NR's Posts - Animal Rights Zone2024-03-29T09:30:28ZNRhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/NathanRivashttps://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/3145334600?profile=RESIZE_48X48&width=48&height=48&crop=1%3A1https://arzone.ning.com/profiles/blog/feed?user=2iq05vm7w3fxh&xn_auth=noPETA: Futile Efforts and Destructive Consequencestag:arzone.ning.com,2012-01-25:4715978:BlogPost:805902012-01-25T19:30:00.000ZNRhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/NathanRivas
<p style="text-align: center;"><em><br></br></em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>Originally published on <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2012/01/peta-futile-efforts-and-destructive.html" target="_blank">ThisDishisVeg.com</a><br></br> <br></br> January 23, 2012</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em><br></br></em></p>
<p>It is true that any social movement succeeds in stages. The time necessary for a society to see an issue as a problem, to see how their actions contribute to suffering…</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em><br/></em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>Originally published on <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2012/01/peta-futile-efforts-and-destructive.html" target="_blank">ThisDishisVeg.com</a><br/> <br/> January 23, 2012</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em><br/></em></p>
<p>It is true that any social movement succeeds in stages. The time necessary for a society to see an issue as a problem, to see how their actions contribute to suffering of others, requires a long-term strategy. Small successes lead to large <span style="font-style: italic;">real</span> victories. There are effective ways to approach social protest, and then, there is PETA's approach.<br/> <br/> PETA's messages are <a href="http://www.thesuperficial.com/olivia_munn_wears_leather_boot-04-2010">inconsistent</a>, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-02-09-peta-westminster-kkk-protest_N.htm">disrespectful</a>, and precisely the reason the public is distrustful of their organization -- and mocks the efforts of the committed animal advocate. PETA trivializes animal cruelty with their cartoonish protests and ridiculous stunts. Their unwavering focus on single-issue campaigns confuses people, i.e. fur is bad, but leather is ok? One type of meat is unethical, but another is humane? Credibility is critical to any social movement, and without this trust, any message will fail to connect with anyone who's remotely willing to listen. This is why PETA, after an apparent promising beginning, has become a caricature of the animal advocacy movement. Education to those who do not share their views is entirely absent from their efforts.<br/> <br/> Presenting logical arguments that appeal to our emotions and intelligence, educating us in a respectful manner is what motivates change. The animal advocacy movement, inexorably intertwined with the message of veganism, is only as strong as the individuals who make up the effort, and these individuals will collectively force change at the highest levels -- in businesses and legislation. Thus, the only way animal advocacy can succeed is to gain the respect of the individuals of society. One of the greatest challenges for the animal advocate is to communicate the message of veganism impartially, logically, and respectfully -- without this effort, success is impossible. Speak in anger, relying on histrionics, theatrics or with an argument that is obviously biased (or based in absolutes) and you've no possible way to convince the omnivore to consider veganism. There will be an appropriate place and time to debate passionately, but when you are working to communicate a message, it is the facts and an impartial approach that wins minds and enables action.<br/> <br/> Activist organizations exist primarily, I would argue, to disseminate a message with the goal of creating change in society. Such a movement must connect with individuals on an emotional level with its message, but it must also associate that emotion with an action -- accomplishing this means that the message must also be logical and it must feel necessary to the individual. Without both sides of this connection, the movement will never succeed in creating a substantial argument for change that the average person will take seriously. For the activist movement, staying on track means a constant critical eye, and avoiding the tunnel vision of their objective. Focusing strictly on the "goal" means losing sight of what the activist group compromises to get there, and forgetting that how they succeed is as important as whether their message succeeds at all.<br/> <br/> Accomplishing half of this will gain you the support of those who fundamentally agree with your cause; these individuals need little convincing, but whom will not be enough to make your message a "mainstream" movement. To create change, such a movement must garner the support of those who do not yet understand the need for change -- it is critical that the methods of the activist reach these people, and herein lays the most significant crux. Introducing the concept of change to the average individual is complex, as creating all sorts of reasons why we need not alter our current view of the world (and by extension, denying a proposed transformation to our behavior) is a specialty we all share.<br/> <br/> Successful activist movements have a clear, rational and consistent articulated message. It is universally true that when accosted by a message, we cling stubbornly to our beliefs or simply dismiss the messenger as mentally unbalanced. When was the last time you stopped and asked the person with a "The End is Near" sign to back up their message with facts? Similarly, a protest centered entirely on a logical argument requires time and discussion to make your point -- which is why you never see that same doomsayer with a sign that reads,</p>
<blockquote>The End is Near, because despite the numerous benefits that nanotechnology offers humankind, there are consequences that science haven't been fully vetted. Prior to the implementation of nanotechnology in environmental applications, such as waste cleanup (particularly relevant to the recent BP disaster,) proper governmental regulations are necessary as the threat of infinitely reproducing biotech nano-workers would (SEE BACK and/or take a BROCHURE…)</blockquote>
<p>It is never ideal to attempt a complex argument, no matter how logical, in a protest setting -- no one would give you the time to make your point and those who do won't be open to a rational discussion. Protest, when the public views you as that person on the street, with an "end is near" sign, is futile. This is where many activist groups breakdown -- unable to understand how to communicate their message in a lucid, consistent and logical manner so that the public is open to education. Alternatively, some activist groups do understand that fact, but lack the demeanor, patience and/or desire to create change -- and thus settle for the spectacle and the illusion of result.<br/> <br/> We're skeptical of anything that challenges our beliefs, especially those long-held and deeply ingrained, but provided an effective argument we're willing to consider change when that behavior stands in opposition to our moral beliefs. Personal experiences are anecdotal, but I am an example of someone who chose veganism for those exact reasons -- an argument took hold and proved my actions opposition to my ethical beliefs.<br/> <br/> Before I went vegan, animal products made an appearance with every meal, I wore leather, wool -- I was not awash with guilt at this. I readily associated vegans with PETA, and saw veganism as a freakish practice consisting of eating primarily lettuce, and throwing things at people wearing fur. I was the epitome of someone who thought veganism unimaginable because I "just loved meat and/or cheese so much!" It's not that I didn't like animals; everyone "likes" animals (no rational person wants to see an animal suffer,) as long as the animal is a) cute, and/or b) in a movie and a derivative of point a). I never questioned advertising admonishing the very suggestion that an animal anywhere suffered for my choices, such messages just kept me unaware and unthinking. I never questioned the consequences to our planet, bodies or ethics. The human cost of factory farming was not even an issue to consider (and still, one that isn't often discussed in vegan campaigns,) the slaughterhouse employees who have the highest risk of injury, job turnover, and deal with substantial <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1016401" target="_blank">psychological trauma</a> associated with their work.<br/> <br/> The cost to animals was a habitual disassociation. Despite the many instances viewing factory farm footage that revealed, if only a moment, the reality of animals place in our society, the effect was fleeting. It's simple to push the thought away in time for my next latte, sandwich, steak or clothing purchase -- rationalizations flooded my mind, <span style="font-style: italic;">it can't be that way at every farm, surely, there are laws that keep that monitor that sort of thing</span>? So much of what the vegan cannot forget, the number of animals killed yearly, their treatment in the food production industry, is not more than meaningless numbers to the non-vegan. We fiercely maintain defense mechanisms, and easily consider the horrific treatment of animals as abstract and remote, until we have an experience that forces personal context. Every single one of us has the necessary facts for epiphany, bouncing around in our minds, just waiting for that context. My context was, to say the least, <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/10/tdiv-q-does-veganism-really-make.html">unexpected</a>. If no one or nothing challenges our logic, we will never consider change.<br/> <br/> Those who would fight for social movements do so out of a complex mixture of emotion and logic, aided by timing and human variables -- there is no blueprint to follow that guarantees success. This is the reason why so many find themselves unable, or unwilling, to work for change. It's the reason that many activists, or potential activists, doubt success to the degree that they find half-measures and perpetual compromise so attractive. Unfortunately, when acceptance of inadequate measures are laid on the table, the only side willing to compromise is the side of which is fighting for change -- the opposition has no reason to change, and it places the activist at a place of weakness. This is why we see PETA and similar groups claiming "success" when they've convinced pig slaughterhouses to phase out gestation crates on some far off date, only when it would have become economically unnecessary to continue when cheaper, more profitable <a href="http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/2583/balancing-sow-and-piglet-welfare-with-production-efficiency" target="_blank">alternatives are on the horizon</a>. The only success in such instances is one of public relations, organizations like PETA can send emails claiming a "win," and slaughterhouses can grow its profit by attracting the omnivore who can now feel positive about eating meat -- as far as their concerned, they have the approval of animal rights groups.<br/> <br/> Omnivores do not see this as a victory for animals; they see it as a way to eat them without feeling guilty. The PETA'd vegan or omnivore are the only individuals who judge such an event like cage-free eggs as a success for animals. A cage-free egg facility moves the chicken from a small cage to a single large cage. Thousands of birds in a single room, each of whom have their beaks burned off to prevent them from pecking each other to death. Because, that's what you do when trapped in a room with hundreds of others for months, years on end.<br/> <br/> PETA argues that by encouraging a reduction in animal suffering in stages -- cage-free eggs, "I'd rather be naked than wear fur" campaigns, more efficient slaughterhouse killings, elimination of gestation crates for pigs and on and on -- the public will eventually stop eating or wearing animals through an apparent paradigm shift in consciousness. Except, PETA never explains how this will happen, nor do they discuss the logical course of events that would lead to such a dramatic change of mindset in the average omnivore. On their website, PETA is strangely vague with what constitutes a "<a href="http://www.peta.org/about/learn-about-peta/success-stories.aspx" target="_blank">success</a>."<br/> <br/> Those in favor of welfarism often see the only alternative to their methods is inflexible veganism, or attempting to coerce omnivores to give up animal products overnight. This is not accurate. Using veganism as the behavior benchmark, the goal for which we should work towards, is not the same as telling the open-minded omnivore that their reduction in eating animals is useless. Choosing logic over fallacies, understanding the issues and working towards phasing out animal products is incredibly simple in 2012. Working towards veganism is a personal timeline, and it won't happen overnight for everyone. As long as the desire to minimize the harm you do is the goal, just start <span style="font-style: italic;">somewhere</span>, and you will get there.<br/> <br/> If PETA was truly interested in honest, logical and meaningful protest they would work to educate the public with a consistent message, not a myriad of divisive, nonsensical campaigns. Instead, PETA wastes efforts attempting to "sneak" the message of protection for animals in Dr. Seussian-like single-issue campaigns. As is possible to discern, PETA expects efforts like painting a nearly <a href="http://blogs.pjstar.com/eye/2011/05/06/meat-tray-peta-protesters-hit-peoria/">nude woman in fake blood</a>, lying in a shrink-wrapped "meat tray" to plant a seed of vegan epiphany in the minds of the passing truckers. In such a protest, which is all too common for PETA, the extent of education, of any attempt to communicate are phrases like, "All Meat Comes from a Corpse," printed on their protest signs.