Ellen...Have You Forsaken Us?

By: Marilyn Ramos

What the hell happened? Ellen! Ellen! Did we really hear you say on your show recently that you are now eating eggs because those eggs come from “happy” chickens that your neighbors keep?

From Wikipedia: Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, as well as an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals. A follower of veganism is known as a vegan.

Vegans are confused. Just a couple of days before, Ellen’s appearance on the Katie show (Katie Couric for those out of the loop) had gone viral among the vegan community to much applause and kudos. However, after I saw the clip of Ellen saying she eats “happy” eggs, I immediately went to her ellentv.com website to see if she or her people had taken down her vegan resources, recipes, etc. etc.  Nope, still there. In fact, that section of the website is still titled, “Going Vegan with Ellen”. So you can go vegan with Ellen even though Ellen isn’t vegan?! Say what?

Now I know Ellen is a huge celebrity and may be insulated in what is being said about her in the close knit vegan community. But, as Joe Biden would say, “This is a big fucking deal!” and I hope some of it trickles back to her because she needs a reality check. The comments amongst vegan websites/blogs go from dumbfounded (really? seriously? She didn’t mean it!) to demanding (we must kick her out of our vegan family until she sees the light!) to denial (there is no way she is eating eggs!).  Here are some comments:

I swear my heart broke when she said that two days ago. I'm so disappointed.

She went from eating meat, to not eating any animals products, to now eating eggs. It's a disappointment because she was such a role model and ambassador for veganism - and now she is not even a vegan herself, so we've lost this hugely influential voice.

There is a linear progression that exists here; a journey that many vegans take: omnivore to lacto-ovo and, eventually, vegan. If Ellen were lacto-ovo and decided to start eating only "happy" eggs, you could applaud her, hoping that she'll progress past that stage. However, she went backwards. Her decision trivializes the ethical basis for going vegan.

I'm glad she is still not eating meat, but the fact is, she's no longer vegan. She is an ovo-vegetarian. … And when someone that has that big of a soapbox starts eating eggs and still referring to herself as a vegan, it sends a powerful (and wrong) message - that if you find "happy" animals to exploit, that exploitation is ok. It's not ok.

Vegan = Vegan. There are no exceptions, nor should they be. I know people who've claimed to "go vegan" once or twice a week. You can eat at a vegan restaurant or make a vegan meal, but that doesn't make you a vegan. Is Ellen a bad person? Absolutely not. No one is bringing her decency as a human being into question. And I'm sure she'll continue to represent the cause of animal rights vigorously and passionately. However, she's not a vegan if she eats animal products or by-products. It devalues what we as vegan represent, especially when someone has so much notoriety.

It is always sad to me when anyone, celebrity or not, stops being vegan. To me, it is like saying to the world "being vegan really is too hard, I'm missing something without animal products in my life". Which we as vegans know to be false.

We’ve had few celebrities that we could rely on to tout the vegan message and do so consistently. Now granted, some of us had an issue with Ellen’s Cover Girl contract since Cover Girl is owned by Proctor & Gamble and we know they still test on animals but we assumed it was a contract that would expire and she would not renew it now that she was vegan. We thought for sure she would put her vegan ethics and morals ahead of financial gain. Heck, I even thought she might eventually go down the road of starting her own vegan makeup line. Why not? There was a rumor that she would either start her own vegetarian dog food line or buy an existing one (since her Halo dog food line contains meat). The whole “But, dogs are carnivores” argument is another blog but I will tell you that I had two poodles – one made it to 17 ½ yrs. old and the other to 16 yrs. old – and they were both vegan for the last 10 yrs. of their lives which coincided with my own veganism. They were just fine. Anyway, back to Ellen.

Other celebrities have dabbled in it for a few months or even a couple of years and we latched onto them with a lifeline. Ginnifer Goodwin was on Big Love, a huge HBO hit (I watched it religiously, pun intended), and she actively promoted veganism. She was great. Then what happened? She did a complete 180 degrees and stopped being vegan. She even got annoyed with family members (who had gone vegan thanks to her) when they didn’t want to cook or eat meat during holidays. In fact, she seemed downright hostile towards vegans (maybe it was because her body had now become a graveyard for dead animals again?) during an interview on the Jimmy Kimmel show. She came across as disrespectful to those of us who still cared about animals.

