my friend are starting a local chapter of Eating Liberally. If you're not familiar with them, you can check them out here. Right now there are only 4 chapters in the US, we'll be making #5. We're going to focus on things like ethical eating, promoting farmers markets, attempting to connect veggie/vegan friends and organizations ... oh yeah and eating lots of good veggie/vegan food. I'll be pitching the group on here and on twitter once the group is up and live. Stay tuned!
Monday, February 22, 2010
More about breeding Pain Free Animals
(It seems that I'm not the only one outraged at this idea. This is from a blog called Animal Sanctuary)
Washington University philosopher and vegetarian, Adam Shriver, in Neuroethics proposes that if society is unwilling to shift to a vegetarian diet then nonhuman animals should be genetically modified to fit our cognitive dissonance over eating them. Specifically, an argument is made that we could down a guilt-free slab of cow flesh if we just made sure the cow felt no pain. "NewScientist" recently published an article discussing the issue.
Pain is an integral aspect of human and nonhuman life. It is one way in which we relate and react to the world around us. But it is not the only way nor is it, in our view, the most important way.
Eliminating pain in farmed animals does not eliminate the horror of cutting a life short for a moment of gustatory pleasure. It does not address the rich, intricate social and emotional worlds of farmed animals. In fact, it further reduces them to simple, sensory beings who have no other moral worth than how much pain they feel.
Look at this picture of Summer and Freedom. This is a moment. This is a connection being made, a touch, togetherness. They are not reaching out to one another because of nociceptors or synapses, they are doing so because it is part of being bovine. It is who they are and how they relate to each other. Even if they could not feel pain, this moment would have occurred. They would still groom one another, frolick in the fields, seek out each other's companionship, call to one another. Nothing about who they are would change, so why would our perception magically shift from discomfort at ending their lives to a strange joy at comfortably being able to eat their flesh?
Or take Arturo and Cleo. Their lives are filled with a language we only vaguely understand. He is unwavering in his patience with Cleo and so many other hens. When faced with a new, young hen, he did not pick on her as so many of the other hens and roosters did but instead called her over for some of his food. He knows what camaraderie and sharing means, even if it is strictly from an avian perspective. Cleo revels in dust baths and sun bathes and cavorting with her friends. These behaviors and feelings do not cease because pain sensation stops. Their desire to retain their light, their life does not go away because pain is not experienced. They (and us) have so many enriching experiences that have little to do with physical hurt.
These are two small examples of how farmed animals are more than just pain reflexes. To think that by removing their natural, physical experience of pain means they stop feeling joy, stop talking with their kin, stop forming relationships, stop bickering, stop wanting to live is the height of arrogance on our part. It would not excuse their slaughter. The reality still remains - we do not need their flesh, milk or eggs to survive. We just do not. Let's stop trying to make it easier on our conscience to kill these animals and start directing that into positive energy, into doing something good for them and us - choosing a plant-based diet.
Washington University philosopher and vegetarian, Adam Shriver, in Neuroethics proposes that if society is unwilling to shift to a vegetarian diet then nonhuman animals should be genetically modified to fit our cognitive dissonance over eating them. Specifically, an argument is made that we could down a guilt-free slab of cow flesh if we just made sure the cow felt no pain. "NewScientist" recently published an article discussing the issue.
Pain is an integral aspect of human and nonhuman life. It is one way in which we relate and react to the world around us. But it is not the only way nor is it, in our view, the most important way.
Eliminating pain in farmed animals does not eliminate the horror of cutting a life short for a moment of gustatory pleasure. It does not address the rich, intricate social and emotional worlds of farmed animals. In fact, it further reduces them to simple, sensory beings who have no other moral worth than how much pain they feel.
Look at this picture of Summer and Freedom. This is a moment. This is a connection being made, a touch, togetherness. They are not reaching out to one another because of nociceptors or synapses, they are doing so because it is part of being bovine. It is who they are and how they relate to each other. Even if they could not feel pain, this moment would have occurred. They would still groom one another, frolick in the fields, seek out each other's companionship, call to one another. Nothing about who they are would change, so why would our perception magically shift from discomfort at ending their lives to a strange joy at comfortably being able to eat their flesh?