<br/> <br/> Promoting veganism as the answer to a myriad of complex, serious economical, environmental, human and ethical problems is the best and only successful method possible. No social movement has ever succeeded by using single-issue inconsistent messaging campaigns to work towards a larger goal. These methods have no context for those remotely interested in your message; the crass and intellectually lazy nature of PETAs approach piques nothing but revulsion from the strange use of sexual violence (a bloodied, near-naked woman imitating a piece of meat, really?) Visceral imagery creates disgust, but not association of disgust with eating or wearing animals. You've only succeeded in making <span style="font-style: italic;">your actions</span> disgusting. This is PETAs approach to "targeted" protest, attempting to appeal to our base nature with sexuality, but without any intellectual or logical substance behind their intent. PETA is the Kim Kardashian of social protests.<br/> <br/> Stockholder activism is another method of PETAs that has gained attention over the recent few years. Owning stock in companies that are counter to the goals of veganism and animal advocates, PETA states that they invest in these objectionable companies to "change" them from the inside is an illusion of action/result. Their initial attempts, shown on their <a href="http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-experimentation/shareholder-campaigns.aspx" target="_blank">Shareholder Campaigns</a> page, gives an impressive list of 19 chemical and pharmaceutical companies, including Dow, Monsanto, Merck & Co, and ExxonMobil, of whom PETA and their supporters own stock to negotiate elimination of animals used in research. Each animal testing resolution introduced by PETA failed to accomplish these goals, gaining just enough votes to reintroduce them in the following year…that was 2007. There hasn't been an update since.<br/> <br/> Undeterred, PETA tried this tactic with the fast-food restaurant industry. The objective argued is to improve the conditions of animals in factory farms before slaughtering to craft into Big Macs and chocolate shakes. <a href="http://www.peta.org/about/learn-about-peta/shareholder-resolutions.aspx">Stock purchases</a> in Burger King, Carl's Jr., Hardee's, McDonald's, and Denny's, claim major concessions from the campaign. As of now, this major effort resulted in a small percentage of eggs purchased from cage-free facilities (i.e. 3%,) and a 15% maximum of slaughtered pigs from gestation crate-free factory farms (i.e. any unknown number under that percentage.) This is a classic move by PETA, and one that confuses the message of veganism -- blaming the industry, deemphasizing education, and making no effort to change how the consumer thinks or eats. In the end, the message is that it is perfectly fine to eat PETA-approved animals from PETA-approved factory farms and fast food restaurants.<br/> <br/> If PETA had an interest in real change, putting their investment dollars towards companies like <a href="http://www.gardein.com/">gardein</a> or <a href="http://daiyacheese.com/">Daiya</a> (legitimate, healthy alternatives to eating animals) is a productive step towards reducing demand for meat and dairy, and eventually reducing the death of animals in factory farms. The publicity may not be as good, but it’s an actual step towards changing eating habits. Instead, PETA invests in the industry that, by its very business model, depends on PETAs failure as an animal "advocacy" group. PETA won't invest in companies actively providing a viable alternative to animal products because it’s a long-term solution.<br/> <br/> However, this particular debate ignores entirely PETA's questionable choice to invest in such companies to begin with. Where is the judgment in purchasing stock, and profiting from the actions of companies like Burger King or Monsanto? It's true that PETA isn't buying shares directly from Monsanto -- publically traded companies work by buying and selling shares from other stockholders. Yet, by purchasing Burger King or McDonald's stock, PETA plays a role in keeping their stock value up, and the CEOs (those individuals directing the company's actions,) stay in bonuses, profit, and have no incentive to change the way that they do business. PETA can argue their case for improved conditions to other shareholders, but they are the same individuals for whom PETA doesn't "waste" time trying to educate on the issues, or present a rational, sane message.<br/> <br/> Here is the true irony, even if PETA managed to convince a majority of shareholders of a company like Monsanto to vote along their shareholder resolution, Monsanto is under no obligation to implement the resolution. Shareholder resolutions are simply suggestions for the company -- they are not binding and will have no affect on Monsanto's or Burger King's business methods or profitability. Despite what PETA would have you believe, shareholder resolutions hold little financial or legal powers, and often disregarded by companies. In 2004, the Harvard Law Review considered this very topic, in <a href="http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1288&context=harvard_olin" target="_blank"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Case for Increasing Shareholder Power</span></a>. PETA, of course, is all too aware of this fact, but you won't find that inconvenient truth of shareholder resolutions on their campaign successes page. In return for placations of which have little effect on the corporation or improvement to the lives of animals, Carl's Jr. or Burger King gets the blessing of PETA and all of the free publicity they could desire -- courtesy of the world's largest animal-rights organization. PETA molds this into a press release for their members, updating them on all of the good their annual donations accomplish.<br/> <br/> PETA, by their own hand, is in a position where they cannot make a consistent message of veganism or campaigns of education on the issues. They profit too readily by placing the blame on the factory farm and/or fast food restaurant. After decades of publicity seeking, PETA stumbled onto the formula that provides them the perfect equation for the delusion of effectiveness, used frequently to justify their shock campaigns. Promoting veganism as the only objective that truly minimizes harm to animals would alienate much of PETA's membership and celebrity support, as it would require that PETA actually ask that they work towards meaningful way behavioral change.<br/> <br/> This would prove problematic, as PETA would no longer be the group of endless cheap absolution to those who want to feel good about eating animals, wearing them, or otherwise contributing to their suffering and death. Such accountability would mean that animal activism would no longer be a fun, trendy way to spend an afternoon; they would no longer be a meaningless exhibitionist thrill machine, they would not be the tool for vapid celebrities to mock animal advocacy by making it their next Kabbalah bracelet. They would make the idea that the individual is responsible for their choices and actions -- the awful factory farm machine exists because we keep it alive. In short, PETA would become a serious, intentional, clear-headed advocacy organization.<br/> <br/> It's much simpler to create endless campaigns targeting single aspects of harm to animals. Without a willingness to educate or rationally discuss the importance or veganism, such individual campaigns, like their shareholder activism, have no meaningful impact. This approach ignores entirely the critical need to connect with the individual -- if we do not understand the reasons for change (as well as <span style="font-style: italic;">exactly</span> what we need to do to create change,) the only result is applauding nonsense like <a href="http://www.humanemyth.org/cagefree.htm">cage-free eggs</a>, and no comprehension of the argument against eating them at all.<br/> <br/> The problem? We easily talk ourselves out of change (also known as the "humane meat" reflexive justification -- the greatest stroke of genius marketing since cigarettes were good for you) when an argument only appeals to our emotions. Humane meat is incredibly attractive, and why wouldn’t it be? It offers those who are looking for any reason at all to avoid change -- and they have justification to continue eating animals, guilt free.<br/> <br/> Today's demand for meat, eggs and dairy is gargantuan, and it forces production to such an extreme that it has tremendously hideous consequences. It is impossible for the USDA to monitor the billions of pounds of beef, chicken, pork, gallons of milk, and eggs consumed yearly. The CDC estimates <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/foodborneburden/2011-foodborne-estimates.html#annual" target="_blank">1,300 die yearly</a> from food-transmitted pathogens like <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/index.html"><span style="font-style: italic;">Salmonella</span></a>, <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/" target="_blank"><span style="font-style: italic;">Toxoplasma gondii</span></a> (toxoplasmosis,) and <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/listeria/index.html" target="_blank"><span style="font-style: italic;">Listeria monocytogenes</span></a>. Another 1,600 die from unspecified pathogens. That's about 3,000 every year. The demand for meat is so massive the USDA is considering privatizing inspections—<a href="http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/318254" target="_blank">starting with chicken in 2012</a>. To put this into perspective, phobia of "chemicals" in skin care and cosmetics has spread like wildfire over the internet and media, with people everywhere convinced that death perpetually stalks them via their moisturizer and lipstick. Despite this nonsense, not a single person anywhere has died, or suffered harm from normal use of their skin care and makeup (no, drinking your sunscreen doesn’t count.) This is an excellent example of our ability to rationalize any behavior we don't want to change -- the furor over scary-sounding chemicals, despite no harm to a anyone, anywhere, compared to the thousands who die yearly from eating tainted animal products.<br/> <br/> PETA prospers on the appearance of action, our willingness to fool ourselves, and the illusion of "successes" that make no progress towards improving the life of animals. Rather than speaking honestly and respectfully to the omnivore, they instead choose to dedicate themselves to protests that exist purely for the sake of perpetuating notoriety. PETA is aware that such effort -- protesting outside a KFC, Lettuce Ladies handing out veggie dogs, "cooking mama: Mama Kills Animals" video game, will never change a single mind on the issue of animal advocacy. The tools used to convey the message are so inflammatory they succeed only in ridicule, or fascinatingly bizarre, neither of which helps any animals. As a vegan, I understand the analogizing of the near overwhelming horror of a world that we've created for animals. However, as a former omnivore, I understand PETAs methods won't connect to those who haven't come to this seismic shift in consciousness. The omnivore will only see the crass vehicle for PETA message, and regard it with suspicion and disgust.<br/> <br/> I get it. For the animal advocate, the overwhelming nature of the fight is exhausting. It makes one sad to see such vitriol and lack of respect for endless hours of work advocating for animals. PETA let this exhaustion, frustration and sorrow build-up like moss on our efforts -- muddling the message with endless compromises, confusing the public, and stealing the respect hard work for animals deserves. Squandering the greatest opportunity in decades for communicating the benefits of veganism to our planet, health and ethics, by supporting welfarism we've wasted time by perpetuating myths of humane meat, and holding the word veganism in disdain. This is what PETA has done with its early potential, thirty-some years later -- traded their veracity in exchange for headlines so many times like excessively printed money; its value has dropped to a near worthless state.<br/> <br/> <span style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/search/label/Nathan_Rivas">Nathan Rivas</a> | <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/rivas_nathan" target="top">Twitter</a> | <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001195250784" target="top">Facebook</a></span><br/> <i><span style="color: #666666;">Seattle, WA</span></i> Nathan is a passionate animal advocate and vegan in the Seattle-area, and a contributor to <i>This Dish is Ve</i>g. He lives with his partner, Troy, and a band consisting of: a defiant dachshund, a ginormous Maine coon and a judgmental shorthaired black cat. Nathan graduated with a Bachelors of Science (summa cum laude) from Northeastern University last spring, and is currently in his Masters of Science program. Nathan is at any time, 17% coffee, a slave to his Kindle, and a lover of science and mathematics.</p>Animal Sentience: The Real Omnivore's Dilemmatag:arzone.ning.com,2011-11-08:4715978:BlogPost:710232011-11-08T00:30:00.000ZNRhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/NathanRivas
<p style="text-align: center;"><br></br> <em>Originally published <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/11/animal-sentience-real-omnivores-dilemma.htm" target="_blank">ThisDishisVeg.com</a></em><br></br> <em><span class="font-size-2">November 2, 2011</span></em><br></br>
<span class="font-size-2"><br></br>
</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">There are many reasons one would choose to go vegan—and many justifications in opposition. Often, the argument for each "side" involves discussions of…</span></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><br/> <em>Originally published <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/11/animal-sentience-real-omnivores-dilemma.htm" target="_blank">ThisDishisVeg.com</a></em><br/>
<em><span class="font-size-2">November 2, 2011</span></em><br/>
<span class="font-size-2"><br/>
</span></p>