Ginnifer Goodwin was my first, “Ooooh, maybe we shouldn’t put so much weight on celebrities who go vegan unless they’ve done it for many years and don’t seem to be doing it because it’s a popular ‘fad’”.  (see Russell Simmons, Casey Affleck, Joaquin Phoenix, Chrissy Hynde, Woody Harrelson). Rosie O’Donnell suffered a heart attack a few months ago. She immediately went on a vegan diet and tweeted that she had lost 9 lbs. in 10 or 12 days thanks to her new diet. Of course, magazines, vegan bloggers, vegan websites, etc. glommed onto this and ran with it. The problem though is that she went back to eating fish almost immediately but not before People magazine declared that Rosie had gone vegan. Even dear beloved Natalie Portman had strayed during her pregnancy (I was dismayed when I read in an article that she was drinking milk and her hubby was fixing her chicken dinners) but it appears she may have come back into the vegan fold after having her baby.

But Ellen seemed different. She felt different. She came across as different. She seemed unwavering. She came across as sincere and genuine in her veganism. You could see it was a true life change for her (and her wife, Portia) and that she “got it”.  She was a real sister in our plight to help animals. She featured on her show vegan chefs, vegan food, vegan recipes, vegan celebrities, vegan items, animal causes, animal sanctuaries, people who helped animals, etc.

But now she eats eggs.

Here’s my main issue with Ellen and her eating eggs from “happy chickens: Will fragile vegans (vegans who are just starting out or don’t know fully the horrors of factory farming) or “iffy” vegans think, “Well, heck, if Ellen eats eggs then I can too and still feel good about myself”?  Ellen is a wealthy person with access to many things you and I will never have access to including a neighbor who raises “happy” chickens and gives you the luxury of consuming eggs from chickens who are spoiled, enjoyed dust baths, ate the best feed, received veterinary care and, perhaps, were taken care of until they died,  etc.

Unfortunately, that is NOT the reality of 99.5% of chickens and that is NOT the reality of 99.5% of us humans. Therefore, unless Ellen clearly, consistently and regularly spells out the huge huge difference between her “happy” eggs and the standard factory farmed eggs found in our food chain, we will be stuck with people who think they can be “vegan”, eat eggs and feel good about themselves. In fact, Ellen may have done us a huge disservice and taken us a step backwards since animal activists will now have to explain why you can’t eat eggs and still be vegan. ”But, but, but, Ellen does?” Remember that for a while many people called themselves vegetarian only because they didn’t eat red meat or because they only ate fish but we all know that that didn’t make them vegetarian. That just made them people who rarely ate animals.

I will grant you that Ellen has done A LOT for the animal community and the vegan community. She may have very well raised more awareness overnight than what many animal activists have in a year. Nevertheless, can your website still say, Going Vegan with Ellen” when Ellen herself isn’t vegan? Does Ellen get to redefine veganism because she has access to “happy” chickens? (NO!).

I applaud Ellen for all the good she has done but I, as a true vegan, take huge exception to her calling herself vegan when she is not “abstaining from animal products”.

Just as I’ve taken issue in the past with people who call themselves “animal lovers” because they love their cat or dog (but still eat animals, go to the rodeo or circus, etc.), I take issue with someone who calls themselves “vegan” while they eat eggs. Ellen will have to be satisfied with “ovo-vegetarian” because until she eschews eggs, she doesn’t get to call herself vegan again.

I await Ellen’s explanation of her disconnect or her clear explanation that what she is privy to (“happy” chickens) she knows full well 99.5% of the rest of us don’t have that option and 99%.5 of chickens aren’t “happy”, and thus, her eating eggs again will only perpetuate the horrors of factory farming while potentially making people feel good about themselves because they are just like Ellen.

AIA files suit against Indio claiming deplorable and substandard conditions at animal shelter

Advancing the Interests of Animals filed a lawsuit on Friday, October 19  with the Superior Court of Riverside of California against the City of Indio claiming deplorable  and  substandard conditions at its city animal shelter, as well as numerous  violations of both state and county ordinances regarding the treatment of animals in the shelter.

In the suit, we are requesting that the shelter complies with state, county and local laws, that professionally trained staff is hired to manage the shelter, and other items.

We certainly would appreciate your support of the lawsuit and the work of Advancing the Interests of Animals by donating any amount you can to help us cover the legal fees for this action. The animals of Indio deserve better and finally, we are getting the city’s attention.

Please donate here.

You may also mail a check to:

Advancing the Interests of Animals

PO Box 5066

Palm Springs, CA 92263

Desert Sun Article on the Lawsuit

Other important updates from AIA:

Grant Program: The Advancing the Interests of Animals grant program for college and university animal advocacy groups and clubs has received its first applications. Grants of up to $1,000 will be made to winning applicants to fund specific projects that aid animals, educate about animal rights and welfare issues, or promote veganism. We have contacted more than 300 groups directly with invitations to complete an easy application.  Depending on the response, we may expand this campaign next year, and may seek outside foundation support for the program. Details are on the AIA website. Please spread the word to any applicable groups you know that may be interested.