Or take Arturo and Cleo. Their lives are filled with a language we only vaguely understand. He is unwavering in his patience with Cleo and so many other hens. When faced with a new, young hen, he did not pick on her as so many of the other hens and roosters did but instead called her over for some of his food. He knows what camaraderie and sharing means, even if it is strictly from an avian perspective. Cleo revels in dust baths and sun bathes and cavorting with her friends. These behaviors and feelings do not cease because pain sensation stops. Their desire to retain their light, their life does not go away because pain is not experienced. They (and us) have so many enriching experiences that have little to do with physical hurt.
These are two small examples of how farmed animals are more than just pain reflexes. To think that by removing their natural, physical experience of pain means they stop feeling joy, stop talking with their kin, stop forming relationships, stop bickering, stop wanting to live is the height of arrogance on our part. It would not excuse their slaughter. The reality still remains - we do not need their flesh, milk or eggs to survive. We just do not. Let's stop trying to make it easier on our conscience to kill these animals and start directing that into positive energy, into doing something good for them and us - choosing a plant-based diet.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Removing the Human from Humanity
This is from the Huffington Post:
The New York Times had a very interesting Op-Ed Friday, which took an unusual approach to the concern that factory farms are inhumane. Adam Shriver, a doctoral student in the philosophy-neuroscience-psychology program at Washington University, makes the argument that the key to raising more humane meat isn't changing the methods by which they are raised, but to genetically engineer them so they feel less pain from their conditions.
We are most likely stuck with factory farms, given that they produce most of the beef and pork Americans consume. But it is still possible to reduce the animals' discomfort -- through neuroscience. Recent advances suggest it may soon be possible to genetically engineer livestock so that they suffer much less.
Shriver's Op-Ed raises several questions. Is the most appalling part about factory farms -- where animals are fed unnatural diets, live in filthy conditions, and are subject to preemptive antibiotics -- is that they are suffering? Confined Animal Feedlot Operations are responsible for huge amounts of waste, which threaten groundwater, air quality and can pose public health risks. Meat production is also responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all modes of transportation. Would genetically engineering animals so they suffer less help factory farms flourish, without addressing the environmental risks they pose? Is genetically engineering our food supply to appeal to a moral conscience about suffering appropriate?
____________________
Forgive the rant ahead:
Let me tell you who a question like this is aimed at, people like Anthony Bourdain, like the people on Food Network, like Foodies or anyone else who wants to be insulated from the fact that eating animals is blantently ONE word. MURDER. If you want to feel good about eating food, guess what, raise it yourself OR buy from vendors or farmers that you know, but DO not try to get me to sign on to a idiotic idea like this. This question keeps appearing, so my faithful readers, I see it coming. Monsanto will try to do it within the next 15 years or Cargill or Smithfield Farms but of course, if that happens HOW are they going to prove it to us? By slaughtering an animal in public so that we can see that we've removed ALL traces of pain? What about the fear? Can you remove that too? Then what about our consciousness in dealing with the fact that these are LIVING, BREATHING, SENTIENT beings. This idea disgusts me and there is NO higher level of distaste that I can issue towards it.
The New York Times had a very interesting Op-Ed Friday, which took an unusual approach to the concern that factory farms are inhumane. Adam Shriver, a doctoral student in the philosophy-neuroscience-psychology program at Washington University, makes the argument that the key to raising more humane meat isn't changing the methods by which they are raised, but to genetically engineer them so they feel less pain from their conditions.
We are most likely stuck with factory farms, given that they produce most of the beef and pork Americans consume. But it is still possible to reduce the animals' discomfort -- through neuroscience. Recent advances suggest it may soon be possible to genetically engineer livestock so that they suffer much less.
Shriver's Op-Ed raises several questions. Is the most appalling part about factory farms -- where animals are fed unnatural diets, live in filthy conditions, and are subject to preemptive antibiotics -- is that they are suffering? Confined Animal Feedlot Operations are responsible for huge amounts of waste, which threaten groundwater, air quality and can pose public health risks. Meat production is also responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than all modes of transportation. Would genetically engineering animals so they suffer less help factory farms flourish, without addressing the environmental risks they pose? Is genetically engineering our food supply to appeal to a moral conscience about suffering appropriate?
