Posted on October 31, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Denmark will prohibit the tethering of cattle from 2027 and is thus taking a forward-looking step towards the more animal-friendly keeping of cattle.
PROVIEHcalls on the German government to take a role model from our neighboring country and also to ban as soon as possible the form of husbandry that is not compatible with the Animal Welfare Act.
Cows in chains, Germany
October 13, 2020: The Danish government has decided to phase out the tethering of cattle.
By 2027, the fixation of social and curious animals in Denmark will be a thing of the past.
Organic farms will have to get out of tethering as early as 2024, and the ban will even apply to new buildings in 2022.
PROVIEH welcomes this decision in favor of animals.
Denmark’s Agriculture Minister Mogens Jensendescribed the decision as a compromise solution through which animal welfare is actively promoted, but which also gives farmers sufficient time to adapt to the new rules thanks to the transition periods.
PROVIEH would like an equally energetic government that credibly implements the state goal of animal protection anchored in the Basic Law and also in Germany puts an end to the permanent restraint of animals.
“Denmark is showing courage with the long-overdue abolition of tethering – I would like our government to show similar courage.
Tethering deprives the social, curious cattle of any opportunity to express their own behavior and is not compatible with the Animal Welfare Act.
That is why Germany should urgently follow suit. “(Anne Hamester, specialist for cattle at PROVIEH)
And I mean…The “tethering”: it is one of the most painful practices of the milk mafia!
That means for each of these cattle: to spend 275 days a year on a 2 m2 area, tied at the neck with a chain or between two metal rods. So getting up and lying down remains the only movement that is still possible.
They can’t walk around, turn around, or even lick areas of itchy skin. Often the cows are tied so closely together that they cannot lie down at the same time.
It is a crime that is done to cattle when they have to eke out their lives in one place in small, dark stables with a chain around their necks.
Not even straw is required by law and so the animals lie on the hard concrete floor.
Their entire life the cows live in a dark barn that is dirty with feces. Lying in one’s own excrement causes protracted and painful udder diseases and skin wounds.
Although many sides are calling for a ban on this cruelty to animals, the lobbyist of the meat industry and German Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner speaks out against a ban on this attitude.
It is a shame for Germany that this person is still in this post.
Denmark is so far the only EU country that expressly prohibits the incorporation of laws from 2022.
In the rest of the EU, the milk and meat mafia successfully prevented an explicit ban, because for them the cows are one thing above all else: milk machines and meat.
We will continue to oppose this painful bondage, no animal is born to live in chains.
We are sure that tethering will soon be a thing of the past.
NSW stud owned by Gerry Harvey among those accused in parliament of sending racehorses to slaughter
Allegations in Victorian parliament suggest slaughter of racehorses continues in NSW despite rules introduced in 2017
Billionaire Gerry Harvey has apologised after one of his studs sent ex-racehorses to a pet food factory for slaughter, a practice banned in New South Wales, vowing “it will never happen again”.
Allegations aired in Victorian parliament just days before the Melbourne Cup suggest the slaughter of unwanted thoroughbreds is continuing in New South Wales, despite public revelations last year and the NSW racing industry introducing rules in 2017 to stop retired horses being sent to knackeries or abattoirs.
Parliament heard allegations that thoroughbreds from a range of studs had been sent to two pet food factories for slaughter: Kankool Pet Foods and Highland Petfood, both in New South Wales.
Victorian Animal Justice party MP Andy Meddick said that included “a number of racehorses” from the Broombee Stud, owned by Harvey, which had been sent to Highland.
Meddick said the allegations had been brought to his attention by activists with the Farm Transparency Project.
“If you support horse racing this spring carnival, you are also supporting the wholesale slaughter of these majestic animals, who deserve so much better,” Meddick said.
Harvey told the Guardian he had been in contact with his stud and confirmed that horses were sent to pet food factories.
He said the horses were to be euthanised and had vet certificates stating they needed euthanasia. Harvey said he has now seen those certificates.
But he said the stud was not aware that NSW rules – unlike in other states – forbid sending horses to knackeries even if they were about to be euthanised. Harvey said there was no malice or intent behind the stud’s actions and it was a mistake.
“You end up unwittingly in a situation like this, not of your own making,” he said.
Note: Regarding Protect the Harvest’s ludicrous and deceptive claim of the nonexistence of factory farms, “family” has zero legal distinction regarding farm size; indeed, a “family” can refer to Kraft, Ford, Trump, Smithfield, and Walmart. The government defines size, and anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Google can easily find this data. To suggest that the greater than 10 billion land animals killed annually in the US alone come from Uncle Ted’s backyard hinges on desperation to continue the animal holocaust unseen and socially accepted. SL
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines AFOs as agricultural enterprises where animals are kept and raised in confined situations. AFOs congregate animals, feed, manure and urine, dead animals, and production operations on a small land area. Feed is brought to the animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures, fields, or on rangeland. There are approximately 450,000 AFOs in the United States.
A CAFO is another EPA term for a large concentrated AFO. A CAFO is an AFO with more than 1000 animal units (an animal unit is defined as an animal equivalent of 1000 pounds live weight and equates to 1000 head of beef cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2500 swine weighing more than 55 lbs, 125 thousand broiler chickens, or 82 thousand laying hens or pullets) confined on site for more than 45 days during the year. Any size AFO that discharges manure or wastewater into a natural or man-made ditch, stream or other waterway is defined as a CAFO, regardless of size. CAFOs are regulated by EPA under the Clean Water Act in both the 2003 and 2008 versions of the “CAFO” rule.
