|
|
AR-NEWS Digest 647
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Fwd: Australian Navy to Sieze Japanese Fishing Vessels
by "Cari Gehl"
2) IWC Position Statements
by "Cari Gehl"
3) Yosemite Bear Alert
by "Cari Gehl"
4) (US) Witness testifies he was ambushed
by allen schubert
5) (US) Former USDA official slams 'Oprah' show
by allen schubert
6) (US) O'Brien being grilled
by allen schubert
7) [US] Wal-Mart Bans Animal Displays
by Debbie Leahy
8) (Australia)Veggie burger cooked in meat fat
by bunny
9) Stop Eating Swordfish Survey
by MINKLIB
10) Newswire: No Increase in Cancers From Polio Vaccine
by Lawrence Carter-Long
11) Consumer Group Cites Conflict of Interest in Polio Report
by LCartLng@gvn.net (Lawrence Carter-Long)
12) URGENT: Letters To Oregon Supreme Court Needed!
by "Bob Schlesinger"
13) Lanolin
by "Anne S. Shih"
14) (CA) Seal aphrodisiacs often fake say Canadian researchers
by Mesia Quartano
15) AMP attacks Vilas Monkeys
by paulbog@jefnet.com (Rick Bogle)
16) [US] "Vilas Zoo monkeys headed for Thailand?"
by Steve Barney
17) [US] "Vilas Zoo monkeys headed for Thailand?"
by Steve Barney
18) (US-NJ)ORDINANCES AGAINST NJ PROTESTS.
by "Jeffrey A. LaPadula"
19) New Barking Law (United States, California, Pasadena)
by "Paul Wiener"
20) ZOO Commission meeting FRIDAY!
by "Alliance for Animals"
21) New Nadas Lawsuit to be Filed
by "Bob Schlesinger"
22) Materials for commenting on Organic Standards
by Amy Bricker
23) (US) Bird-baiting letter
by jeanlee
24) Write/Call Make Connibear Traps Illegal in NY +
by baerwolf@tiac.net (baerwolf)
25) [UK] CS gas and batons used on protesting farmers
by David J Knowles
26) [UK] Infertile men could get sperm from mice
by David J Knowles
27) (US) Witness breaks into tears at Winfrey trial
by allen schubert
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 00:09:25 PST
From: "Cari Gehl"
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Fwd: Australian Navy to Sieze Japanese Fishing Vessels
Message-ID: <19980128080926.2440.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
Forwarded from the Sea Shepherd mailing list...
------------
Subj: Australian Navy to Sieze Japanese Fishing Vessels
Date:98-01-27 04:41:21 EST
From:nvoth@estreet.com
Sender:seashepherd@lists.estreet.com
Reply-to:seashepherd@lists.estreet.com (Sea Shepherd Mailing List)
To:seashepherd@lists.estreet.com (Sea Shepherd Mailing List)
Australian Navy to Sieze Japanese Fishing Vessels.
(from various sources)
As of today (Friday 23rd Jan. 1998) the Australian Navy has been
instructed to seize all Japanese fishing vessels found within
Australia's
200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone.
This action follows the breakdown in negotiations of quota levels for
the
southern bluefin tuna (SBT). These tuna are at drastically reduced
populations and the fishery on them is controlled by a three party
agreement between Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Each year the
Commission for the Conservation of SBT meet and allocate quotas between
these nations. This year negotiations have broken down completely after
three days of negotiation.
Japan has been agitating for an increase in the catch levels, despite
the
low populations and the entry of other, non-CCSBT, nations into the SBT
fishery. These countries follow no quota limits and include Taiwan,
Indonesia and Korea. This means that the actual overall catch is
unknown. With SBT flesh fetching up to AUS$260 per kilogram
the incentive is there. However, the technique used is longlining, which
is the single greatest threat albatross face and is responsible for
putting all albatross species under threat of extinction. SBT are at
populations less than ten percent of their pre-exploitation levels.
The fishery began in the 1950's and has hammered the fish since then
until
the current quota system was introduced in 1979.
Japan rejects both Australia's and New Zealand's scientific assesments
of
the SBT populations in Australian waters. Japan wants an increase in the
total allowable catch (TAC) of 3,000 tonnes per year more than its
current
quota of 6065 tonnes. The overall TAC for the three nations combined is
11,750 tonnes. New Zealand advocates a reduction of overall TAC by
3,000 tonnes while Australia wants no change. Japan has contemplated
withdrawing from the CCSBT and has declared that it will create a
special
'experimental' fishery to catch the extra 3,000 tonnes of SBT it wants.
This sounds suspiciously like Japan's 'research' whaling.
Australia will seize and impound any vessel of Japanese registry found
fishing inside the Australian EEZ. Captured vessels will face a fine of
up
to AUS$275,000 and confiscation of catch, gear and ship.
The threat to SBT is real as they are fished at all stages of
development.
In 1996 they were declared critically endangered and Greenpeace this
week
sent boats to the Great Australian Bight to directly challenge tuna
boats.
70 Japanese boats are usually licenced to fish in Australian waters for
an
annual license fee of AUS$3.4 million. The boats are also elligible for
a
tax rebate on the diesel they buy in port which gives them an annual
subsidy from the Australian Government of about AUS$70 million plus.
They
Japanese fleet takes about AUS$40 million worth of SBT from the
Australian
fisheries annually.
The 'experimental' fishery may be related to work on mitigating the
albatross mortality rates, although Japan has resisted long and hard
against any acceptance that longlining for SBT puts albatross at risk.
Information compiled by Jon Sumby
=====================================
Sent from Nick Voth
Internet Representative
Sea Shepherd Conservation Society
P.O. Box 628
Venice, CA. 90294
USA
e-mail: seashepherd@seashepherd.org
Web Site: http://www.seashepherd.org
Tel: 310-301-SEAL(7325)
Canada: 604-688-7325
Fax: 310-574-3161
=====================================
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 02:23:24 PST
From: "Cari Gehl"
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: IWC Position Statements
Message-ID: <19980128102324.19232.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
The International Wolf Center (IWC) in Ely, MN has now put up a section
on their web site for position statements concerning wolf management in
Minnesota. There's also an area for people to respond to them. It
includes position statements from:
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Minnesota Deer Hunters Association
International Wolf Center
Minnesota State Cattleman's Association
Minnesota Conservation Federation
Sierra Club (North Star Chapter), et al.: Coming soon!
Humane Society: Coming soon!
You will note that the position statement of the IWC is deliberately
vague and misleading, all they will say is that "...the Center seeks to
promote an open dialogue fueled by fact and resulting in an effective
wolf management plan ..." I think we can all figure out what that
means.
The web site is located at:
http://www.wolf.org/mgt/Human/human.html
Take care and best wishes,
Cari Gehl
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 02:53:19 PST
From: "Cari Gehl"
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Yosemite Bear Alert
Message-ID: <19980128105320.14484.qmail@hotmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain
>From rec.animals.wildlife
---------------------begin forwarded post--------------
Alert √ Winter 1997/98 √ Your Letters Needed to Help Yosemite Bears!
Recently three American black bears were killed in Yosemite by National
Park Service (NPS) because the bears had become so severely habituated
to human-provided food that they became aggressive towards humans.
These bears╞ deaths are directly attributed to the bears╞ habituation to
human-provided food via two main sources:
1) Non native apples at orchards throughout the Valley
2) Food stored in vehicles by visitors
What you can do to help NPS help Yosemite bears (background information
below):
Write to National Park Service and ask for:
1) Removal of all non native apple orchards from Yosemite Valley
(removal of apples as interim step until orchards can be removed)
2) Installation of food storage lockers at Curry Village and other
parking lots where needed
3) Increased signage in Curry Village parking lot (and elsewhere as
needed) with food storage regulations and information that every year
bears are killed because of habituation to human-provided food
4) Increased NPS contact (via staff or volunteers) with visitors to
explain food storage & associated issues
5) Increased funding for enforcement of wildlife regulations, including
issuing citations for violations
6) Request that the Fall 1997 bear deaths be used as an interpretive
opportunity, including signs about the deaths in the Curry Village
parking lot
7) Help NPS help Yosemite bears by writing to your congressional
representatives to encourage increased funding for "bear management" in
Yosemite
As with any topic in Yosemite, letters should be addressed to the
superintendent╞s office as follows:
Superintendent Albright
National Park Service
PO Box 577
Yosemite CA 95389
OR FAX 209-372-0220
Background:
It is important to understand that NPS does not want to kill bearsαand
that doing so creates tremendous stress for NPS management & staff. In
your letters to NPS, please do not attack their actions. Doing so would
be misguided and will not help them help Yosemite bears. It is
important that you express your dismay that bears became so habituated
and your desire for the recommended actions to be implemented
immediately. You may also want to offer your help as
a volunteer to help implement these actions, should such opportunities
for public participation become available.
Maintaining a non native food source in a National Park creates a "mixed
message" for the public who is prohibited from feeding wildlife. These
orchards play a direct role in altering the foraging behavior of
Yosemite╞s bears. The proximity of the Curry Orchard to the Curry
Village parking lot is especially hazardous, as it draws bears to the
Curry Village parking lot.
Cultural and historical preservationists continue to lobby for
preservation of the non native apple orchards. The NPS document "Draft
Valley Implementation Plan (Alt. 2)" proposes removal of both Lamon and
Curry Village orchards. This document also describes the removal of the
orchards as "an irretrievable loss". Of course the loss of even one bear
is certainly irretrievable.
In a National Park, priority should be given to native species (bears)
over non native species (apples). NPS will be pressured to retain the
orchards, making your letters in favor of removal even more critical.
Visitors staying in hard-sided cabins are required to store all food
items (*) in their cabins. However, this is not possible for visitors
staying in tent cabins. The Curry Village parking lot is also used by
visitors who are not guests of Curry Village.
Food storage lockers are desperately needed in these parking areas and
for guests of tent cabins. Lockers should be secure and available at no
charge, to ensure the greatest opportunity for compliance.
Increased signage at Curry Village (and other appropriate locations)
should clearly state food storage regulations, and include information
that every year bears are killed because of their habituation to
human-provided food.
Increased "one on one" contact with visitors in campsites & elsewhere
(roving rangers or volunteers) is needed to expand awareness about bears
(and other wildlife) and the critical aspects of food storage. This is
highly successful in other National Parks and should be done to benefit
Yosemite╞s wildlife and visitors.
Increased enforcement of wildlife regulations, and citations for
violations, will help raise awareness that the regulations are critical
to the health and well-being of both bears and Yosemite visitors.
* To a bear, food = all food items regardless of packaging, toothpaste,
soap, cosmetics, lotions, sunscreen, lip balm, garbage, fragrant
containers, etc.
Remember √ "A fed (by humans) bearα is a DEAD (by humans) bear!"
Please help further distribute this information. This alert is available
on the Internet at:
http://members.aol.com/GStigall/balert.htm
Native Habitats would appreciate receiving a copy of your letter to NPS
on this topic if possible.
Thank you!
