Komputer for Alle 1998 #6/1998 CD 6 (Gul).iso/web/ffa/wwwenv~1.org/arrs/digest/news61~1.htm/text0003.txt

Internet Message Format | 1998-04-02 | 45.6 KB

Date: 12/30/97  Copyright⌐ by China Daily

CHANGCHUN (Xinhua) -- Large numbers of black bears, wild boars and roe
deers are being frequently spotted in the Changbai Mountains in Northeast
China's Jilin Province, due to the hunting ban implemented nearly two years
ago.

Ren Junjie, vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the Jilin Provincial
People's Congress, said the sightings were reported by an inspection group
that has just completed its tour of Jilin, Tonghua and Baishan cities and
the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture.

Ren said illegal hunting has been greatly reduced since the province's
five-year ban became effective in January of 1996.

In addition, expanding forests in the mountainous areas and increased
knowledge of wild-animal protection have contributed to the improvement of
natural habitats and more animals.

Jilin is the country's only region that has enforced a hunting ban
throughout the province.

In Tonghua's rural areas, residents once discovered a herd of 26 roe deer
and several hundred of wild ducks flying to a river on the outskirts of the
city.

At the same time, swans, which had disappeared from the city for many
years, have returned to Jilin this year.

Jilin has established a first-aid station for injured wild animals and has
rescued 21 wild animals since it opened three years ago.

Ren called for drafting a provincial regulation to compensate those who are
injured or whose property is damaged in protecting the animals.

In another development, central China's Hunan Province has launched a
survey of its wildlife resources to better protect their natural habitats.

The survey will focus on animals, birds, amphibians, reptiles wild plants
and wetland resources in 3,000 locations.

The forest coverage rate has exceeded 50 per cent in the province, and
there are 600 kinds of terrestrial animals, with 66 under State protection.


Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 02:57:59 EST
From: NOVENA ANN <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: hongo kong begins chicken slaughter
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

By Tan Ee Lyn
Reuters

HONG KONG (Dec. 29) - Hong Kong slaughtered hundreds of thousands of chickens
and other poultry Monday in the first day of a massive extermination to rid
itself of the ''bird flu'' virus that has killed four people.

The influenza strain has caused concern about a possible repeat of the 1968
''Hong Kong flu'' that killed 46,500 people worldwide.

In markets and farms across the territory, workers began killing 1.3 million
chickens and unknown numbers of ducks, geese, quail, partridge and pigeons
that might be responsible for infecting humans with a disease previously
thought to affect only birds.

Armed with tanks of carbon dioxide and wearing white clinical suits and face
masks, workers from the Agriculture and Fisheries Department (AFD) descended
on 160 chicken farms, 39 mixed poultry farms and two wholesale markets to gas
the birds.

They bundled chickens into huge black plastic bags and pumped in carbon
dioxide to kill them. The dead birds were sterilized and dumped in the
territory's eight landfill sites.

Earlier, vendors at some 1,000 live poultry stalls began killing entire flocks
under the gaze of health inspectors.

Stalls at a market in the crowded Mongkok district were splashed with blood as
vendors slit the chickens' throats and hung them up to drain blood before
throwing them in bags.

''Everybody is very busy with the operation. We hope to complete it in a day
and a half,'' an AFD spokeswoman said.

The government also transferred more than 106,000 poultry -- slaughtered and
surrendered by market stalls and fresh provision shops -- to landfills for
disposal.

The drastic decision to kill the birds was announced by the government Sunday
as it stepped up its fight against the H5N1 virus.

Apart from the four dead, a 25-year-old woman was confirmed to have been
infected, the Health Department said. She brings to nine the number of
confirmed cases of infection. Seven others are suspected to have contracted
the virus.

Experts say the virus appears to be spread mainly by direct contact with
chickens but that human-to-human transmission cannot be ruled out.

But in Geneva, the World Health Organization said bird flu was unlikely to be
spread between humans after tests on people who were in contact with the first
human case of H5N1 confirmed human-to-human transmission was ''relatively
inefficient.''

The United Nations health agency's emerging disease specialist David Heymann
said none of the evidence available so far ''suggests that there will be a
widespread epidemic.''

The number of ducks, geese, pigeons, partridge and quail to be killed was not
known but officials said they would be counted to ensure their owners received
compensation estimated at $5.16 million.

Poultry wholesalers asked the government for $38.7 million in loans to meet
losses they suffered because of the bird flu virus, radio reported.

The killing operation drew loud protests from vendors.

''If the government wanted to take this action, they should have told us
earlier. We have bought all this fresh stock and we're losing a lot of
money,'' one chicken vendor said.

Poon Hung-wei, a representative of the local Poultry Wholesale Association,
said, ''The whole operation is leading to great losses for the poultry
industry and a halt to business.''

