ONE MORE TIME: WILD ANIMALS DON'T BELONG IN CITIES

I don't quite get why that should be such a controversial notion. They're wild animals. They come from ecosystems where their kind have adapted to live according to certain conditions, climates, foods, etc. Yet we think we can plop them in the middle of cities worldwide without adverse consequences to them or ourselves.

As regular readers may have noticed, I've stopped citing all the little incidents of animals escaping and/or hurting people at zoos, or of zoo negligence causing distress and/or death to zoo residents (except in particularly egregious cases), but it all goes on, of course. And it's all part of a pattern of paternalistic human arrogance - we're so smart, we know what's best for these animals, so it's fine for them to be housed here as our entertainment.

With the addition of severe weather as a by-product of human-induced climate change, the dissonance grows, even when media outlets help paper it over. Check this slide show from the BBC. Photos 6 and 7 have innocuous captions that allow us to enjoy the funny animals. What's not mentioned, and what is part of the original captions, is that in each of these cases extreme measures are being taken in attempts to keep these animals healthy while the weather where their zoo is located would otherwise be devastating to them. That bear with the fish? Here's the caption as filed:

"One of the polar bears at Budapest Zoo catches a fish in her mouth while diving in the pool, after keepers feed them only in the cold water to protect them from the current extreme heat in Budapest, Hungary Friday, July 20, 2007. During this week, central Europe was hit by an extreme heat wave, with temperatures rising over the 40 degrees Celsius (104 Fahrenheit) mark in many places of Hungary. (AP Photo/Bela Szandelszky)"

and that cute meerkat? Why would it be standing in front of a heat lamp?

"A Meerkat keeps himself warm under a heat lamp in his enclosure at Sydney's Taronga Zoo Friday, July 20, 2007. During a week when Sydney experienced its coldest winter's day in 21 years with temperatures dropping to an arctic negative 0.6 degrees [celsius, I assume - just below 32F] the zoo provided infrared heat lamps for the active little desert dwellers to keep warm. (AP Photo/Mark Baker)"

So far these measures seem to be working - at least we haven't heard the animals complain. But they're symptoms of the big-picture problem.

THURSDAY RECALL: 350 TONS OF CANNED MEAT

This is an outlier, of course, and coincidentally has nothing to do with our War on E. Coli. But it's worth mentioning that 720,000 pounds of meat-based chili sauce are being recalled after four people were sickened - with botulism. That's a rarity, but so is a recall this big being issued on Thursday, so I guess it all evens out.

WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR CLIMATE CHANGE?

Here's yet another study quantifying the toll meat-eating takes on the environment, specifically in terms of greenhouse gases. We really need to round these up into a central database (especially one that will convert these crazy metric numbers) for easy access. But in the meantime...

"A kilogram of beef is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution than driving for 3 hours while leaving all the lights on back home," says a New Scientist article headlined 'Meat is murder on the environment.' This is from a study by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, which found that "producing a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide." Or for the rest of us, producing one pound of beef generates about 18 pounds of carbon dioxide.

Interestingly, "the calculations, which are based on standard industrial methods of meat production in Japan, did not include the impact of managing farm infrastructure and transporting the meat, so the total environmental load is higher than the study suggests," the article informs us (my emphasis). Another clue that this is not standard 'journalistic' writing is that after the usual pointless "remedies" for the problem (in this case delivering yet more suffering on the mothers of calves) and hand-waving from the NCBA, the piece ends with a bang, with a quote from Su Taylor of the Vegetarian Society: Everybody is trying to come up with different ways to reduce carbon footprints. But one of the easiest things you can do is to stop eating meat."

VICK'S FIX

I have no opinion on Michael Vick's personal guilt or innocence in his indictment on dog-fighting charges. But hopefully the high-profile nature of this case will shine a light on a cultural pathology that too few people recognize as a widespread problem on this continent. "The indictment states participants and their dogs came to Virginia from other states, established a purse for the winning side and took side bets. It says the fight would last until the death or surrender of a dog and that the losing dog was sometimes killed by drowning, hanging, gunshot, electrocution or other method."

Vick may not have been home when the drowning, hanging, gunshot, electrocution or other method - not to mention the fighting - was going on. But it seems unlikely that he was completely unaware of it. Could be he was like most Americans, with a vague awareness of it and a simple lack of caring enough to find out more or do anything about it.

UPDATE 7/20: I've said it before and it looks like I'll be saying it for some time to come: Can we please, please retire the hackneyed headline "Animal Wrongs"?

THE LATEST FRIDAY RECALL

This one, as they say, is for Friday Recall completists only. But it is a Friday recall of Beef and Chicken Products, recalled this time not for foodborne pathogens but egg whites. Go figure.