--------------------------------------------------------
Native Habitats
email: gstigall@aol.com
web: http://members.aol.com/GStigall
--------------------------------------------------------
------------end forwarded post------------------------
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 07:13:44 -0500
From: allen schubert
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: (US) Witness testifies he was ambushed
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980128071341.0071bb80@mail.clark.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
from @marillo Globe-News http://www.amarillonet.com/oprah/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web posted Tuesday, January 27, 1998 7:01 p.m. CT
Witness testifies he was ambushed
Cattlemen vs. Oprah Winfrey
By CHIP CHANDLER
Globe-News Staff Writer
Oprah Winfrey appeared sincere and honest in her beliefs on her April 16,
1996, talk show, a plaintiff's witness testified on Tuesday.
Dr. William Hueston also said that he thought Winfrey and her staff were
inciting a lynch-mob atmosphere during taping.
Hueston was the third witness to testify in the case of area cattlemen
versus Winfrey, now in its second week. Hueston will continue testifying as
court resumes today.
Hueston was a guest on the talk show in question, representing the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, he said.
He said he was told by a producer for Winfrey's show that he would be a
"voice of reason" on the episode. Instead, he said he felt like he was
ambushed by an anti-government audience.
Winfrey's attorney Charles Babcock questioned Hueston several times why, as
a voice of reason, he did not try harder to explain to Winfrey the science
behind bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.
"I didn't have the chance," Hueston said.
Hueston characterized the show as irresponsible, inflammatory and
nonsensical.
"Did you ever tell her that anytime during the show?" Babcock asked. "No
sir," Hueston said.
He also said he never contacted Harpo Production Inc. officials after the
taping of the show to express his concern with the balance of the show. The
show was taped on April 11, 1996, and aired five days later.
During testimony, Hueston pointed out more than 40 statements he thought
were false in 17 different portions of the show.
The show had "one false statement after another," he said at one point.
"False and inflammatory statements without any basis in science."
Hueston also testified under questioning by Winfrey's attorney that he had
been paid more than $25,000 so far for his testimony in the trial.
Hueston, now a professor at the university of Maryland, earlier explained
the science of mad cow disease and other similar diseases. He also said
there was "a snowball's chance in hell" for mad cow disease to occur in the
United States.
Earlier Tuesday, cattleman Bill O'Brien was finally dismissed from the
witness stand, where he had been testifying since Friday.
The once-calm questioning took on a more abrupt tone as it progressed, with
both Babcock and O'Brien, managing partner of Texas Beef Producers, raising
voices and cutting each other off as they tried to make points.
In a heated exchange Tuesday, Babcock asked O'Brien, "Isn't it true you're
trying to silence people who are critics of beef?"
"Absolutely not," O'Brien said.
"Don't you think if you can silence the most powerful voice in America, you
can silence anybody?" Babcock asked.
"No," O'Brien said. "We welcome critics because it makes us strong. But
hers was a sensationalized program telling falsehoods that left the
impression that American beef was unsafe."
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 07:15:08 -0500
From: allen schubert
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: (US) Former USDA official slams 'Oprah' show
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980128071505.00b228f4@mail.clark.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
from @marillo Globe-News http://www.amarillonet.com/oprah/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web posted Tuesday, January 27, 1998 7:00 p.m. CT
Former USDA official slams 'Oprah' show
Cattlemen vs. Oprah Winfrey
By MARK BABINECK
Associated Press Writer
AMARILLO, Texas (AP) - A former government expert on mad cow disease
testified Tuesday that he was "ambushed" on "The Oprah Winfrey Show."
William Hueston said he agreed to appear on the 1996 program after a
producer said he wanted "a voice of reason to calm the hysteria" about mad
cow disease.
Testifying for a group of Texas cattlemen in their $10.3 million-plus
beef-defamation case against Ms. Winfrey, Hueston said the show instead
took an alarming turn.
Hueston accused Ms. Winfrey of "riling up" the audience, both during the
show and the commercial breaks, and said he heard whispers of "You can't
trust the government."
"I felt I was being ambushed," Hueston said. He also said he sensed "a
lynch mob mentality."
But Charles Babcock, representing Ms. Winfrey and her production company,
pointed out that during the show Hueston appeared to stand up for the
rights of food safety activist and co-defendant Howard Lyman when asked by
Ms. Winfrey if Lyman was overstating the danger of mad cow disease.
"I would say Howard is an example of what makes America the great country
that it is now," Hueston said in a clip edited from the show.
Hueston said on the stand that he did not want to pick a fight with Lyman
on the program. He also admitted that he did not call producers after the
taping to complain about the tone of the show, even though it did not run
until five days later.
Hueston testified that his reassuring comments about the safety of American
beef were mostly edited out. Ms. Winfrey has said that much of what Hueston
and a cattle industry spokesman said was deleted because it was redundant.
At the time, Hueston worked for the Agriculture Department in Washington.
He is now a professor at the University of Maryland.
During the show, a food safety activist said that the feeding of processed
cattle parts back to cattle in this country could spread the human version
of mad cow disease in the United States. Ms. Winfrey responded by swearing
off hamburgers.
The cattlemen say the program caused beef prices to fall to 10-year lows
within a week. They are suing Ms. Winfrey under Texas' food-disparagement
law, which protects agricultural products from false and defamatory
remarks.
Ms. Winfrey's "dangerous foods" show came in response to a British
announcement that an outbreak of mad cow disease had probably also caused a
brain-destroying disease in humans.
Hueston testified Tuesday that there is a "snowball's chance in hell" that
mad cow disease will strike the U.S. herd.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 07:18:10 -0500
From: allen schubert
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: (US) O'Brien being grilled
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980128071808.00b228f4@mail.clark.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
from @marillo Globe-News http://www.amarillonet.com/oprah/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web posted Tuesday, January 27, 1998 1:09 p.m. CT
O'Brien being grilled
Cattlemen vs. Oprah Winfrey
By KAY LEDBETTER
Globe-News Farm and Ranch Editor
Much like the steak he is trying to
protect, cattleman Bill O'Brien continues to be grilled in the cattlemen
vs. Oprah Winfrey trial.
O'Brien, managing partner of Texas Beef Producers, first took the stand
Friday. After a full day of cross examination and re-direct on Monday, he
took the stand again this morning.
The once-calm questioning has taken on a more abrupt tone, with both
Charles Babcock, defense attorney, and O'Brien raising voices and cutting
each other off as they try to make points.
In a heated exchange this morning, Babcock asked O'Brien "Isn't it true
you're trying to silence people who are critics of beef?"
"Absolutely not," O'Brien said.
"Don't you think if you can silence the most powerful voice in America, you
can silence anybody?" Babcock asked.
"No," O'Brien said. "We welcome critics because it makes us strong. But
hers was a sensationalized program telling falsehoods that left the
impression that American beef was unsafe."
Outside the courtroom, the media circus and crowds have died down
considerably - to the point that Winfrey came out during the Monday
afternoon recess "for a breath of fresh air" and was asked only one
question by a news team.
Winfrey said during the noon break and again after the day in court was
over that she has been told she can no longer stand outside the court
building and talk to the media.
Back inside the courtroom, Babcock pointed out to O'Brien that in the month
of April 1996, cattle futures markets dropped the limit down seven times in
the 21 trading days.
O'Brien previously testified that dropping the limit down, which is the
lowest level the markets can drop in a single day, was a highly unusual
move. He was referring to the day of the Winfrey show, "Dangerous Foods,"
on April 16, 1996.
O'Brien said market drops on April 10 and April 11 could have been related
to advance knowledge by traders about the show being taped. More
specifically, he said, the drops the day of the show and after were
directly related to Winfrey's show.
Babcock questioned how O'Brien knew the drops were not related to other
news reports, quoting at least 13 other stories appearing in major media
outlets prior to the Winfrey show.
O'Brien said major stories, such as those that appeared in Newsweek and on
"Dateline" were more responsible. He testified the main gist of the
Newsweek article was "don't panic," where Winfrey's show used "highly
inflammatory" language.
Babcock said O'Brien wasn't, in fact, aware of many of the articles and
what they said. Babcock said O'Brien didn't do his homework before filing
this lawsuit.
"Your testimony today, just like the rest of your testimony, is all
speculation," Babcock said as he ended his cross-examination.
Attempting to repair damage, plaintiff attorney Joe Coyne came back Monday
afternoon and questioned O'Brien about a National Cattlemen's Beef
Association survey that Babcock had earlier addressed.
The survey, Babcock had pointed out, indicated the amount of people who
were "very confident to somewhat confident" in the safety and wholesomeness
of American beef only dropped from 82 percent before the show to 80 percent
after the show, almost negligible.
Coyne asked O'Brien whether it was true that the same survey showed those
who were "not confident" in beef safety had risen by 60 percent.
During questioning by Babcock, O'Brien maintained the first show was not
balanced, contained malicious editing and never gave anyone a chance to say
"American beef is safe."
Babcock said the American public was not so dumb that it could not figure
out American beef was safer than the British beef, where mad cow disease
had been found.
O'Brien said people could figure out that American beef is safer, but "not
from the 'Dangerous Foods' program."
O'Brien said the behavior of the people changed.
"The key thing for us is what happened in the store."
Asked specifically whether he had proof beef purchases had fallen, Babcock
said O'Brien didn't because no such survey existed.
Coyne asked O'Brien whether he didn't know at least one person who had quit
buying beef because of the program, to which O'Brien answered, "Yes, Oprah
Winfrey."
"Ms. Winfrey is an intelligent person and she chose to stop eating beef
after the program, yet Mr. Babcock asked, 'Do you think the American public
is so dumb they can't figure it out,' " Coyne said.
Coyne said the promo into a second show where guest Gary Weber, with NCBA,
was invited back to present the beef side of the story indicated consumers
were looking to Winfrey for information about beef.
Winfrey said, "you called us; you wrote letters; you went online, America
... especially where beef is concerned."
Coyne said, "Maybe they followed the same practice as Ms. Winfrey."
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 07:48:34 -0500 (EST)
From: Debbie Leahy
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: [US] Wal-Mart Bans Animal Displays
Message-ID: <01ISWIDZU1S294GQV6@delphi.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
WAL-MART BANS ANIMAL EXHIBITS
Illinois Animal Action (IAA) received a series of complaints
from activists throughout northern Illinois last year who
witnessed an exotic animal exhibitor at various Wal-Mart
stores. The exhibitor, Wildlife Incorporated, brought an
assortment of animals, including a tiger crammed in a small
cage, for photo shots with the public.
The situation was investigated by store officials after IAA
initiated a series of letters and phone conversations with
public relations representatives at Wal-Mart headquarters.
We just received word from Wal-Mart that it had an EXISTING
corporate policy prohibiting these displays, and the stores
where these exhibits occurred were not aware the regulation
existed. Wal-Mart stated in phone conversation on 1/26/98
that it will notify its stores in the northern Illinois area
that exotic animal exhibits are not permitted.
------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Animal Action
P.O. Box 507
Warrenville, IL 60555
630/393-2935
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:49:49 +0800
From: bunny
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: (Australia)Veggie burger cooked in meat fat
Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19980128224224.2def9460@wantree.com.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Alert.Apparently Hungry Jacks Veggie Burgers are now being cooked in meat fat
*****************************************************************************
I have not got the article but read it at someone elses house in todays
paper which was sold out where I live.
Apparently, Hungry Jacks (related to Burger King) is now cooking their
Veggie burgers in a mixture of Animal fat (it used to be palm oil).
