[-V-]

A PETA loving friend of mine trapped in the Mormon church in Utah emailed me asking "how she should I respond" to an editorial from a local paper someone sent her entitled "PETA is bad for animals and people".

We've all heard it before -- those crazy PETA people did this or that, blah, blah, blah.

In my infinite wisdom I responded,

Simple, grasshopper. Tell them even IF individuals representing PETA were guilty of indiscretions, blaming the entire organization and negating all the good they do would be like you condemning the whole CHURCH for every pediphile Priest or Mormon practitioner who marries multiple underage girls.

If your faith in God was rocked by every one of his children that sinned there wouldn't be any church at all.

[Jane of Arc]

Dang ... you're wise -V-! That's why I like you! :sunny:

[-V-]

bless you my child

[Lionhearted]

I suppose I should preface this by state that -V- and I will never agree on certain subjects, and I have become okay with that. I post this not to start a flame war or any such thing though -V- may think differently. That said, I have to put myself in the camp of PeTA naysayers and not because I disagree (which I do on many but not all issues) but I find their tactics to be as offensive the tactics used by some of our least favorite politicians. Interesting article with links

Why I Think PETA is the WORST Kind of Hypocrite (http://www.kookycongos.ca/peta.htm)

IN SUMMARY...

In the instances cited above, it seems to me PETA is so busy pushing its own agenda, it does not have time to bother with things like "facts."

Not only do they appear to engage in hypocrisy, it seems to me when someone like myself engages in a dialogue with them, they tell outright lies. At least it seems to me, Ms. Bacchieri-Jones lied to me in telling me the exact opposite of what PETA is doing.

Now, you tell me ... is this an organization that truly has animal welfare as its true priority? And if you've supported them in the past, or have ever thought about supporting them, do you really want to do that, given the situations I've just described?

Perhaps you should email Ms. Jill Bacchieri-Jones and tell her your concerns about PETA's self-serving, hypocritical, misinformed practices.

BTW, if you have any doubts as to my veracity in these matters, email me and I'll forward to you any of the PETA newsletters which contained this material I'm citing, and you can read it for yourself.

Finally, you may wonder what this is doing on a website about parrots? Specifically, it does not deal with parrots - although PETA does have a campaign going to ban parrots as pets.

However, the main reason I feel it is important to inform people about this is because I care deeply for the welfare of ALL animals - wild and domestic - and it sickens me to think people are giving hundreds of thousands dollars a year to an organization like this - an organization that often does much more harm than good - rather than to legitimate, well-run organizations like the World Wildlife Fund or the World Parrot Trust.


or this commentary in the Oregon Daily Emerald (http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2003/11/14/Commentary/Preposterous.Peta-1982517.shtml)

On its frequently asked questions page, PETA's Web site quotes the celebrated humanitarian Albert Schweitzer: "Aware of the problems and responsibilities an expanded ethic brings with it, said we each must 'live daily from judgment to judgment, deciding each case as it arises, as wisely and mercifully as we can.'"

But, as its conduct has illustrated time and time again, PETA lacks the wisdom to participate in a fair and rational discussion of its grievances, and eschews mercy by supporting terrorists and taking unfair advantage of human tragedies whenever it suits its bizarre, misguided agenda.

According to nonprofit tax forms filed with the Internal Revenue Service, PETA spent only $6,100 of its $10.9 million budget on animal shelters in fiscal year 1996. It seems, then, that The Price Is Right host Bob Barker -- who founded the DJ&T Foundation, an organization that funds low-cost animal clinics to fight animal overpopulation -- has done more for Friskie and millions of other animals nationwide than PETA ever has.

(Oh, and by the way, don't forget to spay or neuter your pets.)

Personally I would rather folks support the ASPCA or WWF (thats the World Wildlife Federation not the World Wrestling Federation) than these self aggrandizing, hypocrites.

[Lionhearted]

Sorry but forgot to post this little tidbit from No Kill Now (http://www.nokillnow.com/petaBarakatringling.htm)

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) - It may seem surprising that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - a group that often comes to the defense of rats - euthanized more than 1,300 cats and dogs last year.