<p><span class="font-size-2">There are many reasons one would choose to go vegan—and many justifications in opposition. Often, the argument for each "side" involves discussions of health, the environment, and ethics. The latter, the moral argument, is rife with misunderstandings, disbelief and intensely emotional debates. Accusations of anthropomorphism are common, and no one really gets anywhere. What do we accomplish in these discussions? Our treatment of animals does not often progress in meaningful ways, because we haven't truly addressed the bias in our perception of animal sentience.<br/> <br/>
There are few, if any, rational humans who would argue animals cannot feel. However, many an omnivore will debate to what degree animals feel—thereby questioning their level of sentience. As a species, we regularly hold our kind as inherently "special," and superior to any other animal on Earth. This is convenient, as it permits us to distance ourselves from the reality of our choices, justifying our treatment of animals for comparatively insignificant reasons (i.e. fur/leather, lunch, and lipstick.) <br/>
<br/>
Without these rationalizations, making the conscious choice to consider animals purely as a resource, as disposable fancies, would become impossible to the reasonable person. We could not ignore the pain we inflict in our treatment of those animals of who we exploit to satisfy such whims. Our entire perception of non-human animals is terribly broken—this is true for omnivores and vegans. We bicker about how physiology "tells" us to eat, how our evolutionary history demands we eat, and (most importantly) how we judge what animals think and feel. <br/>
<br/>
Let's get the evolutionary argument out of the way—the argument over the foods humans evolved eating. Ultimately, this is meaningless and a distractive discussion. This is popular, non-thinking reactionary argument whenever one approaches the subject of animal exploitation—specifically the topic of <i>eating</i> animals. Humans behaved in many ways during our evolution from our earliest species, <a href="http://www.stanford.edu/%7Eharryg/protected/chp22.htm"><i>Homo erectus</i></a>, and it is subjective to choose a single evolutionary trend to justify any argument. If we cherry pick one behavior, how can we ignore another? Within this same direction of thought, we could as easily justify cannibalism—common practice to fulfill both nutritional and ceremonial needs as recently as <a href="http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/issue9/cole-tables.html">seven-thousand years ago</a> (this is behavior of the Homo <i>sapiens</i>, mind you, not some distant evolutionary relative.) <br/>
<br/>
Modern humans choose not to eat one another out of our societal constructs of morality—to have the neighbor for dinner is frowned upon. Yet, this is no more logical than choosing not to eat animals out of another moral construct. There is biology, and there is the lucky stroke (evolutionary speaking) of human <i>choice</i>—the latter being the best and the worst quality of our species. Biologically, the human can thrive on a vegan or omnivore diet, and it's an endless and non-productive loop to argue otherwise. <br/>
<br/>
A related debate we like to have revolves around dietary supplementation. Omnivores are fond of stating vegans <i>have</i> to supplement to get their nutrients, and vegans like to talk about not needing to filter our nutrients through another animal. Both answers are equally as useless, because anyone who eats a balanced diet is engaging in "supplementation." I get my <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/08/tdiv-q-im-interested-in-becoming-vegan.html">B12</a> from nutritional yeast, because it tastes <i>awesome</i> on everything from kale to popcorn. I don't call this "supplementing" a shortcoming in my diet anymore than an omnivore considers eating a salad "supplementing" a shortcoming in theirs (as they cannot survive on an entirely animal-based diet.)<br/>
<br/>
Then, there is the environmental debate over animal products versus the vegan diet. Well, the facts <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/09/1948super-size-my-denial-how-free-range.html">screw the omnivore</a> on that one. We can't deny the environmental benefits of veganism, but this doesn’t always accomplish much when discussing the issue with omnivores. More than once, a random person has confronted me for disposing of a coffee cup (or whatever) in regular trashcan, instead of hunting for a recycle bin, (hey, it's Seattle.) Never once have I gotten a "yes" when I've asked in response if they're vegan. Animal products account for the widest margin of environmental degradation, which is both funny and sad for the environmentalists who refuse to adopt change where it makes the most difference, in their diet. <br/>
<br/>
These arguments remove the focus from the most important part of this debate—unifying our treatment of animals with what we know of their emotional capacity. <br/>
<br/>
</span>How do we explain why otherwise decent humans are capable of exploiting animals, directly or indirectly? The ability to create justifications for our behavior is the rot in our ethics, and we've long since become accustomed to perceiving our species as superior by marveling endlessly at our ability to think, feel, create and reason. From these exercises in self-gratitude, we extrapolate the validation that we may do with other species whatever we may rationalize. There is little, however, we may quantify to explain how we're inherently "better" than any other animal. <br/>
<br/>
I get it; I used to be that person. Most of us start out life with the expectation that we unquestioningly continue to exploit animals—indirectly or with direct complicity. Ingrained into most of human culture is the expressed permission to do with other species as we please, we're indoctrinated so deeply in this thought process that it is considered rude in the extreme to discuss how animals end up on our plates, in our glasses and in our closets. It is societal taboo to discuss what we force others to endure. Ask an omnivore to talk about this with you (usually after they've initiated the rhetorical, "why are you vegan," question,) and the probability is good that they'll respond defensively. Quickly following this, they flail at arguments that minimize the feelings of animals, regulating them to mindless instinctive reactionaries, and reflexively state that humans are inherently better for X reasons, i.e. animals can't knit sweaters, write a sonnet, or whatever random skill relevant only to humans comes to mind. If we can't prove sentience in animals by measuring their ability to navigate human tasks and interests, then we label them as devoid of awareness. <br/>
<br/>
We are preoccupied with proving—or perhaps disproving—the sentience of animals. When presented with evidence of animals behaving in ways that conflict with our perception of them as automatons of biological imperatives, we prefer to categorize their actions in strictly evolutionary terms. They act out of adaptive behavior, competition for resources, the drive to mate, eat, herd or achieve hierarchical dominance. If an animal behaves in X way, it is simply because instinct commanded that they do so, thereby allowing the human to breathe another sigh of superior relief and continue secure in the belief animals do not <span style="font-style: italic;">think</span> like us, therefore do not <span style="font-style: italic;">feel</span> like us, and thus, do not <span style="font-style: italic;">suffer</span> like us. If we believe an animal does not suffer as we do, we can consider their suffering minimal. Perhaps, as we separate them from their young, castrate them, skin them, or experiment upon them, their sensations and thoughts do not even *really* deserve attribution of the word "suffering."<br/>
<br/>
The challenge is our measurement of sentience—entirely and conveniently compared in strictly human terms. It is a favored perception that we feel in a different and thus more complex manner than animals. The uncomfortable thought of comparing emotions of the human to other species is rife with implication on how we live our lives, and such a proposition often meets with all the hostility only a challenged morality can bring. The ensuing unthinking response often argues for the complexity of human emotion, the importance of these emotions, and their very mechanics evidence against any similar expressions in another species. <br/>
<br/>
Why is our approach to proving sentience in animals a problem and what is really meant by "proof" in these terms? Well, science is not in the business of proving—it is actually critical that science never really proves anything. There is a big difference between proof and evidence, and this is where science "does its business." A scientist poses a hypothesis, and then a hypothesis that opposes the first—i.e. "when you hold a lit match to a paper, it will burn, or it will not." After lighting many, many papers, it is possible to say there is enough consistent evidence to argue for keeping lit matches away from paper. However, it still does not <span style="font-style: italic;">prove</span> that the next paper will burn, only that there is enough evidence to argue that it will. <br/>
<br/>
This is relevant, because at the center of the animal-emotion debate is the irony that we cannot prove our emotions exist at all. What we think of as emotion are series of chemical reactions, areas of our limbic cortex starting and stopping various substances, signaling reactions in our physiology that produce responses we interpret as love, anger, pleasure, etc. An external event, like a sudden fright, activates visual or auditory triggers of which corresponds to a specific response from your brain. The brain then sends activations across the nervous system to act accordingly—jumping back in surprise and/or taking HULKSMASH action. <br/>
<br/>
You do not stop to ponder your fear, or wax philosophically of fear's meaning in the universe—you leap involuntarily in response to this emotion. Your brain cannot trust you to act quickly enough, and bypasses much of your thought processes in order to escape impending danger. The emotion of fear does not even occur to you until you've interpreted the signals given to you from your brain. Your brain creates emotions entirely in response to external stimulus—the same is true for pain and fear. When you've injured yourself, you do not compare your broken arm to all of the broken arms before and after. You are not wondering what Thomas Jefferson or Shakespeare would have said about your broken arm. You are simply in pain, and that is all you know.<br/>
<br/>
How do we measure our own emotions if we cannot "prove" their existence? Scientifically, it is widely accepted that the brain is the source of all thoughts, actions and intelligence. Our emotions derive from the operations of various combinations of hormones and neurotransmitters. Our personalities develop from previous experiences that shape our brain. Particular fears or favors tailored to your individual experiences, eliciting specific neurochemical mixtures, interpreted by you and assigned a specific emotional response. Your <a href="http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/10/3/295.full">cortex stores this emotion</a> for future reference.<br/>
<br/>
With each emotion registered, this involves different chemicals and regions of the brain. The <a href="http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/limbicsystem.html">limbic system, the hippocampus and amygdala</a> are primary regions utilized to communicate the proper responses to the rest of our body systems. Our emotions that are essential for survival, fear, pain, hunger and such, and those more apparently complex, like love or hate, are all borne from combinations of the same chemicals. All thoughts, emotions and sensations are patterns of chemical and cell activity in various areas of the brain, yet you may interpret the same emotion in a multitude of ways; pleasure may express as mild amusement or something much more intense. <br/>
<br/>
Emotional temperament is somewhat inheritable—children may display similar behaviors of their mother or father (i.e. stubbornness, etc.) A <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673609600726?_alid=1830093580&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=search&_docanchor=&_ct=251&_zone=rslt_list_item&md5=622eea0ddb1c29ce10eda8f92e0931b3">30-year study conducted in Sweden</a> of two-million families suggested an increased risk of bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia to first generation relatives of those diagnosed with either disease. Our moral center is governed by how we interpret the chemical triggers doled out from areas of our brain, and our cultural experiences have conditioned these responses as acceptable or unacceptable. <br/>
<br/>
Yet, despite the knowledge that our emotions are not more than chemical-response, we would nonetheless argue that this does not diminish their importance to our lives. Even at the most basic levels—pleasure, pain, fear, happiness—we experience each of these from levels of chemicals like dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. The hormone oxytocin plays a significant role in love, trust and maternal affection. We're awash in mixtures of these chemicals when we are attracted to another, or when developing a bond of friendship. Ultimately, love is a chemical addiction, enabled by your brain as it doles out <a href="http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/01/05/scan.nsq092.abstract">combinations of oxytocin and vasopressin</a>. Over time, the brain adjusts these to increase the likelihood of a long-term pairing. <br/>
<br/>
It's not that the brain is a romantic at its core; it's just its biologic imperative to maximize the probability of furthering the species. To continue a bit with this example, the emotion of love in the modern human society is an identity we've assigned to the sensation, and all the rest of its trappings are pure cultural influence. We only understand its meaning because a lifetime of societal conditioning has filled in the blanks for us.<br/>
<br/>