Film Contest: The AIA International Film Contest for Youth is also underway. Cash prizes and radio appearances will be awarded to young film makers in three age categories who produce winning short films (3 minutes or less) promoting animal welfare, animal rights or veganism. Again, please refer to the website and share the news of this contest with any young person who may be interested.

As always, we welcome your comments, suggestions and support.

Advancing the Interests of Animals,

Lori, Peter and Marilyn

Carpe Diem

 

 By: Marilyn Ramos

 

 

Carpe Diem = Seize the moment (or seize the day).

With 24 hours in a day, those of us who are animal activists have a unique opportunity to speak up for them each and every day, each and every hour. We should seize those special moments and opportunities throughout the day to get our message across. I know, however, that it is not always easy. We get distracted with our busy lives and busy schedules or if you have been an ethical vegan for a long time you sometimes can get complacent and forget why you became vegan in the first place. The fierce passion where you want to shout from the rooftops loses a little luster. I have to admit that I sometimes fall into the latter category although I try to do at least one thing per day for animals (besides not eating them, wearing them, etc.) – whether it is sign a petition, send an email or make a phone call; however, this isn’t much so it is important to look for those opportunities each day where you can make a difference or enlighten someone.

I had that opportunity last week when I went to City Wok to pick up my lunch. I usually order their hot braised tofu or their Szechuan eggplant. This was a particularly busy day and I was standing at the takeout counter waiting for my turn when an older gentleman next to me looked at me and smiled. I smiled back. He then asked, “Have you tried their BBQ honey pork? It is out of this world! I got some yesterday and my wife almost ate the whole thing herself”. GULP. Here was an opportunity! I smiled and politely stated that I don’t eat animals because I’m a vegan. The smile on his face disappeared. I then told him in about a minute or so how pigs suffer on factory farms, how they sometimes have their tails docked and teeth pulled without anesthesia. I also told him about gestation crates and how pigs are kept in these crates without the ability to stand up, turn over or simply move. I said, “This suffering is why I don’t eat animals”. Now the look on his face told me that he probably regretted making small talk. What I find humorous is that, more often than not, when you tell someone you don’t eat animals they spring into the, “Oh I don’t eat much meat either”. This gentleman said, “My wife is vegetarian a lot of the time but sometimes she wants meat”. I told him, “With all due respect sir, that doesn’t make your wife vegetarian, it just makes her someone who doesn’t eat a lot of meat. They do have some great tofu and eggplant dishes here if the two of you ever want to try something different”. He said, “Thanks”, paid for his meal and left. I tried not to be bitchy and kept a small smile on my face. I hope that the next time they eat pork (or any meat for that matter) that he will remember the quick facts about cruelty I gave him and reconsider his choice. Maybe even make a more compassionate choice. We never know how our speaking up for animals will influence others especially strangers but that doesn’t mean we shouldn't try.

I recall another time at an animal rights conference, I asked one of the staff to direct me to a specific room where a speaker was going to talk about factory farming. I didn’t ask, “Where is Ballroom B?”. I asked, “Where is the room where they will be speaking about factory farming?”. She wasn’t sure so I then said, “I think it is Ballroom B?” She gave me directions then asked, “So you are with the conference?”. I said, “Yes, why?”. She said, “Can you tell me what’s wrong with milk?”. I said, “Yes I can”. I chatted with her for about 3 minutes and she was engrossed in what I was saying. You could see the light bulb going off in her head. I then thanked her for the directions and said, “Now tomorrow, we can talk about what’s wrong with eggs!”. She chuckled, smiled and bid me adieu.

I will grant you that it took me some time to gain the courage to have these quick little conversations that mean so much. The key is to have 3 or 4 facts at the ready on any vegan topic – dairy, eggs,  meat, factory farming, animal testing, animals in entertainment, animal fur and skin used for clothing, etc.  On the occasion when they ask a question I’m not sure of, I always promise to get back to them or ask them for an email so I can follow up with an answer. Then do it! These little opportunities don’t cost us anything but a minute or two of our day but they can have a lasting effect. Of course, there is more we can do. In the past, I’ve treated coworkers to vegan pizza on World Vegan Day or World Farm Animals Day. The Berkeley Vegan Pizza from Z Pizza is great for that especially since they have the veggie crumbles and it fools the meateaters. They can’t believe that yummy slice is cruelty-free.

Many of us attend or organize protests against the circus or the rodeo or pet stores, etc. but it is these quick unexpected encounters on a daily basis that we need to seize so that we are speaking up for the innocent, speaking up for the voiceless. A bonus is that you feel pretty darn good afterwards! It also gets easier with practice.

 

 





Politics, Politics, Politics

By: Marilyn Ramos

With the Presidential campaigns in full swing, I often think, “Which party is more animal friendly?”  Which party regularly votes for the betterment of animals’ lives? The answer may be obvious but I don’t think it is necessarily a simple answer.