But PETA President Ingrid Newkirk says it was the only humane thing to do. Last year, the Norfolk-based animal-rights group took in 2,103 companion animals. It was able to find homes for 386, and put down 1,325. (Transfers and reclamations by owners accounted for most of the rest of the animals PETA took in.)

and this (http://www.nokillnow.com/PETAIngridNewkirkResign.htm)

In 2003 we learned for the first time that Ingrid Newkirk - tireless defender of animals - has another face. During the 1970's her chosen profession was "dog catcher" and killer. Newkirk unabashedly describes her zeal for killing in her own words: "I'd go to work early, before anyone got there, and I would just kill the animals myself...I must have killed a thousand of them, sometimes dozens every day." She was so good at it she rose through the ranks to become director of District of Columbia's high-kill pound where she reigned for some years. There, under her rule, untold thousands more died.

Oddly one thing I did learn from this research was that PeTA and I have the same philosophy regarding feral cats. I just felt this needed to be posted in case some folks thought PeTA was about not killing at all.

[-V-]

actually, thanks for your articles, lion. They are typical examples of the blah blah I was talking about. I'd like to put more into this thread and will, but right now I've got, to use the worst expression possible in this case, "bigger fish to fry".

Rather than a shelter, PETA is people for the ethical treatment of animals wherever they live and breath. How they determine what is "ethical" in a given situation is open to debate but, overall, I have found their heart is always in the right place.

I would do some things differently, but, overall, I trust their judgement. So much so that when I die the bulk of my wordly possesions are already willed to them.

Anyone who is not already, or open to, being a vegetarian or vegan for ethical reasons is really not at a level of understanding of this issue to not react defensively to what PETA is and does. In that case, it is not a short answer. But I will go there when I have more time.

[haus]

1. Eat Mormons, not kitties! (be careful not to reword that)
2. To me, the important thing is that PETA does an admirable job of moving the Overton Window. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_Window)
3. This isn't one of my issues. Philosophically, I'm all for the suffering of all cows, many birds, most cats, and a good number of dogs. That said, I didn't see anything in the quote boxes that made sense. The statistic about the animal shelters was in the same universe as stuff that makes sense, but it doesn't. Oh yeah, fish are bastards, too. I don't like them at all.

[Lionhearted]

Oh when will I ever learn! I was simply attempting to post what I see as the gross hypocrisy of PeTA. I was not attempting to disrespect anyone’s choices or offend anyone’s sensibilities. If you do not see what I posted as hypocrisy, then fine, that is your choice. There is a good deal of crap out there (on the net) deriding animal-rights and animal-welfare activists and I personally see groups like PeTA doing more harm than good to progressive causes (generally speaking). I am sorry that you feel my level of understanding is not to the point where I can overlook what I see as hypocrisy or that what I put in quote boxes was senseless, I suppose I was just too damn dumb to leave the topic alone, which in retrospect, I should have done. I guess there are just topics we all care about to the point of being almost close minded where said topics are concerned.

I freely admit to being a reprobate and I can live with that, in fact I even like me. I like you guys as well.

I would kindly ask that you delete my posts on this topic and I in turn will promise to never venture into this part of the forums again.

[-V-]

Lion, I like you being IN this thread. The debates I have with fellow progressives are the most enlightening for both sides of the issue. I do agree with you on other issues and that is in indication that if we both were exposed to the same level of information on this one we probably wouldn't be as far apart as you assume.

I understand the claims of hypocricy. Many people share those claims. They are thread worthy, and welcome. Please do check back here when I write my essay and feel free to critique it.

[Wafflepudding]

I'll start giving PETA members some credit when they stop using any and all products of animal origin and derivation or products that involved unnecesary animal deaths (incluiding but not limited to medicines, cosmetics, apparel, and foodstuffs). Never gonna happen, Newkirk is too fond of living to stop taking insulin instead of, say, controlling her sugar intake. I heard about her will stunt though, how much do you think Newkirk Nuggets will go for? I bet they're nice with gravy :P

By the way, just a question, how can Lionhearted's claims be both "threadworthy" and worthless "blahblah"? Yeah I know you didn't say worthless but by dismissing them as "blahblah" you might as well have told him he was brainless.