Despite the fact that tangible emotions, love, anger, fear and such have no scientific validity (you cannot measure a sensation like love anymore than you can measure the blueness of the sky,), the reasonable person does not argue against their existence. We cannot verify that such emotions exist in another, but evolution clues us in on the non-verbal cues of other humans in a way that allows us to identify how they feel. We may not be able to communicate with a person of another culture, but we are reasonably sure we can understand how they love their children or mate. This is true even if we do not share a common language or culture. <br/>
<br/>
The example of a language barrier is germane to how the omnivore refuses the possibility of animal sentience. There are innumerable words outside the English language that have no equivalency, words or phrases whose meaning does not translate. The French word, <span style="font-style: italic;">l'appel du vide</span> is the instinct that strikes us to jump from a height, or the Japanese <span style="font-style: italic;">Honne</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Tatemae</span>, what we really believe about ourselves (the Honne) and the guise of which we put up to fool others (the Tatemae.) If you do not speak the language, you may think you have the gist of their intent, but you can never be certain you understand their meaning in their original dialect.<br/>
<br/>
Similarly, words that have emotional significance in non-Western cultures do not have an English-equivalent. The Japanese <span style="font-style: italic;">ijirashi</span> is the feeling of observing someone you respect overcoming a challenge—this is a sensation of which we cannot understand exactly, but nonetheless it is possible to come to a general comprehension of it. <br/>
<br/>
The chemicals behind our emotions are not unique to humans. The relatively widely known body of research by anthropologist Dr. Helen E. Fischer, studying mammalian relationships extending from courtship to long-term monogamy (specifically in <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1764845/?tool=pubmed">bird species and the prairie vole</a>,) demonstrates increases in oxytocin, dopamine and vasopressin throughout. These chemicals vary in stages of their courtship and relationship—just as in the courtship and mate selection of Homo sapiens. Once they've chosen a mate, the prairie vole will maintain monogamy throughout their life, and <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164816/?tool=pubmed">create a family structure</a> with dynamics that passed on to the next generation of voles. Curiously, the prairie vole male, unlike the male Homo sapiens, actually <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938409002479">loses weight</a> after choosing his mate and bearing children. <br/>
<br/>
Animals share the same class of hormones; the same chemicals responsible for our emotions drive their behavior as well. We've assigned identities to these chemical reactions—anger, fear, love, etc—but these are names and meanings that are relative to our cultural experience as a species. Just as we cannot fully grasp the meaning of a phrase or word that does not translate to our language, we cannot say with certainty that we will ever comprehend what these same experiences mean to another species. This does not diminish their importance to the species of which experiences the emotion. <br/>
<br/>
A significant degree of human emotion is in response to external stimulus. Animals experience the world with means we cannot grasp, hearing, seeing and feeling in ways to us is incomprehensible. An animal then, by extension, feels with an intensity that would surpass the human. We could no more understand the emotions triggered when a prairie vole spends time with their mate than we could expect to understand an expression that has no common language translation. As advanced as humanity has become in many aspects, these are species-specific innovations of no importance to any other life but our own. We naively (or egotistically) ignore this error in methodology and continue to attempt to measure the non-human animal by factors that to them, are meaningless. <br/>
<br/>
We cannot assume that animals share the same interpretation of emotions, simply because they do not share the same societal restrictions of Homo sapiens. We know they share and produce the same chemicals that are responsible for our greatest feelings of pleasure and misery. Yet, just as we cannot scientifically quantify our own emotions, we are at an extreme disadvantage of measuring the emotions of animals simply because we do not share a common method of communication. The reasonable person understands the non-human animal has no interest in measuring himself or herself in the manner of which humans find meaningful. Would we compare a cheetah to a shark based upon how quickly the shark can run?<br/>
<br/>
The obsession with measuring animal sentience against human "benchmarks" is further insufficient when we consider the differences in human and animal senses. Animals are capable of feats unfathomable to our species—the <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/15/7048.full">bat uses echolocation</a> to navigate and hunt in complete darkness, the platypus flexes a muscle permitting electrical impulse detection (<a href="http://jeb.biologists.org/content/202/10/1447.full.pdf">electroreception</a>,) allowing it to "see" these fields generated by other life forms. The <a href="http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2807%2902088-X" target="_blank">chimpanzee memory is superior</a> to that of the human in numeric recall—outperforming human adults in direct memory tasks. We've yet to measure an animal with relevance to their species-specific experiences. Despite what we know of animals demonstrating characteristics we afford only to our own species, i.e. <a href="http://news.discovery.com/animals/animals-friendship-relationships-bats-110208.html">friendship</a>, courtship, long-term monogamy, and <a href="http://elephantswithoutborders.org/blog/?p=151">mourning their dead</a>, we are unable to grasp interpretation of emotion or self-awareness in another species. <br/>
<br/>
We attempt to reason that we are superior out of our capacity for morality, and the omnivore is often quick to point out "cruel" actions of animals towards each other. This is opportune, as our species regularly resorts to violence for profit, pleasure or any number of reasons. We abandon our children (in some states, we've even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law">legislated permission</a> to do so,) engage in apartheid, genocide, slavery and torture for any number of "explanations." If animals commit their own acts of cruelty–and it is upon this that the omnivore justifies their exploitation—then the implications are even more severe for our own species. The human species posses the intelligence and choice to understand the implications of our acts, and yet we've never disappointed in our capability to commit atrocities against our own kind.<br/>
<br/>
By reconsidering our notions of animals, and evaluating their species based upon what we know of the cognitive root of emotions, we cannot deny the ethical implication in their exploitation. If we are to rise to the promise of our species, we must confront the moral question of our treatment of animals. None of us could deny they feel pain and fear—we know now that they feel a spectrum of emotions akin to our own. How does the omnivore reconcile their argument of humans as the superior evolutionary beings, except when it comes to ethics? Then suddenly we're nothing more than biologic imperatives, fully justified in exploiting others simply because we possess the capability to do so? It's just more reliance upon convenient justifications to escape confronting our moral burden as a complex species. It is our obligation as an intelligent, advanced species to live a life of lesser harm, but if we fail to address the most critical aspect of veganism, reevaluating our treatment of animals, then we fail in our approach to the real omnivore's dilemma.<br/>
<br/>
Note: anywhere I've linked to the abstract of a study, it's because membership is needed to access the research material. Send me an email at nathan@thisdishisveg.com if you'd like me to send you a pdf version!<br/>
<br/><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/search/label/Nathan_Rivas" target="_blank">Nathan Rivas at ThisDishisVeg</a><br/>
Nathan is a passionate animal advocate and vegan in the Seattle-area, and a contributor to <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/" target="_blank">This Dish is Veg</a>. He lives with his partner, Troy, and a band consisting of: a defiant dachshund, an ginormous Maine coon and a judgmental short-haired black cat. Nathan graduated with a Bachelors of Science (summa cum laude) from Northeastern University last spring, and is currently in his Masters of Science program. Nathan is at any time, 17% coffee, a slave to his Kindle, and a lover of science and mathematics. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://twitter.com/#%21/rivas_nathan" target="_blank">Twitter</a> | <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001195250784" target="_blank">Facebook</a>.</p>
<p> </p>How Free-Range and Factory Farmed Animal Products are Breaking the Planettag:arzone.ning.com,2011-11-07:4715978:BlogPost:653212011-11-07T22:24:59.000ZNRhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/NathanRivas
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>Originally published at <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/09/1948super-size-my-denial-how-free-range.html" target="_blank">This Dish is Veg</a><br></br>September 8, 2011</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Meat-eating environmentalists and the Tooth Fairy have more in common that you’d think. Eating animal products, whether from a factory farm or “local, free-range” has an undeniably destructive effect on the Earth, and it is…</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>Originally published at <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/09/1948super-size-my-denial-how-free-range.html" target="_blank">This Dish is Veg</a><br/>September 8, 2011</em></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Meat-eating environmentalists and the Tooth Fairy have more in common that you’d think. Eating animal products, whether from a factory farm or “local, free-range” has an undeniably destructive effect on the Earth, and it is a fantasy to associate meat consumption and environmental sustainability in positive context. Factory farming is dramatically depleting our global resources, water, soil, medicines and rainforest land—all crumbling to satiate the whims of beef, chicken, dairy and egg eaters. Free-range and local animal products, however, have become the new rationalization for those who cannot deny the negative social and environmental effects of factory farming, but still want that burger. <br/><br/>This idea of locally raised dairy, eggs or meat as better for the environment is one that every vegan has likely heard at least once in their non-meat eating lifetime. When omnivores make this statement, it sometimes sounds like this, “I get my grass-fed steak from a local farm, which is <i>obviously</i> better for the environment than your vegetables that are transported in from <i>wherever</i>. So you’re a stupid head for not eating local meat.” <br/><br/>This sort of reasoning sounds plausible at first glance—food transported across long-distances doesn’t appear to be as ecologically friendly than eating locally, but it is lacking in facts, and this generalized perspective doesn’t hold up to inspection. Ultimately, idealizing a diet that includes animal products as environmentally neutral (or even <i>beneficial</i>) is part self-assurance and part denial. Assurance that eating animals is a greater good, better for its ecological impact, health, etc and part denial of the ethical implications of using animals for food. Increasingly common is the argument of free-range, local animal products as the environmentally responsible choice, yet this proposal is ultimately rife with the same destructive ecological consequences as factory farming. So how does factory farming and local, free-range shape up in terms of environmental and human impact? Let’s look at the facts. <br/><br/>Less than <a href="http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/8o.html">30% of our Earth is above water,</a> and according to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, <a href="http://soils.usda.gov/use/worldsoils/papers/pop-support-paper.html">11-12%</a> of this land area is suitable for agriculture and grassland pastures occupy <a href="http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y8344e/y8344e05.htm">26%</a> of that number. Animals raised in factory farms consume <a href="ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e07.pdf">60%</a> of the Earth’s wheat, barley, soy, corn, and various vegetable stocks (potatoes, cabbage, and legumes) grown on that 11-12% and utilize nearly 100% of available grazing land. Data from the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station and the Council on Agricultural Science and Technology reveal that this annual sixty-percent of agriculture reserved for factory farming production could feed <a href="http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=4767&page=56">6 billion people an approximate 3,000 calories per day</a>. <br/><br/>More important than food is water and factory farming uses a whole lot of the resource, of which ultimately produces a small amount of beef. 1 pound of red meat requires a little over 850 gallons of water to produce, and cattle lives approximately 1.5 years. This is a <i>conservative</i> calculation, as dairy cows used for beef live longer, closer to 4 years (U.N. 2006 report, which is quite lengthy, so I’ve linked a <a href="ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e07.pdf">summary</a>.) Some perspective: one gallon of water is equal to a little less than 4 liters, which translates to an 8-ounce steak using a conservative 1800 liters of water. Meanwhile, in persistent drought third-world regions of sub-Saharan Africa, Asia or Latin America, the average woman of a household will spend hours each day collecting an amount of water that <a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR2006_English_Summary.pdf">will not equal 20 liters</a>.<br/><br/>The animals that live and die in factory farms leave a significant global ecological impact. In addition to the 26% of grazing land for livestock use, more space is necessary each year as factory farms expand. The Amazon of South America is broken hectare by hectare, <a href="http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR2006_English_Summary.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">70% of its forestland is now pasture for livestock</a>.</p>