I recall attending an animal rights conference in July 2004. During one of the plenary sessions, the speaker suggested voting for so and so, a conservative anti-gay Republican who had a pretty decent track record (I wish I could remember his name) when it came to animals. I was a bit flabbergasted that this speaker would make such a suggestion. When I challenged him he responded with “So what?!”  He argued that we should be voting the animals’ interests not our own. Fortunately, the race we were discussing was not in California where I’m a registered voter so I didn’t face this dilemma.

Studies have shown that Democratic voters are generally 14 to 19 percentage points more likely than Republican voters to take a pro-animal rights position. The majority of animal rights activists and vegans I know (whether personally or just through our movement) lean to the left. The irony, however, is that in decades past both Republicans and Democrats were both fighters for civil rights. It has only been recently that the rights movement (women’s rights, gay rights, voting rights, etc.) seems to be buoyed by more Democratic leaning voters and Democratic voting Congressmen and women. So does it stand to reason that it will be Democrats and liberals who will also be in the forefront of animal rights? I believe so due to the federal congressional voting record of Republicans and Democrats but I truly hope that this can be changed. It needs to be changed. The animals need this to change.

 There is an animal rights organization that publishes an annual legislative scorecard scoring our federal representatives. I did a review and found the following numbers for those Congressmen and women who scored 50 and over:

In the Senate:      31 Democrats     4 Republicans     1 Independent

(a special shout out goes to Republican Senator Collins, Independent Senator Sanders and Democratic Senators Blumenthal, Kerry, Menendez and Reed for scoring 100 or 100+)

In the House:      148 Democrats   19 Republicans

(a special shout out goes to 57 Democratic representatives for scoring 100 or 100+. No Republican scored 100)

The lopsided numbers in the House are particularly troublesome. We need to do a better job of outreach to Congress but in particular conservative right-leaning representatives. I fear that the “animal rights” argument doesn’t seem to make a difference with a certain segment of conservatives but perhaps a more forceful argument based on the environment and health is how we can reach these people.

I also wish that more Republicans and conservatives in the animal rights movement would “come out of the closet” and make themselves known. I know it may not be an easy thing to do especially when it seems that 90% of the movement is liberal. However, I believe the conservatives in our movement have a duty and have a unique opportunity to do outreach that the rest of us may not be able to do.

I know that these things are not black and white and that many of you (like me) might have a dilemma voting for someone who is pro animals but might be against another position that is important to you. I guess we need to balance our needs with the animals’ needs and we need to do our homework on these politicians to determine how entrenched they are in all of their positions. Are they flexible? Are you flexible?

Dr. Kirshner Responds to the Journal of Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Concerning Experimentation on Rabbits

Dr. Kirshner Responds to the Journal of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Concerning Experimentation on Rabbits

Advancing the Interests of Animals: You wrote a letter to the editor of Journal of The American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus as a response to an article you found objectionable titled,

“Globe perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model: Treatment versus observation.”

How did you become aware of the article? What specifically in the article by did you find objectionable?

Dr. Lori Kirshner: The thing that initially caught the attention of all of us, Peter, Dr. Larry Hansen and I was the sentence in the discussion section of the article, which reads,

"Due to anatomical differences between human and rabbit eyes, we cannot generalize the results of this study to human subjects.”

This was shocking to us because it effectively undermines the reason for the experiment on rabbits and the entire article. The title of the paper we replied to, as you mentioned above, is “Globe perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model: Treatment versus observation.”  You can’t with a straight face refer to a performing research on an animal model (meaning an animal model of human disease) and later say that you cannot generalize the results to humans. So it is simply appalling. 

AIA: What was your motivation in submitting the letter?

LK: Well, after Peter and I decided a reply was appropriate, we asked Dr Hansen for his opinion and input. He is a Professor of Neuropathology at UCSD, and we knew he was opposed to unneeded research on animals. And he agreed that we should submit a letter, and provided his input. Our goal was to point out the absurdity of the research and that this well respected journal would publish this paper. Peter, as you know, is Pediatric Ophthalmologist and a member of the society which publishes this journal. We also wanted to bring attention to the issue of thoughtless vivisection to the medical community, which we feel is overall, fairly insulated to the various issues of efficacy and ethical concerns. 

AIA: What was the reaction to the letter when it was published?

LK: Well, I have to say I think we really attracted the Journal’s attention! First, there was a written reply by the authors in which they offered the usual arguments for testing on animals, advancing science and so on. Then, and I was very excited when I initially saw this, there was an additional reply by the editor in chief, Dr David Hunter, also defending the article and its methods. That’s pretty rare, that an editor in chief chimes in to defend an article.