____________________
Forgive the rant ahead:
Let me tell you who a question like this is aimed at, people like Anthony Bourdain, like the people on Food Network, like Foodies or anyone else who wants to be insulated from the fact that eating animals is blantently ONE word. MURDER. If you want to feel good about eating food, guess what, raise it yourself OR buy from vendors or farmers that you know, but DO not try to get me to sign on to a idiotic idea like this. This question keeps appearing, so my faithful readers, I see it coming. Monsanto will try to do it within the next 15 years or Cargill or Smithfield Farms but of course, if that happens HOW are they going to prove it to us? By slaughtering an animal in public so that we can see that we've removed ALL traces of pain? What about the fear? Can you remove that too? Then what about our consciousness in dealing with the fact that these are LIVING, BREATHING, SENTIENT beings. This idea disgusts me and there is NO higher level of distaste that I can issue towards it.
Monday, February 15, 2010
What Is Love
(From Change.org)
A recent poll of 24,000 people in 23 countries showed that 1 in 5 adults would choose their pets over their partners on Valentine's Day. But despite our strength in numbers, animal lovers, especially activists, are often treated like traitors by those who aren't "animal people."
We're accused of caring for animals at the expense of caring for people, because our passion for animal issues allegedly detracts from all of the humans in need. But choosing to spend a Hallmark Holiday with your loyal nonhuman companion instead of your spouse isn't the same as turning your back on your own species.
Here are seven reasons why animal welfare is human welfare:
1) Animal abuse is never just animal abuse. It's an early indicator of child abuse, domestic violence, and other sociopathic behaviors. Not only is animal abuse a warning sign, but it's often directly used to threaten or intimidate a person, such as pets who are harmed as a form of psychological abuse in domestic violence situations.
2) Factory farming is a major contributor to climate change. Animal agriculture is responsible for as much as 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans. A significant reduction in animal consumption and better conditions for the remaining farm animals will have a huge impact in stabilizing the climate, which (in case you missed it) affects the future of human civilization as we know it.
3) Animal testing is outdated. The sooner the scientific community stops re-creating ineffective, inhumane animal tests and starts investing in non-animal research methods, the sooner we'll have human-relevant results.
4) Pet owners are major players in the economy. A $45 billion industry is a big slice of the economy, and it's one that keeps growing. That means job security and community development. Pet consumers also have the purchase power to have a positive influence on the market, such as helping drive a green economy.
5) Protecting wildlife is protecting the planet. There's a certain balance to the world we inhabit, where predators and prey keep each other's population in balance, and natural areas (a.k.a. habitats) keep global warming and other natural disasters at bay. As we drive species to extinction, we lose a piece of what makes the world inhabitable for humans.
6) Animals are an important part of your community. Love 'em or hate 'em, your community is full of animals. Irresponsible pet owners are a drain on municipal budgets through animal control and a threat to public health with disease and dog bite risks. Ineffective laws, such as breed specific legislation, are costly to the community, in terms of both public health risks and finances. It's also expensive to care for animals in shelters. So, the advocates that push for responsible pet ownership and animal adoption are making your community a better place to live.
7) Animals make people happy. Companion animals have been proven to reduce stress and relieve depression. The role that pets play in happiness is more than just a matter of mood; it's about quality of life. Domestic violence victims will delay seeking help for fear of putting their pets in danger. When natural disaster strikes, restoring animals is a major step toward restoring lives, whether you're in New Orleans, where Hurricane Katrina survivors needed the emotional support of their pets after losing their homes, or you're in Haiti, where earthquake victims rely on livestock for food and income.
For extra credit, I'll refer back to a post on Malcolm Gladwell's essays on the human-canine connection. Gladwell (like others before him) has written several fascinating articles about interactions with dogs that provide valuable insight into the human condition.
For the 21 percent of the population choosing to spend today with their companion animals instead of a spouse, and for the untold number whose hearts are with the suffering animals of the world, happy Valentine's Day.
A recent poll of 24,000 people in 23 countries showed that 1 in 5 adults would choose their pets over their partners on Valentine's Day. But despite our strength in numbers, animal lovers, especially activists, are often treated like traitors by those who aren't "animal people."
We're accused of caring for animals at the expense of caring for people, because our passion for animal issues allegedly detracts from all of the humans in need. But choosing to spend a Hallmark Holiday with your loyal nonhuman companion instead of your spouse isn't the same as turning your back on your own species.
