Posted by

Save the Planet: Eat Less Meat

Originally published on Care2.

What if you could make one immediate change in your life that would significantly decrease global warming and other damage to the environment? Great news: you can. Stop eating meat.

Perhaps the best thing you can do to save the environment is eat a plant-based diet, according to the United Nations, Sierra Club, Worldwatch Institute, Al Gore’s Live Earth, and many others. Even replacing just some of the meat you eat with grains, vegetables, legumes, fruit, and other plant-based foods can make a big difference.

Just changing the source of your meat won’t do much. As a recent New York Times op-ed by James E. McWilliams explained, there is no such thing as ecologically sustainable meat. Local, organic, free-range — all of it takes or will lead to a surprisingly large toll on the environment.

Meat production may be the most important reason for global warming, which results almost entirely from a combination of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Raising animals for food is a major source of carbon dioxide and the single largest source of the other two gases: 37% of methane and 65% of nitrous oxide emissions, as Kathy Freston reports in The Huffington Post. The United Nations has concluded that eating a vegan diet “is vital to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change,” according to The Guardian.

The livestock industry is largely responsible for deforestation, which obliterates ecosystems that would otherwise absorb carbon dioxide. According to Freston, “Animal agriculture takes up an incredible 70% of all agricultural land, and 30% of the total land surface of the planet. As a result, farmed animals are probably the biggest cause of slashing and burning the world’s forests. Today, 70% of former Amazon rainforest is used for pastureland, and feed crops cover much of the remainder.” Clearing all this land for pasture and feed crops also shrinks or eliminates the habitats for countless species of wildlife.

Just cutting back on your meat consumption has an impact. Al Gore’s Live Earth organization reports that “If everyone went vegetarian just for one day, the U.S. would save: 100 billion gallons of water, enough to supply all the homes in New England for almost 4 months and 70 million gallons of gas, enough to fuel all the cars of Canada and Mexico combined with plenty to spare.” Joining the“Meatless Monday” movement, which encourages people to eat no meat for one day every week, could go a long way.

Driving a Prius doesn’t even approach the impact of eating less meat. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, “if every American skipped one meal of chicken per week and substituted vegetarian foods instead, the carbon dioxide savings would be the same as taking more than half a million cars off of U.S. roads.” A University of Chicago study confirms that in terms of fossil fuel consumption, there is “an order of magnitude” difference “between dietary and personal transportation choices.” What is on your plate matters much more than what is in your garage.

Climate change isn’t the only ill that the meat industry generates. Freston notes that “raising animals for food is a primary cause of land degradation, air pollution, water shortage, water pollution [including the ammonia that causes acid rain, and] loss of biodiversity.” The livestock industry alone is “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global,” according to the U.N.’s report.

We don’t need to eat all this meat. We’d actually be healthier without it, as meat consumption plays a role in causing our three biggest killers: heart disease, cancer, and stroke. To help protect the environment and your health, visit the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine for a free Vegetarian Starter Kit. The earth will thank you.

Photo Credit: penarc

 

Tagged , ,

Horrific Conditions for Factory-Farmed Chickens Exposed

Originally published on Care2.

Kreider Farms is hell on earth for egg-laying chickens. The Humane Society of the United States released a mercifully short video summarizing its investigation of the conditions at Kreider.

According to HSUS, the investigation revealed:

  • Birds were severely overcrowded in cages more cramped than the national average; each hen received only 54–58 square inches of space on which to spend her life.
  • Injured and dead hens, including mummified bird carcasses, were found inside cages with living hens laying eggs for human consumption.
  • Hens were left without water for days when a water source malfunctioned, causing many to die.
  • Hens’ legs, wings, and heads were found trapped in cage wires and automated feeding machinery.
  • A thick layer of dead flies on the barn floors caused a crunching sound when walking on it.

Nicholas D. Kristof reports in The New York Times that Kreider produces “4.5 million eggs each day for supermarkets like ShopRite” — it is no fly-by-night operation, and its policies condemn millions of chickens to lives of unrelenting suffering.

Kristof reports that Kreider crams so many birds into small cages that they can hardly move for their entire lives. According to Kristof, HSUS’s investigator reported that the stench and filth in the barns are so repulsive that workers spend as little time in them as possible. Sadly the birds don’t have the option of walking out the door.

Kristof quotes Ron Kreider, president of Kreider Farms, as saying, “The reality of food processing can be off-putting to those not familiar with animal agriculture.” Not exactly reassuring words for those who care how animals raised for food are treated.