AIA: As an aside, do you know any of the authors or Dr. Hunter?

LK: No, I do not, but Peter has told me he is familiar with Dr. Hunter's work and role in the Pediatric Ophthalmology community. Remarkably, in Hunter's defense of the article, he claims that we took part of it out of context and did not read the sentence "Due to anatomical differences between human and rabbit eyes, we cannot generalize the results of this study to human subjects.” as it should have been read. Well, in my opinion, this really brings out the desperation of their defensiveness.

If the whole thing hinges on taking the essential part of our objection out of context, then as Editor in Chief, Dr. Hunter could have and should have simply dismissed our letter as not worthy of publication. But he could not because there was more to the issue that taking a sentence out of context. We were questioning the thinking and rationale behind the research. Plus, if the sentence in question is so problematic, why did the reviewers or editors not correct it? Well, I am going to guess (and I mean guess) that the reviewers failed to recognize the problem because they are not tuned into the animal welfare elements involved in vivisection.

AIA: What do you think you achieved? Did you win a battle here?

LK: Well, one does not win these skirmishes. I doubt anyone will close down his or her animal lab after reading our letter. But I am hopeful that perhaps we may spark a greater sense of thoughtfulness when performing research on non-human animals. Why am I doing this research on animals? Is this research important? Will the results of this research advance science in a meaningful way? These are questions that I believe ought to be carefully considered by those who perform scientific research on non-human animals and to me it is evident the authors of the present paper did not ask these questions.

AIA: Do you oppose all research on animals?

LK: Let me say that I strongly believe we do way too much research on animals. I think a lot of it is unneeded. I think the Bagheri study is an example of this. No matter what this study found, it would not change anyone’s practice of surgery on a human. So the authors state they are advancing science; that is their rationale. Dr. Hunter assures the readers that the animals were treated appropriately. Well, maybe. My view is that if you are going to torture and kill sentient beings in the name of science, you should be doing better science. But if the value you place on the life of a rabbit is zero, then it doesn’t matter at all what you do to them. So even with institutional animal care and use committees, talk about the fox watching the henhouse, this is the current reality of medical research.

And of course the other huge issue of efficacy  - I have to mention that. The use of animals as models for human disease, especially in drug development, frequently leads us astray and causes harm to people, as in the case of Vioxx. Merck paid more than 3,000 claims to families of people killed an injured by Vioxx – that’s almost 5 billion dollars! What did animal experimentation accomplish in this case? It gave false assurances that Vioxx would be safe and effective for humans, thereby causing an estimated 27,000 to 55,000 preventable deaths! So, I hope for a time in the near future when we will look back upon the practice of vivisection as an ancient cruelty from unenlightened times, like slavery and torture.

AIA: The article cited is Bagheri A, Erfanian-Salim R, Ahmadieh H, et al. Globe perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model: Treatment versus observation. J AAPOS 2011:15:144-147.

The citation for the letter by Drs. Kirshner, Spiegel and Hansen is: Globe Perforation during strabismus surgery in an animal model. J AAPOS 2012;16:217-218.

The author’s reply to our letter may be found here: J AAPOS 2012;16:217-218.

Dr. Hunter’s Editor’s note’s citation is: J AAPOS 2012;218-219.

Animal Lover?

By: Marilyn Ramos

 

 

Should you be a vegetarian or a vegan if you call yourself an animal lover? If you run an animal welfare organization should you be vegetarian or vegan? If your organization has the word “animal” in its title should you be an advocate for all animals?

My biggest pet peeve has always been people who casually call themselves animal lovers. When I ask if they are vegetarian, or if they attend rodeos and circuses, or if they wear leather or wool, they give me a funny look and then start hemming and hawing. The conversation usually ends with them admitting that they just love their dog or cat, not that they love all animals.

This leads me to another thing that annoys me and that is organizations and charities that have the word “animal” in their names. I recall after going vegan deciding to look for local volunteer opportunities where I could help animals. I was excited when I learned of an organization whose name insinuated that they advocated for all animals. I signed up with them to get more information and to be apprised of fundraising opportunities.

The first invitation I received was for a dinner and a Pets on Parade event. I was excited to go to the event until I had to choose my dinner on the RSVP card. I had a choice between beef or chicken!!  How can you have the word “animal” in your organization’s name yet serve animals at your fundraiser? Surely, I wasn’t the only one who would find this hypocritical. The next day I called the organization and advised them that I was vegan and wanted to know what options were available to me. The woman who answered my call was not particularly nice and said they could accommodate me with either fish or pasta. I told her that fish was not vegan since they too are animals. I then asked how the pasta would be served (I wanted to make sure there wasn’t an alfredo sauce or cheese sauce). She said she could not answer that question and I would have to take it up with the chef the evening of the event. I let her know that I was very disappointed that an organization with the word “animal” in its title and an organization that is listed as an animal welfare organization would be so dismissive of a vegetarian/vegan person who was looking to support their organization.