Here are seven reasons why animal welfare is human welfare:
1) Animal abuse is never just animal abuse. It's an early indicator of child abuse, domestic violence, and other sociopathic behaviors. Not only is animal abuse a warning sign, but it's often directly used to threaten or intimidate a person, such as pets who are harmed as a form of psychological abuse in domestic violence situations.
2) Factory farming is a major contributor to climate change. Animal agriculture is responsible for as much as 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans. A significant reduction in animal consumption and better conditions for the remaining farm animals will have a huge impact in stabilizing the climate, which (in case you missed it) affects the future of human civilization as we know it.
3) Animal testing is outdated. The sooner the scientific community stops re-creating ineffective, inhumane animal tests and starts investing in non-animal research methods, the sooner we'll have human-relevant results.
4) Pet owners are major players in the economy. A $45 billion industry is a big slice of the economy, and it's one that keeps growing. That means job security and community development. Pet consumers also have the purchase power to have a positive influence on the market, such as helping drive a green economy.
5) Protecting wildlife is protecting the planet. There's a certain balance to the world we inhabit, where predators and prey keep each other's population in balance, and natural areas (a.k.a. habitats) keep global warming and other natural disasters at bay. As we drive species to extinction, we lose a piece of what makes the world inhabitable for humans.
6) Animals are an important part of your community. Love 'em or hate 'em, your community is full of animals. Irresponsible pet owners are a drain on municipal budgets through animal control and a threat to public health with disease and dog bite risks. Ineffective laws, such as breed specific legislation, are costly to the community, in terms of both public health risks and finances. It's also expensive to care for animals in shelters. So, the advocates that push for responsible pet ownership and animal adoption are making your community a better place to live.
7) Animals make people happy. Companion animals have been proven to reduce stress and relieve depression. The role that pets play in happiness is more than just a matter of mood; it's about quality of life. Domestic violence victims will delay seeking help for fear of putting their pets in danger. When natural disaster strikes, restoring animals is a major step toward restoring lives, whether you're in New Orleans, where Hurricane Katrina survivors needed the emotional support of their pets after losing their homes, or you're in Haiti, where earthquake victims rely on livestock for food and income.
For extra credit, I'll refer back to a post on Malcolm Gladwell's essays on the human-canine connection. Gladwell (like others before him) has written several fascinating articles about interactions with dogs that provide valuable insight into the human condition.
For the 21 percent of the population choosing to spend today with their companion animals instead of a spouse, and for the untold number whose hearts are with the suffering animals of the world, happy Valentine's Day.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Quote of the Day
"Every decision we make about food is a vote for the kind of world that we want to live in." From Diet for a Small Planet
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
More Facts about Paylean
Paylean: Drug in Conventionally Raised Meat Linked to Cancer and Heart Disease
Just some facts about what you're eating .. if you like BACON (or most other pork products)
The active ingredient in Paylean is ractopamine hydrochloride, a drug that belongs to the class of beta-adrenoceptor agonists. This class of drugs binds to beta-receptors on cardiac and smooth muscle tissues. Overall, the effect of beta-agonists is cardiac stimulation, including increased heart rate and systemic dilation of blood vessels. Some drugs of this class have been determined to be carcinogenic.
Short term animal studies have shown destabilization of heart rate, reduced testicular and uterine weight, and heart weight increase. Studies with rats have shown reduction in mean litter size and an increase in total number of fetal resorptions.
No long term studies have been conducted to determine the safety or the effects of ractopamine hydrochloride in humans, and no data exists relating to the long-term exposure of humans to the chemical. Since some beta-adrenoceptor agonists have been found to be carcinogenic, Dr. L. Ritter of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs at Health and Welfare, Canada, has recommended studies of Paylean's genotoxicity and pharmacology, and surveys of all non-therapeutic effects that follow long term use of beta-adrenoceptor agonists in humans to assist in the prediction of the consequences from long term intake of residues of raptopamine by consumers of animal meat.
One hog producer whose family-owned farm produces 40,000 swine each year refuses to use Paylean for several reasons. He cannot get his arms around the idea that the USDA requires no clearing time for Paylean and yet people are warned not to touch it with bare hands or breathe it. "My scientific training says how can an animal be fed this drug and in just a few hours that animal is ready to eat. Obviously the USDA says Paylean is broken down before consumption, but we know it goes into the cells to form more muscle, so how can that be?"