Since there is no government regulation guaranteeing that any label (like “organic” or “cage-free”) guarantees humane treatment for fowl, the best way to ensure that no birds were tortured in the production of your eggs is not to eat any.

Photo credit: Ethelred

Tagged , , ,

Unpaid Internships Are A Losing Deal for All But Employers

Unpaid internships exploit the labor of well-to-do young people, disadvantage their peers who cannot afford to work for free, replace paying entry-level jobs, and are often, but not always, illegal. Recently some of these interns have started to strike back by suing for backpay.

Last year, interns for the movie “Black Swan” sued for unpaid wages. On February 1st of this year, The New York Times reported that a former unpaid magazine intern sued Hearst Corporation for violating wage and hour laws. Both of these lawsuits alleged that the employers involved were required to pay for the particular internships at issue.

But sometimes it is legal not to pay interns. Under federal law (some states have additional requirements), unpaid internships are legal if they meet six criteria:

1. The training, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training available in a school;
2. The training is for the benefit of the intern;
3. The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under their close supervision;
4. The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern, and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
5. The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
6. The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages.

In short, if an intern isn’t a bit of a burden, the employer must pay her or him. One sign that it is probably legal not to pay interns is when they receive college credit for their work.

But in many workplaces, employers are benefiting from unpaid interns’ work while everyone else involved suffers. In the “Black Swan” case, the plaintiffs claim that they did the same work as paid employees and did not receive training or advance their careers. Meanwhile they had to pay for their own room, board and expenses while Fox Searchlight Pictures exploited their free labor.

The interns weren’t the only ones who took a hit to their wallets. Uncompensated internships can contribute to unemployment. In the “Black Swan” situation, for instance, free interns did the same work as paid employees, and may have displaced people who used to do their work as a full-time job and are now unemployed.

Unpaid internships that do comply with the law harm another population: the many students and recent graduates who would benefit from the training and contacts internships can provide but who lack the resources to support themselves while working for free. Young people who already have the advantage of well-off families build on that head start with the training and foot-in-the-door that internships can provide. Once again the rich get richer, but instead of money, they accrue experience, valuable professional networks and sometimes even permanent jobs.

In February, Occupy Wall Street called on the New York Foundation for the Arts to stop advertising any and all unpaid internships. They may have the right idea. While people who worked in unpaid internships fight their former employers for back pay, this system raises a broader question: should unpaid internships be legal at all?

 

Tagged ,

Superbug Meat: Factory Farms Weaken Antibiotics

Originally published on Care2; Open Salon Editor’s Pick

We’ve all heard about the antibiotic crisis: overuse has led to bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, opening the door to superbugs for which we have no cure. Those superbugs cause infections that are fatal in 30-60 percent of cases.

What we haven’t heard as much is that the biggest abuser of antibiotics isn’t human patients and their doctors: it is factory farms, which are responsible for 80 percent of antibiotic use. They spike livestock feed with the medications to make “meat animals” grow faster. Seven million pounds of antibiotics are sold for human use every year, while 28.8 million pounds go into cows, pigs, turkeys, sheep and chickens.

Lawsuit Against the FDA

Recently the government moved a couple steps closer to ending this lunacy. First, in a lawsuit called Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. vs. U.S. Food & Drug Administration, federal Magistrate Judge Theodore Katz ordered the FDA to reintroduce a draft rule it first proposed 35 years ago but never acted on.

The rule would require that “an antibacterial drug fed…to animals must be shown not to promote increased resistance to antibacterials used in human medicine.” The rule would not prohibit giving animals medication to treat disease. The Court’s order would obligate the FDA only to give the public (i.e. agribusiness) a chance to contribute its two cents (i.e. big fat political donations) on whether the proposed rule should be adopted. Legally, the Court can’t make the administration adopt the rule.

The FDA Asks Agribusiness, Pretty Please, to Take Antibiotics Out of Feed Voluntarily

Second, the FDA announced after Magistrate Judge Katz’s ruling that it is “proposing a voluntary initiative” to end the use of antibiotics to speed the growth of animals raised for meat, while permitting the use of the medications to treat disease under a veterinarian’s supervision.

The new initiative, being voluntary, is toothless. The Center for Science in the Public Interest called it “tragically flawed” because it relies “too heavily on the drug industry and animal producers to act voluntarily in the best interest of consumers.”