[Jane of Arc]

Pudding,

Are you a vegetarian?

Do you use animal by-products?

Do you use products tested on animals?

Just wondering where your ethical high ground comes into play when you judge?

[-V-]

as you know, Jane, when Waffle says I'll start giving PETA members some credit when they stop using any and all products of animal origin it eases his conscience to manufacture a moral equivalency between his own behavior and a Peta person's behavior based on the accusation that the Peta person is not perfect either. However, as all 3 of us know, someone who steals cars could say we are all thieves because we ignore the copyright infringement warning on a videotape but they are not moral equivalents.

It is interesting, Waffle, how high the bar is often set for animal rights activists...

-- would you not give a fireman credit for risking his life fighting fires because he occasionaly smoked and tossed it without putting it out first?

-- not appreciate a social worker because she occasionally tunes out her husband's "hard day" story when they come home from work?

-- not applaude a man who reaches into his pocket and gives a homeless person $10 because he had $20 in his other pocket?

and on, and on, and turn down your defense mechanism and give a Peta person a big hug next time you see one!


I know you didn't say worthless but by dismissing (his claims) as "blahblah" you might as well have told him he was brainless.
I say both of your arguments are discriminatory in nature but certainly not brainless. It takes a very active defensive mechanism in the brain to lay out the case to justify discrimination and sometimes it is the most intelligent human beings who are best at constructing those defenses. In the end, however, I would indeed DISMISS anyone who tries to make a case for torturing a cat or dog and so would YOU or anyone else on this forum. The only difference between us, is I also apply that DISMISSAL to the torture of cows, pigs, and chickens.

[Wafflepudding]

Pudding,

Are you a vegetarian?

Do you use animal by-products?

Do you use products tested on animals?

Just wondering where your ethical high ground comes into play when you judge?

1.- Nope, not a vegetarian.

2.- Yes. I'm wearing leather shoes and a belt right now, I also own a leather jacket, a leather bike seat, and a leather cap (which was a gift and I never wear anyway).

3.- To the best of my knowledge, no.

The problem is I'm well aware I'm not on your high ground, and I don't need to, because I'm stating my opinion, not judging. The difference? I know it's just my opinion, and I don't go out there yelling "PETA IS MURDER", publishing pamphlets against PETA and handing them out to little kids, or otherwise shoving my agenda down people's throats the way PETA does.

I'm all for saving endagered species and limiting urban sprawl and encroachment around natural habitats. I'm all against bathing people in animal blood cause I'm an opinionated jackass wanting to impose my ethics on the rest of the world.

[-V-]

Waffle, you can separate animal issues from human issues if you choose, but it is purely illogical to separate the (peaceful) methods which one expresses their passion for any issue they believe in strongly.

Did you ever stand on a streetcorner and protest anything in your life? Was Martin Luther King and Ghandi wrong for peacefully shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats?

Aren't you aggressively pushing your ideas on this public forum for thousands to see and be influenced by?

you could otherwise be quietly reading a book right now instead of reading this and working out a convincing reply!

[Wafflepudding]

When my replies start incluiding ruining other people's clothes, making death threats to researchers and burning laboratories to the ground potentially setting back useful research (even though the gesture will result in the death of more animals to recoup lost experimental data) or screaming and yelling at people why they deserve my scorn, not only will I not be heard, chances are I'll do hard time.

Reducing animal suffering is a noble goal, it's the end result of PETA's actions, and their means what I seriously object to. As some people have said here, there are other animal rights organizations around with a much better record.

[-V-]

you, I, and PETA are all in agreement that protest should be conducted legally.

[Jane of Arc]

Reducing animal suffering is a noble goal ...

Pudding,

Consider becoming a vegetarian. Just CONSIDER it because it reduces animal suffering. If you hunt and only kill the meat you eat while treating the animal with the utmost respect ... that's cool. If you eat packaged meat of any type, consider vegetarianism for your own health, as well as reducing the suffering of animals. It is a noble goal. :sunny:

[JamesP]

Personally I would rather folks support the ASPCA or WWF (thats the World Wildlife Federation not the World Wrestling Federation) than these self aggrandizing, hypocrites.