Veganism, at its essence, is the recognition that all animals have the right to bodily integrity. Humans do not own the bodies, families or lives of other animals – we can be guardians to animals in need of rescue, but animals are never our property or commodities.
Donald Trump has demonstrated, over and over again, that he sees animals only as obstacles to be cleared or resources to be used to serve corporate interests and generate maximum profits.
But his actions don’t reveal a detached view of other species as objects or commodities so much as a seething contempt – for the natural world, for animals and for anyone trying to protect them.
Putting animal haters in charge
At every turn, Trump has placed people who actively oppose animal welfare, wildlife and environmental protection in leadership roles at the agencies responsible for carrying out those protections. Not surprisingly, this fox-guarding-the-hen-house strategy has resulted in dire consequences for animals and their habitat.
In 2016 he selected Brian Klippenstein, executive director of a particularly vile organization called Protect the Harvest, to serve as senior advisor to the USDA – the agency charged with safeguarding animals used in commerce.
Protect the Harvest exists to “save the agricultural industry from the growing threat of the radical animal rights movement” by lobbying against animal welfare legislation, supporting ag-gag bills and promoting animal commoditization in all forms – including circuses, rodeos, dog and horse racing, horse carriages, puppy mills and horse slaughter.
One of the group’s campaigns aims to soothe consumers’ growing concern regarding confined animal feeding operations by assuring the public that factory farming is just a “fictional concept created by activists.”
Next, Trump chose to appease animal agriculture and fossil fuel industry elites by putting climate change denier Scott Pruitt in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency – a move that led to the rollback of several critical climate and pollution regulations, along with the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
Pruitt, once honored with an award for his contribution to the success of the beef cattle industry, has described himself as a “leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” and “a big fan of beef.”
Though he resigned in 2018 under the weight of numerous legal and ethics investigations, EPA leadership continues to prioritize industry demands over keeping the country’s air and water clean. In March the agency used the COVID-19 chaos as a cover to release polluting industries from monitoring and reporting requirements.
Perhaps the most stunning hire Trump made was William Perry Pendley, a former oil and gas attorney he installed to wreak havoc on the Bureau of Land Management. That’s the agency charged with conserving public lands – such as national parks – in 11 Western states and Alaska.
Pendley, who spent the bulk of his career lobbying for oil companies’ rights to drill in pristine wilderness, does not believe public lands should exist at all.
He has joked on video about illegally killing and burying endangered animals, and tweeted that climate change is like a unicorn because “neither exists.” He also has a grotesque obsession with eradicating wild horses and burros – insisting that they (rather than cattle grazing or resource extraction) represent an “existential threat” to public lands.
A judge recently ruled that Pendley’s service violates the Constitution because he was never confirmed by the Senate, but so far he has refused to leave his post.
Please click on the above link to read the full article.
Well this is the best news ever to start the weekend. As many of you will know, we have been very critical of the South Korean government for not taking action on this issue several years ago – it was one electoral issue that the government campaign was won on – read more:
Regardless, now people power is getting the changes; with or without the help of governments. They should take note; especially with the issue in the USA on 3/11/20.
We at WAV have also tried to play our part and support our wonderful friends at ‘Korean Animal Rights’ (KARA) https://m.facebook.com/karakoreaanimalrights/ – ‘Korean Dogs’ and the ‘Humane Society International’ (HIS) https://www.hsi.org/ in getting these hell holes closed down. It now looks as if, with your support and actions; a much changing (pro animal welfare) stance by younger Koreans, and the fate of the suffering dogs being given world attention; South Korea is now on the way to closing down all of its dog meat farms – and that is the word from a dog farmer himself (Mr Kim), who declares that “There is no future in dog meat at all, it’s already dying and will fall apart completely,”.
So; people sometimes ask us the big question if signing a petition or sending the odd e mail; to authorities does really make a difference. Here is your proof it does, that with constant tenacity by animal welfare organisations to continue the fight; un questionable evidence showing the cruelty involved; supported by realistic video footage; be in no doubt; your actions do make a huge difference, so keep it up.
The closure of Yuliin is the next big target on the dog meat issue.
Check out some of our campaign work on Yulin by clicking on the following:
Before we go; please spare a thought for all the dogs of the meat trade who are not with us any more. They were cold, they were fed the worst scraps ever; and their end was the most despicable ever. All for the want of some human beings. Now we move on and will turn corners to stop this obscene abuse.
Regards WAV.
From ‘The Independent’ (UK national newspaper) – London;
South Korea starts to close dog meat farms as attitudes change
‘There is no future in dog meat at all, it’s already dying and will fall apart completely,’ says former dog meat farmer
A charity has closed its 17th dog meat farm in South Korea as more people in the country support a ban on dog meat consumption.
Washington-based animal rights group, Humane Society International, announced it closed a farm that had nearly 200 dogs, which were bred and raised for slaughter in the dog meat trade.
The dogs, mainly Korean jinxes and mastiffs, were rescued and taken to the US to be adopted.
The farm was operated by a farmer named Kim Il-hwan, who had been in the industry for around 40 years. In exchange for closing the farm, he was given financial compensation and career assistance from HSI.