<p><br/> Greenhouse gasses released from factory farming are the most significant of any other source. According to the <a href="ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/A0701E03.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">U.N.</a>, greenhouse gasses attributed to livestock make up 18% of global numbers (80% of the agriculture sector,) breaking down to 9% of carbon dioxide emissions, 37% of methane and 65% of nitrous oxide. In this context, driving a Prius is just an anthropological status symbol—stop eating meat and you’ve taken real action towards slowing climate change.<br/> <br/> Annually, food-borne pathogens like E. coli, Listeria, and Salmonella kill an average of <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol5no5/mead.htm" rel="nofollow" target="top">1,809</a> people in the United States (CDC numbers from the last wide-report, in 1999!) Just to be absolutely clear, pathogens like E. coli and salmonella originate from animal products, i.e. feces and urine contamination. Despite this fact, vegetables and legumes show up from time-to-time as the source of food-borne illnesses. However, no sprout, spinach, strawberry or peanut needs to use the restroom at any time. Contamination of vegetables is strictly the result of animal waste runoff. Speaking of animal waste, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates <a href="http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.11034" rel="nofollow" target="top">500 million tons of solid and liquid waste yearly</a> (about 16 tons a second, if you are interested.) The facts on where that waste goes are staggering, according to a <a href="http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/pubs/rp/AAI_Issue_Brief_2_1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">2006 Tufts University report</a>. <br/> <br/> In factory farms, conditions are ripe for disease, given the animal’s constant exposure to their own feces and urine, and close “living quarters.” Antibiotics are a necessity to keep disease and infections to a minimum, and this requires an extensive number of antibiotics. In 2009, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) reported nearly <a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForIndustry/UserFees/AnimalDrugUserFeeActADUFA/UCM231851.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">29 million pounds of antibiotics</a> sold specifically for the use of livestock animals in the United States. That same year, the FDA shows human consumption of the same class of antibiotic medicines accounted for a little over <a href="http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/InformationbyDrugClass/UCM261174.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">6 million pounds</a>, approximately 75% of antibiotics used in the United States go directly to factory farm animals. A little more perspective: in 2011, the World Health Organization released a report of priority medicines for <a href="http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2011/a95053_eng.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">adults</a> and <a href="http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2011/a95054_eng.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">children</a>, listing antimicrobial/antibiotics like the 1,345, 952 million pounds of penicillin-class medicines used in livestock in 2009. In developing nations during the years 2000-2003, the <a href="http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2805%2971877-8/fulltext" rel="nofollow" target="top">WHO Child Health Epidemiology estimates</a> that lack of access to simple antibiotics like penicillin to treat pneumonia claimed 2 million children under the age of 5 years. <br/> <br/> Factory farming is not a profitable business—but it’s made profitable with your tax dollars. Factory farms could not weather the cost of antibiotics, waste cleanup, feed costs, water, shipping and land without massive handouts from the U.S. Government (i.e. you.) In <span style="font-weight: bold;">feed prices alone</span>, factory farms walked with <a href="http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/PB07-03FeedingAtTroughDec07.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">3.9 billion dollars a year</a> between the years of 1997-2005. <br/> <br/> Those who profess the benefits of eating local, free-range meat claim that their animal products avoid the problems of factory farming. Idealistic scenarios of wide grasslands, dotted with happy cows and chickens with nary a single environmental negative are rapidly spun, with a curious lack of evidence. As we would suspect, the facts do not support these claims. The simple measurement of “how far my meat/eggs/dairy” need travel is often the sole explanation from omnivores making this argument, but as we have already explored, the environmental impact of animal products are much more complex than the miles covered from the farm to the plate.<br/> <br/> No matter where a farm raises a cow or chicken, they will still need to go to the bathroom, and have the same need for water and food—waste management and water consumption is not significantly improved in the free-range farm. Free-range cows are often grass-fed, which does eliminate the need for many grains and vegetables as feed. Yet, as we’ve already seen from the U.N., factory farms already occupy 26% of the free space on Earth for livestock grazing. Grass-fed beef would require much, much more space designated strictly for feeding livestock. According to the USDA, cattle population as of <a href="http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/Catt/Catt-07-22-2011.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">July 2011 is 100.1 million</a>. If we assume an ultra-conservative estimate of 2 acres per cow to covert to the utopia of eco-friendly grass-fed livestock, this equates to a US cattle requirement of 200 million acres. Or, 312,500 square miles, which is a little over 8% of the total square miles of the United States. That is a lot of local space, and that is only accounting for the United States! <br/> <br/> A 2008 study from The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on agriculture environmental burden found that free-range livestock production increases land use by <a href="http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&ProjectID=11442&FromSearch=Y&Publisher=1&SearchText=is0205&SortString=ProjectCode&SortOrder=Asc&Paging=10#Description" rel="nofollow" target="top">65% to 200%</a>. With 26% of the total land on Earth space used for grazing pasture, and soil erosion affects <a href="ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e07.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">70% of this area</a>, exactly where are these local pastures supposed to be developed? Soil erosion is a serious challenge to grass lands in the United States; annually 6 tons of soil is lost per hectare, according to a <a href="http://www.ajcn.org/content/78/3/660S.full" rel="nofollow" target="top">2003 report</a> by the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University. The Cornell report also gives explicit comparison in water use between producing equal amounts of protein from meat vs. grain—animal protein requires 100 times more water to produce than consumed for same value of plant-based protein. Just in case you are wondering, the Cornell University report also arrived at the end conclusion that meat and lactovegetarian-based diets were unsustainable in the long term. <br/> <br/> Realistically, how many people would free-range feed? According to the USDA, in 2008 the average American omnivore ate <a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/beef_from_farm_to_table/index.asp" rel="nofollow" target="top">61 pounds of beef a year</a>, <a href="http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Pork_From_Farm_to_Table/index.asp">46 pounds of pork</a>, and (as of 2000) <a href="http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">66 pounds of poultry</a>. In 2010, the <a href="http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/LiveSlauSu/LiveSlauSu-04-25-2011.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">USDA reports</a> that 34 million beef cattle, 110 million pigs and <a href="http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/PoulSlauSu/PoulSlauSu-02-25-2011_new_format.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">8.9 billion in poultry</a> (chickens, turkeys and ducks combined) were slaughtered for meat for the US alone. The image of local, grass-fed farms is one of smaller stature and production. The suggestions that such a farm could manage the land and water resources necessary, not to mention the slaughter rate necessary to supply the demand for animal products is an exercise in denial. <br/> <br/> What of the greenhouse gas comparison of free-range local meat to that of a plant-based diet (whether local or not?) The amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses emitted in transportation of any food represents no more than 11% of consideration (4% factor in the transportation from farm to the grocery store,) based on a <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es702969f" rel="nofollow" target="top">2008 Carnegie Mellon University report</a> published in <span style="font-style: italic;">Environmental Science & Technology</span>, while the production of food accounts for over 80%. With this in mind, the same report notes that beef production is 150% more greenhouse gas intensive than poultry or fish. The least intensive greenhouse gas contributing foods were fruits, vegetables and grains—cutting out meat from your diet has a much greater positive environmental impact than would be possible under a scenario of which you bought everything you eat locally. <br/> <br/> We could address in this debate of many more issues; the risk of disease from livestock is a <a href="http://www.ilri.org/ilrinews/index.php/archives/4535" rel="nofollow" target="top">continuous, global peril</a>. Pollution from factory and free-range animal feces and urine is an <a href="http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/impacts.html" rel="nofollow" target="top">astounding health risk to all</a>, herbivore or omnivore (the Natural Resource Defense Council also discusses this danger <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/nspills.asp" rel="nofollow" target="top">at length</a>.) Nevertheless, the end emphasis is clear, whether factory farmed or free-range, animal products will <span style="font-style: italic;">never</span> equal the sustainability and efficiency of a plant-based diet. <br/> <br/> The final point to make—global warming is destroying our planet, and whether omnivore, vegetarian or vegan, this fact should be indisputable. Animal products, specifically meat consumption, are radically reshaping our land, water, and ecosystem on a global scale. There is no possible argument to defend meat consumption in environmental terms. If you want to make a real change that will have an undoubtedly positive ecological effect, walk the green talk and go veg.<br/><br/><a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/search/label/Nathan_Rivas" target="_blank">Nathan Rivas at ThisDishisVeg</a><br/>Nathan is a passionate animal advocate and vegan in the Seattle-area, and a contributor to <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/" target="_blank">This Dish is Veg</a>. He lives with his partner, Troy, and a band consisting of: a defiant dachshund, an ginormous Maine coon and a judgmental short-haired black cat. Nathan graduated with a Bachelors of Science (summa cum laude) from Northeastern University last spring, and is currently in his Masters of Science program. Nathan is at any time, 17% coffee, a slave to his Kindle, and a lover of science and mathematics. <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/rivas_nathan" target="_blank">Twitter</a> | <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001195250784" target="_blank">Facebook</a>.</p>Dear Fur Wearing Vegan-Environmentalist, You’re Not Fooling Anyonetag:arzone.ning.com,2011-11-07:4715978:BlogPost:623382011-11-07T22:24:55.000ZNRhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/NathanRivas
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>Originally Published on <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/08/dear-fur-wearing-vegan-environmentalist.html" target="_blank">This Dish is Veg</a></em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>August 26, 2011<br></br><br></br></em></p>
<p>In a twist of audacity, the fur industry has committed misdirection worthy of Houdini—fooling many a stalwart environmentalist and vegan into becoming walking advertisements for their…</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>Originally Published on <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/08/dear-fur-wearing-vegan-environmentalist.html" target="_blank">This Dish is Veg</a></em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>August 26, 2011<br/><br/></em></p>
<p>In a twist of audacity, the fur industry has committed misdirection worthy of Houdini—fooling many a stalwart environmentalist and vegan into becoming walking advertisements for their brutal business. I refer to the bizarre, somewhat recent trend of re-framing the wearing of fur as eco-friendly, and somehow removed from the animal cruelty for which it represents.<br/> <br/>