A vegetarian (or more than one) has apparently complained and the answer
was given that they never called the burger "Vegetarian Burger" but that
they called the burger "Veggie burger" (or "vegetable burger"...sorry I
haven't got the article here)
So apparently the veggie burger sold by Hungry Jacks is not vegetarian
at present because the chain of shops has been directed to cook them
in animal fat mix. Apparently, a request has gone back to the USA to see if
the use of palm oil can be resumed.
End
=====================================================================
========
/`\ /`\ Rabbit Information Service,
Tom, Tom, (/\ \-/ /\) P.O.Box 30,
The piper's son, )6 6( Riverton,
Saved a pig >{= Y =}< Western Australia 6148
And away he run; /'-^-'\
So none could eat (_) (_) email: rabbit@wantree.com.au
The pig so sweet | . |
Together they ran | |} http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm
Down the street. \_/^\_/ (Rabbit Information Service website updated
frequently)
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
- Voltaire
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 10:01:38 EST
From: MINKLIB
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Stop Eating Swordfish Survey
Message-ID:
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
This appeared on an industry list. They are calling for people to swamp these
surveys so that it appears more people support slaughtering swordfish than
actually do. Please respond to each one with a pro swordfish vote.
>From: TPlatt1070
>Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:28:52 EST
>To: tplatt1070@aol.com (Teresa Platt)
>Subject: HAVE YOU VOTED "NO" YET? FISHERMEN STILL NEED YOUR HELP!
>Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com)
>
>HAVE YOU VOTED "NO" YET? SWORDFISHERMEN STILL NEED YOUR HELP!
>
>WE'RE WINNING WITH A LITTLE BACKSLIDING!
>
>WE NEED YOUR "NO" VOTE NOW TO SECURE A BIG WIN FOR FISHERMEN! VOTE
"NO" AND
>PASS THIS ON!!!
>
>PLEASE VISIT http://detnews.com/current/metro/ RIGHT NOW and cast your NO
>vote!!!
>
>WE BELIEVE IN MANAGEMENT,
>NOT BOYCOTTS ON THE PRODUCTS OF RESPONSIBLE FISHERMEN!
>
>IF YOU WANT TO ADD A COMMENT, AFTER YOU VOTE "NO," JUST SCROLL
DOWN AND TYPE!
>BE FIRM BUT POLITE!
>
>CLICK ON "Check the feedback about this issue" TO SEE WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID.
>
>The U.N. Year of the Oceans has started out with a bang with dozens of
>preservationist groups calling for moratoriums, sanctuaries, closures, gear
>bans, restrictions, you name it.
>
>But right NOW, the longline swordfishermen need your help!!!
>
>NOW!!
>
>PLEASE VISIT http://detnews.com/current/metro/ RIGHT NOW and cast your NO
>vote!!!
>
>On Detroit News website at http://detnews.com/current/metro/ -- they have a
>button right on the front page that says:
>
>Boycott swordfish?
>
> A national campaign urges people to stop eating Atlantic swordfish for a
year
>due to severe declines in swordfish numbers. Some chefs say the boycott
won't
>save the species but might bankrupt fishermen.
>
> Will you stop eating swordfish?
>
> YES NO
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Press "no" and this is what appears:
>
>Detroit News CyberSurvey results
>
>Thanks for your No vote on this issue:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>As of 11:00 A.M. EST January 23, the message said:
>
>So far 31% have voted NO, which puts you with the minority.
>
>As of 4:15 P.M. EST January 23, the message said:
>
>So far we have 52% voting yes and 47% voting NO.
>
>As of 11:30 A.M. EST January 24, the message said:
>
>So far we have 43% voting yes and 57% voting NO.
>
>As of 7:30 P.M. EST, January 26, the message said:
>
>So far we have 46% voting yes and 53% voting NO.
>
>
>BUILDING, BUILDING, WINNING but NOW we're BACKSLIDING! So we need your
VOTE
>"NO". PASS THIS ON!
>
>--
>
>Teresa Platt
>The Fishermen's Coalition
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>Swordfishermen are getting hit -- there have been dozens of articles similar
>to the following in the last week! Coordinated by Natural Resources Defense
>Council, Sea Web (funded by Pew) and Time/Warner!!!
>
>An article (Save the Swordfish) in Time Magazine on January 26, states,
>"Remember a few years ago when you suddenly couldn't eat a tuna-fish sandwich
>without a pang of guilt--unless the tuna can bore a seal promising that no
>dolphins had inadvertently been harmed when the fish was caught? Soon there
>will be a new faux pas du jour: eating the endangered swordfish. If
>environmentalists have their way, most restaurants will take the delicacy off
>their menu, and those that
>don't will lose customers in the wake of a great swordfish boycott.
>
>During 1998, proclaimed the International Year of the Ocean by the United
>Nations, conservation groups hope to make the swordfish a symbol for all
>marine creatures threatened by overfishing. So, welcome to the "Give the
>Swordfish a Break " campaign, to be kicked off this week with a well-
>publicized swordfishless feast at Felidia, a tony New York City restaurant.
>
>The initiative arose from an unusual alliance between two environmental
>organizations, the Natural Resources Defense Council and SeaWeb, and some of
>the nation's finest chefs, led by Nora Pouillon, owner of the Nora and Asia
>Nora restaurants in Washington. At least 25 chefs of top-rated eateries along
>the Atlantic Seaboard from Maine to Texas have pledged not to serve swordfish
>this year, and some will print information about the campaign on menus. That
>way diners will learn that swordfish populations are under pressure
everywhere
>and severely depleted in the Atlantic."
>
>etc, etc., etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>
>And so the swordfishing wars begin.
>
>
>The REPLY to the public from swordfishermen:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>National Fisheries Institute Denounces Animal Rights
> Activist Campaign Against Seafood Consumers
>
>
>Contact: Niels Moore 703-524-8884 x 233/Marti Badila 703-524-8881 x 242
>nmoore@nfi.org, http://www.nfi.org
>
>January 20, 1998
>
>ARLINGTON, VA. -- The National Fisheries Institute (NFI) announced its
>opposition to a new campaign by animal rights activists and others that
>encourages restaurants to stop offering swordfish caught in North Atlantic
>waters. The "Give Swordfish a Break" campaign, sponsored by the "SeaWeb"
>campaign, the Natural Resource Defense Council and a Washington, D.C.
>restaurant, advocates that other restaurants boycott swordfish during 1998.
>Campaigners argue that such action is necessary to ensure the conservation of
>wild swordfish populations.
>
>According to Richard E. Gutting, Jr., Executive Vice-President of NFI, "In
our
>view, the expert scientists and officials who are responsible for conserving
>these swordfish stocks, and who have authorized their harvest, are better
>qualified to judge what is needed for conservation than the self-appointed
>advocates of this boycott campaign."
>
>Federal fishery officials limit the total amount of swordfish that can be
>harvested each year. These officials also allocate this total catch among
>various groups of fishermen. Federal law requires that these allocations
>ensure that swordfish stocks remain productive, and that the allocation among
>fishermen is fair and equitable. These U.S. catch limits and allocations must
>also be consistent with the strict measures adopted by international fishery
>commissions made up of many nations.
>
>Swordfish migrate widely throughout the world's oceans and are harvested by
>fishermen from many nations. In the U. S., swordfish are harvested in the
>Atlantic and Pacific Ocean. These fish are highly valued by both big game
>fishermen and those fishermen who make their livelihood supplying restaurants
>and supermarkets. The competition for swordfish between these two fishing
>groups is fierce.
>
>Past swordfish harvests in the Atlantic were too high and depressed the size
>of their stock. Following the most scientific assessment of these fish in
>1996, the world's most expert swordfish scientists advised the international
>commission that because of the resilient nature of swordfish, lower harvests
>would improve the condition of the stock. These limits were quickly approved
>by the international commission and were then implemented by U.S. officials.
>U.S. fishery officials
>concluded that these reductions would "stop the decline of the swordfish
>stock." These strict new limits, which cut harvests in half, are now being
>enforced.
>
>Despite the progress made towards conserving Atlantic swordfish, NFI remains
>concerned about the stock. It is vital that all fishing nations adhere to the
>strict international harvest limits, otherwise the sacrifices of U.S.
>fishermen will be for naught. Fortunately, most nations are complying,
>however, some may not be enforcing these limits.
>
>According to Nelson Beideman of the Blue Water Fishermen's Association, an
>organization representing commercial fishermen, "American fishermen have
>abided by all national and international regulations governing swordfish. In
>fact, we have sacrificed over 50 percent of our catch since 1989 to promote
>the conservation of these fish. Any boycott would unjustly harm both American
>fishing families and seafood consumers without providing any tangible
>conservation benefits."
>
>Under federal law, U.S. fishery officials must evaluate the performance of
>other nations. If they find that any nation is failing to adhere to
>international standards, these officials are directed to ban the importation
>and sale of the products concerned. This government-to-government strategy
>aimed at violators offers the best way to ensure compliance, and NFI is
>working closely with U.S. officials to
>ensure that international harvest quotas are enforced strictly.
>
>"Swordfish are overfished, but not endangered, " said Rebecca Lent of the
>National Marine Fisheries Service, a federal agency responsible for
overseeing
>migratory fish.
>
>"This boycott is misplaced. We already have international fishing quotas and
a
>specific swordfish rebuilding program going on. "
>
>According to Gutting, "Broad-based boycotts, even when well intentioned,
often
>hurt innocent people. We fail to see how a boycott would be justified in this
>circumstance when it would punish American fishermen and others complying
with
>conservation requirements, and there is a better way to obtain compliance."
>
>Neighboring Washington, D.C. restaurateurs, too, are opposed to the
campaign's
>approach. According to Bob Kinkead, owner and executive chef of Kinkead's,
>"While we all want to conserve our wild fish population for future
>generations, this campaign is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath
>water. If restaurateurs are concerned about the profusion of small fish, then
>they should demand only large fish from their suppliers. The solution is that
>simple."
>
>As 1998 is the "Year of the Ocean", animal rights activists, sport fishermen
>and other groups with marine-related campaigns are attempting to position
>their efforts in terms of fishery "conservation."
>
>Please bear in mind that big game and commercial fishermen compete for the
>fish, and that some people believe passionately that humans should not eat
>animals. In reality, this debate really has more to do with who should get
the
>fish, or whether fish should be harvested at all, than it has to do with the
>biological condition of the stocks.
> ###
>
>The National Fisheries Institute is a non-profit trade association
>representing more than 1,000 companies involved in all aspects of the fish
and
>seafood industry. The Institute acts to ensure an ample, sustainable and safe
>seafood supply for consumers.
>
>The commercial seafood industry directly employs more than 250,000 people
>and contributes more than $41 billion to the economy which includes $27.8
>billion in expenditures at foodservice establishments and $13.2 billion at
the
>retail level.
>
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>RIGHT NOW! PLEASE VISIT http://detnews.com/current/metro/ RIGHT NOW and cast
>your NO vote!!!
>
>AND PASS THIS MESSAGE ON!!
>
>Thanks from the fishermen,
>
>Teresa Platt
>The Fishermen's Coalition
>826 Orange Avenue, #504
>Coronado, CA 923118 USA
>(619) 575-4664
>(619) 575-5578/fax
>tplatt1070@aol.com
>
>(A big thanks to Tana McHale at tanamch@cwo.com for alerting us to the
above!)