Mr Kim said the industry was shrinking and business had been difficult for the past decade.
“There is no future in dog meat at all, it’s already dying and will fall apart completely,” he said of the industry. “And dog farming is physically hard and I’m getting old, so I want to get out. 40 years ago it was different, but now it’s over for dog farming.”
An opinion poll commissioned by HSI suggests that Mr Kim is right – 84 per cent of those polled said they do not or will not eat dog and almost 60 per cent supported a legislative ban on the trade.
The poll, conducted by Neilsen, also found 57 per cent of South Koreans believe dog meat consumption reflects poorly on the country, an increase from 37 per cent in 2017.
Nara Kim, HSI’s dog meat campaigner in South Korea, said: “More people in South Korea are interested in animal welfare and the environment, and so when they see footage of our dog farm closures on the news showing the animals suffering and filthy conditions, or read about dog meat exposés by other Korean groups, they are really shocked and upset.
“The inevitable drop in sales is leading more dog farmers to help them start a new life. But we hope in time the Korean government will adopt this type of approach to phase out the dog meat industry for good.”
The dogs rescued from this farm will arrive in the US on Friday and will be housed in temporary shelters in Washington DC and Montreal, Canada.
According to Kitty Block, CEO of HSI, the dogs will then go to animal shelter partners in Maryland, Ohio and Pennsylvania after several weeks to be adopted out to the public.
“This is the 17th dog meat farm that HSI has helped close, part of a campaign to show dog meat farmers, the South Korean government and the South Korean people that there is a better path forward for us all, humans and animals, a path that celebrates the human-animal bond in the most special of ways,” she added.
Dog meat has long been a part of South Korean cuisine and around one million dogs are believed to be eaten every year. However, the popularity of the meat has declined and consuming dog meat has become taboo among the younger generation.
In 2018, a city court in Bucheon ruled the killing of dogs for meat is illegal. The ruling was hailed by activists who said it could pave the way for outlawing dog meat consumption entirely.
Posted on October 30, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Mafia methods: After we had one success after another in Italy this autumn, our opponents are now reaching into the bottom drawer of the bag of tricks: One of our employees received a threatening letter to his private address yesterday: “Now we know where you live. It’s just a matter of time. You better bring your daughter to the grandparents ”.
Not that we’re particularly scared – it just shows once more what poachers are made of.
And I mean…Whoever massacres defenseless animals uninhibitedly loses all sensitivity to his fellow human beings too.
The hunt leads to dehumanization.
Max Planck and Einstein thought hunters were psychopaths. When I read what methods they use to murder and intimidate, this opinion is confirmed.
Hunters have no task in nature, they do not belong to nature at all.
Hunters are pathetic monsters, who are allowed to continue to exist as such because our society tolerates them, covers them, or is indifferent to their crimes against the weaker.
Posted on October 30, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Our topic today: traps and hunters
Below are some of the hollow, de facto false arguments hunters make about traps when the public asks about it
1. Hunter’s statement: Traps are no longer allowed or used in Germany!
That’s not true!
Trapping is a completely common and widespread hunting method in Germany. However, it is hidden from the public by the hunters.
The trap is used in particular to track foxes, marten, and domestic cats. Many dogs also suffer cruel deaths in traps year after year.
2. Hunters’ statement: Only live traps are allowed in Germany.
That’s not true!
In Germany, manslaughter traps, which are supposed to kill immediately, and live traps in which the animal is caught, are allowed.
Homicide traps are supposed to kill immediately, but often don’t. Many animals die a slow and agonizing death in these traps.
Live traps: Live traps are mostly boxes made of wood or wire, into which an animal is lured using bait or fragrances, lures made by industry.
According to studies, the animal panics when the trap closes – and is often seriously injured from desperate attempts to escape. Due to the panic fear of death, the animals are under high stress and often die of heart failure.
Others, severely injured, often lie hungry and thirsty for hours or days, tormented by cruel pain, and wait for death.
Although the law requires the traps to be checked once a day, it is reasonable to assume that this will not happen. If the traps e.g. are only checked every 2 – 3 days, this means that the animals caught in the so-called live traps slowly and painfully perish from injuries or stress.
3. Hunter’s statement: After being caught with a live trap, the animals are released back into the wild.
That’s not true!
Most of the animals are killed. The old wives’ tale of the release into the wild is told to the unsuspecting citizen in order to conceal the harsh reality in our forests. Animals caught in live traps by hunters are mostly killed. E.g. Foxes and cats.
And I mean…In the hunting year 1993/94, an average of more than 15,000 wild animals per day died in the German “republic”.
By the guns and the traps of German hunters.
The hunt led to the extermination of bears, wolves, and lynxes. The only reason for these forms of murder was and is the lust for the suffering of animals, the lust for killing.
During the Nazi rule, the majority of the hunting principles that are still valid today became the law in the “Third Reich”: selecting and killing animals that were supposedly weak or surplus animals, destroying alleged pests, … etc …
Even today, the majority of the approximately 388,500 hunters in Germany give the main reason for hunting the joy or “desire” in chasing and killing the animals, the “prey”.
Hunting serves the rule of a minority of 0,45% of the population over animals and all of nature.
Hunting traditions from the Nazi era still prevail, the rich make hunting trips in the style of German colonial rulers and insult opponents of hunting with racist and sexist slogans.