The FDA practically boasted in its press release that it had worked “to ensure that the voices of livestock producers across the country were taken into account.” These are the same producers who have dictated the government’s non-action on this issue for three decades and it is no surprise that they are still running the show.

Agribusiness Pretends to Play Along; Nobody Buys It

Agribusiness is trying to ward off meaningful government intervention with a charade that it is voluntarily slashing its use of antibiotics. For instance, as Reuters reports, “the poultry industry [says] it already has ratcheted down ‘by a large margin’ its use of antibiotics.” But agribusiness has been on notice since 1977 that the government disapproved of its massive overconsumption of antibiotics and didn’t try to fix the problem until now. It is awfully convenient to claim that it can self-regulate just when a federal lawsuit shines a light on its long-term failure to do just that.

The same Reuters article reports that the “director of FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine, noted voluntary efforts to reduce antibiotic use and said, ‘We believe additional steps are necessary to have a real impact on this problem.’” In other words, the FDA admits that agribusiness is not and will not do enough to solve the problem voluntarily. Still, it chose to address the problem with a brand new voluntary initiative. That is an agency working hard to have no impact on anything.

The Science Says: Global Public Health Crisis

Contrast this sluggish inaction with the magnitude of the problem: the FDA itself told the Court that antibiotic resistance is “a mounting public health problem of global significance” and that dosing livestock with antibiotics “for production purposes…is not in the interest of protecting and promoting the public health.”

There is no doubt that factory farms’ use of antibiotics is directly causing the rise of superbugs. The science is clear that feeding animals antibiotics just to make them grow larger faster threatens human health. In 1997, for example, the World Health Organization recommended a ban on feeding animals antibiotics for growth if the same antibiotics are used to treat humans. In 2010, the FDA reviewed this and other studies and concluded, as it had back in the ’70s, that factory farms shouldn’t feed antibiotics to animals. And just like in the ’70s, the FDA once again didn’t do a thing about it.

Why it has been necessary to sue the FDA to make them do what they already know they should do is a mystery. And this lawsuit isn’t even the first effort to roust the administration to action. In 2009 and subsequent years, as reported by the Union of Concerned Scientists, “hundreds of…health, consumer, environmental, agricultural, and humane organizations” supported a bill in Congress to address the problem. It didn’t pass.

Doctors Want to Protect Antibiotics

Doctors are on the front lines of the battle against antibiotic-resistant superbugs, and they have taken sides in the struggle to get antibiotics out of factory farm feed. Three antibiotics doctors commonly prescribe, penicillin and two forms of tetracycline, are at issue in the lawsuit. The American Medical Association endorsed the 2009 bill to reduce the amount of these medications fed to animals raised for meat.

The AMA’s newspaper quoted Dr. Brad Spellberg, associate professor of medicine at the Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Torrance, California, as saying, “I’ve seen patients die of treatable infections. I’ve told their family, ‘I have no medicine to use.’ This is a catastrophic public health crisis. I don’t know how else to put it.

Our health is far more important than some extra profit for factory farming conglomerates. Please help convince our government of that by signing the petition to the Obama administration calling for an end to agribusiness’s abuse of antibiotics.

Photo Credit: NDSU Ag Comm

Tagged , , , ,

What Doesn’t Separate Us From Animals 5

A new study described in The New York Times found that ravens can recognize the voices of old friends after years of separation. Current Biology reports that a group of birds lived together for three years, then were separated for three years. Researchers recorded the calls of some of the separated birds towards the end of the three-year separation (during which time their calls may have changed) and played them to the other birds, who responded with friendly calls.

The birds’ friendly response demonstrated that they recognized their friends, because they responded differently to birds they didn’t like. Lead researcher Markus Böckle of the University of Vienna explained that when ravens answer calls from others they don’t like, they use deeper voices. The birds could also distinguish birds they did not know.

Ravens have friends and foes and remember them for years. Yet one more characteristic that does not distinguish humans from animals.

 Photo credit: Sergey Yeliseev

Tagged , ,

Thai Government Said to Slaughter Elephants to Steal Their Babies

Originally published on Care2.

No place is safe for elephants in Thailand right now, including sanctuaries and rescue centers.

The trouble started with tourist centers clamoring for more baby elephants because they draw tourists, and tourists spend money.

Thailand’s government allegedly complied: officials appear to have underwritten the slaughter of adult elephants living in national parks in order to steal their babies.