Get more facts here
Just some facts about what you're eating .. if you like BACON (or most other pork products)
The active ingredient in Paylean is ractopamine hydrochloride, a drug that belongs to the class of beta-adrenoceptor agonists. This class of drugs binds to beta-receptors on cardiac and smooth muscle tissues. Overall, the effect of beta-agonists is cardiac stimulation, including increased heart rate and systemic dilation of blood vessels. Some drugs of this class have been determined to be carcinogenic.
Short term animal studies have shown destabilization of heart rate, reduced testicular and uterine weight, and heart weight increase. Studies with rats have shown reduction in mean litter size and an increase in total number of fetal resorptions.
No long term studies have been conducted to determine the safety or the effects of ractopamine hydrochloride in humans, and no data exists relating to the long-term exposure of humans to the chemical. Since some beta-adrenoceptor agonists have been found to be carcinogenic, Dr. L. Ritter of the Bureau of Veterinary Drugs at Health and Welfare, Canada, has recommended studies of Paylean's genotoxicity and pharmacology, and surveys of all non-therapeutic effects that follow long term use of beta-adrenoceptor agonists in humans to assist in the prediction of the consequences from long term intake of residues of raptopamine by consumers of animal meat.
One hog producer whose family-owned farm produces 40,000 swine each year refuses to use Paylean for several reasons. He cannot get his arms around the idea that the USDA requires no clearing time for Paylean and yet people are warned not to touch it with bare hands or breathe it. "My scientific training says how can an animal be fed this drug and in just a few hours that animal is ready to eat. Obviously the USDA says Paylean is broken down before consumption, but we know it goes into the cells to form more muscle, so how can that be?"
Get more facts here
The FDA Needs to ban Paylean
From Change:
The latest drug being trotted out to the agriculture industry is Paylean, a feed additive that causes an 8 percent reduction in pig manure and maintains pork production with fewer pigs. They say it's "green."
What they don't say quite as eagerly is that they've received reports from farmers on stressed out, hyperactive, vomiting, shaking, and downer pigs, plus a 10 percent mortality rate in animals who had been given Paylean-laced feed. The industry doesn't care about the increased death and disability rate in animals because they're getting more output per animal, which is the faulty logic they use to claim Paylean is a green drug.
Manufacturers note that the drug is FDA-approved for feed, but it is also labeled "Not for use in humans" and is banned in 160 nations. Protective clothing and eyewear, impervious gloves, and dust masks are recommended when handling the drug, particularly for people with cardiovascular disease. (All this for a little less manure!)
But once a farmer suits up to distribute the Paylean to his pigs, that's not the last he'll see of it.
Paylean is given close to slaughter, and up to 20 percent of the drug remains in the animal's tissue. At least some of the other 80 percent ends up in groundwater and runoff from the farms. Thanks, to the power of lobbying, similar drugs are also given cattle and turkeys, with similar pain and suffering for the animals and similar disregard for human safety.
Here's the other piece that factory farmers, and some sustainable food advocates, keep forgetting: Something is "environmentally-friendly" because it doesn't harm to the world around it -- not just the water and air, but also the people and animals. Some people tend to forget, or ignore, the "cradle-to-grave" aspect of environmentalism. In other words, the impact of the entire life cycle (a term that refers to products, which in this case are living things) needs to be considered.
If your practices continue to cause animal suffering -- whether it's pre-birth in the gestation crates or a crippled downer before death -- it doesn't matter if there are fewer pigs with less manure on the land during their lives. So in addition to being cruel, Paylean is decidedly not green.
I'd stay far away from that so-called green ham, Sam-I-am. The drug is used in 45 percent of U.S. pigs, so, like every other abhorrent factory farm practice, it's not easy to avoid if you're still eating meat, unless you're buying from a local farmer whose practices you can vouch for.
The latest drug being trotted out to the agriculture industry is Paylean, a feed additive that causes an 8 percent reduction in pig manure and maintains pork production with fewer pigs. They say it's "green."
