NOT ANOTHER MAD COW

Please don't confuse this post with the one from a week ago. That was Mad Cow 6, this is Mad Cow 7. But again, we're talking about Canada, a country halfway around the world. Relax. And try not to think about the fact that this cow was born after the feed ban began to be "enforced" and that government officials promised more "cases will continue to be found."

"Sporadically," of course... you know, like these last two in the space of a week.

I'LL JUST SWITCH TO IMPORTED...

Whoops! Yet another indication that consumers should further limit their consumption of fish.

Defenders of Wildlife sponsored tests that found many imports of canned tuna have mercury levels higher than the federal limit. Also, their lab found higher levels of mercury even in light tuna, which the says is "low in mercury." The AP story notes that "The FDA says it's safe to eat two meals a week of fish and shellfish that are lower in mercury, such as canned light tuna, shrimp, salmon, pollock and catfish," but "Defenders of Wildlife said people should limit light tuna to one meal each week, instead of two, and avoid canned tuna that says it is imported on the label."

SUMMERFEST

I'll be in Johnstown through the weekend, so the intermittent level of posting will probably continue.

Hope you're there. Yes, you are, I'm looking at you right now.

NOT ANOTHER MAD COW

Yes, Another mad cow.






Psych! It's from Canada, a completely separate country that totally has no common beef industry with us!

A HUMAN ALWAYS FORGETS

Even if there were no ethical argument against it, humans keeping elephants in captivity is something that just. doesn't. work. We're not cut out to be elephant caretakers, obviously, so let's stop pretending... can't we?

"An investigation by the Los Angeles Zoo has found that the keepers of a 48-year-old Asian elephant that died last month did not begin emergency procedures for more than eight hours after the elephant was first observed sitting down... a general sign of distress for elephants."

Are the zookeepers at the LA zoo familiar with the general signs of distress of all the animals in their charge? Are they familiar with at least those of the elephants?

"A statement from the zoo released Friday said [Gita] had initially been observed sitting down at 8:45 p.m. on the evening of June 9, but did not say who observed her."

Was that person a qualified animal caretaker - or somebody's nephew? I don't mean to be snarky, but come on, folks, this is a pretty egregious error and we need a few answers - and I hope you're not saying this is the kind of animal care that happens all the time at yours and other zoos.

HEART ASSOCIATION: CUT ANIMAL PRODUCTS BY ONE THIRD

This is the clear message behind new guidelines issued by the American Heart Association, but you won't see that headline anywhere because the science is just too complex for most journalists to follow, and it's easier to grab onto the "cut trans fats" concept that's oh-so-trendy right now (we'll ignore, for now, the fact that trans fats occur in animal products as well as french fries).

It's pretty simple math, though: The new advisory "suggests that people derive no more than 7 percent of their total calories from saturated fat." OK, and... "The previous guidelines allowed saturated fat to make up 10 percent of one's daily calories" (though Americans generally eat 11 percent or more saturated fat). And where do we find saturated fats? Two places: Animal products; coconut and palm oil. That's it. Now, which of these two options do you suppose is negligible, compared with the other, in the average American's diet?

In some places, this is spelled out somewhat, in phrases such as "using soy protein in place of animal protein as a means of limiting saturated fats," but again most journalists fail to make it clear to readers that there's a simple, no-nonsense way to improve their health dramatically: Stop eating animals.

UPDATE 7/12: Sorry - as moonwatcher notes in comments, I overstated this when I said "that's it." Tropical oils are the only vegetable sources that are a significant source of saturated fat, and the other sources are low in their ratio of saturated to unsaturated fats, but not quite low enough to be called "negligible." Here's a handy graph of the saturated fat content of various food sources.

FEED RECALLED FOR MAD COW VIOLATION

" Livestock feed ingredients shipped to nine states may have been contaminated with cattle remains in violation of a 1997 ban to protect against mad cow disease, a manufacturer said Tuesday. H.J. Baker & Bro. Inc. said it was recalling three livestock feed ingredients, including two used to supplement feed given to dairy cows. A sample tested by the Food and Drug Administration was positive for cattle meat and bone meal, said Mark Hohnbaum, president of the Westport, Conn.-based company's feed products group. "This is very concerning to us. This isn't something that happens to us," Hohnbaum said.

What, having the feed randomly tested? Well, unfortunately, pal, this time it did happen. Lord knows, of course, how much is getting through that isn't tested.

VEGAN LABELING

I've just been noticing increased labeling on deli salad bar items at Whole Foods, namely, labels that say "VEGAN." I haven't tracked the quantity over time or anything so I don't know if they're actually making more vegan options available. But there does seem to be a sort of coming-out-of-the-closet push in effect. I'm wondering if we may be seeing some of the fruits of John Mackey's conversion to veganism a couple years back. While I haven't heard much news emanating out of his newly formed Animal Compassion Foundation, there was the item last week that Whole Foods is halting the sale of live lobsters out of concern for their humane treatment. Of course the instant comeback is that if they're concerned, they could halt the sale of dead lobsters too, but we may be seeing some of the "baby steps" toward the revolution Mackey implies he's getting underway. It will be interesting to keep watching on this, even as it's frustrating for those of us who want everything to change NOW.