Hong Kong, which normally imports 75,000 chickens a day from mainland China,
banned all imports on Christmas Eve, fearing the virus was coming from farms
across the border.

A spokesman for the Democratic Party criticized the government for burying the
dead birds instead of burning them.

Hong Kong flag carrier Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. stopped serving chicken
Monday on flights originating from Hong Kong, a spokeswoman for the airlines
told Reuters.

Prices of live chickens in Guangzhou, the capital of China's southern
Guangdong province, have plunged 50 percent because of the ban, said Huang
Shaorong, head of the Guangdong Poultry Association.

In Hong Kong, sales of frozen poultry imported from outside China have risen,
retailers and wholesalers said.

 Reut16:02 12-29-97
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 12:04:45 +0200
From: erez ganor <[e-mail]>
To: Adolfo Sansolini - LAV <[e-mail]>,
        Animal Rights Hawaii <[e-mail]>,
        "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
        "Ari Dale, M.D." <[e-mail]>,
        "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
        Barbara Harkaway <[e-mail]>, Born Free <[e-mail]>,
        "[e-mail] David" <[e-mail]>,
        "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>,
        Elizabeth S Kent <[e-mail]>,
        Glenn Hunt <[e-mail]>,
        "Howard J. Hoffman" <[e-mail]>,
        HSUS Wildlife <[e-mail]>,
        In Defense of Animals <[e-mail]>,
        Karin Zupko <ma.neavs.com![e-mail]>,
        Mikhal and Oded Ben-Shaprut <[e-mail]>,
        PETA Nederland <[e-mail]>,
        Peter Singer <[e-mail]>, rhus <[e-mail]>,
        Ruth van der Leij <[e-mail]>
Subject: ISRAEL- few more victims of Rabies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Last Night  a Rabied jackal attack two people on a field nearby the town
of Kazrin
on the Golan heights.  beside the 2 people, few dogs were bitten by
jackals in the same area.
The Jackal who attach the humans were shot and killed, and his body was
sent to the Vet Lab of the Municipal Vet Services in Beit- Dagan.
Yehuda Voulman - Mayor of the Golan Regional Council, called the
Minister of Agriculture, in order to declare alert in the area. Beside
that, he was demanding the continue of mass killing among wildlife and
stay dogs & cats.
Prof. Arnon Shimshoni - Head of Vet Services in the Agriculture Ministry
still refuses to consider the use of Oral vaccination as a nation wide
policy.
Erez Ganor.


Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:19:00 +0800
From: bunny <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (NZ)Dumbo Doused With Petrol
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Tue, 30th December 1997

Dumbo Doused With Petrol (New Zealand)

Marine Watch is investigating an attack which could threaten the life of an
elephant seal camping out at Christchurch's New Brighton beach.

The elephant seal, nicknamed Dumbo, has been a regular visitor to the area
for the past five years.

Marine Watch spokesperson, Jim Lilley, says it appears someone poured
petrol over Dumbo.

He says Dumbo could succumb to hypothermia as he no longer has any
ability to waterproof himself.

It's not the first time he's been attacked since he started visiting city
beaches.

He's already had bottles broken over him, and was even doused in alcohol
and set alight once.

                     (30.12.97)


========================================================
Rabbit Information Service,
P.O.Box 30,
Riverton,
Western Australia 6148

email>  [e-mail]

http://www.wantree.com.au/~rabbit/rabbit.htm
(Rabbit Information Service website updated frequently)

     /`\   /`\
    (/\ \-/ /\)
       )6 6(
     >{= Y =}<
      /'-^-'\
     (_)   (_)
      |  .  |
      |     |}
 jgs  \_/^\_/