The perceptions of vintage fur as sustainable and (in a stunning leap of logic,) not contradictory to a life of lesser harm has given some vegans/vegetarians the delusion it’s somehow cruelty free, simply because the animals were killed years or decades earlier. The eco-minded individual has accepted the spoon-fed “green” platitudes of the fur industry, believing fur environmentally friendly as it’s been stripped from a mink, fox, lynx, dog or cat. In other words, animals are from nature and thus, are an ever-renewing “fabric.” Both of these arguments are entirely false and as tiresome as “I can’t go vegan, because I love cheese too much.”<br/>
<br/>
Those who wear fur utilize the same justifications made by those who eat meat and/or dairy—they flail with logic, insist that it’s good for this reason or that, but in the end, they do it because it satisfies a superficial whim. Fur is not ethical, it isn’t sustainable, nor is it environmentally friendly. Wearing a fur decades old does not expunge its barbaric representation of cruelty, and it idolizes the fur industry of which continues to pollute on a global-scale.<br/>
<br/>
Nevertheless, some of you may argue, “Isn’t the fur already dead?” In the instance of vintage fur, the animals were killed so long ago, it seems reasonable to walk around in its skin (i.e. why let it go to waste?) Well, a hamburger is dead, so is a steak—this strain of judgment invalidates one’s reason for choosing veganism altogether. If we extrapolate this logic to other areas of our lives, there is now no reason not to reap the rewards of all inhuman acts, secure in the justification that you did not have a direct hand in committing the cruelty. Conflict diamonds? Absolutely, those earrings will look <span style="font-style: italic;">smashing</span> on you! Child labor? Hells yes, wrap those sneakers up! GMC keeps building Hummers, why let 8,000 pounds of steel go to waste? Environmentalism seems ridiculous with this particular brand of wisdom, and it completely excuses any accountability that we have as individuals.</p>
<p><br/> In other words, it makes it easier for you to look like a complete idiot.<br/> <br/> Wearing vintage fur often comes with the reasoning that it’s simply too “beautiful” to part with, or that parting would be wasteful (and therefore, not environmentally friendly.) Here is why the vintage fur-wearer really doesn’t care about any of these issues; if they are really keeping a fur coat to avoid creating needless waste, the solution is simple. Create a positive from a brutal act and donate it to an animal shelter for use as bedding, or to the homeless. If the concern is truly one of environmentalism, then donating to those in need should be an obvious and easy choice. Donating repurposes the use of fur into one that does not propagate the cruelty for which it stood.<br/> <br/> Torn over what to do with your vintage fur? Turning that blight on humanity into a benefit and congratulate yourself on not being full of crap for taking the sustainability argument of vintage fur to its logical end.<br/> <br/> “But, but, it’s been passed down in my family and represents generations before me!”<br/> <br/> This familial justification is weak—many objects that are also “vintage” and held meaning to generations passed, e.g. <a href="http://www.ferris.edu/jimcrow/what.htm" rel="nofollow" target="top">Jim Crow signs</a>, <a href="http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/turner_diaries.asp"><span style="font-style: italic;">The Turner Diaries</span></a>, or just a nice <a href="http://s427.photobucket.com/albums/pp358/utopuluxe/?action=view&current=SEXISTAD.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="top">poster selling men’s slacks</a>. Someone, at some point, found these objects important or simply visually pleasing for the feelings they invoked. Today, such objects represent a failing in our humanity. Simply because we <span style="font-style: italic;">can</span> commit an act to satisfy our base desires is not a justification. Vintage fur still represents billions of deaths in painful, morally repugnant ways that should repulse us in the same way as looking upon a Jim Crow sign.<br/> <br/> To state that you played no direct hand in the act, or that the animal died x-number of years ago does not erase or minimize its needless violence. With very, very few exceptions, fur is reduction of lives to a mere object to satisfy a meaningless and superficial whim—fashion.<br/> <br/> Visit this <a href="http://sammydvintage.com/2011/01/how-to-recycle-vintage-fur/" rel="nofollow" target="top">excellent fashion blog</a> for more ideas on how to do some good with that fur coat. <br/> <br/> “Nevertheless!” Some of you may persist, ‘Isn’t fur eco-friendly? Isn’t it all natural and good to the Earth and entirely sustainable?”<br/> <br/> This is my favorite as it’s the most inexplicable, simply because a resource is natural does not make it sustainable. The nutria, commonly known as the river rat, is a sizable rodent indigenous to South America. The nutria currently holds an “invasive-species” status, wreaking havoc on the Louisiana coastal wetlands. The fur industry is holding the nutria as a shining example of its sustainable efforts, utilizing a species of animal that is destroying a natural habitat. This is nothing more than ecological Munchausen syndrome by proxy—the nutria only exists in North America because the <a href="http://www.nutria.com/site8.php" rel="nofollow" target="top">fur industry imported the species</a> in the 1950s and bred them in a fervor that eventually outgrew demand. Today, the fur industry attempts a sustainable label for profiting from wetland destruction that they played a direct part in decades earlier.<br/> <br/> We’ve already seen instances where eradication of a single species by hunting had a catastrophic effect on an eco-system. In the late 19th century, hunters nearly <a href="http://www.physorg.com/news135005962.html" rel="nofollow" target="top">wiped wolves out of Yellowstone</a>, which resulted in an intensely destructive series of events, elk overpopulation, vegetation reduction and waterway instability. Wild trapping, the fur-industry insists, is entirely selective about which animals they catch and kill. I researched endlessly for the sentient traps that knew when to “spring” and could recognize a mink from a lynx to no avail. Wild trapping unavoidably injures and kills indiscriminately—those animals that are “released” have a significantly reduced likelihood of survival. If you don’t believe me, break your ankle and try to walk home. Animal rights groups sued the State of Maine in 2007 for allowing Canadian lynx deaths (an already stressed species,) inadvertently, in fur traps. <a href="http://trappingtoday.com/index.php/2008/12/14/second-lynx-killed-in-northern-maine/" rel="nofollow" target="top">Here is a report</a> on this from <span style="font-style: italic;">Trapping Today</span>, of which the fur industry’s contempt for the Endangered Species Act is apparent,<br/><br/>
</p>
<blockquote>Incrementalism is how these [animal rights] groups eventually end up getting what they want. I know many trappers in Maine and elsewhere who would not be able to operate a trapline on a 24 hour check. I certainly wouldn’t. Think of the guys who have a full time job and are running 50-100 marten traps on the side to supplement their income. The full time trapper has been virtually eliminated from the state based on previous restrictive regulations. I think this request is the last straw.<br/><br/></blockquote>
Wow, but we’re to believe that wild fur trapping is done with a cautious and respectful eye on the at-risk animal species in a given area? Even if we ignore these facts, as the fur-wearing environmentalist is bound to do, only <a href="http://www.iftf.com/fact-sheet/2/fast-facts.html" rel="nofollow" target="top">15% of fur is wild</a>. The other 85% of fur coats and trim originates from fur farming. As most are familiar, animal agriculture is responsible for more <a href="http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html" rel="nofollow" target="top">greenhouse gas emissions, land and water destruction than automobiles</a>. Fur farms, massive waste pollution aside, import the majority of fur pelts to Asia countries, who have dramatically increased demand for fur in the past few decades. From the <a href="http://www.furcommission.com/resource/Resources/GAIN07.pdf"><span style="font-style: italic;">USDA Foreign Agricultural Service</span></a>, <br/><br/>
<blockquote>According to industry sources, a growing number of international fur traders, processors and fashion designers, have gradually shifted business to Asian countries, where cheap labor and skillful workers are plentiful. Fur manufacturing in Asia was first established in Hong Kong because of low labor costs and common use of English in the business sector. Later, some of the employees that used to work for these Hong Kong fur companies, started their own businesses in mainland China. These mainland fur companies mainly focus on garment manufacturing and usually outsource designing jobs…Industry sources told ATO/GZ that over 80% of fur garment manufacturing and raw skin processing, i.e. dyeing and dressing, takes place in South China... <br/> <br/> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Shipment from the States to China</span> <br/> Once the buyer completes his payment in full, most likely in cash, he can collect the pelts. Given the high value, they are shipped to Hong Kong via air. The major export ports in the world include Seattle, Copenhagen, Helsinki and Toronto. The industry estimates that a total value of US$500 million mink pelts of all origins are eventually shipped into China. Most buyers ship pelts through gray channels to their manufacturing plants in mainland China to avoid paying of tariffs and taxes of 39% (including 17% VAT) of the furs’ value. Industry sources told us that because profit margins from making fur garments are so slim, going through legal channels to import fur skins makes them less competitive. For example, in north China, the retail margin is said to be 10% or lower.<br/><br/></blockquote>
Well, that’s a lot of fuel used, and we all will just trust that the environmental standards are followed properly throughout. Let’s not forget about the “cleaning, softening, preserving, dyeing and drying” that must occur to prevent the pelts from rotting while you cherish their beauty. This process doesn’t include the necessity of extended care to keep that fur in top shape! The Canadian <a href="http://www.furisgreen.com/fur_care_tips.aspx" rel="nofollow" target="top">Fur is Green website</a> states, <span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span> <br/><br/>
<blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">Summer Vacation</span> <br/> Nothing shortens the lifespan of a fur like keeping it cooped up in the closet during hot summer months. Home storage, even using air conditioning or a cedar closet, will not protect your fur from drying out or from dust, dirt and insect damage. Fur vaults are specially designed environments, with carefully controlled temperature and humidity. When furs are not professionally stored, though the fur may appear undamaged, the natural oils in the leather may have dried out, prematurely aging your garment and leaving it more vulnerable to rips and tears. <br/> <br/> <span style="font-weight: bold;">Spa Treatment</span> <br/> Furs should be cleaned once a year, and by a fur specialist, never a dry cleaner. Your fur may not look dirty but it needs freshening nonetheless to remove small abrasive dirt particles and chemicals, and keep it soft. The cleaning process includes a glazing procedure, which enhances the lustre of your fur. It is also the ideal opportunity for your furrier to spot-check for any necessary repairs - before minor problems become more serious.<br/><br/></blockquote>
Oh, nothing says, “Environmentally sound” as an air conditioner for animal skins <a href="http://animals.howstuffworks.com/animal-facts/fur-info3.htm" rel="nofollow" target="top">processed with chromates, formaldehyde, bleaching agents, and dyes after transport half across the globe!</a> And let’s not forget that the preferred method of killing animals in fur farms <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/slaughter/respect_animal_human_society%20.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">is gassing them with carbon dioxide</a>!<br/> <br/> For the eco-fur wearer, this is the point of which they grasp at the last argument of the comparison between fake fur and real fur. Fake fur, they will say, is made from petro-chemicals and is therefore, not sustainable (i.e. a hybrid SUV is better than a plain, gas-guzzling SUV.) Yes, many fake furs are made from unsustainable petro-chemical sources (that do not poop billions of tons of waste, natch.) However, this is a non-starter, as fake fur is far from the only alternative in cold weather gear.<br/> <br/> Many eco-conscious US clothing manufactures have seriously stepped up their game in terms of sustainability. Patagonia is a leader, developing clothing from recycled PET bottles and in 2011, will being production of <a href="http://www.polartec.com/technologies/eco-engineering-recycled/" rel="nofollow" target="top">Reprev100</a>—a line of all-weather gear made from 100% post-consumer recycled plastic bottles. Plastic is spun into thread, woven into fabric with a 5% waste ratio. Patagonia isn’t the only game in the market; REI and Timberland are working to develop a close-loop program of recycling clothing and outerwear.<br/> <br/> So there you have it—fur is unsustainable, and it certainly isn’t cruelty-free, regardless of how long ago animals died to make a coat. If you’re going to wear fur, drop the pretense that you’re somehow eco-conscious, or animal-friendly. At best, you’re a tool for the fur industry, glamorizing and perpetuating the mother of all greenwashes, as fur (vintage or new) will never be “green.”<br/><br/>