And anyone who disagrees is intimidated at gunpoint.
The best hunters could do would be to shoot themselves and their stupid accomplices in politics too.
Posted on October 30, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Important Note – we have a ‘Translator box on the left side of the page.
If you wish to translate all the text of this site to another / your language, then please use it.
Simply go to ‘TRANSLATE’ and then select the language you need from the drop down.
All the site text should then immediately convert to the selected language – Simple as that !
South Korea – Dog Meat Farms
LATEST – Please click on the following link in order to take many (October) actions against the dog meat business in South Korea. There are many regional petitions and letters to authorities which you can sign or send.
Posted on October 29, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Australian scientists find a huge new healthy coral reef off the northern coast!
SYDNEY (Reuters) – Australian scientists found a detached coral reef on the Great Barrier Reef that exceeds the height of the Empire State Building and the Eiffel Tower, the Schmidt Ocean Institute said this week, the first such discovery in over 100 years.
The “blade-like” reef is nearly 500 meters tall and 1.5 kilometers wide, said the institute founded by ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt and his wife Wendy.
Australia: Great Barrier Reef.
It lies 40 meters below the ocean surface and about six kilometers from the edge of the Great Barrier Reef.
A team of scientists from James Cook University, led by Dr. Robin Beaman, were mapping the northern seafloor of the Great Barrier Reef onboard the institute’s research vessel Falkor, when they found the reef on Oct. 20.
“We are surprised and elated by what we have found,” said Beaman.
He said it was the first detached reef of that size to be discovered in over 120 years and that it was thriving with a “blizzard of fish” in a healthy ecosystem.
The discovery comes after a study earlier this month found the Great Barrier Reef had lost more than half its coral in the last three decades.
And I mean… The Unesco World Heritage Committee classified the largest coral reef in the world as a World Heritage Site in 1981.
The condition of the reef has since deteriorated so much that Unesco is now threatening to take it back.
In recent years, Unesco has repeatedly threatened to put the reef on the Red List of World Heritage in Danger.
The Great Barrier Reef extends over an area of more than 344,000 square kilometers, exceeding the size of Italy.
As early as 2016 and 2017, an estimated one-third to half of the corals had died after sea temperatures rose.
The phenomenon was first noticed in 1998.
Climate change remains the greatest threat to the ecosystem. Ever warmer water is endangering corals around the world. In the past, it happened every few decades, now the bleaching is piling up.
A pale or slightly bleached coral usually regains its color within a few weeks or months and survives. However, if the bleaching is too strong, many corals will die.
As early as 2018, the Australian government wanted to invest around 500 million Australian dollars in the regeneration and protection of the ecosystem.
But Australia is the fourth largest coal producer in the world. And now they want to save the Great Barrier Reef?
I think the reef will get a recovery when human animals have left the planet again …
Posted on October 29, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
New analysis of live export ships shows there is still a high risk to animals – SAFE
12:43AM, 29 October 2020
New analysis from The Guardian has found that live export ships are twice as likely to be lost at sea as cargo vessels.
SAFE Campaigns Manager Bianka Atlas said the growing evidence supports what SAFE has been saying for years.
“It is clear that the live export trade places the lives of animals and humans at an unacceptable risk,” said Atlas
Livestock carrier Yangtze Fortune is expected to arrive at Napier Port on Wednesday 4 November. This is will be the first export of live animals since the sinking of Gulf Livestock 1 in September.
The Yangtze Fortune’s arrival next week is estimated and subject to change, but the animal rights organisation SAFE will be protesting regardless.
“It’s only been two months since we lost 5,867 cows and 2 of our own people in the Gulf Livestock 1 tragedy and now we have another ship leaving from that same Port,” said Atlas.
“The reality is, all of these animals, who are exported for breeding purposes, will eventually be slaughtered in their destination country, potentially by methods outlawed in New Zealand.”
“Ending live export should be at the top of Jacinda Ardern’s agenda when she forms her new cabinet.”
Exclusive: livestock ships twice as likely to be lost as cargo vessels
Billion-dollar export trade puts lives of animals and crew at greater risk of ‘total loss’ through faulty design and inexperience
Ships carrying live animals are at least twice as likely to suffer a “total loss” from sinking or grounding as standard cargo vessels, the Guardian has found.
In the past year alone there have been two disasters involving animals in transit. Last November, at least 14,000 sheep drowned after the Queen Hind capsized en route to Saudi Arabia from Romania. And last month, Gulf Livestock 1, a carrier transporting almost 6,000 cattle, sank off the Japanese coast en route to China from New Zealand. Forty crew members remain missing and are presumed dead.
“With the Guardian’s shocking findings … [it’s] time for an open and honest assessment of an industry that has caused one crisis after another,” said Prof Kristen Stilt, director of Harvard’s animal law & policy program, currently writing a book about the transport of live animals. “That assessment should recognise that the transport of chilled and frozen meat is the way that nearly all meat travels in commerce today. The idea of sending live animals is a holdover from a bygone era.”
The global live export trade is worth nearly £16bn. For decades, campaigners have been calling on the EU to provide better protections for animals in transit, and an inquiry into the regulatory system is under way.