It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
 - Voltaire








Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 06:55:53 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Markarian <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Cc: [e-mail], [e-mail]
Subject: Trap Kills Dog in Montana
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>>TRAP KILLS DOG NEAR FOOTHILLS ROAD
>>----------------------------------
>>by Ben Long
>>The Daily Inter Lake
>>Kalispell, Montana
>>Sunday, December 28, 1997
>>------------------------------------
>>
>>   A winter ski along Peter's Ridge Road turned dreadful for Liz Feist on
>>Friday, when her dog was killed in a predator trap.
>>   While there was nothing illegal about the trapline, some Foothills Road
>>neighbors are angry about the incident and at least one is calling for
>>tighter restrictions on trapping near recreational areas.
>>   Feist had been skiing with her two dogs along that road. But one of
>>them, a Labrador mix, that weighed about 50 pounds stuck its head in a
>>trap set for predators.
>>   "I heard the trap and then this horrible howling," she said. "He had
>>this steel trap around its neck.
>>   "It was too strong. I struggled and struggled. It just felt like
>>forever...It wasn't a quick death. He suffered a lot."
>>   Her neighbor, Bob Muth, happened across the scene.
>>   "I've never seen anything as traumatic as this girl, trying to raise
>>the dog from the trap," Muth said.
>>   The trap was designed to capture an animal by the head and had been
>>baited with chicken necks.
>>   It was about five miles from the intersection with Foothills Road.
>>   Muth posted a description of the incident on the internet and received
>>dozens of sympathetic replies, he said.
>>   They included offers for a free pup from kennels outside Montana, he said.
>>   Muth said he has skied and hiked in that area for 35 years without
>>similar problems.
>>   The traps were not appropriate on the shoulder of a popular skiing
>>road, both he and Feist said.
>>   "This is not 100 years ago," he said. "At the very least, there should
>>have been warning signs. I would never have taken my dogs there, had I
>>known about the traps."
>>   Dan Vincent, regional supervisor for Montana Department of Fish,
>>Wildlife and Parks, said the road is on Forest Service land and public
>>forest is open for trapping.
>>   The traps had tags identifying the owner.
>>   "There was nothing illegal about the traps or the operation of the
>>traps, "Vincent said.
>>   However, the department had gotten complaints about the trapline
>>earlier in the month.
>>   A game warden talked to the trapper, suggesting he pull the traps to
>>avoid a conflict, but the traps were not moved, Vincent said.
>>   "It really is an unfortunate situation." he said, adding that it is
>>indicative of a changing landscape, with a growing number of people using
>>public lands for recreation.
>>   "We try to work with trappers, with a particular emphasis on ethics,"
>>he said.  "We try to reduce conflicts as much as we possibly can, but
>>sometimes it's unavoidable."

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 11:34:56 -0800
From: [e-mail] (Lawrence Carter-Long)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Question re: contact lense solution
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


I'm almost positive we've been through this before, but I didn't
save the information and need it again. I apologize for rehashing
old ground if I am doing so.

Does anybody know if there are any contact lense solutions
which AREN'T tested on animals?   If so, please let me know.

Many thanks,

Lawrence Carter-Long
Science and Research Issues, Animal Protection Institute
email: [e-mail], phone: [phone] x. 215
world wide web: http://www.api4animals.org/

"I will permit no man to narrow and degrade my
soul by making me hate him." - Booker T. Washington

"...the above also applies to women.  However, I haven't
quite made up my mind just yet about politicians or talk
show hosts." - Lawrence Carter-Long








Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 14:44:58 -0600
From: [e-mail] (Danny McGowan)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Vegan Paints?
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Not to make this a Cruelty Free Q&A but I am wondering if anyone knows
of companies that make vegan acrylic based paints (for artwork, not for
painting walls etc.)?

Thanks,
dJenni

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 12:07:31 -0800
From: "Bob Schlesinger" <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Trapper worked for Montana Fish & Game Dept.
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Kalispell, Montana
December 30, 1997
---------------------------
The steel jaw trap that killed a family dog outside of Kalispell, Montana in a popular
well-travelled cross country skiing and hiking area last Friday was set by an individual who has
trapped for the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks.  After an interview with
officials, Bob Muth, a neighbor of dog owner Liz Feist, indicated that the officials knew the
trapper and that he had worked for them.  In addition the officials knew in advance about the trap
and did nothing to warn the public, even though they had received a prior complaint from
someone else who's dog was caught in the trap. Gino Fasano, the owner of that dog, had been
able to successfully free his dog before he died.

The trap had been set on the shoulder of a skiing road.  Although officials had previously
suggested the trapper move his trap, he did not do so, and the officials took no additional action.
Liz Feist had been skiing on the road accompanied by her two dogs.  The trap was baited with
chicken parts and her dog, Buddy, stuck his head into the trap, setting it off.  Alerted by screams,
Bob Muth, who was in the area, tried to free Buddy from the trap after Liz was unable to do so,
but it was too late.

Following is an account by Bob Muth detailing his meeting with officials of the Montana
Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks. In attendence were Dan Vincent, regional supervisor, Ed
Kelley, captain of wardens, Sgt. Karl Brooks and John Fraley (public relations).

Bob Muth:  What was Mr.__________trapping on Trail Creek?

Answer: predators

Bob Muth:  What kind?

Answer: Don't know

Bob Muth:  What kind of trap killed Buddy?

Answer: Conibear

Bob Muth:  Do you believe this kind of trap is humane?

Answer: Yes

Bob Muth:  Why?

Answer: Because it kills instantly.

Bob Muth:  Then why did Buddy suffer so horribly in Liz's arms?

Answer: Don't Know.

Bob Muth:  Why was Mr Fasano able to remove and save his dog, if they kill instantly ?

Answer: Don't know.

Bob Muth:  Has Mr. _____________ ever done any trapping for the Fish & Game Dept.

Answer: Yes

Bob Muth:  Are you aware that at 3:30 pm, on Dec. 20th, Mr Fasano's yellow lab was caught in
one of
Mr.____________'s traps?