I chose to forego the event since it was clear that this organization was not about helping all animals but simply about helping cats and dogs. Now don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with wanting to help cats and dogs but I don’t think you should have the word “animal” in your organization name if you don’t truly help all animals.

Another organization with the words “love” and “animals” in its name recently held a fundraiser at a hamburger joint! Yes, let’s eat cows, pigs, turkeys and chickens while we raise money for cats and dogs and while we hypocritically state that we love all animals.

Why am I bringing this up? What’s the big deal? It is a big deal because I believe that any organization that professes to be an animal welfare organization or an animal rights organization should work for ALL animals. I believe casually inserting the word “animal” into your organization name when you don’t work for all animals is insulting and disrespectful to those organizations and those people who do work for ALL animals. I believe including the word “animal” in your organization name comes with responsibility. I don’t believe calling yourself an animal lover is right either when you do nothing to help ALL animals.

I think that this responsibility also extends to animal shelters and rescues.  Animal shelters house mostly cats and dogs but they also do occasionally house other animals – rabbits, snakes, goats, etc. A few years ago, a local shelter permitted a gourmet market to boil live lobsters and serve them in a “Claws for Paws” fundraiser event. They got a lot of flak for it and the good people at that shelter are now doing their best to walk the talk and not have fundraisers where animals are served.

I have to admit that I don’t understand how people who run and work at shelters / rescues / welfare organizations can work all day with cats and dogs trying to make their lives better then go home and eat a steak or chicken for dinner. Why the disconnect? Why the blinders? Is it rational to think that some animals are pets and some animals are food? I think some people think this way so that they can justify eating and wear some animals while working for the welfare of other animals.

My favorite animal rights quotation is from Jeremy Bentham, an 18th/19th century philosopher. He said, “The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but rather, "Can they suffer?"

I wish everyone who worked at these shelters and organizations who truly only work on behalf of cats and dogs yet have the word “animal” in their names or how they describe themselves would take this quote to heart. All animals matter and all animals should have their interests advanced so that we can ALL share in a better world.



Why Lennox?

By: Marilyn Ramos

For anyone who spends any amount of time on Facebook (or any other social media site) you have no doubt heard about Lennox and the "Save Lennox" movement. I've had no less than 15 friends over the last two weeks post about Lennox, link to newspaper/TV stories about Lennox, asked friends to pray for Lennox, etc.  You get the picture. The story of Lennox and his plight have gone viral.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then you are probably wondering who is Lennox and why is he so important. Well, Lennox is an American bulldog/Labrador mix in Belfast, Ireland sentenced to die on July 12, 2012, for the "crime" of looking like a pitbull.  In short, the United Kingdom has a dangerous dog law on its books known as the "Dangerous Dog Act" ("DDA") and if a dog's measurements meet a certain standard for "pitbull types", he or she can be seized from a home without a warrant and put to death.  The assumption is that just looking like a pitbull means the dog will behave badly, either now or some time in the future so he or she must be killed.

Lennox was taken from his home in May 2010 despite not having had any complaints lodged against him. In fact, Lennox not only served as a family companion but he also served as a therapy dog for a disabled daughter in the family. 

To add insult to injury:

1) Lennox wasn't even the original target of the warrant (the "dog police" mistakenly went to the wrong address and poor Lennox's life was never the same again);

2) the DDA was amended recently to incorporate additional criteria that the dog at issue must also be proven dangerous. Unfortunately, Lennox is still being held prisoner because he was seized BEFORE the amendment went into effect so the fact that he's never been proven dangerous is a moot point; and

3) not once have the Belfast authorities permitted his human family to visit him during his two years of imprisonment (they won't even tell the family where Lennox is being held).

One is never really sure why a story goes viral but in this case, Lennox has gotten the attention of celebrities all over the world (even Cesar "the Dog Whisperer" Millan has offered to bring him to the United States) and has been the subject of numerous petitions seeking his release.  

Incredibly, high ups like the Minister of the Dept. of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and the First Minister of Northern Ireland have been brought into the mix. Even a last ditch effort has been made with the Queen, seeking a "royal prerogative of mercy" for Lennox. If they are not able to save Lennox, then his family is demanding to at least have the right to say goodbye. As they eloquently stated, "We cannot bear the thought that Lennox will die without being reminded of the hearts and hands that love him."

Now if that last line didn't bring a tear to your eye, you aren't human!

But why write a blog about Lennox? Well, this blog isn't really about Lennox. This is about the billions of other animals who are just like Lennox but who don't garner as much attention.