I must admit that the phrase "self aggrandizing" has a slight ring of truth to it for me when it comes to Peta and the more rabid & radical animal rights activists.

While I applaud their goals and the value of many of their activities that educate the public on issues surrounding the treatment of animals, the excessive sanctimony of some reminds me of a bumper sticker that simply says:

"Against abortion? Don't have one."

How about....

"Think meat is murder? Don't eat it."

[-V-]

How about....
"Think meat is murder? Don't eat it."

amazing how bright people lose perspective in defense of what they desire, or as Cleveland Amory put it "Man has an infinite capacity to rationalize his behavior,
especially when it comes to something he wants to eat"

while we're dispensing with logic:

"think burning a witch is murder, don't burn one"
"think slavery is unjust, don't buy one"
"think torturing kittens is cruel, don't drown one"
"think U.S. policy is wrong, move to Canada"

and let's make sure to politely ask our police to desist with acts of police brutality, lest we raise our voice, insult some egos and risk being percieved as "self aggrandizing"

keep stepping into my animal rights spider web my fellow progressives and you'll get stuck every time..

[Wafflepudding]

you, I, and PETA are all in agreement that protest should be conducted legally.

How does PETA's tacit (and sometimes outspoken) support for the ELF, ALF and their more violent branches the ARM and JD fit into that statement?

Before you keep bringing up animal rights arguments, consider the issue here is PETA.

[JamesP]

amazing how bright people lose perspective in defense of what they desire, or as Cleveland Amory put it "Man has an infinite capacity to rationalize his behavior,
especially when it comes to something he wants to eat"

while we're dispensing with logic:

"think burning a witch is murder, don't burn one"
"think slavery is unjust, don't buy one"
"think torturing kittens is cruel, don't drown one"
"think U.S. policy is wrong, move to Canada"

and let's make sure to politely ask our police to desist with acts of police brutality, lest we raise our voice, insult some egos and risk being percieved as "self aggrandizing"

keep stepping into my animal rights spider web my fellow progressives and you'll get stuck every time..

Very cheap "Peta talking points response". These are not valid comparisons and someone of your "clearly superior intellect and moral stature" should recognize that.

Not only are you "self-aggrandizing" in this thread, but "childishly arrogant"

Oh how you like to flatter yourself, Mr. blue-eyed Spider!

So what of the "right to life" movement and the "anti-gay" movement.... they also believe themselves to be "the righteous ones" who must impose their view absolutely on all others.... after all, only they (and you) truly understand what is right.

Isn't there room for different views on complex issues?

I applaud your reasonable efforts to persuade and I agree with most of your premise, but "self-aggrandizing arrogance" is a turn off that will lose you many more converts than you will gain. It's not your substance, but your style that offends. But then, maybe you don't care. It's may be more about you than the animals, after all.

Any other cute phrases in the Peta playbook.... maybe a Hitler reference waiting in the wings?

[-V-]

don't challenge me jimmyp. you know me, you've seen what i can do...

Very cheap "Peta talking points response".

I wouldn't know what the peta talking points are. I don't have to research respect for life. And it doesn't take much to apply similar consideration to a pig that I apply to my cat. Common sense guided by compassion is not rocket science.

These are not valid comparisons

In what world is
"Think meat is murder? Don't eat it."
not like
"Think torturing kittens is cruel, Don't drown one"?
and
getting in people's face about police brutality
not like
getting in people's face about animal abuse
or global warming
or any issue

So what of the "right to life" movement and the "anti-gay" movement.... they also believe themselves to be "the righteous ones" who must impose their view absolutely on all others.... after all, only they (and you) truly understand what is right.

what is your point? That...

--Martin Luther King should not have marched for equal rights because he could have been wrong?

--Women shouldn't have marched for voting rights because they could have been wrong?.

--You should not march on Washington and hollar about pulling out of Iraq because YOU could be wrong?.

(to reiterate)
and if you did, and you were the loudest most "self-aggrandizing" person there and you wanted a medal for it, I'd say "silver or gold?"