KILL CATS OR PET CATS; DON'T KILL PET CATS

That's the double standard at work that according to this editorial from The Tennessean, may torpedo Frist's aspirations to run for president. "He fessed up in his 1989 book, 'Transplant,' to adopting cats from shelters when he was in medical school, treating them like pets for a while, and then using them [read: killing them] in his research experiments," the column says, going on to point up this exact ethical quagmire: "It's the part where he kept them as pets first that is bothersome," it says, then quoting him at length:

"Desperate, obsessed with my work, I visited the various animal shelters in the Boston suburbs, collecting cats, taking them home, treating them as pets for a few days, then carting them off to the lab to die in the interests of science. And medicine. And health care. And treatment of disease. And my project. It was, of course, a heinous and dishonest thing to do, and I was totally schizoid about the entire matter. By day, I was little Billy Frist, the boy who lived on Bowling Avenue in Nashville and had decided to become a doctor because of his gentle father and a dog named Scratchy. By night, I was Dr. William Harrison Frist, future cardiothoracic surgeon, who was not going to let a few sentiments about cute, furry little creatures stand in the way of his career. In short, I was going a little crazy."

Yep, you might call it a sort of moral schizophrenia, which Frist shared (and almost certainly still does) with the rest of mainstream America. The kicker is that most people are made queasy by this double-standard when they have to confront it, and you can bet a Frist presidential run will give them ample opportunity to do so.

UPDATE 6/19: A commenter at FireDogLake points out that "unless he violated the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs regs in place at the time and compounded his other felonies by procuring narcotics he would have been unlicensed to possess or use," Frist was killing these "pet" cats without anesthesia, making his skeevy, unsavory obsession even skeevier and unsavorier.

SAFE CONSUMPTION LEVEL FOR CANNED TUNA: NONE WHATSOEVER

...for pregnant women, at any rate, says Consumer Reports magazine, due to the excessive mercury levels documented by FDA testing. But it's a stretch, at the least, to think something so clearly dangerous to developing babies is hunky dory for children and adults. Might be nice if the FDA would get realistic with their own guidelines.

THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, AGAIN

This may be something of a watershed as well: Time Magazine, arbiter of conventional wisdom for the better part of a century, asks a rhetorical question in its headline, "Who Belongs in the Zoo?" and takes a step toward the answer in its subhead: IT MAY BE THAT SOME ANIMALS JUST CAN'T BE KEPT HUMANELY IN CAPTIVITY. (Caps in original) Yes it may. Of course, the burden of proof should be on zoos, circuses, racetracks etc. to prove that any animals can be kept humanely in captivity rather than the reverse, but as I said, it's a step.

The focus, of course, is on the most glaring injustice: Elephants. And while the overall thrust of the article is as wishy-washy as you'd expect, it does at least contain some perspectives by an "outspoken zoo consultant" (read: not one of those wild-eyed animal activists) such as this line about the new expanded "environments" for elephants: "From the animals' point of view, they are not better than they were when they were in cages. It's all done for theatrics."

And that was even before this development: "Animal rights activists have called for the resignation of the director of the Los Angeles Zoo, holding him responsible for the death of a 48-year-old Asian elephant named Gita. Gita died Saturday morning. Zoo officials said they believed Gita died when toxins from her muscles entered her bloodstream under the crushing weight of her own frame. The elephant had suffered arthritis for years." Gee, wonder how the pooor elephant ever contracted arthritis, eh?

Meanwhile, though it seems unlikely to happen on this go-round, it is possible that elephants, chimpanzees, tigers and lions in circus performances within New York City. While I have publicly advocated for Philadelphia to be the first metropolis to take this step, I won't shed any crocodile tears if we lose out to New York on this one.

RALPH LAUREN: FUR IS DEAD

I try to stay away from the vicissitudes of the fashion world, but I think this is a pretty big development: "Polo Ralph Lauren Corp. said late Thursday that it is eliminating fur from all of its apparel and home collections, starting with the holiday 2006 season." The AP article notes that "The move by Polo Ralph Lauren represents the first major designer house to abandon fur since designer Calvin Klein did so in the mid-1990s."

BLOCK THAT ELEPHANT!

I have no idea if elephants in Thailand would be happier where they are or in a deluxe, state-of-the-art Australian zoo. But I wanted to point out this story because I'm always raging about losers like SHAC whose strategies are based on terrorizing employees, neighbors of employees, children of employees, fellow college alumni of employees, etc. This, by contrast, is a form of protest I can endorse - peacefully but decisively (for now) blocking the act of exploitation at a point where it can be done.

"Thai animal rights activists on Tuesday blocked eight Asian elephants from being shipped to Australia, arguing the animals would suffer in zoos that spent millions to create special bathing, exercise and sleeping areas for them. Two rights activists stepped in front of trucks as they tried to leave a quarantine station in the western Thai province of Kanchanaburi late Monday, bound for Bangkok's airport. The standoff continued into Tuesday, when about 15 villagers gathered outside the station to protest the move, and officials eventually removed the animals from the trucks and took them back to their quarters."

