AND SO IT BEGINS

"Britain's first foxhunter prosecuted under a hunting ban has been found guilty of animal crueltya judge in the county of Devon, England. Professional huntsman Tony Wright was fined $1,000 and ordered to pay $500 of the $134,000 in legal expenses the League Against Cruel Sports incurred, London's Telegraph reports."

It's a slippery slope - theory anyway - and one down which our culture truly needs to be slipping.

CHOOSE VEG

I was sent a link to this site, which I've just added to our sidebar. Choose Veg is a colorful, snazzy intro to vegetarianism for people coming at it anew. Tabs on going veg "For the Animals," "For our Earth," and "For Your Health" direct the reader to good info and resources. The overall concept isn't that new or remarkable, but it's well done and certainly worth checking out.

VEGAN DIET REVERSES DIABETES SYMPTOMS

"People who ate a low-fat vegan diet, cutting out all meat and dairy, lowered their blood sugar more and lost more weight than people on a standard American Diabetes Association diet," reports Reuters via CNN. This is pretty big news considering that the American Diabetes Association has tailored their diet to the speficics of diabetes, while the low-fat vegan diet is the same one that, among other effects, reverses heart disease. Participants "lowered their cholesterol more and ended up with better kidney function, according to the report published in Diabetes Care, a journal published by the American Diabetes Association." Additionally, "participants said the vegan diet was easier to follow than most because they did not measure portions or count calories." OK... so how soon before this becomes the official American Diabetes Association diet? And... why not?

CSPI: GREEN = VEGAN

Here's an interesting development: The Center for Science in the Public Interest has put out a book and Web site, Six Arguments for a Greener Diet, and although I'm sure there are disclaimers and/or qualifications in the full book, the overall impression one gets from the site is that "Eating Green" is "Eating Vegan." The key arguments don't just target meat but dairy and eggs as well, and they don't meander into esoterica like the exploitation of banana pickers in other countries - what they do is absolutely slam animal products and prescribe plant-based alternatives.

Take a look at this "Eating Green Calculator," allowing you to calculate the impact of your diet. For vegans the answers to all the "how much" questions are "zero," because the bad foods are all animal products. Or this "Tour of the Food Supply" that provides a visual interface as well as damning factoids on how animal agriculture is related to illness and environmental degradation. Also, CSPI's definition of "green" factors in animal-welfare issues as a key element. And the project is putting out new data from their own calculations, such as "the saturated fat and cholesterol in animal products are responsible for about 65,000 fatal heart attacks every year." This is a big step forward for an organization that has leaned toward vegan solutions but always very loudly maintained a fig leaf of "low-fat dairy products" or "fish, a couple times a week" to show they weren't in league with us wild-eyed extremists. I'll have to see the book to find out if they go the next step of actually using the word "vegan."

RECALL OF RECALL?

Here's a head-scratcher that either shows how dim consumers are or how entrenched our meat-protecting agriculture agency is - or maybe both: The story is that at least 29 people have fallen ill "after eating frozen chicken entrees that weren't cooked long enough to kill salmonella bacteria." Minnesota officials are urging consumers not to just microwave the chicken products, as specified on their packaging, but to bake them in the oven until they're at least 165 degrees. Um, aren't these "convenience" foods? Anyway, the kicker is that these products have already been recalled - "The U.S. Department of Agriculture issued a limited recall in March 2006 after the salmonella outbreak was identified. However, epidemiologists have found that new cases of illness continue to occur" - so consumers are being told, "don't eat that, throw it out. But if and when you disregard that and eat it, be sure to cook it in the oven." Meat-eaters are funny that way.

ANOTHER RECALL

Since I'm always alerting you to meat recalls you may not have heard about, in the interest of equal time it's worth noting that certain batches of "Vegan Parmesan Flavor Grated Soy Topping" are being recalled. So you see, it's not true that only animal products have this problem of inherent danger. Vegan products can too.

The Vegan Parmesan is being recalled "because the product may contain traces of undeclared milk ingredients."

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.