Where is the pardon request for the beagle suffering in an animal lab testing facility?

Where is the outcry for the calf taken away from his mother after only a few hours and sold off to the veal industry?

Where is the petition seeking to free the bull about to be killed in the bullfighting ring?

Now, granted, many animal advocates do all of the above on behalf of animals. However, the plight of the average animal does not get the attention of the average person. The average person does not advocate for ALL animals.

I'm happy for Lennox and his family that their story is being told; however, I am always astounded at the disconnect people have to other animals who suffer as much if not more than Lennox. I spent some time reading the comments by people who were outraged by Lennox's story and cared enough to comment on a newspaper article or comment on a Facebook posting. Why Lennox though? Why this dog? Why not express the same compassion and concern for other animals?

I think about the time that millions throughout the world have taken to speak up for Lennox; however, the overwhelming majority of these people ate animals today and wore animals today. After signing a petition on behalf of Lennox, they may have had bacon for breakfast, put on their favorite leather shoes or bought tickets to the circus. Totally unphased by the hypocrisy they have just participated in.

I ask, again, "Why Lennox?"

If Lennox doesn't make it beyond July 12^th, then I hope that his passing is not in vain. I hope that maybe, just maybe, his plight and the overwhelming concern the world has given him will have opened the eyes of some who might also ask, "Why Lennox?" Then perhaps they'll go one question further and ask, "Why not every other animal?".

Hot Diggity Dog

By: Marilyn Ramos

Another 4^th of July holiday is gone which means another Nathan’s Famous Fourth of July International Hot Dog Eating Contest (that’s a mouthful…pun intended) is also gone. This year, Nathan’s held its ninety-seventh annual contest. Five-time-defending champion, Joey Chestnut, won again by devouring a record-tying 68 hot dogs (and buns) in ten minutes.

Now, I’m sure most of you have seen video clips or snippets of this nausea inducing contest. People dunking hot dogs and buns into water and shoving them into their mouths as fast as possible. For what? What purpose does this serve? For the right to claim that they ate the most hot dogs in ten minutes? Who would want this distinction? Where is the nobility and prestige in that? I question the mentality of a person who wants that to be their claim to fame.

What’s also nausea inducing is the movement to make gorging your face a sport called Competitive Eating. It makes no sense whatsoever.

The implications of this hot dog eating contest are multi-fold.

First, the toll on the body is shocking. Each Nathan’s dog has 290 calories, 710 milligrams of sodium and 17 grams of fat. In total, stuffing 68 hot dogs and buns into your body means almost enough calories as someone on a 2,000-calorie-a-day diet would need in ten days. The long term effects of “competitive eating” have not yet been fully studied since this is a new phenomenon. However, if you deem yourself an ‘athlete” in this new “sport” then the long term effects can’t be good especially when we know that “competitive eating” involves mostly unhealthy foods.

Second, putting veganism and animal rights aside for just a minute, devouring 68 hot dogs in ten minutes is also cruel when you think of the millions of starving people around the world. Heck, forget the world, think of the millions starving right here in the United States (or, at least, those who are “food insecure” as they are now called). Almost 15% of Americans are “food insecure” with 5.5% of those having very low food security. That means, over 15 million Americans don’t have enough food to sustain them on a daily basis. I wonder about the child sitting in front of his/her TV who hasn’t had food that day. I wonder what he/she thinks when they see that much food piled onto a plate. When they see it disappear in ten minutes flat, do they wonder, “Who needs that much food at once?” or “Why can’t I have some?”.

If one were to argue that it is okay to eat animals (not my position) because they are used to feed the masses, then how is it “respectful” to either the animal or the starving child to have ONE person eat 68 hot dogs in ten minutes? Multiply that by the number of contestants, multiply that by how many times these contestants practiced and multiply that by the number of increasing “competitive eating” contests out there. What you get is a lot food being wasted. Food that is not used to sustain you or provide you nutrition but food used simply as a game…a sport. Food that the person barely tastes because it is being inhaled at an alarming rate. Gluttony run amok.

Whenever I see one of these competitive eating contests, I can’t help but feel saddened when I think of the animals sacrificed and the people starving everywhere. To be so glib about devouring that much food in such a short period of time makes me wonder about our priorities. Besides that, how does this one 4th of July gorge fest honor our freedom, our independence or our founding fathers? It doesn't.

Finally, I wonder if the average person craves a hot dog more after seeing Nathan’s annual hot dog eating contest. I think they probably do. Heck, in just writing this blog I craved a veggie dog even though I haven’t eaten one in over six months. I went food shopping yesterday and bought a pack of veggie dogs and a pack of hot dog buns. But I digress, I think that these competitive eating contests spawn imitators and I can envision these macho guys in their backyards holding their own hot dog eating contests. Not because they are hungry but because they want some silly title they can lay claim to or to show off among their friends. Mature, right?