>
>
>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:05:20 -0800
From: Lawrence Carter-Long
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Newswire: No Increase in Cancers From Polio Vaccine
Message-ID: <34CF654D.76594693@gvn.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Washington Post
Wednesday, January 28, 1998; Page A02
No Increase in Rare Cancers From Tainted Polio
Vaccine
Millions of Americans who were given polio vaccine
during the 1950s that was contaminated
with a monkey virus do not have a higher incidence
of rare cancers linked to the virus, a
study found.
"This result is reassuring, as it is likely that we
would have observed an effect on cancer
rates if one existed," said the authors, led by
Howard D. Strickler of the National Cancer
Institute.
The findings were published in today's issue of the
Journal of the American Medical
Association. Strickler presented the same data at a
conference a year ago.
Polio vaccine made using monkey tissue entered mass
distribution in 1955. In 1960 doctors
discovered that the vaccine was contaminated with
monkey virus SV40. The virus was
found to cause cancer in laboratory animals injected
with it.
The government ordered manufacturers to provide
virus-free vaccine, but it did not reach the
market until 1963, after as many as 98 million
people were exposed to the contamination.
Vaccine sold today is tested to ensure it is free of
the virus.
Concerns had subsided until scientists in recent
years found genetic pieces of SV40 inside
tumors taken from cancer victims. It was feared that
people who were given the vaccine,
especially those with damaged immune systems, might
be more prone to certain cancers of
the brain, bone and lung.
But 30 years of follow-up of children who could have
received the contaminated vaccine
found no significant increase in those cancers, the
researchers reported. -- Associated
Press
Mutant Gene Slows AIDS in Newborns
A gene mutation present in about one in six white
people slows the progress of AIDS in
many HIV-infected newborns, raising the possibility
of treatments exploiting the phenomenon,
French researchers said yesterday.
The researchers studied 512 white children born to
mothers infected with the virus that
causes AIDS, 276 of whom had contracted the virus
from their mothers. Of those, 49
children had inherited the mutated gene CCR5 from
one of their parents.
At the age of 3, 9 percent of the infected children
with the gene mutation developed
symptoms of AIDS, while 28 percent without the
mutation had symptoms.
Study author Micheline Marathi of the Institut
National de la Sante de la Recherche Medicale in
Paris said the mutation may inhibit the invasion of
cells by the virus.
"Should this mutation be found to be protective, it
would be interesting to investigate a CCR5
antagonist (a chemical that would mimic the
mutation) in combination with antiretroviral
therapy for prevention of mother-to-child
transmission," she wrote in the Journal of the
American Medical Association.
The gene mutation is extremely rare in African and
Asian peoples, but about 17 to 18 percent
of whites inherit it from one or both of their
parents.
Studies on adults have found that having a copy of
the gene slows the progression of the
disease, and preliminary work is underway to explore
this avenue into potential therapies,
said Thomas O'Brien of the National Cancer Institute
in Bethesda.
-- Reuters
Copyright 1998 The Washington Post
Company
--
Posted by:
Lawrence Carter-Long
Science and Research Issues, Animal Protection Institute
email: LCartLng@gvn.net, phone: 800-348-7387 x. 215
world wide web: http://www.api4animals.org/
"There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause
comedy in the streets?" - Dick Cavett
-----Long, but Important Warning Notice -----
My email address is: LCartLng@gvn.net
LEGAL NOTICE: Anyone sending unsolicited commercial
email to this address will be charged a $500 proofreading
fee. This is an official notification; failure to abide by this
will result in legal action, as per the following:
By U.S. Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section
is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or
$500, whichever is greater, by each violation.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:12:15 -0800
From: LCartLng@gvn.net (Lawrence Carter-Long)
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Consumer Group Cites Conflict of Interest in Polio Report
Message-ID: <199801281703.MAA18624@envirolink.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Vaccine Safety Consumer Group Cites Conflict of Interest in Government
Report On Cancer & Contaminated Polio Vaccine Link
WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 /PRNewswire/ -- The National Vaccine information
Center is criticizing an article published in today's Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA) as an attempt by government officials with
conflicts of interest to prematurely dismiss the role of polio vaccines
contaminated with simian virus 40 (SV40) in human bone, brain and lung
cancers. The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) cites incomplete data
and methodological flaws in the government's analysis and points out that
there is an inherent conflict of interest in having government officials lead
investigations of health problems associated with vaccines which the
government researches, regulates and promotes for universal use.
"There are huge information gaps in data used by the government to come up
with the conclusion that simian virus 40 (SV40) contaminating early polio
vaccines have not played a role in human cancers. It is another example of
bad science by government officials using limited data to make the public
believe they have the answers before all the facts are in," said Barbara Loe
Fisher, co-founder and president of NVIC.
Howard Urnovitz, Ph.D., a microbiologist and founder of Chronic Illness
Research Foundation whose father died of one of the kinds of cancers being
associated with SV40 contaminated polio vaccines, calls the analysis by
NIH official Howard Strickler and his colleagues "a misuse of statistics that
disregards important published scientific data by independent scientists
contradicting the government's conclusions. Once again, the U.S. government
is first making conclusions conforming with its policies and then using a
civil servant to go out and find a database to support its conclusions. It is
a great disservice to the American public."
Walter Kyle, author of a 1992 article in The Lancet entitled "Simian
retroviruses, poliovaccine, and origin of AIDS," said, "I am surprised that
JAMA would publish an article written by a government official whose
conclusions were basically discredited in a CBC (Canadian Broadcasting
Company) documentary that took the time to independently analyze his data. In
the U.S., killed polio vaccines are sold which still use monkey cell tissues
for production but in Canada only killed polio vaccines grown on human cell
tissues are sold. Canadian scientists have recognized the real risk of health
problems associated with inter-species transfer of viruses which humans have
already experienced with 'mad cow' disease, the 'bird flu' and AIDS."
NVIC maintains that the analysis by NIH official Howard Strickler and his
colleagues was published in JAMA without any acknowledgment that there is
strong scientific data contradicting the government's conclusions, NVIC points
out that the government's analysis:
-- ignores the fact that SV40 virus DNA is detected in cancers of children
born during the past 5 years, suggesting that government scientists do not
know how SV40 is transmitted from person to person or whether SV40 is a
monkey/human chimera (hybrid virus) capable of being passed from parent to
child;
-- ignores the fact that the development of cancer never is caused by one
factor (if so, all smokers would develop lung cancer) but is caused by a
combination of cofactors; therefore, Strickler's analysis dismisses the fact
that SV40 and asbestos could be co-factors in the development of mesotheliomas
(tumors of the lining of the lungs and chest). Mesotheliomas were almost
unheard of before the 1950s, when contaminated polio vaccines were first
introduced and asbestos (which has been scientifically linked with
mesotheliomas) began to be used in commercial building;
-- ignores the fact that, in addition to children, millions of adult
Americans received the contaminated polio vaccines in the 1950s and early
1960s and more than 2,000 Americans today are suffering from mesotheliomas
compared to very rare cases of mesotheliomas in 1960;
-- ignores the fact that mesothelioma rates increase with age and,
therefore, children who got polio vaccine in 1955 would be under 50 years old
in 1997 and would not yet have reached the high risk age for mesotheliomas.
In addition, the government's analysis depended heavily on cancer
statistics provided by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) which only began
collecting data in 1973; therefore, children who received contaminated polio
vaccines and died of cancer before 1973 were excluded from the data included
in the analysis. Further, the NCI data Strickler relies upon only reflects
approximately less than one-tenth of the U.S. population, so it is not a
complete reflection of cancer rates in the entire U.S. population.
"Taxpayers should not be paying for government officials to investigate
their own mistakes. Government funding should be given to independent
scientists to compile and analyze epidemiological data and conduct basic
science research on vaccine associated health problems without the inherent
bias that characterize so much of government-led vaccine research. And, with
mounting evidence that cross-species transfer of viruses can occur, the U.S.
should no longer be using animal tissues to produce vaccines," concludes
Fisher.
The National Vaccine Information Center in Vienna, Virginia, founded in
1982, is the largest vaccine safety consumer organization in the U.S. and a
leading critic of federal health agency failure to fully inform the public
about vaccine risks.
SOURCE National Vaccine Information Center
CONTACT: Barbara Loe Fisher of the NVIC, 703-938-0342
===============
Lawrence Carter-Long
Science and Research Issues, Animal Protection Institute
email: LCartLng@gvn.net, phone: 800-348-7387 x. 215
world wide web: http://www.api4animals.org/
"There's so much comedy on television. Does that cause
comedy in the streets?" - Dick Cavett
-----Long, but Important Warning Notice -----
My email address is: LCartLng@gvn.net
LEGAL NOTICE: Anyone sending unsolicited commercial
email to this address will be charged a $500 proofreading
fee. This is an official notification; failure to abide by this
will result in legal action, as per the following:
By U.S. Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine.
By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it is unlawful to send any unsolicited
advertisement to such equipment.
By Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section
is punishable by action to recover actual monetary loss, or
$500, whichever is greater, by each violation.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:34:58 -0800
From: "Bob Schlesinger"
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: URGENT: Letters To Oregon Supreme Court Needed!
Message-ID: <199801280934580920.002AB6A7@pcez.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
As posted yesterday, The Oregon Supreme Court has refused to review the appeal
of the Nadas case. Nadas is the 3 1/2 year old collie/malamute who will die on
February 17th for ALLEGEDLY chasing a horse as specified by an archaic
Oregon livestock law. No damage to the horse occurred and the only witness was
a 13 year old girl.
The Court refused without comment to review the case. However the attorney
representing Nadas' owner will file a motion for the Court to reconsider. These
motions are almost never granted.
People close to the situation are urging EVERYONE to contact the Supreme Court
and urge that they at least hear this case, that it is a matter of law that goes far
beyond the issue of someone's dog. The law most definately was implemented
unconstitutionally.
The address is:
Oregon Supreme Court
1163 State Street
Salem, OR 97310
FAX: 503-986-5560
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 09:59:41 -0800
From: "Anne S. Shih"
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Lanolin
Message-ID: <34CF720D.FD986441@gte.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi,
Can someone tell me why lanolin is an animal by-product? What is sodium
tallowate?
Does beewax come from the bees themselves or the honeycomb?
Thanks much!
Anne
=============================================================
Dear Anne,
Below is the information you requested.
> Date: Mon Jan 5 11:32:23 PST 1998
> Subject: Clinique WWW Site Question
> From: anneshih@gte.net (Anne S. Shih)
> To: clinedu@ix.netcom.com
> Status: RO
>
> X-Web-Browser: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (Win95; I)
> X-Remote-Host: 1cust76.max5.los-angeles-da.ca.da.uu.net
>
> I know your company does not test on animals.
> However, I do not wish to use products that contain
> animal by-products either. Could you tell me if any
> of the following Clinique products contains
> ingredients which are derived from animal by-products?
