News
Why Should Vegetarians Define ‘Sustainable’?
Rajendra Pachauri, the chief UN expert on climate change, has declared that everyone should eat less meat to help combat climate change. Reactions so far have been mixed, ranging from a call for revolt via “a series of vast Homeric barbeques” (to be dubbed “Pachauri days”) to “What ever happened to fish stick Fridays?” But for the most part, the general response has been one of concern and honest skepticism. The sort of earnest doubt that, apparently, the anti-meat camp would rather do without.
Earlier today, the Hudson Institute’s Center for Global Food Issues hosted a well-timed panel discussion on beef production and greenhouse gas emissions. Panelists included Alex Avery, the Institute’s Director of Research; Dr. Judith Capper, author of a groundbreaking study on the environmental benefits of synthetic bovine growth hormone (more on that here); and Danielle Nierenberg of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
Cattle go green on grain
FeedIndustryNetwork.com posted an article that explains why conventionally raised beef is better for the environment than grass-fed beef.
PETA Shower Protest Is All Wet (Again)
“Fast food” zoning, mandated calorie guilt trips, Crisco bans — we think it’s safe to say that Californians have had enough meddling in their food choices lately. But PETA would like to make absolutely sure. Which is why Sunshine State residents in Fresno and San Francisco are getting a lecture on meat-eating this week, in the form of a naked shower. Here we go again.
We saw this same PETA shower stunt in New York’s Times Square three months ago. Back then, the “showering” protesters claimed that producing a pound of meat “requires water equivalent to more than a year’s worth of showers.” And now?
The Center for Consumer Freedom posted a commentary that criticizes the Physician’s Committee
The Center for Consumer Freedom posted a commentary that criticizes the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine for their latest The Cancer Project “stunt” featuring a commercial against processed meats in schools.
American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has criticized the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
In a post to its Health Facts and Fears blog, the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) has criticized the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine’s (PCRM) attack on processed meats in school meals. After noting that PCRM is a “misleadingly” named group of “animal rights activists”, the post concludes:
While no responsible nutrition professional would advocate feeding children processed meats in large amounts every day, moderate amounts won’t harm them — and who can go to a ballgame and resist the hot dogs that make the day complete? Lighten up, PCRM. The reports you cited are certainly not the final word on cancer causation, and it is not necessary to go vegan in order to be healthy.
Center for Consumer Freedom issues press release criticizing the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
The Center for Consumer Freedom has issued a press release criticizing the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) and the anti-meat ad it is sponsoring through “The Cancer Project.” The release noted that “less than four percent” of PCRM members “are actual physicians” and concluded, “It is clear that this phony physicians committee should leave the dietary advice to some real doctors.”
http://sev.prnewswire.com/food-beverages/20080724/DC2853324072008-1.html
Center for Consumer Freedom criticizes the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
The Center for Consumer Freedom posted a commentary that criticizes the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine not only for advocating vegan diets for children, but also for “capitalizing” on the recent death of former White House press secretary Tony Snow for political gain.
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/3687
HSUS Slips Up — Slams Packer With No Proof
Agribusiness Freedom Foundation
by Steve Dittmer
June 30, 2008
The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) has implied that a packer violated national school lunch meat supply rules apparently just because the packer sometimes bought cattle at an auction market at which an alleged HSUS video showed downer cattle being mistreated.
Akin to branding everyone who drives down a certain street as wrongdoers just because some people commit crimes on that street, HSUS could easily find itself the target of a lawsuit for their stunt at a news conference last week.
HSUS has evidently decided that kids and the national school lunch program is an emotional key they can use in attacking America’s beef production system. But after months of undercover surveillance, unable to establish links between its auction videos and the school lunch program, HSUS concocted an elaborately contrived propaganda stunt at a media conference to suggest a “link,” even after admitting that is has no evidence.
In true tabloid-style, sensationalist fudging, HSUS referenced its video clips allegedly obtained at a livestock market in Portales, N.M. showing sick and/or injured animals - “downers” — being improperly handled at the market. Then it recounted the Hallmark/Westland case of a slaughter facility mishandling animals and allegations that downer animals entered the supply chain of Hallmark’s school lunch contract. HSUS then mentioned that Caviness Packing of Hereford, Tx. sometimes buys cattle from Portales and that Caviness’ Palo Duro division is now the largest school lunch ground beef provider since Hallmark is out of business — for which HSUS takes credit.
All this under a subheadline reading, “Offenders Include Suppliers to the National School Lunch Program.”
Of course, HSUS does not mention that even in the Hallmark case, the recall was based on the potential that some downer cattle that had passed initial inspection were slaughtered for the school lunch program — not proof made public that any did. HSUS also referred incorrectly to Palo Duro as the top school lunch program supplier.
No one cares more about cattle than beef producers
Kansas City Star
By DAN THOMSON
June 10, 2008
Animal welfare and husbandry are cornerstones of raising efficient, healthy cattle. Today we have often confused animal welfare with animal abuse. Distinction between the two is imperative for the beef industry and beef consumers.
Kansas State University is improving the communication among producers, regulatory officials, veterinarians, nutritionists and consumers with the International Beef Cattle Welfare Symposium that took place from May 28 to 30.
We are excited that more than 250 people from around the world attended, with even more people signed for a live Webcast.
Strong interest demonstrates that people in the beef cattle industry are interested in understanding more about cattle welfare and how these practices will improve our industry biologically and economically.
We are fortunate that they came to Kansas to discuss the future directions for best practices and the future of cattle health and well-being.
No one cares more about cattle than beef producers. The health and well-being of their animals impacts profitability and is part of providing safe, wholesome food. Anybody who has been associated with raising livestock understands firsthand the connection ranchers and beef producers have with the cattle they care for daily.
Cattleman can be an animal rights activist
Elko Daily Free Press
By DAN L. GRALIAN
May 23, 2008
As a livestock producer, I am not an “animal rights activist.” But, I am an advocate for proper care and handling of livestock - and for that matter all animals in general.
When the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) released a film they had taken with a hidden camera of a “downer” cow being abused by employees of the Hallmark/Westland packing plant in California, we all said it was deplorable but an “isolated” incident.
As it turns out, we were wrong.
As part of the organization’s ongoing investigation, the HSUS sent camera carrying undercover investigators to four livestock auction barns in four states - Maryland, New Mexico, Texas and Pennsylvania.
They selected the Texas auction barn because they had received a complaint. They had long-standing concerns about the Pennsylvania facility and the New Mexico auction barn was chosen for its close proximity to the feedlots. Maryland was selected because it was close to Washington, D.C.
The HSUS claims it found cases of downer cow abuses at all four locations. And I believe the HSUS. I saw the photographs it posted on its Web page. In one case in Westminster, Md., a downer cow was left lying unattended outside a sale barn area even after they closed for the night. The next day the HSUS investigator called the local humane society to dispatch the animal with a firearm and put her out of her misery.
You can see this footage and more on the Web site www.hsus.org.
I am embarrassed! I am ashamed! And I am outraged!
