Archives

On January 19th, the New York Times ran a front page story about unbridled abuse at the U.S. Meat Research Center, a taxpayer-funded facility in Nebraska where tens of thousands of animals are used in experiments designed to increase profits for factory farmers.

The article, which portrays the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) as more of a trade organization for agribusiness than a consumer protection agency, has sparked so much outrage that the Secretary of USDA has directed his staff to draft an Animal Welfare Strategy plan that will mandate enhanced training and the creation of an independent panel to review animal handling protocols, policies and research practices.

One week after releasing the story, the NY Times published follow-up editorial about the research center, stating, “You don’t have to be a vegan to be repulsed by an account in The Times revealing the moral depths to which the federal government — working as a handmaiden to industrial agriculture — has sunk in pursuit of cheaper meat and fatter corporate profits.”

U.S. Meat Research Center (photo: Michael Moss)

Unlike the original news story, which focused on the research center, the editorial also addresses the horrors of industrialized agriculture in general: “The conditions of industrial feedlots and factory farms — the confinement of animals, the rampant use of antibiotics, the manure lagoons — would shock anyone who naïvely imagines farms as bucolic places out of children’s books. Animal-rights advocates have toiled for years exposing things the industry does not want customers to know.”

Jane Velez-Mitchell of JaneUnchained speaks to Nathan Runkle from Mercy For Animals about the New York Times’ investigation:

1. Tell the USDA to shut down the Meat Animal Research Center.

2. Contact the Director of the Meat Animal Research Center, Emil J. Pollak:

• Email: e.john.pollak@ars.usda.gov
• Phone: (402) 762-4109

The NY Times regularly publishes substantive stories about the cruelty of industrialized animal agriculture, giving readers a disturbing peak over the high walls and into the windowless sheds that house the 10 billion farm animals slaughtered for food each year in the U.S. And, while the NY Times will never go far enough to satisfy those who espouse an entirely cruelty-free diet, its coverage of the horrors of factory farming is most welcome and appreciated by advocates.

Factory farms have no windows so that people cannot see where their meals are raised.

Today, the Times published a lengthy story by op-ed writer Mark Bittman arguing that the recent return of foie gras in California is insignificant because it affects only 600,000 animals nationwide, which is less than the number of chickens killed each hour in the U.S: “The lifting of the California ban against selling foie gras is pretty much a nonissue, except to point out that as a nation we have little perspective on animal welfare. To single out the tiniest fraction of meat production and label it ‘cruel’ is to miss the big picture, and the big picture is this: Almost all meat production in the United States is cruel.”

Ducks and geese are force fed through a metal pipe 3X daily in the weeks before slaughter.

While Mr. Bittman’s references to the cruelty of animal farming and his use of graphic words like “torturous” are praiseworthy, his suggestion that the return of foie gras is insignificant is perplexing. Why dismiss as irrelevant the reversal of much-needed protections that advocates worked tirelessly to achieve? Mr. Bittman might believe that “foie gras itself just isn’t that important,” but the ducks and geese who are throat-raped with a metal pipe three times a day would probably beg to differ.

Activists with PETA protest the return of foie gras in California at Hot’s Kitchen in Los Angeles (photo: PETA)

Greedy, Heartless Owner of Hot’s Kitchen, Sean Chaney, Sued to Legalize Foie Gras in CA (photo: easyreadernews.com)

Mr. Bittman: Is it too late to reframe the story by saying, “We must advocate to reinstate California’s foie gras ban AND work to help the billions of abused chickens, pigs, cows and fish who have been left behind.”

Ironically, the return of foie gras to California comes at a time when this “delicacy of despair” is coming under fire in the foie gras capital of the world — France.

Please sign the petition to re-instate the law banning foie gras in the state of California.

Like many other animal rights activists, Patrick Battuello doesn’t care about horses any more or less than he does other animals, so why is this 48 year man from upstate New York running the only organization in the country whose sole mission is to end horse racing?