[Lionhearted]

-V-don't challenge me jimmyp. you know me, you've seen what i can do..
When I first read James' post, my first thought was that he was a bit harsh. After reading your response, I now feel he was remarkably restrained, and the above quote is without a doubt one of the most arrogant statements I have ever seen in my time on this forum. I swear on this topic trying to debate or converse with you is akin to trying to reason with a fundie.

[Wafflepudding]

Meh, 'tis ok, everyone needs a crusade

[JamesP]

Meh, 'tis ok, everyone needs a crusade

Yes, Waffle, and something to make them feel really "special".

In V's defense, he is rarely quite so offensive, intolerant, absolutist and positively right-wing on a subject.

This is one that he deems his "specialty" and, strangly, it drains his rationality, perspective and any sense of respect for views that stray from his own.

[-V-]

and if i wasn't so "arrogant, offensive, intolerant, etc.." would all of you manly men have wandered into the Animal Sanctuary to hear yet more about the plight of the lowly chicken?

as for respect for other viewpoints on this issue, indeed i have none

supporting animal abuse because you like the taste of their flesh is not a viewpoint...

it's a selfish, nasty little habit that progressives are particularly sensitive about being called out on because being on the non-compassionate side of an issue is less flattering to their self image

put some barbacue sauce on that if it helps to go down easier my brothers, but it is what it is

[Wafflepudding]

Actually, I came here to check people's position on pet shops, but I got sidetracked. Intense arguments do that to me.

[JamesP]

it's a selfish, nasty little habit that progressives are particularly sensitive about being called out on because being on the non-compassionate side of an issue is less flattering to their self image

put some barbacue sauce on that if it helps to go down easier my brothers, but it is what it is

Simmer down, boy, or that beautiful blue eye may go all bloodshot with indignation..... and, no, the barbecue sauce doesn't hide the bitter taste of your rather grandiose self-righteousness with respect to the chicken :D .

At the risk of "encouraging" you further, let's explore the topic a bit more. Maybe you can convert some sinners here if we understand you better.

Where lies the greatest immorality (so many in the world to choose from and you choose to obsess about the chicken- an odd choice relatively speaking, but so be it):

- Is the breeding and feeding of the chicken bad?
I assume not.

- Is the mistreatment of the chicken prior to it's demise the worst of it?
Yes or no?

- or is it the "murder of the chicken" that is the greatest transgression?

- or the eating of it, once it is murdered? Is this the worst?

What would be the natural state of the chicken today if it were not a food source? Would chickens still exist in the wild? If they ceased to be a food source for humans, what would happen to the chicken? Would it be happier, healthier, more plentiful?

What is your vision for the chicken... in a perfect world?

Are any of these questions at all relevant to the moral issue?

I ask these question not completely "tongue in cheek". Try to answer seriously....just for fun. I want to give you a forum for imparting your view to the unwashed and I do want to "see you more clearly", "follow you more nearly", you know.... day by day.
Just don't accuse me of torturing kittens again. It hurts my feelings. :notworthy:

[-V-]

- Is the breeding and feeding of the chicken bad? i do not know breeding procedures but short of them dying, they are fed only what is required for them to grow fat, not healthy (full details in the next post if you are sincerely interested)

Is the mistreatment of the chicken prior to it's demise the worst of it? Yes or no? yes

is it the "murder of the chicken" that is the greatest transgression? no

or the eating of it, once it is murdered? Is this the worst? no, you are welcome to eat them when they die -- for that matter, eat me!

What would be the natural state of the chicken today if it were not a food source? Would chickens still exist in the wild? If they ceased to be a food source for humans, what would happen to the chicken? Would it be happier, healthier, more plentiful? same as a squirrel, to all your questions

What is your vision for the chicken... in a perfect world? life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

Are any of these questions at all relevant to the moral issue? some. thanks for asking

now someone, anyone, tell me,

if it would not be self-righteous and arrogant for me to be intolerant of a man claiming he has the right to abuse a woman, why is it self-righteous and arrogant for me to be intolerant of a man claiming he has the right to abuse a pig but not a dog? (pigs have a higher measured IQ btw)

[-V-]

As in any business, space costs money, therefore factory farm chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows are bred in the minimum amount of space needed to keep them alive. John Robbins (author of Diet for a New America) reports that at "Egg City" in Moorpark, California 3 million hens are housed five to each 16-by-18 inch cage. In addition to minimal space, baby calves will also have their heads restrained and be kept in total darkness until the day they are slaughtered. Many will go blind. The mental and physical health of all the animals is further compromised by the toxic gases that form from the accumulation of urine and feces. Unfortunately for business, animals confined under these conditions will frequently go insane and harm or eat one another. To circumvent these problems, it has become customary to cut off chicken's beaks and toes, de-horn and castrate cattle, and cut off pig's tails before they can be cannibalized by other pigs.