What they don't say quite as eagerly is that they've received reports from farmers on stressed out, hyperactive, vomiting, shaking, and downer pigs, plus a 10 percent mortality rate in animals who had been given Paylean-laced feed. The industry doesn't care about the increased death and disability rate in animals because they're getting more output per animal, which is the faulty logic they use to claim Paylean is a green drug.
Manufacturers note that the drug is FDA-approved for feed, but it is also labeled "Not for use in humans" and is banned in 160 nations. Protective clothing and eyewear, impervious gloves, and dust masks are recommended when handling the drug, particularly for people with cardiovascular disease. (All this for a little less manure!)
But once a farmer suits up to distribute the Paylean to his pigs, that's not the last he'll see of it.
Paylean is given close to slaughter, and up to 20 percent of the drug remains in the animal's tissue. At least some of the other 80 percent ends up in groundwater and runoff from the farms. Thanks, to the power of lobbying, similar drugs are also given cattle and turkeys, with similar pain and suffering for the animals and similar disregard for human safety.
Here's the other piece that factory farmers, and some sustainable food advocates, keep forgetting: Something is "environmentally-friendly" because it doesn't harm to the world around it -- not just the water and air, but also the people and animals. Some people tend to forget, or ignore, the "cradle-to-grave" aspect of environmentalism. In other words, the impact of the entire life cycle (a term that refers to products, which in this case are living things) needs to be considered.
If your practices continue to cause animal suffering -- whether it's pre-birth in the gestation crates or a crippled downer before death -- it doesn't matter if there are fewer pigs with less manure on the land during their lives. So in addition to being cruel, Paylean is decidedly not green.
I'd stay far away from that so-called green ham, Sam-I-am. The drug is used in 45 percent of U.S. pigs, so, like every other abhorrent factory farm practice, it's not easy to avoid if you're still eating meat, unless you're buying from a local farmer whose practices you can vouch for.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Don't Believe the Hype
Don't think that corporate media can be bought? Don't think that you can spread your propaganda through various channels to "adjust" your public image? Take a look at this piece on Monsanto on Forbes' web site:
This article is dated January 18th.
The Planet Versus Monsanto
Here's a little excerpt:
Monsanto needs crowd-pleasers like this to get past its image problems. In economic terms, the company is a winner. It has created many billions of dollars of value for the world with seeds genetically engineered to ward off insects or make a crop immune to herbicides: Witness the vast numbers of farmers who prefer its seeds to competing products, and the resulting $44 billion market value of the company.
Even better is this:
Farmers complain about Monsanto's prices, but they still buy the seeds. Ninety percent of the U.S. soybean crop and 80% of the corn crop and cotton crop are grown with seeds containing Monsanto's technology. Other countries are also growing Monsanto's biotech crops, including India, with 20 million acres of cotton; Brazil, with 35 million acres of soybeans; and Argentina, with 43 million acres of soybeans. (Brazil once blocked genetically modified plants, but farmers planted the crops anyway, and it eventually legalized them.) Packaged foods with corn syrup or soybean oil likely contain the fruits of Monsanto's gene-modified agriculture.
This article is dated January 18th.
The Planet Versus Monsanto
Here's a little excerpt:
Monsanto needs crowd-pleasers like this to get past its image problems. In economic terms, the company is a winner. It has created many billions of dollars of value for the world with seeds genetically engineered to ward off insects or make a crop immune to herbicides: Witness the vast numbers of farmers who prefer its seeds to competing products, and the resulting $44 billion market value of the company.
Even better is this:
Farmers complain about Monsanto's prices, but they still buy the seeds. Ninety percent of the U.S. soybean crop and 80% of the corn crop and cotton crop are grown with seeds containing Monsanto's technology. Other countries are also growing Monsanto's biotech crops, including India, with 20 million acres of cotton; Brazil, with 35 million acres of soybeans; and Argentina, with 43 million acres of soybeans. (Brazil once blocked genetically modified plants, but farmers planted the crops anyway, and it eventually legalized them.) Packaged foods with corn syrup or soybean oil likely contain the fruits of Monsanto's gene-modified agriculture.
Biodiversity and GMO's
(from the Organic Consumers Association)
Biodiversity, already decaying fast as a result of climate change and intensive farming, is under further threat by genetic modification (GM) of seeds, says a leading German ecological activist.