<p><a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/search/label/Nathan_Rivas" target="_blank">Nathan Rivas at ThisDishisVeg</a><br/>Nathan is a passionate animal advocate and vegan in the Seattle-area, and a contributor to <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com" target="_blank">This Dish is Veg</a>. He lives with his partner, Troy, and a band consisting of: a defiant dachshund, an ginormous Maine coon and a judgmental short-haired black cat. Nathan graduated with a Bachelors of Science (summa cum laude) from Northeastern University last spring, and is currently in his Masters of Science program. Nathan is at any time, 17% coffee, a slave to his Kindle, and a lover of science and mathematics. <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/rivas_nathan" target="_blank">Twitter</a> | <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001195250784" target="_blank">Facebook</a>.</p>The Astounding Differences in Chimp Y-Chromosomal Structure Add Weight to Bill Banning Ape Researchtag:arzone.ning.com,2011-11-07:4715978:BlogPost:659062011-11-07T22:24:45.000ZNRhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/NathanRivas
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>Originally published at <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/09/1953hr-1513-great-ape-protection-and.html" target="_blank">This Dish is Veg</a><br></br>September 12, 2011</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em><br></br></em></p>
Before the Human Genome Project, epidemiological study of human populations, cellular and tissue research, clinical trials, and innumerable technological advances, scientists had few resources to understanding the…
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em>Originally published at <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/09/1953hr-1513-great-ape-protection-and.html" target="_blank">This Dish is Veg</a><br/>September 12, 2011</em></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><em><br/></em></p>
Before the Human Genome Project, epidemiological study of human populations, cellular and tissue research, clinical trials, and innumerable technological advances, scientists had few resources to understanding the progress of disease or injury in a living being. In recent decades, scientific progress has provided resources of incalculable benefit. For these reasons, many (as in, most of the developed world) have abandoned, or restrictively legislated, research involving humankind’s closest evolutionary relative, the chimpanzee. <br/>
<p> </p>
Today, the United States remains the only advanced nation of which still condones medical and scientific research involving chimpanzees. Representative Roscoe G. Bartlett of Maryland is looking beyond antiquated animal-based studies by introducing <a href="http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1513:">H.R. 1513</a>, the Great Ape Protection and Cost Savings Act of 2011, prohibiting medical and scientific study on chimps in the United States. <br/>
<p> </p>
H.R. 1513 seeks to ban chimpanzee research based upon the proposals that such research is too expensive, no longer in tandem with current scientific progress, yields poor results, and does not consider the unreasonable cruelty to the chimpanzee. In a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/opinion/stop-using-chimps-as-guinea-pigs.html">letter</a> published in the NY Times in August 2011, Representative Roscoe discusses his experience as a naval physiologist during the Space Program,<br/><br/>
<blockquote><p>At the time, I believed such research was worth the pain inflicted on the animals. But in the years since, our understanding of its effect on primates, as well as alternatives to it, have made great strides, to the point where I no longer believe such experiments make sense — scientifically, financially or ethically. That’s why I have introduced bipartisan legislation to phase out invasive research on great apes in the United States.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Representative Roscoe appropriately timed H.R 1513, as the <a href="http://www.iom.edu/Activities/Research/Chimpanzees.aspx">Institute of Medicine of the National Academies</a> (IOM,) upon request from the NIH & National Research Council, is currently weighing whether continued scientific and medical research warrants the use of chimpanzees. The IOMs Board on Health Sciences Policy expects to release their report at the end of 2011. </p>
<p>The chimpanzee is said to share 98% of DNA with humans—but what are the implications of such a “slight” difference in genetic material?</p>
<br/>The small physiological difference between genders has many implications in terms of medical treatment. One such example is the how men and women process pain, or respond to pain treatment. According to a <a href="http://www.anesthesia-analgesia.org/content/97/5/1464.long" rel="nofollow" target="top">2003 Tufts University study</a>, women require higher levels of morphine to achieve the same level of anesthesia. The <a href="http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_notes/NNvol21N5/mesolimbic.html">National Institute of Drug Abuse</a> notes that certain opioid compounds affect the brain’s two pain receptors in differing levels—kappa and mu opioids. The male brain has a <a href="http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/156/6/842#top" rel="nofollow" target="top">greater concentration</a> of mu opioid pain receptors, and women respond better to pain medication of which <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8898754" rel="nofollow" target="top">targets kappa opioids</a>. Even identical twins have different gene-expressions (how genes behave) studies revealing that where both twins have genetic predispositions to a disease but only one ultimately develops the condition. Researchers at the <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/art.21953/full" rel="nofollow" target="top">American College of Rheumatology</a> have shown such examples in the development of rheumatoid arthritis. <br/> <br/> What is the relevance? Men and women, even identical twins, cannot accurately predict response to disease or drugs. The Human Genome Project gave science insight into the substantial differences in X-chromosome activation between men and women (<a href="http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n7/full/5201443a.html" rel="nofollow" target="top">European Journal of Human Genetics, 2003</a>.) Identical twins possess <a href="http://www.psywww.com/intropsych/ch10_development/heritability_index.html" rel="nofollow" target="top">100% of each other’s DNA</a>, as they develop from the same zygote, men and women share over 99% of DNA. Small differences create entirely different outcomes in disease and humans response to medical treatment. <br/> <br/> These differences expand to an ocean of genetic diversity when comparing humans to chimpanzees, of who possess the estimated 98% genetic similarity. Scientists who argue for continued medical testing involving chimpanzees do so with the rational that they are the closest genetic relatives to humans. Today, medical and scientific research has progressed to the level of which small genetic variations make the possibility of accurate results similarly minute.<br/> <br/> Advocates for continued testing link chimpanzee research to successes in AIDS research/ treatment, hepatitis and cancer therapies, but the ratio of failure is high and alternative methods have succeeded,<br/>
<ul>
<li>Despite decades of chimpanzee research, there is still no HIV cure or vaccine effective in humans. HIV does not infect or interact with the chimpanzee physiology with the same behavior as human—chimps can carry the virus, but in <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t000518a.html" rel="nofollow" target="top">research have not progressed into AIDS</a>. Animal models continue to <a href="http://www.clinsci.org/cs/110/0059/1100059.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">hider the future of vaccine development</a>.</li>
<li>AZT, the first treatment for AIDS, <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1478070/pdf/pubhealthrep00170-0018.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">synthesized in-vitro in 1964</a> as an anti-cancer treatment, proved ineffective in humans (after showing promise in animal cancer-studies) until <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC180622/" rel="nofollow" target="top">another in-vitro study in 1986</a> showed it effectiveness as an anti-retroviral in HIV. With this in-vitro research and bypassing animal models, AZT <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1478070/pdf/pubhealthrep00170-0018.pdf">moved directly to human trials</a>. Seven months later, the NIH recommended AZT use to treat AIDS in the public.</li>
<li>In 1985, protease inhibitors developed using <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/82/20/7096.full.pdf+html?sid=02380e8b-bf2c-4031-90c8-da93df50608c" rel="nofollow" target="top">computer and in-vitro models</a>, also bypassing animal-models, proceeding directly to human trials.</li>
<li>In hepatitis research, the principle explanation for the use of chimpanzees is that they are the only non-humans capable of carrying the hepatitis virus—not unlike their ability to carry HIV. The hepatitis virus <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1903901/pdf/amjpathol00213-0136.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">does not affect liver enzymes</a> in chimpanzees, and does not lead to liver disease. The use of chimpanzees as <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1903901/pdf/amjpathol00213-0136.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="top">carriers of the virus</a>, due to the inability to develop a hepatitis cell-culture, is no longer necessary. In 2005, Rockefeller University developed the first hepatitis viral strain created <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/309/5734/623.full?sid=1cf19753-a427-4f30-acb2-877ea7508b71" rel="nofollow" target="top">in cell-culture</a>, allowing study of the hepatitis virus progression in human context.</li>
</ul>
<p><br/>In January of 2010, a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html" rel="nofollow" target="top">study published in</a> <span style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html" rel="nofollow" target="top">Nature</a></span> revealed previously unknown differences between humans and chimpanzee at the genetic level. The chimpanzee contains a 44% larger density of genes in the male-specific regions of the Y-chromosome. Until 2010, the chimpanzee DNA had not been fully sequenced, and thus, the assessment of 98% likeness to human DNA was made without the ability to “see” chimp DNA in its entirety. This is not unlike judging whether currency is counterfeit or genuine based strictly upon whether it “looks right.” With the entire chimp DNA sequence revealed, an accurate comparison of their Y-chromosomal structure is possible. <br/> <br/> The differences in chimpanzee Y-chromosomal structure are astounding—not only did this reveal a larger number of genes, but entirely different gene categories than humans (a little over 30 %.) Genetic variations in humans who share over 99% of their DNA have innumerable outcomes—and yet the argument of chimps as necessary for medical advancement persists.<br/> <br/> Medical and scientific advancement has revealed vast differences between human’s closest genetic relative. If there were to be an instance of a non-human genetic relative responding to research that so benefits humankind, sufficient to outweigh its ethical implications, the chimpanzee would be such an example. However, chimpanzee research is <a href="http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/air/cost_for_caring_housing_of_chimpanzees_20110609.htm" rel="nofollow" target="top">expensive</a>, inadequate, and unjustifiable for its cruelty to, as Representative Roscoe states, “these magnificent and innocent animals.” <br/> <br/> To do more to support Representative Roscoe’s bill, <a href="http://thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1513:" rel="nofollow" target="top">H.R. 1531</a>, which is currently in the House Subcommittee of Health, <a href="https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml">contact your local representative</a>. <br/> <br/> The study in Nature (“<a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html" rel="nofollow" target="top">Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content</a>,”) is fascinating! The abstract is available to the public, but feel free to write to nathan@thisdishisveg.com for a PDF version of the study in its entirety.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/search/label/Nathan_Rivas" target="_blank">Nathan Rivas at ThisDishisVeg</a><br/> Nathan is a passionate animal advocate and vegan in the Seattle-area, and a contributor to <a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/" target="_blank">This Dish is Veg</a>. He lives with his partner, Troy, and a band consisting of: a defiant dachshund, an ginormous Maine coon and a judgmental short-haired black cat. Nathan graduated with a Bachelors of Science (summa cum laude) from Northeastern University last spring, and is currently in his Masters of Science program. Nathan is at any time, 17% coffee, a slave to his Kindle, and a lover of science and mathematics. <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/rivas_nathan" target="_blank">Twitter</a> | <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001195250784" target="_blank">Facebook</a>.</p>The VegNews Animal Testing Legislation Controversy: A Response to the Responsetag:arzone.ning.com,2011-08-18:4715978:BlogPost:604222011-08-18T20:30:00.000ZNRhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/NathanRivas
<p>Whether you’re a vegan, vegetarian, animal-rights activist, or combination thereof, you got there because you asked questions. You questioned yourself about why you loved some animals and ate others, and you questioned others about why humankind uses animals for clothing, for medical testing, or for entertainment. Questioning the status quo is exactly why many of us are the people we are today—and we should never let that quality go, especially questioning those who would hold a place of…</p>