Answer: Yes

Bob Muth:  Are you aware that Mr. Fasano reported it to your Dept. and that Sgt. Karl Brooks
came out to
investigate and walked the Trail Creek road to the trap with Mr. Fasano?

Answer: Yes

Bob Muth:  Are you aware that while they were walking to the trap, two skiers and a black lab
passed between them
and the trap and they were not informed by the warden that there were traps in the area?

Here is where the group became very defensive. I had to press the question to Mr. Brooks and he
finally
said he did not warn the skiers with the lab. I asked him why. He said "it was not necessary for me
to
legally,was it?" At this point the Director stepped in and said "Are we supposed warn a river
floater of a
dangerous log on the river? If we start that stuff we will become libel when we miss something. I
rephrased the question:

Bob Muth:  You mean, you felt no moral or ethical responsibility as a human being to warn those
skiers with the lab of
traps in the area?

Answer: "No.I don't go down to Buttreys (a local supper market in the center of town) and warn
everyone that it is the middle of hunting season."

Bob Muth:  I don't see any comparison.

The meeting kind of fell apart here. The Director flatly refused to answer if he thought there was a
need
for reform in trapping regulations. He said that was a political question. Then he made the
statement that
"going to the press makes things worse in a situation like this. Look at the unibomber." I had no
idea what
he meant. He went on saying "this isn't Sweden or California and trapping is a way of life for
many."

The startling new stuff here is that the trapper has worked for the Fish & Game Dept.
No wonder they are protecting him & don't want press. AND, the Dept.not only knew that Mr.
Fasano's yellow lab was caught in the trap, but they saw two skiers and a black lab between
them (the warden) and the trap and said absolutely nothing!

Comments to the Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks can be sent via:

http://fwp.mt.gov/comment/comment.htm

-------------------------------------------------------

For updates to this story, visit Ark Online at http://www.arkonline.com

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 16:46:38 -0500
From: leah wacksman <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: CNN - Girl, 6, injured in Florida baboon attack - December 29, 1997
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------27F5DEE605E67E52E03A0CFA"

Posted by Marty Wacksman

CHARLOTTE COUNTY, Florida (AP) -- A 6-year-old girl was
hospitalized with injuries Sunday after a baboon grabbed her
in a southwest Florida zoo.

The child and her family were visiting Octagon Wildlife
Sanctuary when a baboon grabbed her and wouldn't let go.  Her
mother, Linda Gunn, said her daughter was screaming and
fighting for her life.  A clump of the child's hair was
ripped out, and her shirt was torn.  She was taken to a
hospital and treated for minor injuries.

A zoo spokesman said the child got too close to the animal.
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:24:30 -0500
From: "Bina Robinson" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Fw: save organic standards
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit



----------
> From: Alixfano <[e-mail]>
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: save organic standards
> Date: Tuesday, December 30, 1997 11:29 AM
>
> Hello, please write and pass this on.  Thanks.
> ACTION ALERT
>
> S.O.S. SAVE ORGANIC STANDARDS IN THE USA!
>
> The U.S. Department of Agriculture is attempting to redefine organic
foods
> to include foods that are genetically engineered, irradiated,
> factory-farmed, and grown on top of toxic sewage sludge. This represents
> nothing less than an "unfriendly take over" of the natural foods industry
> by agribusiness, chemical-biotech corporations, and giant supermarket
> chains.
>
> On Dec. 16, 1997 the USDA announced their proposed national organic
> standards. These standards define what can be legally certified and
labeled
> as organic. Following their final approval, it basically will be illegal
> for producers and retailers to uphold and promote standards stricter than
> the USDA allows.
>
> Currently, when we shop for foods labeled "organic," we can be reasonably
> certain of what we're getting. But under the proposed USDA laws, there
are
> no explicit prohibitions against:
>
> * Genetic Engineering - Using genetic engineering to produce foods.
>
> * Factory Farming - Using inhumane, intensive confinement, factory farm
> style production methods on farm animals.
>
> * Toxic Sludge - Spreading toxic sewage sludge and industrial wastes,
> so-called "biosolids," on farmlands and pastures where animals graze and
> food is grown.
>
> * Animal Cannibalism - Feeding back diseased and waste animal body parts,
> offal, and blood to farm animals, the practice that has led to Mad Cow
> Disease in Europe.
>
> * Food Irradiation - Using radioactive nuclear wastes to "kill bacteria"
> and prolong the shelf life of food products.
>
> It's not too late. Continue reading this Action Alert to see what you can
> do to Save Organic Standards!
> ____________________________________________________________________
> STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS! HERE'S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO SAVE ORGANIC
STANDARDS!
>
>  Form an SOS Action Network in your local area. Collect the names and
> contact information (including telephone and fax numbers and email
> addresses) of others who feel passionately about these issues and are
ready
> to take action. Have those with email addresses subscribe to Food Bytes,
> our free electronic newsletter, by sending an email to:
> [e-mail]
> with the simple message:
> subscribe pure-food-action
>
>  Have natural food retail stores, coops, community restaurants, and
> farmers markets contact the SOS campaign by telephone, fax, or email to
set
> up an in-store leaflet and SOS "ballot box" display. Encourage coops and
> businesses to use these displays so that consumers can write official
> comment letters to the USDA and their legislators while they are shopping
> for organic foods.
>
>  Send a letter, fax, or email to the USDA (to the address and docket
> number listed below) demanding that they maintain strict organic
standards
> by explicitly prohibiting the unacceptable agricultural practices listed
in
> this Alert. Demand also that they allow private and state organic
> certification bodies to maintain stricter organic standards than those
the
> USDA requires. Remind the USDA that this is a basic issue of free speech
> and of consumers' right to choose. Ask your organic food store to provide
> materials so that consumers can write comment letters while they are
> shopping. If you live outside the United States, tell the USDA that USA
> organic foods produced under sub-standard certification and labeling
> provisions, such as they are now proposing, will not be welcome or
> marketable in your country.
>
>  Make copies of your letter to the USDA and send them to your
legislators
> and local media. Follow up with a telephone call to their local district
> offices. Tell them that, as a constituent, you want them to put their
> position on organic standards in writing so that this can be forwarded on
> to the USDA.
>
>  Don't forget to contact natural food outlets, consumer coops, farmers
> markets, environmental and public interest non-governmental organizations
> (NGOs) and community-oriented restaurants in your area and get them
> involved in the SOS campaign.
>
> Letters to the USDA should be sent to:
> USDA--National Organic Standards
> Docket # TMD-94-00-2
> Address: USDA, AMS, Room 4007-S, AgStop 0275, P.O. Box 96456 Washington,
> D.C. 20090-6456
> Fax: (Include Docket Number) 202-690-4632
> email: see USDA web site http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> __
> Whose Organic Standards?: USDA'S New Proposed Regulations Are
Unacceptable
>
> An Op-Ed Piece on the USDA's 12/16/97 Proposed National Organic Food
> Standards by:
> Ronnie Cummins, National Director, Pure Food Campaign/SOS (Save Organic
> Standards)
> Address:
> 860 Hwy 61 Little Marais, Mn. 55614 USA
> Telephone/Fax/email:
> (218)-226-4164  Fax [phone] email: [e-mail]
>
> Watch out what you ask for, you just might get it. Since 1990, the
natural
> foods industry has been working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
to
> establish new federal rules to define "organic" food, rules which
> supposedly will promote consumer demand and expand the number of organic
> farms. Now, in a remarkable turnabout, the rules proposed by the USDA on
> December 16 threaten the very credibility and future of the organic and
> natural foods industry.
>
> At stake in finalizing the new "organic" standards is the fastest growing
> and most profitable segment of the food market. The U.S. organic food
> industry has grown from $78 million in 1980 to an estimated $4.2 billion
> this year, and is expanding by nearly 20 percent each year. The proposed
> rules by the USDA degrade current standards, open the door for large
> agribusiness companies, processors, and supermarket chains to enter and
> dominate the organic food market, and preempt natural food consumers,
> independent retailers, and farmers involvement in future rules regarding
> organic food.
>
> The nervous shiver down the spine of the organic foods industry comes
from
> the USDA's lack of specific prohibitions for genetically engineered
foods,
> irradiated foods, intensive confinement of farm animals, rendered animal
> parts in feed, and the use of toxic sewage sludge spread over farmlands
and
> pastures.
>
> To allow these controversial practices, the new USDA rules run directly
> counter to the practices of organic farmers around the country and in
> Europe. Currently the labeling of organic food is dictated by varying,
but
> relatively strict, standards used by 17 states and 33 private certifying
> agencies. None of these agencies currently allow genetic engineering,
> irradiation, intensive confinement, rendered animal protein, or toxic
> sewage sludge within their definitions of organic food. Besides lowering
> pre-existing standards, the new USDA rules would deny states and
localities
> from setting tougher organic food standards, without first being approved
> by the USDA. In this regard industry experts are quite sceptical than the
> USDA would allow stricter standards, since strict organic standards would
> represent an implicit, if not explicit, condemnation of current
> conventional agricultural practices.
>
> In fact, the USDA's rules are a direct affront to the National Organics
> Standards Board (NOSB)--composed of industry representatives, farmers,
> environmentalists and food processors. The NOSB, established by the
Organic
> Foods Production Act in 1990, made recommendations to the USDA that
> explicitly banned genetically engineered foods, irradiation, farming with
> sewage sludge, and intensive confinement factory farm type animal
husbandry
> practices.
>
> By proposing these watered-down standards, the USDA opens the door for
> several powerful industries to enter the organic foods market. The
proposed
> rules will undergo a 90-120 day comment period, giving the waste
disposal,
> biotech, and nuclear industries an opportunity to lobby hard to expand
the
> market for their products. Organic food consumers will have an equal
> opportunity to voice their opinions during the comment period, and given
> their outrage over the proposed standards, they are likely to generate
> large numbers of comments.
>
> The USDA is caught in a familiar predicament given the agency's dual
role.
> On the one hand it is set up ostensibly to protect consumers by ensuring
a
> safe food supply and guarantee the economic livelihood of America's
> farmers, the majority of whom continue to operate small and medium-sized
> farms.  On the other hand, USDA also sees as its role to promote the
> industrialization and globalization of American agriculture--which means
> working closely with large agribusiness, chemical, and biotechnology
> corporations. The natural food industry, with its small stores, small
> family farms, and discriminating consumers, has begun to pose a direct
> threat to the market share of large-scale agribusiness. Therefore
> agribusiness would like nothing more than to infiltrate this burgeoning
> market.
>
> The strength of the organic food market can be seen in the growing number
> of organic sections appearing in major supermarket chains. A quarter of
all
> shoppers buy "natural" or organic foods in supermarkets at least once a
> week, according to the Organic Trade Association. In a national poll last
> February 54% of American consumers told industry pollsters that their
> preference was for organic production.
>
> In addition to the weak rules on controversial practices, the proposed
> standards solidify the power of the USDA for future decisions on
organics.
> The Organics Food Production Act intended for any additions to the
organic
> rules, such as the inclusion of new synthetic or genetically engineered
> crops, to go through the National Organics Standards Board (NOSB). But
the
> Preamble to the new rules and the USDA's redefinition of substances such
as
> sewage sludge as "natural" rather than "synthetic" seem to open the door
> for the USDA to make the final decision on new additions on its own. In
> addition government officials (under NAFTA regulations the Labor
> Department) would have unilateral power to declare the "equivalency" of
> organic food standards in other nations such as Mexico. Given the lack of
> current regulations and enforcement in Mexico over agricultural
production,
> this could mean a flood of supposedly "organic" products crossing the
> border which would undermine American organic farmers operating under
> stricter standards and higher production costs.
>
> On the surface this seems to be a debate over semantics. What is organic
> food? But dig deeper and you will find the livelihood of 12,000 or so
> organic farmers nationwide, scores of thousands of natural food
businesses
> and employees, and the right for several million U.S. consumers to buy
> organic food that reflects natural farming and production methods. After
> the 90-120 day comment period, let's hope the USDA understands that these
> standards need to retain the integrity of the word organic. If they
don't,
> perhaps we're better off without any federal organic standards at all.
>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:44:15 EST
From: Snugglezzz <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: NOAH's Ark verdict
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Would someone please resend me the NOAH's Ark verdict? I deleted it, and I
want to pass it on to others who have been asking me.