>
> 1. Cliquique facial soap. - contains sodium tallowate
> 2. Clarifying toner. - no animal ingredients
> 3. Dramatic lotion. - contains lanolin
> 4. Turn-around cream. - no animal ingredients
> 5. 7-day scrub cream. - contains lanolin alcohol, beeswax
> 6. Spot acne treatment. - no animal ingredients
> 7. Deep-cleaning Emergency Mask. - no animal ingredients
> 8. City block. - no animal ingredients
--
My favorite site:
http://www.earth.org.hk
For Compassionate and Sensible Individuals:
http://envirolink.org/arrs/index.html
"Any society which emphasizes individual responsibility, self-help,
building self-esteem ... must guard against burdening individuals alone
with the awesome task of coping with life's problems. The knowledge
needed by individuals must be developed and distributed by massive
research programs and improved educational-informational institutions.
Society must change as well as individuals. When we say that every
person must help him/herself, it is crucial, in order to be fair, that
every person be provided the self-help knowledge and opportunities
he or she needs to succeed. Otherwise, "self-help" is just another
mean-spirited ploy by the advantaged to "keep the disadvantaged in
their place." ---> Visit http://www.cmhc.com/psyhelp/
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:50:54 -0800
From: Mesia Quartano
To: "ar-news@envirolink.org"
Subject: (CA) Seal aphrodisiacs often fake say Canadian researchers
Message-ID: <34CF9A2D.C78553F4@usa.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
05:36 PM ET 01/27/98
Seal aphrodisiacs often fake -Canadian researchers
By Amran Abocar
TORONTO (Reuters) - Aphrodisiacs advertised as containing Canadian seal
penises, an ingredient highly prized by Asians, are often fakes made
from genitalia of animals such as dogs and cows, researchers said
Tuesday.
Researchers from McMaster University in Canada found that about half the
aphrodisiacs they tested were fake and used genitalia from dogs, cats
and cattle as well as the endangered Australian fur seal.
"They're selling penises under one name and in fact the source is
something different,'' said Bradley White, a professor at McMaster in
Hamilton, Ont.
His team used genetic analysis to test seal penis products bought
undercover from Asian herbal medicine stores in Thailand, Hong Kong,
China, the United States and Canada.
Asians have traditionally regarded seal penis as an aphrodisiac because
of a belief in traditional Chinese medicine that it enhances male
virility, although there has been little scientific research proving its
effectiveness.
White and colleague David Lavigne first highlighted the problem in a
December article in the journal Conservation Biology and on Monday
released data from genetic testing that showed the extent to which other
substances were substituted for seal penis in the products they bought.
White said the other substances would likely not work as aphrodisiacs
but vendors of the tonics were tempted by their
greater availability and lower cost.
"Domesticated animals don't have the same power as wild
animals,'' White said. ``But you can get a domestic animal penis
a lot easier and cheaper.''
Supplies of Canadian seal penises are limited. Although there are strong
protests against the annual seal hunt, the Canadian government allows a
controlled annual cull of about 300,000 seals a year.
Even so, the penises are being marketed as genuine, Canadian
seal products. Some advertisements prominently display posters
of Canadian seal pups while others carry large window signs. The
Canadian flag is also displayed on the label.
The fraud is difficult to detect because the penis is often ground into
powder or mixed in bottles of wine. Even when they are sold whole,
unscrupulous vendors mold the material to look like the real thing.
Canadian seal penises are priced from C$20 (US$14) for a small plastic
bag or vial to C$650 (US$442) for a specially-packaged box. The price
difference depends on the quantity and type of packaging for the
product.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 12:41:53 -0600
From: paulbog@jefnet.com (Rick Bogle)
To: "AR-News Post"
Cc: "AnimalLib"
Subject: AMP attacks Vilas Monkeys
Message-ID: <19980128124300918.AAB213@paulbog.jefnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
The Capital Times
Jan. 28, 1998
Pulling out the stops against the monkeys
by Dave Zweifel, editor
The people at the UW who are chomping at the bit to get the Vilas Zoo
monkeys out of town have enlisted some high-powered help.
Out of the blue last week came a letter from the Alexandria, Va.-based
Americans for Medical Progress Educational Foundation. Its board, you might
be interested to know, includes a bevy of pharmaceutical bigwigs who
promote the use of animals for drug research.
In a letter signed by Susan E. Paris, president, the foundation takes me to
task for doing a "disservice to the readers of The Capital Times" because I
questioned the decision to send the monkeys away.
"The university's decision to phase out the macaque facility at the zoo was
based on very real and valid concerns but always with the welfare and
long-term care the monkeys in mind (sic)," the letter said.
Sure, and deer hunters are really just trying to make sure the poor things
don't starve to death.
Maybe some of these sincerely concerned scientists ought to spend some time
with the folks who work with and care for the monkeys or with the school
kids who get hours of delight from them.
Perhaps they'd learn how a change in the environment of some of these
animals upsets their social hierarchy so much that they resort to klling
and torturing each other.
They might also learn how many are likely to die when transported from a
facility in Madison to their native Thailand, where the diseases and
viruses will be challenges to their immune systems.
They might also be interested to know that the UW's Primate Center could
divert, if it wanted to, other funds to help keep the monkey house
opperating at the zoo.
Folks around here would feel better about the university's role in this
affair if it spent more energy on finding a solution that would keep the
monkeys here than in soliciting testimonials from scientists with an
obvious agenda of their own.
[Dave Zweifel is the editor of the Capital Times. His e-mail address is
dzweifel@captimes.madison.com
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:00:11 -0600
From: Steve Barney
To: AR-News
Subject: [US] "Vilas Zoo monkeys headed for Thailand?"
Message-ID: <34CF8E4B.962C31D9@uwosh.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------707450289B40119B64839FDC"
Wisconsin State Journal
Madison, WI
United States
January 24, 1998"Vilas Zoo monkeys headed for Thailand?:
Sanctuary near Bangkok would be their home"
By John Welsh
Wisconsin State Journal
A Thailand wildlife group says it has found a potential home for some of the Vilas Zoo monkeys
and has received the needed OK from its government, UW-Madison officials said Friday.
In addition, a U.S. senator is negotiating with a private company to provide free transportation for
the 50 stump-tailed macaques to their ancestral homeland, said Joe Kemnitz, interim director of
the school's Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center.
"The pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together," Kemnitz
said. "It continues to sound very promising."
The research center has searched for several months for a new home for the stump-tailed
macaques and 100 Rhesus monkeys it houses at Vilas Zoo. The center expects to ship the rhesus
monkeys to another research center in Louisiana in mid-February.
Local animal activists have asked for a delay of any monkey shipments as they continue to search
for ways to keep them here.
University officials said they are not considering any delay. But they are providing Dane County
officials with information about monkey upkeep as the County Board considers a resolution on
the monkey's fate. The 150 monkeys owned by the research center are the only animals at the
county run zoo not owned by the zoo.
The Wild Animal Rescue Foundation of Thailand has told Kemnitz that it has lined up a sanctuary
about 80 miles east of Bangkok. The 200-acre facility has about 400 animals, mostly gibbons and
macaque monkeys.
Kemnitz said his staff is still investigating the suitability of the sanctuary, but local animal rights
activists said they have heard complimentary things about the group.
In a related development, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is negotiating with a transportation
company to provide a free trip for the monkeys from Wisconsin to Thailand. Baucus heard about
the monkeys during a trade trip to Thailand, Kemnitz said.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:05:48 -0600
From: Steve Barney
To: AR-News
Subject: [US] "Vilas Zoo monkeys headed for Thailand?"
Message-ID: <34CF8F9C.CFFD9479@uwosh.edu>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
[I'm reposting this as a clean copy. Please excuse my earlier mistake.]
Wisconsin State Journal
Madison, WI
United States
January 24, 1998
-- Attached article below this line --
"Vilas Zoo monkeys headed for Thailand?:
Sanctuary near Bangkok would be their home"
By John Welsh
Wisconsin State Journal
A Thailand wildlife group says it has found a potential home for some of
the Vilas Zoo monkeys and has received the needed OK from its
government, UW-Madison officials said Friday.
In addition, a U.S. senator is negotiating with a private company to
provide free transportation for the 50 stump-tailed macaques to their
ancestral homeland, said Joe Kemnitz, interim director of the school's
Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center.
"The pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together," Kemnitz
said. "It continues to sound very promising."
The research center has searched for several months for a new home for
the stump-tailed macaques and 100 Rhesus monkeys it houses at Vilas
Zoo. The center expects to ship the rhesus monkeys to another research
center in Louisiana in mid-February.
Local animal activists have asked for a delay of any monkey shipments as
they continue to search for ways to keep them here.
University officials said they are not considering any delay. But they
are providing Dane County officials with information about monkey upkeep
as the County Board considers a resolution on the monkey's fate. The
150 monkeys owned by the research center are the only animals at the
county run zoo not owned by the zoo.
The Wild Animal Rescue Foundation of Thailand has told Kemnitz that it
has lined up a sanctuary about 80 miles east of Bangkok. The 200-acre
facility has about 400 animals, mostly gibbons and macaque monkeys.
Kemnitz said his staff is still investigating the suitability of the
sanctuary, but local animal rights activists said they have heard
complimentary things about the group.
In a related development, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is negotiating with
a transportation company to provide a free trip for the monkeys from
Wisconsin to Thailand. Baucus heard about the monkeys during a trade
trip to Thailand, Kemnitz said.
-- End --
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:58:09 -0500 (EST)
From: "Jeffrey A. LaPadula"
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: (US-NJ)ORDINANCES AGAINST NJ PROTESTS.
Message-ID:
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
FUR FLIES OVER ANIMAL ALLIES
By Anthony A. Gallotto
STAR LEDGER STAFF
January 25, 1998
Officials in at least three Middlesex County towns are considering
ordinances to regulate demonstrations after repeated protests by animal
rights activists outside fur shops and fast-food restaurants.
But a spokeswoman for the New Jersey chapter of the Animal Defense League
vowed that animal rights activists would go to court to challenge "each and
every one of them."
Homeowners and downtown merchants asked the Metuchen Borough Council last
week to take steps to prevent protests like the ones staged in December
outside the Oscar Loewy Designer Fur shop on Main Street.
After Loewy and his wife, Eva, placed a liquidation sale sign in the font
window and said they intend to close, representatives of the league and the
more militant Animal Liberation Federation declared victory and said they
would step up protests elsewhere.
Likely targets are Furs by Gurarino in East Brunswick and the McDonald's in
downtown New Brunswick, according to the group's page on the World Wide Web.
David Frizell, Metuchen's chief legal counsel, said he drafted an ordinance
that would require demonstrators to obtain a permit from the police
department. But he said the council "has wisely exercised restraint" and is
awaiting the outcome of a federal court challenge to a similar measure
adopted in Flemington.
Police there in December twice denied protest permits to activists from the
New Jersey Animal Rights Association, then issued the group a permit
allowing a march along a six-block route that twice took them in front of
the Flemington Fur Store.
Dissatisfied, activists went to federal court. But US District Judge Mary
Little Parrell in Trenton upheld Flemingon's right to insist that the
activists obtain a permit, and said the protest route was not too
restrictive. The activists have filed a federal appeal.
"We would certainly do the same thing," said Corinne Ball, a North Brunswick
spokeswoman for the Animal Defense League. "IF Metuchen or East Brunswick,
or any other community, tried to curtail our rights to peacefully protest,
we would go to court."
Ball said the league's next court battle might be in Red Bank, where
officials have instructed police to begin enforcing a measure to restrict
protests. Her group has held repeated protests outside Winter's Furs there.