Diet is also a business factor. Since livestock are sold by their weight, not their health, hormones and questionable feed products are utilized for low cost weight gain. For example, cow feed may include sawdust, shredded cardboard and newspapers (including the Sunday comics), processed sewage, cement dust, and other items treated with artificial flavors and aromas. Scientists at the University of Arizona are working on additional methods of getting the animals to eat the "feed bunk" (Robbins). Meanwhile, Shell Oil supplies breeders with something called XLP-30; a feed additive designed to "boost pigs per litter." A shell official acknowledged, "We don't know why it works" (88).

Though antibiotics are heavily utilized to combat the detrimental effects of diet and living conditions, statistics attest to the results:

20% of hens die of stress or disease before slaughter (Living 35).A government report found that "over 90% of the chickens from most of the flocks in the country are infected with chicken cancer!" (Robbins 67).

Over 80% of today's pigs contract pneumonia which may be compounded by a variety of other diseases such as dysentery, cholera, trichinosis, pseudo-rabies, and African Swine Fever (Robbins 74).

Today's milk producing cow is subjected to such stressful conditions that instead of her normal 20-25 yr. lifespan "she will be lucky if she sees her 4th birthday" (Robbins 111).

Given the conditions of life for the factory farm animal, it would seem that the estimated 240 million newly hatched male chicks that are thrown into plastic bags and suffocated each year are getting off easy (Living). They are "useless" to factory production. As for the billions of "useful" animals, it is ironic that it is the final act by human hands that is the most humane, for it is the one that will finally put the animal out of its misery. Unfortunately, as much as 50% of the animals in the U.S. are slaughtered in accordance with "kosher" guidelines. This requires that the animal be conscious during slaughter and that one does not fall upon the blood of another (Robbins). Typically, a chain attached to one leg jerks the animal upside down onto a conveyer belt where they will wait in turn to have their throats cut. A pitiful side note to their ordeal is that the condemned animal will probably have been denied its last meal as well. As the headline "Take Feed Away From Spent Hens" in the trade journal Poultry Tribune reminded farmers, it is best not to waste feed on an animal during the last 30 hours before slaughter because it will not have enough time to turn into flesh (Robbins).

A further illustration of how intolerable modern farming conditions are on its livestock is how these conditions affect the humans that work there. Disease is so widespread that the Bureau of Labor has listed the poultry processing industry as one of the most hazardous of all occupations (66), while the pork industry's own documents show that 70% to 90% of its employees experience acute respiratory symptoms, 55% experience chronic bronchitis and at least 14 workers have died suddenly from acute respiratory distress and systemic toxicosis (Bender). The sights, sounds, and smells of the job have also earned today's slaughterhouses the highest employee turnover rate of any occupation in the country (Robbins). The moral conflict experienced by workers is exemplified by the following pig farmer who, after an earlier confrontation with John Robbins, confessed with tears in his eyes:

"I'm sorry I got so mad at you before. It's not your fault. You are just showing me what I already know, but try not to think about. It just tears me up, some of the things we are doing to these animals. These pigs never hurt anybody, but we treat them like, like, like I don't know what. Nothing in the world deserves this kind of treatment. It's a shame. Its a crying shame. I just don't know what else to do" (92).