<p>Whether you’re a vegan, vegetarian, animal-rights activist, or combination thereof, you got there because you asked questions. You questioned yourself about why you loved some animals and ate others, and you questioned others about why humankind uses animals for clothing, for medical testing, or for entertainment. Questioning the status quo is exactly why many of us are the people we are today—and we should never let that quality go, especially questioning those who would hold a place of influence in the vegan/vegetarian and animal-rights community. This is why I was compelled to question VegNews’ judgment and journalistic standards with their <i>Skin Deep</i> article from the June/August 2011 issue.<br/> <br/> In my article, “<a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/08/1891vegnews-magazine-piece-endorses.html">VegNews Magazine Piece Endorses Animal Testing Legislation</a>,” I questioned Jennifer Chen’s work—of which lacked research, credibility, and shockingly, gave a voice to legislation efforts that would cost hundreds of thousands of animal lives to satisfy the re-testing requirements of H.R. 2359, the “Safe Cosmetics Act.” It’s important that you know more about what drove me to write the article, and the facts that clearly demonstrate the lack of effort and honesty in Chen’s <i>Skin Deep</i> piece. If you wrote VegNews asking for a response to my article, you probably got something like this in reply,</p>
<blockquote><p>----- Original Message -----<br/> From: Elizabeth Castoria<br/> Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 1:06 pm<br/> Subject: Letter to VegNews<br/> To: ………………………<br/> <br/> Hi ……,<br/> <br/> Thanks so much for your note, and we're more than happy to offer<br/> a response. Of course, VegNews does not support animal testing.<br/> The author of the article on toxic cosmetics, a VegNews staff<br/> member and accomplished journalist, researched this story<br/> tirelessly and did an excellent job reporting on the lack of<br/> regulation in the personal care industry.<br/> <br/> One sentence in the article mentions the Environmental Working<br/> Group, and it is not an endorsement. We simply state that the<br/> group conducted a survey rating commercial sunscreens, and<br/> included many cruelty-free brands in that survey. That's all.<br/> Feel free to read the article here, starting on page 80:<br/> <br/> <a href="http://veg.gy/niYME">http://veg.gy/niYME</a><br/> <br/> Should you have any further questions, please let us know!<br/> <br/> Most sincerely,<br/> Elizabeth</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I removed the recipient’s name, as a reader forwarded the email (thank you!) Castoria’s response surprised me, especially the claim that we’ve had no correspondence, or that I didn’t respond to their efforts to answer my questions on Facebook. Castoria was the first person to write back to me regarding my concerns over the <i>Skin Deep</i> article...</p>
<p>Continue on at This Dish is Veg: <em><a href="http://www.thisdishisvegetarian.com/2011/08/1911the-vegnews-animal-testing.html" target="_blank">The VegNews Animal Testing Legislation Controversy: A Response to the Response</a></em>.</p>
<br/>VegNews Magazine Endorses Animal Testing Legislation?tag:arzone.ning.com,2011-08-10:4715978:BlogPost:580232011-08-10T05:00:00.000ZNRhttps://arzone.ning.com/profile/NathanRivas
Many of us are concerned with the animal testing status of our cosmetics and skin care products. Websites like <strong><em><a href="http://www.leapingbunny.org/" target="_blank">Leaping Bunny</a></em></strong> have devoted their entire existence to ensuring the public has easy access to cosmetic companies that no longer test their products at any stage of development. How would you feel if this were no longer an option? There is currently legislation that could eliminate your choice for…
Many of us are concerned with the animal testing status of our cosmetics and skin care products. Websites like <strong><em><a href="http://www.leapingbunny.org/" target="_blank">Leaping Bunny</a></em></strong> have devoted their entire existence to ensuring the public has easy access to cosmetic companies that no longer test their products at any stage of development. How would you feel if this were no longer an option? There is currently legislation that could eliminate your choice for cruelty-free cosmetics, H.R. 2359 (AKA the “Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011,”) now in the House of Representatives, which would require every natural and synthetic ingredient used in personal care to undergo testing (redundant, in many instances) for safety, much of which would be animal-based. <a href="http://personalcaretruth.com/2011/07/h-r-2359-safe-cosmetics-act-of-2011/"><strong>H.R. 2359</strong></a> has inadvertently gained endorsement from a surprising source—<em>VegNews Magazine</em>.<br/>
<p> </p>
<p>In <a href="http://www.vegnews.com/web/home.do" target="_blank">VegNews’</a> current issue, July/August 2011, VN Associate Editor Jennifer Chen’s article,”Skin Deep,” promotes the work and methods of the EWG (Environmental Working Group,) and voices support for their legislation efforts (one failed in 2010, the other introduced in 2011, is H.R. 2359.) H.R. 2359 mandates a myriad of testing for ingredients, and the <em>ingredients</em> of ingredients (e.g. extracts of fruit are comprised of dozens of chemical compounds, and all of these chemicals must be tested,) and there are few non-animal FDA approved options (none for tests like Lethal-Dose 50.) Chen uses H.R. 2359 and the EWG as her sole reference to her article (rife with serious lapses in research,) entirely unaware that the bill would cost hundreds of thousands of animal lives should it pass.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This is <em>VegNews</em>—supposed voice for the vegan/vegetarian community, proponent of the animal rights movement, blithely endorsing animal testing legislation because of poor journalistic standards.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Using animal testing in cosmetics cannot be justified, given the extensive safety data already collected (and easily available with a little research,) combined with decades of safe use by humans—there is yet to be a single person harmed from modern cosmetics or skin care. Worse yet, the animal-based studies that the EWG cherry-picks doesn’t even apply to how natural or synthetic chemicals react with the human body—force feeding animals massive quantities of ingredients used in your moisturizer isn’t going to improve your personal care choices. Yet, the EWG and their H.R. 2359 bill are desperate to convince you that animal testing is a necessity, and that all skin care companies, both small and large, are determined to poison you. Jennifer Chen naively regurgitates these scare tactics—sunscreens are poison and preservatives will give you cancer, and H.R. 2359 is the answer!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>In case you’re wondering how easily Jennifer Chen could have debunked the claims of the EWG and H.R. 2359, here are studies conducted on a global scale, from independent medical and scientific committees, refuting their most common fear campaigns used (and perpetuated by <em>VegNews</em>):</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="http://www.aad.org/stories-and-news/news-releases/sunscreens-remain-safe-effective-form-of-sun-protection" target="_blank">American Academy of Dermatology</a></li>
<li><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1600-0781.2011.00557.x/full" target="_blank">Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York</a></li>
<li><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/opinions/sccnfp_opinions_97_04/sccp_out145_en.htm" target="_blank">European Commission for Public Health</a></li>
<li><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_o_041.pdf" target="_self">EU Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS) Opinion on Parabens <br/></a></li>
<li><a href="http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/24/toxsci.kfr160.abstract">Oxford Journal of Toxicological Sciences</a></li>
<li><a href="http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/docs/sccp_o_159.pdf" target="_blank">Opinion On Benzophenone-3</a> (another EU panel regarding oxybenzone)</li>
<li><a href="http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/othercarcinogens/athome/antiperspirants-and-breast-cancer-risk">The American Cancer Society</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/ProductandIngredientSafety/SelectedCosmeticIngredients/ucm128042.htm">The Food & Drug Administration</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.cctfa.ca/site/eblasts/DSF_1110/HC_Letter_181010.pdf">Health Canada, Consumer Safety Branch</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1435609/">Institute for Environmental Toxicology, MSU</a></li>
<li><a href="http://www.skincancer.org/response-to-the-environmental-working-group-2010.html">Skin Cancer Foundation</a></li>
</ul>
OR, she could have given a nod to journalistic integrity and read <strong><a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr2359ih/xml/BILLS-112hr2359ih.xml#toc-H10039F2DEA174CD3B3BC3899C1D61736" target="_blank">H.R. 2359</a></strong> herself. Chen would have realized what a bad idea it would have been to endorse the need for the bill, given its horrific consequences of animal research. The EWG has included a short section encouraging animal testing alternatives; this is meaningless PR given that the bill would only allow the majority of cosmetic companies a year to submit their test results to the FDA. With many categories of toxicity testing without animal testing alternatives, certainly none would draft into law within a year’s time.<br/>
<p> </p>
<p>The argument that <em>VegNews</em> is using the EWG as a reference (and that Chen is not *really* endorsing EWGs H.R. 2359 legislation) does not hold up. Chen makes it clear that we need H.R. 2359 and groups like the EWG to protect us with statements like, “Beauty companies are not required to release ingredient data.” Except that they are, and do per the <strong><a href="http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/CosmeticLabelingLabelClaims/CosmeticLabelingManual/ucm126440.htm" target="_blank">General Regulations for the Enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act</a></strong>, which even includes sunscreen ingredient regulations (which Chen insists doesn’t exist.) The FDA even offers an easy-to-read breakdown, which specifically applies to cosmetics: <a href="http://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmeticlabelinglabelclaims/cosmeticlabelingmanual/ucm126444.htm#clga" target="_blank"><strong>Cosmetic Labeling Regulations as Published in Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 701, 740.</strong></a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>At no point in Chen’s article, not even as she builds to her official plug for the Safe Cosmetic Act efforts from 2010 and 2011, does she inform the readers of <em>VegNews</em> of the magnitude of animal testing required by every cosmetic company in the US should this bill pass into law. How would the reader of <em>VegNews</em> know, after reading Chen’s paraphrasing article of EWG scare tactics that they would be supporting one of the biggest animal testing measures in history by supporting this bill? What is arguably worse is that these same readers will likely attempt to convince the cosmetic companies they shop with to support H.R. 2359!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>As H.R. 2359: Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011 would leave companies no choice but to play a role in animal testing, this would obliterate websites like Leaping Bunny.org, or require them to drastically alter their membership requirements. What can you do? Talk to your favorite skin care company about this measure and make sure they understand the reality of H.R. 2359. Talk to <em>VegNews</em> (good luck, they haven’t been very willing to respond to questions about this measure, or VN Associate Editor Jennifer Chen’s decision to endorse legislative efforts of which she knows nothing,) at <strong><a href="mailto:letters@vegnews.com" target="_blank">letters@vegnews.com</a></strong> and ask them why animal testing is suddenly not such a big deal anymore. If you are feeling particularly incensed, send a quick message to the advertisers of <em>VegNews</em> and ask them if they are aware of these shenanigans. Or go to the source, the EWG and their spawn, the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics group, and let them know you don’t support their approach, and that animal testing in cosmetics is unacceptable.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If you are wondering about the appropriateness of an organization like the EWG developing legislation of this sort, surprisingly, the founders of H.R. 2359 are social workers and media strategists. Yes, <em>social workers and media strategists</em> are playing “<em>I can has science</em>”** on a national level with your personal care products. This is akin to looking to creationists to re-write science curriculum’s in the United States. Don’t fall for the work of media strategists—keep your right to choose cruelty-free skin care and cosmetics and fight for legislation that makes sense.</p>
<p> </p>
<p class="hilight">Do we need greater oversight of cosmetics and skin care? Absolutely—I agree with the idea of greater transparency for consumers. If a shopper wants to ensure they are buying cruelty free, they should have confidence in these choices. If a consumer wants to ensure their products that bear the “organic” label are truly organic, then this should be a choice made free from a nagging doubt. Whatever your personal care product preferences, you won’t find an argument from me as long as it doesn’t involve needless animal research and impossibly incompetents legislation like H.R. 2359. However, what lobbyist groups like the EWG (don’t believe their Oliver Twist-like pleas for money—the top 8 of that organization are <strong><a href="http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2008/522/148/2008-522148600-054ea3f1-9.pdf" target="_blank">pulling in a cool $1,000,000+ annually</a></strong>, not exactly non-profit salaries,) propose is not the answer. That <em>VegNews</em> Magazine failed to do their research before endorsing such ethically antonymous legislation is nothing short of an utter failure of their existence as a voice for the animal-rights/vegan & vegetarian community.</p>