"Red Bank wasn't enforcing an ordinance they've had on the books. If they
do, we're probably going to court," Ball said. "There is a constitutional
right to express ourselves at stake."
Metuchen Mayor Edmund O'Brien said he sympathizes with residents and
downtown business owners, but said the borough council is "trying to balance
the First Amendment rights of people to demonstrate against the wishes of
the residents."
Metuchen's business owners insist they want some action.
"The anti-fur protests disrupt businesses in downtown. Not only Oscar
Loewy's, but other stores," said Ken Hoffman, president of the Metuchen
Chamber of Commerce. "Business owners and the people who do business in
downtown deserve some responsiveness from the borough."
Mayor O'Brien said: "They majority of the council and I want to wait and
see what happens in Flemington. If we adopt out own ordinance to restrict
protests or have protesters get permits, we may face sizable legal costs
defending it. Our feeling is let Flemington spend their money, and learn
from what happens."
Steve Warner, a newly elected Metuchen councilman, is among a minority who
feel the council should not wait to adopt a protest permit ordinance.
"An opportunity lost is an opportunity cost," said Warner, who thinks "the
borough should at least begin the process of putting our own ordinance in
place. We must protect our residents."
Warner, an attorney, said he is confident the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
will uphold Flemington's ordinance. Other members of the Metuchen council
feel they can "afford to wait," since none of the Animal Defense League's
protests has been a threat to public safety, said Frizell.
But members of the Animal Liberation Front - the more militant group whose
World Wide Web site advocates taking violent actions again furriers and
meat-serving eateries - took credit for breaking the Loewy' shop front
window in November.
****************************************************************************
ANIMAL DEFENSE LEAGUE - NEW JERSEY
P.O. Box 84
Oakhurst, NJ 07755
(732)774-6432
http://envirolink.org/orgs/adl
****************************************************************************
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 98 13:07:47 -0800
From: "Paul Wiener"
To: "AR-News (to post)"
Subject: New Barking Law (United States, California, Pasadena)
Message-ID: <199801282107.NAA013.94@paulish.pom.primenet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
According to KFI AM Radio news, the city council of Pasadena, CA, USA, is
has passed a new law for handling barking complaints. The radio treatment
was a little sketchy as to details.
___________
Paul Wiener
got_the_T-shirt@been-there.com
paulish@cyberjunkie.com
paulish@thepentagon.com
paulish@usa.net
tinea-pedis@bigfoot.com
KJ6AV@callsign.net
- --------------------------------------------------------
http://www.netforward.com/cyberjunkie/?paulish
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBNM+eHgAQDcH6qrIRAQF1jgQAnbtFqoE8o3bNFMzLqfvIDyuSNYYBc6zw
dJ29svCMVz/LWnd+NoEmRAuLcS8v90SPxCWKE7a8Qv6j58TqSgsBN9GyjEeZWO1p
O1NKwhWG/Z1G/kmMSOdlNgkg7Gfs+LBP/WlpT3LiBnYzRDXBiPqC714a/u6n1Abt
X4/vfg8W2EQ=
=tPxD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 15:41:14 -0600
From: "Alliance for Animals"
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: ZOO Commission meeting FRIDAY!
Message-ID: <199801282139.PAA04859@mendota.terracom.net>
THE ZOO COMMISSION IS MEETING ON FRIDAY MORNING!
The Zoo Commission is meeting on Friday morning to discuss the Vilas
Monkeys and whether they should stay here in Madison. THIS IS VERY
IMPORTANT! The Primate Center Reps will be there to see if there is
any interest in keeping the monkeys here, and we need you to call the
members of the Zoo Commission before Friday to let them know that you
want the animals protected and that they not let them go to research
labs at Tulane where they will surely perish.
The Zoo has never held the UW accountable for the violations of the
1989 agreement stating that the Vilas Monkeys would not be used in
invasive research. We have documentation that many were used and
have died as a result. The remaining animals should be donated to
the zoo and protected with an endowment by the UW or with county and
private funds.
TELL THEM THE MONKEYS DESERVE A BETTER FATE THAN TO BE TRUCKED
OFF TO BE USED IN EXPERIMENTS.
Thank you!
!URGENT!
Please Contact the following committee members who are assigned to
work on Resolution 241: Directing the Zoo Commission and Zoo Director
to Develop options to retain the monkey colonies at the Henry Vilas
Zoo.
Ask that they work to keep the Vilas Monkeys here in Madison. We
know it takes time to make so many calls, but if we fail to generate
enough phone calls, the monkeys are sure to be sent to Tulane Primate
Research Facility where they will be used in invasive research.
They do NOT deserve such a fate.
We CAN still work to keep them safe!
Zoo Commission
Name, District
Karen West, Chair,Hm:273-0061
Gail Goode,Hm:836-8618
Jonathan Becker,11Hm:238-7076Wk:267-0647
Linda ScheidHm:838-8245
Paul FrancoisHm:424-3979Wk:257-3674
Napoleon SmithHm:255-6468Wk:266-4071
Philip O'LearyHm:274-0646
PLEASE CALL TODAY AND TELL YOUR FRIENDS!
THEY MEET EARLY FRIDAY. WE WILL BE THERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF
THE MONKEYS.
ALLIANCE FOR ANIMALS
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 14:16:22 -0800
From: "Bob Schlesinger"
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: New Nadas Lawsuit to be Filed
Message-ID: <199801281416220630.012C6097@pcez.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lake Oswego, OR
January 28, 1998
Robert Babcock, attorney for Nadas' owner Sean Roach, announced today that
he will be filing suit against the Jackson County, Oregon Commissioners and
Jackson County Animal Control officials as individuals for the wrongful taking
of Nadas, the Oregon dog sentenced to die for allegedly chasing a horse.
Nadas was condemned to die by the Jackson County Commissioners. Yesterday
the Oregon Supreme Court declined to review the case, resulting in an order for
death to be carried out on February 17th.
US Code Chapter 42 Section 1983 provides for constitutional protections against
the unlawful seizure as was characterized by the way in which Nadas was originally
taken, in violation of Sean Roach's 4th, 5th, and 14th amendment rights. Nadas was
taken from Mr. Roach's residence without a warrant.
Previous information that it was too late or that the US Code didnt apply to the Nadas
situation were evidently incorrect, attorney Babcock stated. This is why these
particular lawsuits were not filed earlier.
Babcock indicated that it may be possible to get a new stay of execution based on this
newest action.
For background information on the Nadas story, see http://www.arkonline.com/nadas.htm
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 17:18:54 -0500
From: Amy Bricker
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Materials for commenting on Organic Standards
Message-ID: <7182DAE8884CD111B7E600C0F0220F6E4B5F@icta.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="---- =_NextPart_001_01BD2C10.D2F23730"
Note: The following document was prepared by attorneys for Organic Watch, a coalition of public
interest non-governmental organizations in the U.S.
_________________________________________________________________ ___
Materials Provided for Use in Commenting on
USDA's Proposed Rules for the Implementation of
the Organic Foods Production Act
Organic Watch's 16 Issues of Major Concern
Introduction.
The following material was created as an aid to organizations and
individuals who are preparing comments concerning the United States
Department of Agriculture ("USDA"), Agricultural Marketing Service's,
"National Organic Program; Proposed Rule" found at 62 Federal Register
65850 (December 16, 1997). Organic Watch encourages duplication and
wide distribution of this material and no prior permission for such
activity is required.
All comments concerning the proposed rule should be submitted to: Docket
Number TMD-94-00-2, Eileen S. Stommes, Deputy Administrator,
USDA-AMS-TM-NOP, Room 4007-So., Ag Stop 0275, P.O. Box 96456,
Washington, DC 20090-6456, and, if possible, electronically at
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop. The current deadline for comment submission
is March 16, 1998. Please note that all comments submitted to the docket
should be labeled by "comment topic heading" and include the specific
section number and/or Federal Register page citation where a particular
subject is discussed.
Procedural Considerations.
Issue Number 1. Commenters Should Seek Withdrawal of the Proposed Rule
and Preparartion of a New Rule Which Comports with the NOSB
Recommendations. (Comment Topic Heading: General). Request that the
USDA withdraw the current proposed rule for the establishment of a
national organic program with the intent of having the agency prepare a
revised proposed rule which comports with the requirements of the
Organic Foods Production Act ("OFPA"), 7 U.S.C. ║ 6501, et seq., and
accurately reflects the recommendations of the National Organic
Standards Board ("NOSB"). See, Appendix I, "USDA's National Organic
Program: Procedural Issues."
Issue Number 2. Commenters Should Request that the Rule Be Reframed
Strictly as a Process Standard. (Comment Topic Heading: General). The
NOSB focus, and that of other organic standards, has been to establish
acceptable processes by which organic foods can be grown, handled,
marketed, etc. In this regard, the NOSB recommendations were designed
to create a national system outlining how to farm, process and handle
organically. However, the USDA has attempted to alter this approach to
the organic rule through the introduction of "performance" standards.
In describing these standards USDA states, "Performance standards are
generally written in terms of the results expected." 62 Federal
Register 65869 (emphasis added). As a result, USDA has attempted to
change the overarching philosophy of the rule from one of "processes"
(process standards) to one of "end results" (performance standards or
product standards). This philosophical shift informs the entire
proposed rule and provides USDA with its basis for creating a number of
large, vague exemptions from the organic processes recommended by the
NOSB.
In addition, the USDA has made numerous changes in definitions that
serve as the basis of the proposed national organic program. USDA has
altered a number of definitions (e.g., organic, unavoidable residual
environmental contamination) and added new, previously undiscussed
definitions (e.g., non-active synthetic, cytotoxic mode of action).
These definitional changes inform USDA's attempt to change the National
Organic Program ("NOP") into a performance-based program allowing for
new exemptions from required organic processes and standards. See
generally, ║ 205.1 & 205.2; 62 Federal Register 65865-65867.
Major NOSB Recommendations Reversed or Altered in the USDA's Proposed
Rule.
Organic Watch believes that the successful implementation of the Organic
Foods Production Act ("OFPA") is dependent upon maintaining the
statutory authority and independent integrity of the National Organic
Standards Board ("NOSB"). It is therefore essential that the USDA's
proposed rule comports with the original NOSB recommendations. The
following list of issues is based upon USDA proposals that alter
consensus definitions, processes, and recommendations established by the
NOSB. In many instances, Organic Watch believes that the USDA's action
may be violative of the OFPA. See, Appendix II, "Brief Legal Analysis
of the NOSB."
Issue Number 3. Commenters Should Request that the Statutory Authority
of the NOSB Be Maintained. (Comment Topic Heading: General/National
List). The NOSB has two distinct roles: (1) to provide the Secretary of
Agriculture with recommendations regarding the implementation of the
OFPA; and (2) to develop the Proposed National List or amendments to the
National List for submission to the Secretary. The NOSB has fulfilled
this statutory role by providing the USDA with extensive, consensus
recommendations on the acceptable practices governing virtually all
aspects of organic farming, processing, handling and labeling. As
directed by the OFPA, the NOSB compiled the final, initial National List
of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. Despite these efforts, the USDA
has significantly altered the majority of the NOSB's recommended
practices, directly altered the NOSB's National List, removed the NOSB's
annotations and restrictions on use that accompanied the National List,
and attempted to change the NOSB's future governance of the National
List process. Such an explicit challenge to the NOSB's statutory
authority is contrary to the OFPA and violative of the public/private
partnership that supported Congressional passage of the OFPA. See,
Appendix II.