THANKS!!!!!

Sherrill
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 09:54:35 +0000
From: jwed <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (CN) Provinces strengthening wild animal protection
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Date: 12/30/97  Copyright⌐ by China Daily

CHANGCHUN (Xinhua) -- Large numbers of black bears, wild boars and roe
deers are being frequently spotted in the Changbai Mountains in Northeast
China's Jilin Province, due to the hunting ban implemented nearly two years
ago.

Ren Junjie, vice-chairman of the Standing Committee of the Jilin Provincial
People's Congress, said the sightings were reported by an inspection group
that has just completed its tour of Jilin, Tonghua and Baishan cities and
the Yanbian Korean Autonomous Prefecture.

Ren said illegal hunting has been greatly reduced since the province's
five-year ban became effective in January of 1996.

In addition, expanding forests in the mountainous areas and increased
knowledge of wild-animal protection have contributed to the improvement of
natural habitats and more animals.

Jilin is the country's only region that has enforced a hunting ban
throughout the province.

In Tonghua's rural areas, residents once discovered a herd of 26 roe deer
and several hundred of wild ducks flying to a river on the outskirts of the
city.

At the same time, swans, which had disappeared from the city for many
years, have returned to Jilin this year.

Jilin has established a first-aid station for injured wild animals and has
rescued 21 wild animals since it opened three years ago.

Ren called for drafting a provincial regulation to compensate those who are
injured or whose property is damaged in protecting the animals.

In another development, central China's Hunan Province has launched a
survey of its wildlife resources to better protect their natural habitats.

The survey will focus on animals, birds, amphibians, reptiles wild plants
and wetland resources in 3,000 locations.

The forest coverage rate has exceeded 50 per cent in the province, and
there are 600 kinds of terrestrial animals, with 66 under State protection.


Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 09:55:09 +0000
From: jwed <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: (CN) Guangzhou Zoo's answer to Ocean Park
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

South China Morning Post -  Tuesday  December 30  1997

by SHIRLEY KWOK

Mainland people can now visit a Hong Kong-style theme park without crossing
the border.

Canton Ocean World opened at Guangzhou Zoo at the weekend and aims to
compete with the SAR's Ocean Park.

The 11,000-square-metre park has more than 500 species of fish, including
sea horses from Australia.

The park also boasts a shark aquarium, rocky shore pool and a mangrove bay.

The biggest park of its kind on the mainland, it has to produce its own
seawater, which is recycled.

Other highlights include a 10-metre underwater tunnel offering visitors a
panoramic view of the park and performances by sea lions and dolphins at
Ocean Theatre. The entry fee is 90 yuan (HK$84).

Park staff said Sunday's opening was a trial run and the park would be
officially opened before the Lunar New Year.

Zhuang Xiuxiong, 10, who visited with her parents, said it was the first
time she had seen sharks and large turtles.

"My cousins in Hong Kong told me about Ocean Park there and I always dreamt
of visiting it. But now I can see so many fish here without going to Hong
Kong. It's great."

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 20:48:07 -0500
From: "Bina Robinson" <[e-mail]>
To: <[e-mail]>
Subject: Lakes of animal waste
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

from <[e-mail]>  December 30, 1997

The following article by Debbie Howlett was in today's USA Today  p. 7A

LAKES OF ANIMAL WASTE POSE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK
America is knee-deep in manure.  The booming cattle, pork and poultry
industries pproduced nearly 1.4 billion tons of animal waste last year--130
times more than the human population does.

While some of the manure was used to fertilize cropland, much of it was
stored in "lagoons" -- pits of sludge a half-mile wide and 20 feet deep --
that pose a threat to fresh air and clean water nationwide.

"It is an enormous issue for the environment and for agriculture," Sen. Tom
Harkin, D-Iowa, said in an interview.  "It ought to be a concern for the
entire nation."

Harkin, ranking Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, will issue a
report this week detailing for the first time the magnitude of animal-waste
pollution.  It says:

     >Runoff from animal wastes is linked to a "deadzone" in the Gulf of
Mexico.  Algae fed by the runoff has depleted so much oxygen from a
7,000-square mile area of the gulf that it can no longer support most
aquatic life.

     >A heavy rain in 1995 caused a lagoon spill of 35 milliion gallons of
animal waste, three times the volume of oil spilled in the Exxon Valdez
disaster.  The waste spill killed 10 million fish in coastal North
Carolina.

     >The 1,600 dairies in San Joaquin Valley of California, which has
surpassedWisconsin as the nation's top milk supplier, are regualted by a
single inspector.  Nitrogen is seeping through the soil and into precious
ground water.

     >Poultry waste is suspected in the bloom of the toxic microbe that killed
480,000 fish in Mid-Atlantic states in 1997.

The report concludes that the handling of animal waste has emerged as an
environmental risk largely because of the changing ways meat is produced
for market.

Livestock once was dispersed at smaller farms all across the country, as
was all the waste the animals produced.  Meat producers now are moving to a
more industrial approach.

Circle 4 Farms in Milford, Utah, provides an example.

When construction is finished at the end of next year, it will be the
largest hog operation in the world.  On 50,000 acres about 100 miles
southwest of Salt Lake City, Circle 4 will produce more than 2.5 million
pigs a year.

The hogs are housed 120,000 to a barn.  They spend their lives in
individual pens, eating and sleeping.  The resulting waste is more than
produced by the city of Los Angeles and it is flushed out daily in a souply
mash of urine, feces and water.  It then goes into lagoons and storage
tanks; ultimately when it becomes a solid, it can be sold as a nutrient for
crops.

New methods of mass production have developed to the point that agronomists
and environmentalists agree there is no turning back.  But they also agree
that the concentrated meat production has created a new obligation to find
environmentally solid ways to handle all the waste.

"This is a defining moment for us," says Al Tank of the National Pork
Producers Council.  "We either have to find a solution or the pork industry
will leave United States for Canada or Argentina.'

The Environmental Protection Agency will issue its first "action plan" on
animal waste next month. The lobbying groups for livestock growers have
been meeting for months to compose their own set of guidelines.

Harkin hopes to hold Senate hearings before March on a bill that he
introduced with little fanfare in November.  The legislation would
establish national standards for handling animal waste and force oversight
by the Department of Agriculture.

Tank and Jerry Kozak of the National Milk Producers Federation say that
while federal standards are desirable, specifics should be left to states
and counties because of the wide variation in topography and geography.

Harkin objects to that appproach.  "This opens the door to potential
bidding down of environmental laws as states compete for the jobs and
economic activity of large scale livestock and poultry producers," he says.

There are many who defend large-scale operations, including Alan Sutton, a
professor of animal sciences at Purdue University.