Baby elephants stolen for tourism endure unthinkable suffering. “They are immobilized, beaten mercilessly, and gouged with nails for days at a time. These ritualized “training” sessions leave the elephants badly injured, traumatized, or even dead.”

The leaders of two respected elephant sanctuaries in Thailand, the Elephant Nature Park and the Wildlife Friends of Thailand, spoke out against the government-sponsored massacre, and in what looks like retaliation, the government raided their facilities, confiscated resident elephants, and threatened to confiscate more.

Help protect the elephants in Thai sanctuaries and the brave people who care for them and speak out on behalf of wild elephants by sending Thailand’s Tourism Authority a message that you will not visit Thailand until the government stops raiding elephant sanctuaries, returns confiscated animals, and takes effective action to protect wild elephants.

 

Tagged , ,

New Technology is More Reliable and Ethical Than Animal Experiments

Originally published on Care2.

If you want to know how to cure diseases in humans, you want to test experimental treatments on whatever else is most similar. For years scientists have tested their hypotheses on non-human animals, like mice and rats. But extrapolating the results of medical and other scientific research from non-human animals to humans is a dubious undertaking at best. Other animals’ biologies are not the same as ours. They have similarities, often more than we like to admit, but not enough to draw reliable conclusions about the safety of medical interventions in human beings.

As reported by the American Anti-Vivisection Society, “Acetaminophen, for example, is poisonous to cats but is a therapeutic in humans; penicillin is toxic in guinea pigs but has been an invaluable tool in human medicine; morphine causes hyper-excitement in cats but has a calming effect in human patients; and oral contraceptives prolong blood-clotting times in dogs but increase a human’s risk of developing blood clots. Many more such examples exist.”

Not only are the results of animal experiments of limited use (if not downright dangerous), they are also cruel, painful and kill most of their subjects. 95% of the over 100 million animals who suffer and die in laboratories — this includes not just medical tests but food, cosmetic, chemical, and purely academic experiments — have no protection from cruelty. The federal Animal Welfare Act, which ostensibly protects animals in laboratories, doesn’t cover mice, rats, birds, and cold-blooded animals. As long as a lab-affiliated committee approves an experiment, the experimenter can do whatever he or she wants to these living, feeling creatures.

Happily, some scientists have turned their attention towards creating more effective and ethical alternatives to vivisection, like computer models and tissue cultures that have more in common with human physiology than any animal does. The Harvard Crimson reports that researchers recently developed a device that “simulates the microenvironment of the human intestine by creating a miniaturized three-dimensional scaffold that supports growth and development of a patient’s own cells—even including microbes essential for digestion and normal physiology.”

The lead researcher, Harvard University Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering Director Donald E. Ingber, said that one motive for his work is “the problem that animal testing really doesn’t accurately predict what happens in humans.” According to The Crimson, Ingber believes the new technology may allow scientists “to pursue a more comprehensive understanding of cellular pathways and medical prognoses.” It could be especially valuable for research into Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis.

Harvard’s Assistant Director for Undergraduate Studies in Biomedical Engineering, Sujata Bhatia, said that the new device “does such a nice job of mimicking the actual environment of the intestine, it could be an amazing tool for both biomedical students and biomedical engineers.”

Ingber anticipates more devices that will improve upon and replace animal research, including technologies replicating human lungs and hearts and even the interactions among multiple organs. This is good news for animals and humans alike.

 

 

Tagged , , , ,

It’s Equal Pay Day. Hard to Believe We Still Need an Equal Pay Day.

Women earn less than 78 cents for every dollar men earn. Weren’t we supposed to be past this by now?

Women earn more degrees. Time Magazine says we are soon to be the “richer sex.” There is no plausible argument that our work is less valuable than men’s. And yet, here we are.

Plausible or not, some people still believe that men should earn more money because they should support their families while their wives care for their children. Setting aside the back-handed insult to women who don’t have children (suggesting that we are not fulfilling our primary duty or purpose in life), this is also a ludicrously anachronistic perspective in an age when most mothers work outside the home and more men than ever are children’s primary caretakers, and when many families are headed by single moms and therefore at higher risk for poverty.

For more depressing statistics and information, visit the National Committee on Pay Equity’s site.

Let’s work towards the time when Equal Pay Day is relegated to the history books because equal pay has become a reality.