Issue Number 4. Commenters Should Oppose All USDA Changes To The
National List. (Comment Topic Heading: National List). The USDA's
proposed rule explicitly challenges and takes away the NOSB's statutory
power to establish the National List of Allowed and Prohibited
Substances. See, Appendix II. At a minimum, commenters should oppose
these specific examples of USDA's alteration of NOSB findings.
A. National Organic Standards Board.
(1). "Killed B.t.". On November 1, 1995, the NOSB listed genetically
engineered Pseudomonas florescens with a B.t. gene ("Killed B.t.") as
synthetic and non-approved.
(2). Piperonyl Butoxide. On October 14, 1994, the NOSB rejected a
motion to add Piperonyl Butoxide to the National List as an approved
synthetic. NOSB, Final Recommendation, Addendum 2, "Botanical
Pesticides Policy."
(3). Chymosin. On September 20, 1996, the NOSB determined genetically
engineered chymosin to be an unacceptable synthetic. "Summary of NOSB
Recommendation for Materials Considered at Indianapolis, IN."
B. USDA Proposed Rule.
(1). "Killed B.t.". USDA ignored the NOSB and proposes that toxins
derived from genetically engineered bacteria be placed on the National
List of Active Synthetic Substances Allowed "so that [the agency] can
receive comments on the proper classification of these substances, and
whether they should be allowed, prohibited or allowed on a case-by-case
basis" (Proposed ║ 205.20; 62 Federal Register 65889) and specifically
lists "Killed B.t." as an allowed active synthetic (Proposed ║
205.22(d); 62 Federal Register 65891).
(2). Piperonyl Butoxide. USDA ignored the NOSB finding and proposes that
Piperonyl Butoxide be included on the National List of Active Synthetic
Substances Allowed. (Proposed ║ 205.22(c)(9); 62 Federal Register
65891).
(3). Chymosin. USDA ignored the NOSB finding and proposes that
genetically engineered chymosin be placed on the National List of
Non-agricultural Substances Allowed "so as to solicit public comment."
(Proposed ║ 205.26; 62 Federal Register 65895).
Issue Number 5. Commenters Should Support the NOSB's Prohibition on the
Use of Genetic Engineering. (Comment Topic Heading:
General/Crops/Handling/National List).
A. National Organic Standards Board Action.
The National Organic Standards Board recommended that the use of genetic
engineering be prohibited in organic foods.
B. USDA Proposed Rule.
Under the preamble discussing proposed ║ 205.8, the USDA specifically
set aside the NOSB's prohibition of genetic engineering and opened up
the question for comment. Additionally, in requesting comments on
genetically engineered organisms ("GEOs") the USDA fails to seek comment
on whether GEO's and their resulting products should be considered
"synthetic." 62 Federal Register 65875. As discussed in Appendix II,
such an action could result in a de facto allowance of genetic
engineering. Other proposed sections that could be affected by this
USDA proposal include ║ 205.9 (Prevention and Control of Crop Pests,
Weeds, and Diseases), ║ 205.22 (National List) and ║ 205.26 (National
List).
Issue Number 6. Commenters Should Support NOSB's Broad Definition of
Genetic Engineering. (Comment Topic Heading: General/Crops/
Handling/National List).
A. National Organic Standards Board Action.
As noted above, the NOSB recommended a prohibition on the use of genetic
engineering because genetically engineered organisms and the products of
such organisms are "synthetic." The NOSB also recommended a
comprehensive definition of genetic engineering. This was done to
ensure that the recommended prohibition on genetically engineered foods,
processes, and inputs encompasses all potential genetic engineering
techniques. NOSB, Final Recommendation Addendum 25, "Definitions and
Interpretations" (November 1, 1995).
B. USDA Proposed Rule.
Under proposed ║ 205.2(56), the USDA's rejects the NOSB's broad
definition of genetic engineering and replaces it with an extremely
narrow one. Should the USDA's definition be in the final rule, it
would seriously undermine any prohibition on genetic engineering.
Issue Number 7. Commenters Should Support the NOSB's Prohibition on the
Use of Municipal Sewer Sludge. (Comment Topic Heading:
Crops/Handling/National List).
A. National Organic Standards Board Action.
Concerned with residue levels of heavy metals, pesticides and
contaminants such as PCBs, the NOSB specifically found that "sewage
sludge" was "synthetic" and "unacceptable for use in organic crop
production." "Summary of NOSB Recommendations for Materials Considered
at Indianapolis, IN" (September 1996).
B. USDA Proposed Rule.
Under discussion of proposed ║ 205.22, USDA put aside the NOSB
determination and asks for comments on whether sewer sludge should be
permitted or prohibited in organic production and whether it should be
defined as a "synthetic" or "non-synthetic." 62 Federal Register
65892-65893. As discussed in Appendix II, such an action could result
in a de facto allowance of municipal sewer sludge.
Issue Number 8. Commenters Should Support the NOSB's Prohibition on the
Use of Ionizing Radiation (Irradiation). (Comment Topic Heading:
Handling/National List).
A. National Organic Standards Board Action.
NOSB's Final Recommendation, Addendum Number 7, "Organic Good
Manufacturing Practices" (April 25, 1995) stated that ionizing radiation
(irradiation) may not be used in the handling of organic food.
B. USDA Proposed Rule.
Under proposed ║ 205.17, the USDA ignored the NOSB's recommendation and
asks for comments on whether irradiation is compatible with organic
farming and handling and whether it is an "essential standard industry
practice" or "good manufacturing practice." 62 Federal Register 65884.
As discussed in Appendix II, such an action could result in a de facto
allowance of irradiation.
Issue Number 9. Commenters Should Support the NOSB's Recommendation
Requiring Outdoor Access for Livestock. (Comment Topic Heading:
Livestock).
A. National Organic Standards Board Action.
The NOSB, Final Recommendation, Addendum 8, "Organic Livestock
Healthcare Practices" (April 25, 1995) found that "Certified organic
livestock shall be based on a system that incorporates access to the
outdoors and direct sunlight." (Emphasis added).
B. USDA Proposed Rule.
Under the Livestock Living Conditions and Manure Management provision of
proposed ║ 205.15(a), USDA states that producers must provide space for
movement and outdoor access. However, USDA's proposed ║ 205.15(b) makes
the requirement for space for movement and outdoor access meaningless by
providing a loophole allowing for the restriction of available space for
movement and access to the outdoors "if necessary." Further guidance on
the "if necessary" qualifier is not given by USDA, thereby allowing each
livestock producer the discretion as to when it is "necessary" to
restrict space for movement and prevent outdoor access. As written, a
livestock producer could find it is always "necessary" to restrict an
animal's space for movement and prevent an animal's access to the
outdoors.
Issue Number 10. Commenters Should Support the NOSB's Prohibitions and
Restrictions on the Use of Antibiotics in Livestock. (Comment Topic
Heading: Livestock).
A. National Organic Standards Board Action.
(1). For livestock, NOSB recommended an absolute prohibition on
antibiotic use in slaughter stock. The NOSB also recommended a
restriction on antibiotic use in breeding stock to "healthcare
emergencies." However, in no case can the offspring of breeding stock be
sold as organic if antibiotics are used during the breeder's last third
of gestation or nursing period. NOSB, Final Recommendation, "The Use
of Antibiotics in Organic Livestock Production" (June 4, 1994).
(2). For laying hens, NOSB recommended restricting antibiotic use to
only "healthcare emergencies," and further recommended that eggs or egg
products may not be sold or labeled organic until 90 days following
antibiotic use. NOSB, Final Recommendation, Addendum 22, "The Use of
Antibiotics In Organic Livestock Production" (October 31, 1995).
(3). For dairy cows, NOSB recommended restricting antibiotic use to
only "healthcare emergencies," and further recommended that milk or
dairy products may not be sold or labeled organic until 90 days
following antibiotic use. NOSB, Final Recommendation, "The Use of
Antibiotics in Organic Livestock Production" (June 4, 1994).
B. USDA Proposed Rule.
(1). Under proposed ║ 205.14(b)(1) & (2), contrary to the NOSB
recommendation on slaughter stock, USDA allows the use of antibiotics in
the first twenty-one days of life in mammals. 62 Federal Register
65880. The USDA proposal fails to specifically address antibiotic use
in breeder stock, laying hens and dairy cows.
(2). For non-mammal slaughter stock (i.e., poultry) the USDA allows the
use of antibiotics within the first seven days after arrival at a
certified facility. 62 Federal Register 65880. Once again, this is
contrary to the NOSB recommendation and creates a potentially
significant loophole that would allow antibiotic treated animals to be
slaughtered and labeled organic.
(3). For non-slaughter stock (e.g. breeder stock, egg laying chickens
and dairy cows), the USDA also goes against the NOSB recommendations.
Under proposed ║ 205.14(d), the agency allows the use of the "organic"
label on the product of antibiotic treated animals when the producer
determines that the "animal has fully recovered." 62 Federal Register
65880. USDA specifically rejects the NOSB 90-day waiting period
requirement for laying hens, dairy stock, and breeding stock. USDA only
specifies that FDA drug withdrawal times be observed and the animal is
determined to be fully recovered from the condition being treated. No
definition or concrete guidance is offered regarding how this would be
defined or such a judgment assessed. This loophole gives the producer
significant discretion in determining the length of the waiting period
necessary after antibiotic use.
Other notes. In the proposed rule's preamble the USDA appears to be
open to additional comments on the use of antibiotics in slaughter
stock. 62 Federal Register 65880. This may allow USDA to create
additional loopholes in the final rule.
Issue Number 11. Commenters Should Support NOSB's Recommendations on
Animal Feed. (Comment Topic Heading: Livestock).
A. National Organic Standards Board Action.
In order to preserve consumer confidence and ensure growth in the demand
for organic meats, the NOSB found that all certified organically
produced livestock shall be fed certified organically produced feeds and
feed supplements. This included allowance for emergency non-organic
feeding only for established time periods and after a certifying agent
is notified. NOSB, Final Board Recommendation, "Livestock Feed Standard"
(June 2, 1994).
B. USDA Proposed Rule.
Under proposed ║ 205.13(a)(1)(I), USDA will allow organic animals to
receive up to twenty (20) percent non-organic feed as part of its total
feed per year. 62 Federal Register 65878. In addition, the proposed
rule allows for a greater percentage of feed to be non-organic "if
necessary." Similar to the USDA's proposed provisions on outdoor
access, this represents a significant loophole in the enforcement of
organic feeding practices. See supra, Issue Number 9.
Issue Number 12. Commenters Should Support NOSB's Fee Recommendations
Concerning the Impact on Small Farms. (Comment Topic Heading: Fees).
A. National Organic Standards Board Action.
The NOSB recommended that the USDA use appropriated funds to cover the
cost of the first round of accreditation. NOSB, Final Recommendation,
"Standards and Procedures Governing the Accreditation of Organic
Certification Org
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 22:09:35 -0500
From: jeanlee
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: (US) Bird-baiting letter
Message-ID: <34CFF2EF.4AFA@concentric.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi-
Here's a letter to your representative in Washington. I invite you to
copy & send it. If you're feeling creative enough to change it a bit,
that's great. If not, send it anyhow!