According to Guardian analysis, between January 2010 and December 2019 five livestock vessels were recorded as lost to sinking or irrevocable grounding, killing crew and animals. The total equates to just over 3% of the estimated 150 livestock carriers above 100 gross tonnes (GT) known to operate worldwide. The 100 GT measurement is used by the shipping industry to separate smaller vessels, often owned for pleasure, from larger, more probably commercial, ones.
The same loss calculation for the global cargo fleet of about 61,000 ships over 100 GT, shows that 471 vessels within that tonnage (excluding tugs, dredgers, fishing and passenger vessels), were lost to sinking or grounding in the same period – or less than 1%.
The Guardian’s risk calculations are based on historical data from insurer Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty’s Safety and Shipping Review 2020, analyst IHS Markit and the International Maritime Organization.
If the loss figure for livestock vessels expands to include two more vessels, sunk in December 2009 and September 2020, just outside the 10 years covered by the Allianz shipping safety report, used as a basis for the calculation, then the figure rises to 4.7%.
Posted on October 29, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
The implementation of a new law that would have reduced the number of cattle permitted on live export ships sailing from Australia has been put on hold.
Key points:
A change to animal welfare laws that would mean fewer livestock on vessels has been delayed
Exporters and former Agriculture Minister Bridget McKenzie have questioned the science behind the new rules
The RSPCA has rejected those concerns, saying the “science is clear”
Days before new animal welfare laws were expected to come into effect, Agriculture Minister David Littleproud has changed the rules to allow exporters to continue to load cattle at existing stocking densities.
In a statement on Tuesday evening, the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment said Mr Littleproud had decided to make last-minute amendments that would be in place until April 30 next year.
The decision comes after changesto the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) were announced in April followinga Federal review sparked by footage of the Awassi Express carrying dead and distressed Australian sheep to the Middle East in April, 2018.
The new ASEL stocking densityrule was expectedto come into effect on November 1 and would have required more space to be provided for each head of cattle exported.
The ABC understands the changes announced today only relate to cattle and do not include sheep.
In the case of exports to Indonesia, for example, a vessel that would typically carry 5,000 cattle would be reduced to carrying 4,300.
The Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association (NTLEA) told ABC Rural the reduced stocking density rules had been “tweaked” and would not apply during a trial period.
NTLEA chief executive Will Evans said the reprieve would allow exporters to prove that current stocking densities were delivering good animal welfare outcomes.
Mr Evans said the industry had been told by the Government that the new stocking rate would not be imposed for at least six months, and exporters that maintained low mortality rates would be allowed to continue to export at a higher stocking density.
“It’s essentially an audition period,” Mr Evans said.
“Those exporters who have a rolling average of 0.1 per cent mortality rate or lower will be able to maintain the [current] stocking density.
“But those who don’t will need to go to the new ASEL 3.0 stocking densities.
“So for the next six months, you’ll be able to maintain access to current stocking densities.
“It gives us a period to prove what we’re saying is true.”
ASEL 3.0 changes coming to live export industryDownload 4 MB
Bulk of recommendations to be adopted
Despite the last-minute change to stocking densities, Mr Evans said other significant changes to the way live animals were shipped under ASEL would commence as planned on November 1.
“Out of the 49 recommendations, one of those was about stocking densities,” he said.
“The other 48 recommendations are coming into effect next week.
“So there will be changes to how many stockmen are on vessels, changes to bedding, changes to the time we have cattle in registered premises.
“It’s an enormous regulatory change that’s coming in next week, it’s the biggest regulatory change to the industry since [the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System] in 2011.”
Cattle exporters had previously suggested introducing the changes would cost the industry as much as $40 million a year.
Former minister questions science
At a Senate Estimates hearing last week, former Agriculture Minister Bridget McKenzie said the new ASEL stocking density was based on “loose science”.
Speaking to officials from the Department of Agriculture Water and Environment, Ms McKenzie said the change would mean as many as 130,000 fewer Australian cattle were sold into South East Asia.
“There isn’t a robust body of science available to us right now to be making these decisions,” she said.
“[The standards are] not fit for purpose, for our industry, our place in the world, our markets.”
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has lobbied for an end to the live export trade, described Ms McKenzie’s appearance at Estimates as disappointing and feared a potential policy shift.
“The science is clear around stocking density reduction for cattle on these voyages,” RSPCA spokesman Jed Goodfellow said.
“This is simply about giving animals a little bit more space so they can lie down during the voyages, which sometimes take over two weeks, to give them further space to access food and water troughs.
“I hope Minister Littleproud will stand strong on these reforms that he himself has overseen and introduced.”
Mr Littleproud’s office has been contacted for comment.
And if the cell phone has no reception up there… bad luck for the animal lover!!
By the way: the tires on my car were also slit in one night.
But that wasn’t the ALF!
I live among farmers, hunters, farm owners … it couldn’t have turned out otherwise, I disturb all professional groups that have to do with animal cruelty, animal exploitation, and animal murder.
Posted on October 28, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
A butcher who has been branded a murderer by animal rights protesters has thanked customers and the rest of the community who have rallied round to support him.
Graham Fiddy, 62, found “murderer” and other vile graffiti daubed across the front of his butcher’s shop on Aylsham Road, Norwich which also had two large plate-glass windows smashed by protestors.
Mr. Fiddy, who set up Fiddy’s Butchers in 1986, reported the damage to police.
He said he is well aware there are different points of view but could not understand why those responsible could not come and talk to him rather than attacking his shop.