Genetic modification of seeds is dangerous, "since it is at the beginning of the agricultural chain, and can spread all over," says Benedikt Haerlin, former campaign manager at the environmental organisation Greenpeace and former member of the European Parliament.
Haerlin now leads the global 'Save our Seeds' campaign in cooperation with some 300 environmental organisations across Europe.
The campaign is currently calling attention to plans by the European Commission (EC) to tolerate "accidental or technically unavoidable" contamination of conventional seed with GM varieties.
In September 2004, the EC sought to pass a directive allowing up to 0.7 percent of GM organisms (GMO) in maize and oilseed rape seed without being labelled.
But fierce protests by organic farmers and environmental organisations forced the EC to withdraw the proposal. Since then, EC has not submitted any new recommendations.
Some commissioners, such as Stavros Dimas, who was in charge of environment between 2004 and 2009, have even questioned whether thresholds are necessary. Although the mandate for the present EC ended last October, Dimas is still serving as commissioner for environment until a new commission is approved and takes office.
"The official position of the EC remains, however, that a new proposal for the specification of threshold values for genetic contamination of seed is in the works," Haerlin told IPS.
Haerlin said that calling such contamination "accidental or technically unavoidable" with GMOs is misleading. "For fodder or even food, that genetic contamination under 0.9 percent is not declared can be acceptable," Haerlin explained. "At least, I can be sure that such contamination won't spread to other areas of life."
This is not the case with seeds, he said. "GM seeds can contaminate the fields of peasants and farmers who oppose them. After contamination, they would be forced to prove the origin of the pollution.
''Farmers using what they believe are organic seeds, but which have been genetically contaminated, would continue using part of the polluted crop as seeds for the next season, and multiply and spread the contamination, " he said.
"The most important impact of GM agriculture is on the social and economic conditions of farmers," Haerlin told IPS. "In general, GM agriculture makes farmers dependent on the big agrochemical business, and also provokes conflicts between peasants and landowners."
Haerlin accused the agrochemical giants that control the market for GM seeds to use "back doors and bad legislation to put their seeds on the market. They know that otherwise they would not sell their seeds."
Haerlin warned that research and development in agriculture is taking place "more and more only in the chemistry labs, and not on the field, and are concentrated in only a handful of companies." Because of this, organic, traditional seeds are disappearing, he said.
"The environmental consequences are enormous and extremely dangerous, and, once they have happened, it will be too late to turn back the tide," Haerlin said.
According to environmental and agriculture experts, 25 years ago there were at least 7,000 seed growers worldwide, and none of them controlled more than one percent of the global market.
Today, after a takeover spree, ten major biochemical multinationals, including Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, BASF and Dow Agrosciences, control more than 50 percent of the seeds market.
"The goal of these companies is, of course, to make profits," Haerlin told IPS. "In order to improve their profits, they all apply one strategy to increase their control of the market: they impose upon farmers worldwide the so-called vertical integration of inputs, from seeds to fertilisers to pesticides, all from one brand."
Such "vertical integration of agricultural inputs" has transformed agriculture in developing countries into a two-class business, Angelika Hillbeck, researcher on bio-safety and agriculture at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, told IPS.
"In the developing countries there is a class of farmers with large plantations and enough money who can afford to buy all inputs from the major biochemical companies, from seeds and fertilisers to pesticides and conservatives,'' she said.
But there are small farmers for whom the biochemical markets are out of reach. Additionally GM seeds have crowded out organic seeds, reduced botanical diversity, especially in developing countries, and contributed to a further decimation of biodiversity.
All European Union (EU) member countries have joined the United Nations campaign declaring 2010 'The Year of Biodiversity' in an effort to emphasise the need to protect variety in flora and fauna. The U.N., which launched the campaign on Jan. 11 in Berlin, has recognised that the objective set in 2003 to stop the decimation of biodiversity by 2010 would not be reached.
This European engagement in favour of biodiversity appears to be only lip service to the environment cause since, in reality, European institutions support biochemical multinationals that are out to make genetic contamination legal.
Biodiversity, already decaying fast as a result of climate change and intensive farming, is under further threat by genetic modification (GM) of seeds, says a leading German ecological activist.
Genetic modification of seeds is dangerous, "since it is at the beginning of the agricultural chain, and can spread all over," says Benedikt Haerlin, former campaign manager at the environmental organisation Greenpeace and former member of the European Parliament.