Patrick Battuello

It started in the summer of 2012 when the NY Times published a series of articles exposing animal abuse at the top levels of the horse-racing industry. After learning about the abuse, Mr. Battuello searched online for ways to fight the industry and was stunned to discover a lack of information and leadership.

Not only has he, in just two years, filled these voids with his organization Horseracing Wrongs, he has also become the go-to person for advocacy groups and reporters who need detailed information about the “sport.” In addition, his group’s website is serving as a platform where anti-racing activists from around the country can collaborate.

Mr. Battuello and his colleagues at Horseracing Wrongs know that they can’t influence the racers, breeders and others who make a living off the backs of the horses, but they have identified one way to cut into their bottom line: convincing customers that their “$2 bet” can’t justify the widespread death on the tracks – over 2,000/year, in fact.

In their “Plea to Bettors,” Horseracing Wrongs recommends gambling options, like casinos and lotteries, that don’t rely on animal abuse.  It also succinctly describes the abuses built in to the industry:

Horseracing Wrongs’ Appeal to Customers

When in spotlight, race horses are pampered and massaged to make the public feel good about racing. But, behind the scenes, they spend their short lives being drugged and abused. To make matters worse, most of the horses who survive the track but can no longer make money for their owners are slaughtered for meat. Like all animals used for entertainment and profit, these horses are treated like commodities, not companions. Please see Horseracing Wrongs to learn more about this cruel sport and the group’s creative efforts to end it.

In an article entitled Veal Farmers Adopt More Humane Methods, the NY Times gives people permission “to try veal again” by profiling a Kentucky veal company, which sells “pasture-raised” calves: “About 25 percent of the country’s veal comes from Strauss Brands, which, like many modern meat producers, has moved away from the methods that prompted outrage from animal-rights groups and diners alike.” It is only further down in the article, after many readers have moved on, that we learn that only 5% of Strauss’ calves are pasture-raised. So this begs the question: how are the other 95% of Strauss’ calves raised?

Photo: Tim Harris, NY Times

Both the text and the photos in this NY Times story paint a picture of happy, free-roaming baby cows who suffer only at the end, when they are slaughtered at 7.5 months old. Of course, slaughter is a terrifying experience and is reason, in and of itself, to abstain from eating animals. But for those who don’t oppose slaughter but do who oppose intensive confinement, this article (inadvertently?) gives the impression that the baby cows who they eat now come from big green pastures. This is not the case! In fact, only 20% of veal calves are pasture-raised, according to the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, which means that majority of calves are probably raised in conditions like this.  In the meantime, these images of lush, green pastures “take away the stigma” of eating veal and “give people permission” to eat it again.

In a NY Times article about the estimated 7,000 remaining wild dogs in Africa, Dr. Rosie Woodrofe, a researcher who has studied wild dogs for 20 years, says, “There is nothing so enthusiastic as a wild dog. They live the life domestic dogs wish they could live.” As a dog owner, I’m not at all surprised to read that. Wild dogs, who can act on their natural instincts all day long, have wildly productive lives. Researchers say these “exceptionally social” and “civic-minded” dogs hunt, teach their young survival skills and care for the infirm. While one male and female in each pack breed, the remaining adults “serve as guardians, babysitters, even wet nurses for the alpha pair’s pups.” If our companion animals could talk, would they tell us that we should have never domesticated them? I think so. I have a rescue dog — a chihuahua/pug mix. He’s one of the “lucky” ones. I don’t chain him to a fence in the cold, leave him in a hot car, neglect him or abuse him in any way. I walk him four times a day; provide him with nourishment and medical care; play ball with him at least twice a day; and shower him with affection (I’ve been told to “get a room.”) Still, I think he’s bored and out of place. I wouldn’t want his life. Domesticating animals for our pleasure was a big mistake, in my opinion, especially when you consider the rampant abuse, neglect and abandonment. But companion animals are here to stay, and the burden is on us to make their lives as enriched as possible.

Photo: Scott Creel; Montana State University