Mr. Fiddy said: “It’s some animal rights group – they don’t agree with what I’m doing”.
Graham Fiddy, 62, found damage by animal rights protesters at his butcher’s shop, Fiddy’s Butchers, on Aylsham Road, Norwich. Picture: Tom Fiddy
“I’ve got friends who are vegetarian but I don’t say you’re wrong or you’re right.
“If they want to do something come in and have a debate with me rather than calling me a murderer and writing it all over the building.
They wanted to have their say and that’s it, but it doesn’t seem right to me.”
Following the attack, which is understood to have happened in the early hours of Thursday, October 8, Mr. Fiddy lost a morning’s trade as he and his son Tom worked with others at the store to clean up the mess that had been left behind by the vandals.
He said: “I turned up for work and unfortunately saw all this mess and thought ‘Oh no’. “I can get it repaired on the insurance but it’s the hassle and aggravation. “We had to shut all Thursday morning because there was glass everywhere. It took four to five hours to clear it up.”
But Mr. Fiddy said he has been heartened by the response of customers and the community since the attack.
He said: “It’s nice to see people have been rallying round. “We seem to have seen everyone this week so it’s been nice they’ve been showing a bit of support from customers. It’s been lovely.” (!!!)
As well as Fiddy’s Butcher it is understood Hazel’s Butchers in Corbet Avenue, Sprowston, has also been targeted by vandals who daubed slogans on the property and glued locks in a separate incident which is believed to have happened overnight on Friday, October 9 and was discovered on Saturday, October 10.
And I mean..Of course, the carnivorous customers of Mr. Fiddy have to show solidarity, because only then will they calm their guilty conscience so that the murdered animals taste good again. This is a tried and tested strategy used by perpetrators and professional animal abusers
The animals cannot go out on the street and demand their rights
We have to do that.
And some do it well.
Posted on October 28, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Copenhagen,Denmark – In order to make more space for modernization,the Copenhagen Zoo has now decided to kill three wolves and a bear.
In a press release, the technical director of the zoo stated that “the wolves’ facility is too old and has long since ceased to meet the requirements of today’s animal welfare”.
The zoo wanted to create a newer area and closed the facility without further ado.
Only there was a problem:
As “Focus”reported, the modernization did not seem to be about renewing the wolf enclosure, but rather a planned expansion of the elephant enclosure.
That means the previous facility for wolves is to become part of the elephant park (!!!)
Due to renovation work, there was no more space for the excess animals, so the zoo had no choice but to have them killed.
And the polar bears also need more space, that is why the brown bear had to go.
The brown bear had to make room for a pregnant bear and her future cubs because he was “so old that the zoo couldn’t pass him on”.
However, it is still unclear what will become of the bear mum and her little ones – actually the polar bears also need more space.
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Denmark’s oldest zoo has made negative headlines.
In 2014 the almost two-year-old giraffe Marius was killed because of the risk of inbreeding, butchered and fed to lions – right in front of the zoo visitors.
Unfortunately, these four lions were later also killed due to a lack of space, as “Focus” mentions online.
In Copenhagen, however, the killing received approval from other zoos, as this was important “to maintain the health of the giraffe population in Europe’s zoos,” as Focus reports online.
And I mean…Close the zoo and put those responsible in jail.
The most effective would be: Deliver this “zoo director” himself to the lions, bears, and wolves.
We decided that we no longer need him.
And we don’t discuss it.
Posted on October 27, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
From Germanwatch.org: Ranking of EU chicken meat companies after contamination with antimicrobial-resistant pathogens
The testing of 165 chicken meat samples from the three largest EU poultry meat companies showed that one in two chicken meat samples is contaminated with antimicrobial-resistant pathogens.
The samples were purchased in five EU countries(DE, ES, FR, NL, PL) from the low-cost range of Lidl, Aldi, and directly from the companies’ factory outlets.
Chickens from the German PHW group are the most contaminated, with a total of 59 percent of contaminated samples, followed by the French LDC group with 57 percent of contaminated samples.
At the Dutch Plukon Food Group,one in three chickens is contaminated with resistant pathogens.
Antibiotic-resistant pathogens are a growing health threat.
If people pick up resistant pathogens during the preparation or consumption of meat, this can lead to serious infections where antibiotics have little or no effect.
And I mean… The vegans were always on the carnivore’s line of fire:
“Take care of your food and leave me alone” … “It is my free choice to eat what I like …” “It is not healthy to only feed on plants …”
Right from the start, we drew attention to the dangers that come from slaughterhouses and factory farming.
The carnivores were just annoyed.
Now I rub my hands and officially say that it is my free choice to feel divine joy just at the thought that the carnivores may have already eaten these highly dangerous new germs and even with pleasure!!
We expected it.
These are the free citizens, the corpse eaters, the second-hand murderers, those who commissioned the daily massacres in slaughterhouses …
I wish them a lot of fun and a lot of courage for further free elections in our pathogenic democracy.
Posted on October 27, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Islamabad High Court Holds that Animals Have Legal Rights
By Nicole Pallotta, Senior Policy Program Manager
Summary: The Islamabad High Court has held that animals have natural rights and are entitled to protection under the Pakistani constitution. The case before the court was threefold, involving an elephant held in solitary confinement at a zoo, a rescued bear who had been forced to “dance” and perform tricks, and the killing of stray dogs. Despite at times anthropocentric framing, the ruling unequivocally recognizes that animals have legal rights and is highly critical of humanity’s treatment of wild animals in particular.