Dear Congressman/Woman:
Congressman Don Young (R-AK) has introduced the Migratory Bird Treaty
Reform Act, H.R. 741, which would ease restrictions on baiting as a
means of attracting waterfowl. Incidentally, I have a serious objection
to the use of the word ⌠Reform÷ in any bill concerning animals. The
so-called reform nearly always benefits humans at the expense of
animals. The wording is misleading.
Hunters in the U.S. already kill 50 million mourning doves, 14 million
ducks, and millions of other migratory bird each year, even though they
are currently not allowed to use ⌠bait÷, which is the practice of luring
birds to point-blank range with piles of grain or other feed. If vocal
hunters get their way and the prohibition on baiting is lifted, the
number of birds killed will skyrocket.
The catch on H.R. 741 is that baiting of migratory birds would be
prohibited only ⌠where that person knows or should have known through
the exercise of reasonable diligence that bait is present.÷ This would
shift the burden of proof to federal law enforcement agents. They would
have to be mindreaders and then prove that hunters knew the land was
baited. What hypocracy! Instead of openly letting hunters use bait,
let╞s pretend we still have rules in place.
I urge you to OPPOSE H.R. 741 before it is too late for the migratory
birds.
Sincerely yours,
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 03:18:35 GMT
From: baerwolf@tiac.net (baerwolf)
To: BHGazette@aol.com, action@cease.org, Veg-Boston@waste.org,
veg-ne@empire.net, info@ma.neavs.com, ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: Write/Call Make Connibear Traps Illegal in NY +
Message-ID: <199801290318.DAA09306@mail-out-4.tiac.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Blessed be the Peacemakers:
End the War on Companions, Wildlife, and Ourselves !
10 Minute Action You Can Do
For Animals and Yourself
The Connibear Trap must be made illegal in the State of New York.
Write (or call if you know the tel #):
Govenor George Pataki
c/o James McGuire
Executive Chamber
State Capital
Albany, NY 12224
John Cahill
Commissioner of New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
State your opinion that the 100 Foot Rule is woefully inadequate,
and that there should be a total ban on
Connibear Traps and all other traps
except live (box or cage) traps.
Notes:
1) 100 Foot Rule - No trap is allowed to be set within 100 feet
of public walking areas.
(This rule was not followed in events mentioned below. see
note 2)
2) Recent incidents with two dogs -
Incident 1: an older woman is walking her two Fox
Terriers in a
suburban park near her house,
suddenly one of
the terriers lets out a high
pitched shriek.
the woman quickly goes over
to the dogs and finds
one crying at the sight of the other dog wrything in agony because a Connibear
has snapped shut over his head and across his neck. No matter what the woman
does she cannot open the trap and save her dog. She screams for help.
No one is nearby to hear her. Minutes later her dog friend is dead, the
other terrier
is still wimpering. At home, the terrier who witnessed the death cringes in
a corner
days later still refusing to eat.
Incident 2: a female jogger and her big mastiff-mix
dog are out
for some exercise along a
well travelled path.
She has saved this dog from
certain death;
the dog had been badly
injured, and she worked hard
to bring him back to health. It has been about a year since the last of his
physical wounds has healed. Along the path she suddenly hears him whine,
as if in pain. He is off the path no more than 30 feet. A Connibear trap has
sprung
across his head, holding his mouth clamped shut and pressing against his nose.
She tries to open the trap but it won't budge. She yells for help. Several
people come to the dog's rescue, but not even the strongest of them working
in teams can't free the dog. Slowly, over an agonizing hour and a half, the dog
is suffocating, slowly dieing, and no matter how the people try they can not
remove the Connibear trap. After all the abuse he survived in his former life,
and all the love she gave him to bring him back to health, the dog died because
some one set a Connibear Trap - and no one was able to open it and release
the dog.
When Writing (Calling) The Govenor
Remember These Incidents - unfortunately, there are probably others.
But with your help there won't be any more in the future.
Thank you for your immediate attention to this concern,
sbaer
(as relayed to me by Mary G)
steven baer
baerwolf@tiac.net
Massachusetts
HOW DEEP INTO SPACE MUST HUMANS GO
BEFORE THEY LOOK BACK AND REALIZE
ALL THE NEIGHBORS THEY'VE TORTURED ON PLANET EARTH.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 19:10:46
From: David J Knowles
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: [UK] CS gas and batons used on protesting farmers
Message-ID: <3.0.3.16.19980128191046.1bbf1456@dowco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>From The Electronic Telegraph - Thursday, January 29th, 1998
CS gas and batons used on protesting farmers
By David Brown, Agriculture Editor
POLICE used CS gas, riot batons and dogs to control farmers laying siege to
the ferry terminal at Holyhead, Anglesey, yesterday in protest against
Irish beef imports.
Nineteen officers were injured in the ugliest scenes so far in the campaign
by farmers to stop cheaper imported meat capturing a growing share of beef
sales in Britain while their own exports are banned worldwide by the
European Union.
North Wales police called in reinforcements from Cheshire in the operation
to keep the port open. One officer was detained with serious chest injuries
in hospital at Bangor.
Pc Paul Gardner, a father of two who is in his 20s, was undergoing hospital
tests yesterday. Colleagues said his condition was "causing concern".
Violence flared in the early hours at the end of a six-hour protest as
demonstrators tried to prevent Irish lorries from leaving the port.
Policemen were punched and kicked.
North Wales police said: "In response to the violence offered by the
farmers the police had no alternative but to draw their batons in
self-defence and use CS spray in accordance with authorised training
techniques.
"No arrests were made as it was impracticable to do so because of the sheer
numbers involved and the violence shown by the protesters."
The campaign against imported meat was also stepped up at Fishguard, west
Wales, where 300 farmers held a peaceful protest. Six Irish lorries were
eventually allowed through after drivers refused to turn back.
The violence was condemned as unacceptable by the Government and by the
National Farmers' Union of England and Wales, which is worried that beef
producers run the risk of losing public sympathy.
John Tecwyn Owen, deputy chief constable of north Wales, said the attacks
on his officers were "disgraceful" and warned organisers that they must
take responsibility for the conduct of protesters.
A police spokesman said: "Up to now the majority of farmers have had a
responsible attitude. But last night there was a distinctive change of
mood. It became apparent that some of them were intent on seeking a
confrontation."
Bob Parry, president of the Farmers' Union of Wales, said: "We have worked
hard to build up public support for our cause. We don't want to lose it.
Farmers protesting must keep within the law."
Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1998.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 20:19:12
From: David J Knowles
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: [UK] Infertile men could get sperm from mice
Message-ID: <3.0.3.16.19980128201912.267f0af4@dowco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>From The Electronic Telegraph - Thursday, January 29th, 1998
Infertile men could get sperm from mice
By Robert Uhlig, Technology Correspondent
A LEADING fertility expert plans to create mice that produce human sperm in
a bid to help infertile men.
The proposal by Roger Short, of the Royal Women's Hospital in Melbourne,
Australia, has aroused safety concerns among other fertility experts. Dr
Short said: "The first time you say to anyone that we want to produce human
sperm in mice, they look at you with frank horror."
However, he said that once people overcome their initial reservations, most
accept his proposal, which has won ethical approval from his local animal
research committee but has not been presented to the equivalent committee
for humans.
Dr Short has applied for funding from the US National Institute of Health
to transplant spermatagonial stem cells, which produce sperm, from human
testes into mice.
Whereas many female infertility problems can be overcome, men with low
sperm counts have little chance of making their partner pregnant. Dr Short
believes that if the reason for infertility is a genetic fault in the
Sertoli cells that nurture developing sperm, transplanting human
spermatogonial stem cells into a mouse with healthy Sertoli cells could
allow mature human sperm to form.
However, experts have warned of dangers if human sperm produced in mice was
ever used for fertility treatment. Human sperm developed in a mouse testis
might undergo changes producing congenital effects, and the sperm could be
infected by mouse viruses.
Dr Short believes that his work, which is reported today in New Scientist,
could ultimately help correct the genetic defects that can disrupt normal
spermatogenesis - a procedure that, according to the magazine, no ethical
committee would sanction.
Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1998.
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 1998 23:20:56 -0500
From: allen schubert
To: ar-news@envirolink.org
Subject: (US) Witness breaks into tears at Winfrey trial
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19980128232052.0068a6ac@mail.clark.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
from @marillo Globe-News http://www.amarillonet.com/oprah/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Web posted Wednesday, January 28, 1998 7:00 p.m. CT
Witness breaks into tears at Winfrey trial
Cattlemen vs. Oprah Winfrey
By CHIP CHANDLER
Globe-News Staff Writer
An expert witness for area cattlemen suing Oprah Winfrey broke down in
tears on Wednesday, denying he meant any racial implications when he said
Winfrey and her staff caused a "lynch-mob mentality."
In a dramatic moment early Wednesday afternoon, Dr. William Hueston
described his upbringing in a family that supported the civil-rights
movement.
"My grandfather taught all of us that we should respect people regardless
of their color," he said in a halting voice.
"My father worked in our small Virginia town during the time of the Civil
Rights Act. He . . . approached the local hospital . . . and informed them
if they didn't begin integrating their staff, (he) would take action,"
Hueston said.
The testimony came a few hours after Winfrey's attorney, Charles Babcock,
said that Winfrey and her guest had the same right to use rhetoric on her
talk show that Hueston had to describe the show as a "lynch mob," Babcock
said Wednesday.
Hueston never answered a question to that effect directly, but he defended
his own right to use rhetoric.
Babcock also asked whether Hueston knew the origin of the phrase "lynch
mob."
"You did not mean to suggest that people with clubs, ropes and torches were
in the audience?" he asked.
"I meant that the impression that I had on the show - that group's
psychology, that group's madness for me was equal to a lynch-mob
mentality," Hueston answered.
He stood by that statement under questioning by plaintiffs' attorney Joseph
Coyne. Hueston is being paid to testify for the cattlemen.
He compared the feeling he had on the show to a time when he was working in
the civil-rights movement. A window in his home was shot; a Ku Klux Klan
sticker was placed on his mailbox; and several cars drove past the home
slowly, he said.
He tearfully apologized to Winfrey for any racial impression that his
lynch-mob statements might have made. Winfrey appeared to listen to his
testimony but showed no visible reaction. Jurors also showed no visible
emotion.
Throughout his examination by Babcock on Wednesday, Hueston avoided
answering questions when he did not agree with Babcock's phrasing.
Babcock asked how Winfrey should know the difference between bovine
spongiform encephalopathy, Creutzfeldt-Jakobs disease and a new variant of
CJD when some scientific literature appeared confusing.
"What type of answer are you looking for?" Hueston answered. "I don't know
if you are looking for a yes or no or what."
Hueston was excused from the stand at 4:30 p.m. His testimony was followed
by a videotaped deposition by Andrea Wishom, an associate producer at Harpo
Productions Inc.
Wishom was on a production team responsible for researching BSE, or mad cow
disease, for the April 16, 1996, show, the episode in question.
Jurors will continue watching the deposition on Thursday.
|
|