I think of the cows, pigs and turkeys who suffer so on factory farms. The months they spent confined, abused, exploited, and scared. Their sacrifice a mere blip, a mere shove down a throat. Their pain and suffering a mere stepping stone to a tacky Nathan’s “championship” belt.

In my ideal world, everyone would be vegan. But, I’m a realist and don’t believe that will ever happen so if people are going to eat animals then, at a bare minimum, I would hope that they would be more MINDFUL of the suffering and the sacrifice. Be more MINDFUL of the toll it takes on the animals and on the environment and on people. Of course, if they were more MINDFUL then they probably wouldn’t be eating animals in the first place. Ignorance is bliss but we must all strive to turn that ignorance into education and, hopefully, make this world a better place. A better place for animals. A better place for the hungry. A better place for future generations.

  

Au Revoir to Foie Gras

By: Marilyn Ramos

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. Mahatma Ghandi

On July 1st, the sale and production of foie gras will be illegal in California. Senate Bill 1520 was passed in 2004 and made California the first state to enact such a ban. Author, John Burton, stated that “we just shouldn’t be cramming a tube down a duck's throat and forcing in food to make foie gras," and that foie gras production is "an inhumane process that other countries have sensibly banned. I'm pleased California will be next on the list."  It should be noted that a dozen or so countries also ban foie gras. These include Switzerland, Israel, Denmark and the United Kingdom.

As the deadline looms, numerous articles are being written about the ban. Some articles have waxed poetic about foie gras parties and bashed the “animal rights crazies”. I wish one day someone would explain to me what is so crazy about caring for animals, their welfare and their humane treatment.

I, for one, find it disheartening that so many do not see the inherent cruelty of foie gras. Maybe that is because so many people are either ignorant or purposely choose to be left in the dark about how their food is made (especially when the cruelty is blatant). Out of sight, out of mind I suppose.

As you probably know, foie gras is French for fatty liver. The livers of ducks and geese are fattened up by force feeding them several times a day for 12 to 18 days via a steel tube (gavage) so that their livers expand to an abnormally large size. You can find videos online showing the production of foie gras. It is not a pretty sight. Not only are the ducks and geese roughly handled, but they suffer pain, injuries, organ damage and infection from the harsh process. Some can’t walk from the extra weight and some even die from exploding stomachs. Even the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) does not support the practice.

I need to point out that the process of producing foie gras is cruel and inhumane but it is only half the story. The treatment of the animals immediately prior to and during slaughter is also cringe-worthy (as it is for most meat production). Ducks are shocked with electrified water and then have their throats slit to allow the blood to drain. Marcus Henley, the operations manager of Hudson Valley Foie Gras states:

“The heart has to continue beating so when the throat is cut, blood pumps out for a time. This is standard in all animal slaughter, although some religious customs preclude stunning. We are not comfortable with that. The bird has to be alive at the point where the throat is cut so the blood pumps out.”

Advocates of foie gras claim the animals don’t suffer. I’m sorry but that is like a rapist saying his victim liked it or must’ve enjoyed it if she didn’t fight back. Unfortunately, some people will reject all evidence put before them that shows foie gras production is cruel, because they simply want to eat it without feeling guilty about it.

So as many restaurants will be hosting Au Revoir to Foie Gras parties over the next two weeks, I’ll be saying Au Revoir to ducks gasping for air, geese choking on blood, ducks suffering from liver malfunction, geese having tubes crammed down their throats, ducks unable to hold up their heads because of so much damage to their necks. I’ll be saying GOODBYE to the inhumane treatment of ducks and geese in California. I hope that the old saying, “As goes California, so goes the nation” will become a reality when it comes to foie gras in this country.

Animals Today – May 20, 2012. Hardy Jones explains Peruvian dolphin strandings. Marina Dervan promotes An Act of Dog

On this show, Lori was first joined by conservation filmmaker and author Hardy Jones. Hardy is recently back from Peru where nearly one thousand dead dolphins and porpoises have washed up onto the beach. He shared some new insight as to why this might have happened. Hardy also has a new book titled The Voice of the Dolphins.

During the discussion with Lori, the topic of health benefits of omega 3 fatty acids came up. Lori did not mention this, but for vegans, a product called Omega Zen, provides omega 3s derived from algae. That’s what we take.

Then, Marina Dervan came on to discuss the project, An Act of Dog. Artist Mark Barone is painting 5500 dog portraits to support companion animal welfare. Listen in to find out how to buy one and support this massive undertaking. A very exciting project, we think you will agree. 

Here is the link to the show.