“Do the animals have legal rights? The answer to this question, without any hesitation, is in the affirmative…. Like humans, animals also have natural rights which ought to be recognized. It is a right of each animal…to live in an environment that meets the latter’s behavioral, social and physiological needs.” – Justice Athar Minallah, Chief Justice of the Islamabad High Court (p. 59)
In a groundbreaking decision, the Islamabad High Court in Pakistan1has recognized that animals have legal rights and are entitled to protection under the nation’s constitution. In a 67-page ruling — dealing mainly with the treatment of an elephant at a zoo — Justice Athar Minallah asked whether animals have legal rights and found, “the answer to this question, without any hesitation, is in the affirmative.”
The ruling contains striking language about the rights of animals. In addition to their physiological needs, Justice Minallah repeatedly references animals’ social and behavioral needs and their right to an environment in which these needs can be met. He is highly critical of zoos that keep wild animals (whom he refers to as “inmates”) in captive conditions that are nothing like their natural habitats, and thus prevent them from engaging in normal behaviors.2
Although the decision — which draws on religious doctrine and quotes extensively from the Quran3 — repeatedly refers to humans as “superior beings,”4 and at times frames animals’ rights in the context of human survival,5 it unequivocally recognizes that animals have natural and legal rights.
In addition, despite its at times anthropocentric framing, the ruling is highly critical of humanity’s treatment of wild animals — e.g., destroying their natural habitat and consigning them to zoos — and refers to humans as an “invasive species.”6
The case before the court combined three separate petitions. The first involved an elephant named Kaavan,7 who was being kept in deplorable conditions at the Marghazar Zoo, and whom petitioners sought to relocate to a sanctuary. The second petition involved a rescued black bear who had been abused and forced to perform tricks.8
The third petition, discussed in least detail, regarded “the killing of stray dogs allegedly in a cruel manner.”
An Opportunity to Rethink our Relationship with Animals
The ruling begins with a brief discussion of the current COVID-19 pandemic and frames the question of whether animals have legal rights in this context, noting the crisis that has caused “the human race to go into captivity” has given us an opportunity to rethink our relationship with nonhuman animals:
The pandemic seems to have changed the world for the time being. . . . Is it an opportunity for humans to introspect and relate to the pain and distress suffered by other living beings, animal species, when they are subjugated and kept in captivity and denied the conditions and habitats created for their survival by the Creator, merely for momentary entertainment? [The current pandemic crisis] has highlighted the interdependence of living beings on each other, the desperate need to restore the balance created in nature. . . (p.3)
After summarizing the three petitions before the court, Justice Minallah poses a question: Does the constitution — a human-made document designed to govern humans — also guarantee enforceable rights for animals?
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic Pakistan 1973. . . like most of the other constitutions, has been framed by humans for regulating themselves. . . . The fundamental rights guaranteed therein or the various types of writs that can be issued by a constitutional court are in the context of only one living species, i.e. humans. It either contemplates a ‘person’ or a ‘citizen’. Do other living beings, such as the species categorized as ‘animals’ and who share the gift of life with humans, have legal entitlements and thus enforceable ‘rights’? Does the Constitution impose any duty or duties on the State and humans regarding the welfare of other species such as animals, their conservation and protection? (p. 5)
Next, Justice Minallah considers the conditions at the zoo where Kaavan is kept, criticizing a report outlining efforts to improve conditions, calling these measures “cosmetic.” This is a common criticism of zoos in the U.S. as well. Often when zoos make “improvements,” they take the form of naturalistic flourishes — or changes that are more aesthetic than substantive — that construct a comforting narrative for human visitors rather than meaningful changes in the captive animals’ enclosures. Like a well-designed film set, these enhancements convey the illusion of nature.9
“Do Animals Have Rights?”
After expressing strong skepticism that the zoo can ever meet the needs of Kaavan and other animals, Justice Minallah returns to what he considers the fundamental issue before the court: Do animals have legal rights? In so doing, he elucidates three related questions:
1) Do animals have independent rights which humans have a duty to protect,
2) Does treating animals cruelly violate human rights, and
3) Are specific laws being broken in the cases before the court?
When considering the potential source of these rights, Justice Minallah switches between justifications. The frame employed most often throughout the ruling is that animals have independent or natural rights, which humans in turn have a duty to protect. These rights are grounded in Pakistan’s animal cruelty laws and Islamic religious doctrine. A second frame yokes the rights of animals to the rights of humans by arguing that protecting animals will also protect the environment, which is an essential component of humans’ “right to life.”
In considering whether animals have rights, before shifting to an examination of the treatment of animals by various religions, Justice Minallah provides a survey of recent jurisprudence regarding the rights of animals around the world, including cases in Argentina and Brazil in which judges granted legal personhood to an orangutan and a chimpanzee, respectively. He also cites litigation in the U.S. by the Nonhuman Rights’ Project to secure writs of habeas corpus for the release and relocation to sanctuaries of three chimpanzees and an elephant.