"The size of the operation doesn't determine the scope of the problem,"
Sutton says.  "If they build the lagoons correctly, there shouldn't be much
threat to the environment."

James Power, a retired University of Nebraska professor who, with Sutton,
wrote one of the most respected studies on the handling of field animal
waste, says manure is not so much a problem as a "valuable resource."

He suggests the solution is to convince producers that they won't go broke
storing and transporting manure they can't apply to their own land.  At the
same time, he says, producers need storage methods that won't allow
nitrogen, phosporous and potassium to enter the water supply.
                                                     -30-

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 18:26:59 -0800
From: FARM <[e-mail]>
To: AR-News <[e-mail]>
Subject: Meat Industry in Schools
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The October/November 1997 issue of Animal Industry Foundation (AIF)
Newsletter offers a complete Teacher Resource Kit "full of materials to
enable teachers to answer many of the questions both they and students
have about animal agriculture and the animal rights vs animal welfare
issue." The kit costs $35 and contains a copy of AIF's "Animal
Agriculture: Myths & Facts" video and booklet, AIF's Teachers' Resource
Guide to Food Animal Care & Use Issues, AIF's Video Guide, and various
other educational materials about animal agriculture and its importance
in our society.  For more information, call Mia Miller at (703)
524-0810. (AIF was formed by the meat industry to oppose AR activities.)


Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1997 22:23:03 -0800
From: FARM <[e-mail]>
To: AR-News <[e-mail]>
Subject: Banning the Battery Cage in Europe
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>From Feedstuffs (The Agribusiness Newsweekly), 12/15/97. (In the future,
material from the meat industry will be posted on our Meatout website
which is still under construction.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------

BRITISH GOVERNMENT WANTS LAYERS OUT OF CAGES
by Ian Elliott

    Elliot Morley, the British govenment's animal welfare minister, last
month called for an end to the use of cages in egg laying operations
across Europe, but a charged agenda at the European Union level, and
untested support from other European countries might make Morley's task
difficult. "It is no secret that the government wishes to see the
phasing-out of cages," said Morley in a speech to the British Free Range
Egg Producers Assn., meeting in Sutton Coldfield, England. "Battery
cages only allow a limited range of natural behavior and birds are
deprived of space and the ability to nest, dust bathe and perch."
    Morley cautioned the producers that unless the cages are banned
across Europe, Britain would be inundated with eggs imported from other
European countries that permit caged layers. He concluded "We shall work
hard, in our forthcoming (EU) presidency and if necessary beyond, to
achieve an end to the battery cage across Europe." The British
government takes a turn at the rotating, six month presidency of the EU
starting Jan. 1, 1998.
    While Morley may want a European wide ban on caged layers, it is far
from clear that other EU countries will go along. According to European
Commission data, France, Germany, Italy and Spain all produce more eggs
and have larger numbers of laying hens than Britain does.




</pre>

     <!-- END OF PAGE CONTENT -->



                            <!-- END OF PAGE CONTENT -->

    </TD>


    <TD width=50 align=center>

    </TD>
</TR>

                            <!-- THE BOTTOM TOOLBAR -->

<TR>

    <TD colspan=3 align=center fontsize=2>
    <a href="../SUB~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/sub.html">ARRS Tools</a>  |
<a href="../NEWSPA~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/newspage.html">News</a>  |
<a href="../ORGS~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/Orgs.html">Orgs</a>  |
<a href="../SEARCH~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/search.html">Search</a>  |
<a href="../SUPPOR~1.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/Support.html">Support</a>  |
<a href="../ABOUT/INDEX.HTM" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/arrs/about">About the ARRS</a>  |
<a href="mailto:[e-mail]">Contact ARRS</a>
    </TD>
</TR>


                                <!-- END OF MAIN -->

</TABLE></center>




        <!-- THE UNDERWRITERS -->

<table border=0 width=100%>
    <tr><td>

<center>    <hr width=285>
<Font Size=1>THIS SITE UNDERWRITTEN IN PART BY:</FONT>
<BR>


<a href="../../../tppmsgs/msgs4.htm#476" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/cgi-bin/show_support.pl?id=t889237296&sec=sbn_bottom&url=http%3a//www.go-organic.com/greenmarket/gorilla/" target=_top><img src="../../SUPPORT/BANNERS/CROSS-~1/MICHAE~1.GIF" tppabs="http://www.envirolink.org/support/banners/cross-promotion/michael_wide.gif" border=1 alt="Gorilla Foundation"></a>


<hr width=285>

    <br><font size=2>
    <b>The views and opinions expressed within this page are not
necessarily those of the <br>EnviroLink Network nor the Underwriters.  The views
are those of the authors of the work.</b></font>
    </center>
    </td></tr>

</table>

</BODY>

</HTML>




</BODY>



</HTML>