Again, this could all be reversed by tomorrow, but at the very least it was a worthy effort, and something to which more activists worldwide should pay heed.

ETHICS VS. MOVIE IMMORTALITY

That's a longstanding opposition which is certainly not news, but the man-bites-dog element here is that the fellow in question chose "Ethics." The producers of Cars wanted to name a "hippie" car after this locally-famous "free spirit," Bob Waldmire, assuring him a spot in movie history with a film that's sure to be seen by more than a few people.

But he turned them down. He refused to give Pixar permission to use his name.

"I am an ethical vegetarian," Bob explained. "After they sent me a letter asking for my permission, another local artist friend of mine, Bill Crook, mentioned to me that the movie toys are probably going be sold in Happy Meals at McDonald's. That made up my mind real quick. I couldn't have them selling a bus with my name at a McDonald's if I'm an ethical vegetarian." As it happens, Cars does indeed have a Mickey D's deal. And on this issue, at least, Waldmire has something that's in all-too-short supply these days - integrity.

LAST VEGCAST FOR MAY

Heh. I keep making that lame joke in recognition of the fact that as promised, I did actually get two podcasts done this month, unlike, say, April. At any rate, it's worth a download, featuring an interview with Will Tuttle, commentary on Barbaro, another Green Beings song, a science fact, and even part of a dining review! Find it over at VegCast, the veggie podcast.

THEY SHOOT COWS, DON'T THEY?

Some readers may be surprised to learn that using 22-caliber guns to kill cows is an ordinary part of slaughter. At any rate, it doesn't merit any remark, seemingly, except when one of the guys handling the gun shoots the other guy, as just happened at a slaughterhouse in Idaho.

'CONFUSED' ABOUT 'HEALTHY' FISH

Missed this last week, but ya gotta love this lede:

"Putting a confusing twist on the health value of fish oil, a new study suggests that eating lots of fish may actually boost the risk of atrial fibrillation, a potentially dangerous heart condition, in certain people." The "HealthDay" reporter isn't the only one who's confused, as documented here via our panoply of studies showing dangerous effects of fish consumption. Those who are familiar with this volume of scientific studies, of course, are not confused at all about the purported "health value" of fish.

But there's more. As with milk and calcium, there's a bizarre double-standard that seems to blind either the reporting or the scientific inquiry behind it: When there's a positive benefit, it's ascribed to the food (fish, milk) rather than the active component (Omega-3s, calcium), and plant-based sources (flax, leafy greens) are ignored as alternative foods. The take-away is simply "eat fish" or "drink milk." But as here, when there's a problem, suddenly this is ascribed to the component itself rather than the food. Was the study actually done on Omega-3s? Not from the sound of it. Why didn't they do a comparison of people consuming fish oil vs. people consuming flax in order to nail down whether Omega-3s themselves actually cause any heart problems? It's almost as if... they don't want to know!

MAD COW THREATENS MORE PEOPLE

Estimates of the fallout from BSE have been revised upwards. "The deadly human form of mad cow disease, vCJD, may have infected far more people than previously thought, suggests a new study. The assumption that most people are genetically shielded from the devastating disease could be wrong, said the research published on Friday."

CLEAR HORMONAL EFFECT FROM MILK

In arguments over bovine growth hormone, one of the canards from Monsanto and the dairy industry has been that this altering of cow hormones has no effect on human cell growth - that hormonal oddities within milk cannot be passed on to the human body through milk consumption.

A new study in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine certainly calls this into question, to say the least. It found that milk drinkers are five times more likely to have twins than women who eat no animal products. The BBC article explains that "It is believed that a protein found in the livers of animals may be the cause. Called Insulin-like Growth Factor or IGF, it is found in cow's milk and other animal products. In women it makes the ovaries more sensitive and increases the number of eggs produced. Higher levels of IGF improve the survival chances of an embryo in the early stages of development. The effect is likely to be greater in countries such as the United States that allow growth hormones to be fed to cattle."

While this study has interesting implications for the BGH debate, it also serves as an immediate red flag to any woman considering pregnancy: "The researcher behind this study says that women thinking of getting pregnant might consider alternatives to meat and dairy products to reduce their chances of having twins, as multiple births are more prone to complications." Just one more way dairy products can be dangerous, once again verified by science.

BARBARIC

"As sad as it is, accidents like this are part of the game." The only thing sadder is that "games" like Saturday's Preakness, which cause life-threatening injuries to horses, are unwarranted and unnecessary - yet they'll continue to thrive for the foreseeable future because, hey, what's a dead horse or two in the cause of fleecing credulous bettors who plunk their life savings down on "sure things" like Barbaro and Smarty Jones?

The link is just one of a slew of stories/columns trying to find an angle on this tragedy other than the obvious one. We need safer tracks, viewership will decline, etc. with all the attendant hand-wringing one would expect. But so far none of them put forward the obvious remedy: Stop running "games" where the main athletes don't choose to be there - where they are forced to compete in situations that can literally end up killing them. Such institutions are nothing short of barbaric, and though it will be a while before they're abolished, once they are the populace will look back on the callousness of saying "it's part of the game" and shake their heads in wonder.