[MAGI]

As in any business, space costs money, therefore factory farm chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows are bred in the minimum amount of space needed to keep them alive. John Robbins (author of Diet for a New America) reports that at "Egg City" in Moorpark, California 3 million hens are housed five to each 16-by-18 inch cage. In addition to minimal space, baby calves will also have their heads restrained and be kept in total darkness until the day they are slaughtered. Many will go blind. The mental and physical health of all the animals is further compromised by the toxic gases that form from the accumulation of urine and feces. Unfortunately for business, animals confined under these conditions will frequently go insane and harm or eat one another. To circumvent these problems, it has become customary to cut off chicken's beaks and toes, de-horn and castrate cattle, and cut off pig's tails before they can be cannibalized by other pigs.

Diet is also a business factor. Since livestock are sold by their weight, not their health, hormones and questionable feed products are utilized for low cost weight gain. For example, cow feed may include sawdust, shredded cardboard and newspapers (including the Sunday comics), processed sewage, cement dust, and other items treated with artificial flavors and aromas. Scientists at the University of Arizona are working on additional methods of getting the animals to eat the "feed bunk" (Robbins). Meanwhile, Shell Oil supplies breeders with something called XLP-30; a feed additive designed to "boost pigs per litter." A shell official acknowledged, "We don't know why it works" (88).

snip, see last entry



I swear, you'll make me a vegetarian yet, -V-............
I try to avoid these threads ever since I first read the site at Thanksgiving time after I first found POL.

I try to rationalize being carnivorous because mother nature gave us teeth to do so................

One more reason to be wary of what we eat.................

[http://www.courant.com/business/hc-petfood0425.artapr25,0,3475798.story?coll=hc-headlines-business

BUSINESS

Hogs At Farm Ate Tainted Pet Food
April 25, 2007
Associated Press Salvaged pet food tainted with an industrial chemical was sent to hog farms in as many as six states, federal health officials said Tuesday. It was not immediately clear if any hogs that ate the tainted feed then entered the food supply for humans.

Hogs at a farm in California ate the contaminated products, and officials were trying to determine whether hogs in New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Utah and Ohio may have eaten the tainted food. Hogs at some of the farms - it wasn't immediately clear which - have been quarantined.



A spokesman for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, Steven Cohen, said the agency was trying to determine if the hog farms in the states other than California fed the material to their animals.

The urine of some hogs tested positive for the chemical, melamine, the Food and Drug Administration said.

"At this point, I don't have a definitive answer other than to say that the issue is being addressed," Stephen Sundlof, the FDA's chief veterinarian, told reporters when asked whether any of the hogs had entered the human food supply. A poultry farm also may be involved, he added.

The FDA also said it planned to test a variety of vegetable proteins at firms that imported the ingredients to make everything from pizza dough to infant formula, and protein shakes to energy bars. The ingredient list includes wheat gluten, corn gluten, corn meal, soy protein and rice bran.

Pet food companies have recalled more than 100 brands of cat and dog food since the first reports of animal deaths a little more than a month ago.

Investigators have found melamine in at least two imported Chinese vegetable proteins used to make pet foods. The chemical possibly was used to skew analyses that measured the protein content of the ingredients, wheat gluten and rice protein concentrate.

There were no direct shipments of either of the two ingredients to firms that make food for humans or for animals used as food, said Michael Rogers, who directs field investigations for the FDA.



Between Mans' cruel treatment of animals and the food they serve them..........................................

[-V-]

I try to rationalize being carnivorous because mother nature gave us teeth to do so...

that is indeed another common rationalization, magi. Being longtime herbavours, we eventually developed canines after when we developed thumbs, then weapons, then the cunning to catch prey instead of merely being prey (likewise, some monkeys occasionaly hunt for a warm meal for some variety, but fruits and berries are their thing). Fortunately we also evolved into intelligent, ethical beings unlike other (non-sapient) animals who act out simple dog-eat-dog survival instincts.

Thank you for being true to your gatherer/nurturer instinct rather than your hunter/warrior one when reading my "arrogant/self-righteous" animal rights posts.

For others, it is more difficult for the heart to tread where the ego dare not go (oops, there i go again)

[Lionhearted]

What would be the natural state of the chicken today if it were not a food source? Would chickens still exist in the wild? If they ceased to be a food source for humans, what would happen to the chicken? Would it be happier, healthier, more plentiful?

This is a good question James.