Haerlin now leads the global 'Save our Seeds' campaign in cooperation with some 300 environmental organisations across Europe.
The campaign is currently calling attention to plans by the European Commission (EC) to tolerate "accidental or technically unavoidable" contamination of conventional seed with GM varieties.
In September 2004, the EC sought to pass a directive allowing up to 0.7 percent of GM organisms (GMO) in maize and oilseed rape seed without being labelled.
But fierce protests by organic farmers and environmental organisations forced the EC to withdraw the proposal. Since then, EC has not submitted any new recommendations.
Some commissioners, such as Stavros Dimas, who was in charge of environment between 2004 and 2009, have even questioned whether thresholds are necessary. Although the mandate for the present EC ended last October, Dimas is still serving as commissioner for environment until a new commission is approved and takes office.
"The official position of the EC remains, however, that a new proposal for the specification of threshold values for genetic contamination of seed is in the works," Haerlin told IPS.
Haerlin said that calling such contamination "accidental or technically unavoidable" with GMOs is misleading. "For fodder or even food, that genetic contamination under 0.9 percent is not declared can be acceptable," Haerlin explained. "At least, I can be sure that such contamination won't spread to other areas of life."
This is not the case with seeds, he said. "GM seeds can contaminate the fields of peasants and farmers who oppose them. After contamination, they would be forced to prove the origin of the pollution.
''Farmers using what they believe are organic seeds, but which have been genetically contaminated, would continue using part of the polluted crop as seeds for the next season, and multiply and spread the contamination, " he said.
"The most important impact of GM agriculture is on the social and economic conditions of farmers," Haerlin told IPS. "In general, GM agriculture makes farmers dependent on the big agrochemical business, and also provokes conflicts between peasants and landowners."
Haerlin accused the agrochemical giants that control the market for GM seeds to use "back doors and bad legislation to put their seeds on the market. They know that otherwise they would not sell their seeds."
Haerlin warned that research and development in agriculture is taking place "more and more only in the chemistry labs, and not on the field, and are concentrated in only a handful of companies." Because of this, organic, traditional seeds are disappearing, he said.
"The environmental consequences are enormous and extremely dangerous, and, once they have happened, it will be too late to turn back the tide," Haerlin said.
According to environmental and agriculture experts, 25 years ago there were at least 7,000 seed growers worldwide, and none of them controlled more than one percent of the global market.
Today, after a takeover spree, ten major biochemical multinationals, including Monsanto, DuPont-Pioneer, Syngenta, Bayer Cropscience, BASF and Dow Agrosciences, control more than 50 percent of the seeds market.
"The goal of these companies is, of course, to make profits," Haerlin told IPS. "In order to improve their profits, they all apply one strategy to increase their control of the market: they impose upon farmers worldwide the so-called vertical integration of inputs, from seeds to fertilisers to pesticides, all from one brand."
Such "vertical integration of agricultural inputs" has transformed agriculture in developing countries into a two-class business, Angelika Hillbeck, researcher on bio-safety and agriculture at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, told IPS.
"In the developing countries there is a class of farmers with large plantations and enough money who can afford to buy all inputs from the major biochemical companies, from seeds and fertilisers to pesticides and conservatives,'' she said.
But there are small farmers for whom the biochemical markets are out of reach. Additionally GM seeds have crowded out organic seeds, reduced botanical diversity, especially in developing countries, and contributed to a further decimation of biodiversity.
All European Union (EU) member countries have joined the United Nations campaign declaring 2010 'The Year of Biodiversity' in an effort to emphasise the need to protect variety in flora and fauna. The U.N., which launched the campaign on Jan. 11 in Berlin, has recognised that the objective set in 2003 to stop the decimation of biodiversity by 2010 would not be reached.
This European engagement in favour of biodiversity appears to be only lip service to the environment cause since, in reality, European institutions support biochemical multinationals that are out to make genetic contamination legal.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Writer Lost
For everyone who's been coming to this blog lately, I'm sorry, I've had a few things at my day job that fell apart and needed my attention. That's taken me a lot longer than I expected but now that things have finally started to settle down, I should be able to post some more information soon. Please keep reading and don't forget to comment or e mail me if you like a story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)