 

Tagged ,

Enough Already With the Crusade Against Low-Riding Pants

Originally published on Care2

 

Following the lead of Atlanta, Florida and, bizarrely, US Airways, among others, an Indiana town is trying to ban males from wearing their pants “hanging around the buttocks,” according to WSBT.com. The NWI Times reports that in Merrillville, Indiana, officials “are proposing an ordinance that would not allow people to wear their pants more than 3 inches below the hip in public places.”

Now we have to worry about the government intruding not only into our bedrooms, but also into our closets. Forget about the egregious violation of personal liberty — perhaps more worrying is that I’ve seen how government officials dress, and I do not want them in charge of my wardrobe.

But seriously, this would be a scary arrogation of power. “Councilman Ron Widing said he is concerned the proposal could be viewed as unconstitutional,” NWI Times noted. “I don’t know how we can tell anyone how to dress,” Widing said. Governments already ban states of undress, but that seems like a more legitimate issue of public concern than the height of one’s waistband. It’s not like men’s naked butts are hanging out — generally it is just their underwear.

I also have another reason to oppose Merrillville’s proposal: I love the low pants look. Whenever I need a smile, I can just look around for some guy with his pants around his groin and have a nice laugh. As I have noted elsewhere on this blog, it’s funny that they have to grab their pants all the time so they don’t fall down. It’s funny that they can’t walk normally because their pants constrict everything between their knees and their hips. And it’s funny that they think this is a good look for them.

Interestingly, Merrillville is not proposing to ban miniskirts, low-cut push-up tops, high heels (which actually injure women), or other clothes that reveal nearly all the skin a woman has. Instead it has aimed at a style that shows men’s boxers. What exactly are the Indiana officials trying to accomplish? Are they afraid that seeing some plaid fabric on a man will cause the citizenry to riot, but sanguine about the sight of an arresting amount of female flesh and the maiming of women’s feet?

Whatever their motivations, I hope that Merrillville’s leaders keep their sartorial preferences to themselves and let the rest of us make our own choices, however misguided.

 

Tagged ,

Prejudice Kills a Homeless Woman

Originally published on Care2; Open Salon Editor’s Pick

The national tendency to blame the homeless for their plight collided with the war on drugs to kill an innocent woman near St. Louis last September. 29-year-old Anna Brown, a homeless mother of two, went to the hospital seeking treatment for a sprained ankle and leg pain. After doctors dismissed her complaints and she refused to leave without treatment, Richmond Heights, Missouri police arrested and jailed her for trespassing at the hospital. Fifteen minutes later, she was dead of a blood clot that originated in her painful leg and traveled to her lungs.

Assuming that she was trying to scam drugs from the hospital, the police treated Ms. Brown like a criminal. They hoisted her from their car into the police station because the pain in her legs prevented her from walking. When they put her in the jail cell where she would die, they laid her on the concrete floor — right between two empty beds. Her ordeal from the hospital to the police car to the jail cell was captured on surveillance videos.

Ms. Brown was not a drug addict: according to the International Business Times, the autopsy revealed that she had no drugs in her system when she sought medical help.

Ms. Brown was also not lazy or a freeloader. She and her two children lost their home to a tornado, according to The Washington Post. Then Ms. Brown lost her job. Poverty eroded her family’s standard of living to the point that the government placed her children with Ms. Brown’s mother, and Ms. Brown herself became homeless.

Anna Brown represents a significant portion of our country’s homeless population: families that include adults willing to work but unable to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their children. Families with children are 41% of the homeless population. According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, “declining wages have put housing out of reach for many families.” Even families with working parents can’t always afford housing.

Under fire for Ms. Brown’s death, the local police protest that they deferred to medical professionals’ determination that Ms. Brown was healthy enough to be arrested and jailed. The medical professionals who made that determination protest that in some cases blood clots cannot be detected and that Ms. Brown did not appear to have any, according to The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. No one seems to have explained why they did not treat the visible swelling in Ms. Brown’s ankle, which corroborated her complaints of pain.

But this was not a case of a poor person being denied any medical care. The Washington Post reported that medical professionals examined Ms. Brown and performed ultrasounds on both of her legs.

It is the hospital’s refusal to take her complaints of pain seriously and the police officers’ willingness to arrest her for trespassing at the hospital, both based on the assumption that she was an addict seeking drugs, that reflect common assumptions about poor people and that led directly to her death. As Ms. Brown’s sister Krystle said, “My sister is not here today because people passed judgment.”

 

Tagged , ,