All domestic chickens (Gallus domesticus) are thought/said to have as a common ancestor, the Red Jungle Fowl (http://www.geocities.com/hs_wong33/RedJungleFowl.html) (Gallus gallus), a native of Asia where they were first domesticated. Some breeds still retain a vestige of the jungle fowl's coloration. There are now over 400 varieties of Gallus domesticus.
Now if the chicken ceased to be a food source for humans? Much trickier. Could they exist in the wild since the incentive to raise them would be gone? Possibly. Would there be a health risk? Maybe, chickens seem to be among the birds greatly affected by avian flu. Would they negatively impact native species? This seems likely as we have already seen what feral dogs, cats and pigs are capable of doing to their local environments. Plus there are an estimated 18 billion chickens in China alone. Extrapolate that worldwide.
Then what if cattle, pigs, sheep, goats were no longer used as a meat source? What do you do with those animals?
Salt cedar, Chinaberry, Chinese Tallow, Brazillian Pepper Tree, European Starlings, House Sparrows, Brown Snakes, feral pigs, feral cats, feral dogs, hell we are even starting to have a problem with feral emus here. The list of invasive species is huge. Do we really want to add more? Yeah it is a bit outlandish and it really ain't gonna happen, but it seems noone thinks of these types of things. Frankly I would much rather see an increase in the Golden-winged Warbler population, than wild chickens.

I feel I should apologize to -V- for calling him arrogant. Like James I too do not like to be classified as one who tortures cats. As for what he may think of my carnivorous ways, I frankly don't care.

[-V-]

I feel I should apologize to -V- for calling him arrogant. Like James I too do not like to be classified as one who tortures cats.

I'm OK with being called arrogant. i merely point out the hypocricy of those who are arrogant about me being arrogant when we have all been arrogant with posters who defend actions that we feel our indefensible. Being arrogant/righteous with those who forsake their moral compass to vote for Bush because they desire a tax cut is the same as being righteous with someone who pays others to torture animals because they desire their flesh.

Unless you or James can tell me why a cat is diffent than a pig you've classified yourselve's as a person who pays others to torture animals whether I say it out loud or not. I commend WafflePudding for saying it out loud in the other thread.

If you agree that Rumsfeld is accountable for torturing Iraqi's you should accept accountability for torturing cats/pigs.

The first step in dealing with your addiction is standing up and admitting that, "I AM A CAT/PIG TORTURER"

As for what he may think of my carnivorous ways, I frankly don't care. neither do I. It is your support for torture that I vehemently object to.

[JamesP]

Lion: Thanks for the very impressive and helpful info. You are a great resource to have here.

V:
- Any comment/thoughts on what will happen to the chicken once it ceases to be a source of human sustenance?

- I gather from your response that your main goal is better treatment for the chicken during it's time here on earth. A noble goal.... which I share for all humanity and then, also, for all of the little animals and assorted creatures.

So, it is not the eating of the animal that is bad, and killing is not the worst, but the mis-treatment is the greatest transgression.

Alas, the debate is over! We agree! I will actively support better living conditions for the chicken and, further, I will not mistreat or kill any. I will continue to eat some, occasionally, after they are dead, provided that they were well cared for while alive.

Nice to have one major world problem solved...... and so simply! We can now move on to war, hunger, disease, poverty, birth defects, exploitation of the masses, the rise of the military-industrial complex, etc, etc, etc.

[-V-]

i commend you james for your diplomacy and re-alliance with planet earth. Unfortunately, you will not find any readily available chicken products on planet earth that is derived from chickens that are well cared for unless you raise them yourselves with the love and compassion that i know a thoughtful person like yourself must apply to your cat (diplomacy for diplomacy).

The only problem regarding freeing the chickens is what to do with the billions that are currently in cages. Indeed, lets kill them humanely and eat them. I'll do the carving. After that, any wild chickens are on their own.

and with that, the problem is indeed solved and the debate is over. Thanks for all those who participated and i look forward to being with you on the same side as war, hunger, disease, poverty, exploitation of the masses, the rise of the military-industrial complex, etc, etc, etc.

[Lionhearted]

neither do I. It is your support for torture that I vehemently object to.

And if this makes you feel morally superior to me, then I'm okay with that as well.