Animals and the Quran
Despite some of the strong language on display throughout the ruling supporting animal rights, Justice Minallaha quotes several verses from the Quran that explicitly relate to animals and which call into question the nature of these “rights.” Among these examples are passages that reference using animals for food, transportation, adornment, and to “carry your loads.” One passage says that animals were made to be subject to humans. Still other passages note the Earth was created for all beings and encourages compassion, respect, and gratitude for animals.
These religious passages, perhaps unsurprisingly, advance an animal “welfare” rather than “rights” perspective. However, just as property and personhood are not binary categories, so do concepts like welfare and rights10 exist on a continuum of legal protections from strong to weak.11
Justice Minallah lists several more verses from the Quran, concluding that not only Islam but all religions recognize the duty of humans to protect animals:
It is inconceivable that, in a society where the majority follow the religion of Islam, that an animal could be harmed or treated in a cruel manner. All religions acknowledge the rights of the animal species and the duty of humans to protect them from being harmed or treated in any manner that would subject them to unnecessary pain and suffering. (pp. 52-3)
The fact that humans have a duty of care toward animals is generally an uncontroversial position — the more difficult question is what that duty entails.
Unnecessary Suffering
Justice Minallah notes a common thread among the religious passages quoted in the ruling is that they highlight “the duties of humans to protect [animals] from harm, unnecessary suffering and pain.” Here, we see a common phrasing that has vexed U.S. advocates for animals in the legal system: the qualifier “unnecessary” precedes terms like “suffering” and “pain” in most cruelty laws. “Unnecessary” is notoriously difficult to define (and most U.S. laws do not attempt to) and creates such a large loophole that almost anything can be justified regarding society’s treatment of animals. Justice Minallah addresses this question directly, specifically in regard to wild animals kept in zoos (discussed below).
Most people would agree with Justice Minallah that no animal should be killed or harmed unnecessarily. However, the reality is that animals exploited for human use, especially those raised and killed for food, are frequently both harmed and treated in a cruel manner. The word “unnecessary” has been used to justify a wide range of maltreatment under the guise that traditional, socially normative, economically advantageous, or personally convenient equates to necessity.
Legal vocabularies of necessity, along with language justifying “standard” or “customary” practices — as found in common exemptions pertaining to farmed animals in cruelty laws — employ circular reasoning to justify and further entrench practices that at one time may have been considered normative. Norms pertaining to the treatment of animals change over time and are not universal. For example, some practices may be considered normative primarily within an industry rather than among the general public. However, due to an aggressive lack of transparency achieved through mechanisms like deceptive marketing, corporate and government secrecy, and Ag-Gag laws, consumers may be largely unaware of routine ways animals are mistreated in the animal agriculture industry.
In addition, while they are treated cruelly in many contexts, including zoos and the entertainment industry, wild animals, especially charismatic megafauna like elephants and whales, tend to garner more social concern than farmed animals. Likewise, though in many places it references animals generally, the focus of this opinion is wild animals in zoos.
Justice Minallah finds that animals in zoos are protected under Pakistan’s national animal cruelty law12 and, in so doing, directly addresses the “unnecessary” qualifier. He notes that the phrase “unnecessary pain and suffering” is broad in scope and that “beneficial statutes” like the cruelty law — which was enacted for the benefit of animals — must be given the widest interpretation possible.
In addition, in determining what is “unnecessary,” Justice Minallah weighs the suffering of animals against the benefit to society provided by the zoo and finds the ethical calculus indefensible. On one side of the equation are animals who are clearly suffering, and on the other is a zoo that makes no “positive contribution whatsoever” to society. Moreover, the conditions of captivity are such that the zoo not only fails to provide an educational experience, but is likely having an adverse effect on visitors. The existence of “better and more informative opportunities” to learn about animals due to advanced technology further makes the case that the suffering of animals in the zoo cannot be justified as “necessary” (p. 52).
Constitutional Protection
Justice Minallah also found that animals are protected under the Pakistani constitution because humans have rights under this document that are directly tied to the well-being of wild animals. In employing the novel argument that cruel treatment of animals in captivity infringes on human rights, Judge Minallah concludes that animals — at least wild animals — are protected under the constitution:
The welfare, wellbeing and survival of the animal species is the foundational principle for the survival of the human race on this planet. Without the wildlife species there will be no human life on this planet. It is, therefore, obvious that neglect of the welfare and wellbeing of the animal species, or any treatment of an animal that subjects it to unnecessary pain or suffering, has implications for the right of life of humans guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution. . . . Cruel treatment and neglect of the wellbeing of an animal in captivity, or exposing it to conditions which do not meet the animals’ behavioural, social and physiological needs, is an infringement of the right to life of humans. (p. 56)
This is remarkably sweeping language that would have substantial implications for human-animal relations were it to be interpreted literally.
Justice Minallah also employs the less novel argument that animal cruelty is correlated with diminished empathy for humans. The antisocial effects of maltreatment of animals form the second basis for the conclusion that preventing harm to animals is a constitutional obligation.13
Finally, he critiques the fact that most national constitutions are framed in terms of humans, rather than in the context of “life” more broadly, asserting this anthropocentric focus gives rise to confusion and conflict when courts consider the plight of other-than-human living beings.
As an example of this problem, Justice Minallah points to the Nonhuman Rights Project’s ongoing litigation, in which U.S. courts have “gone to the extent of implicitly recognizing animals to be other than a mere ‘thing’ but the relief of habeas corpus was denied on the ground that they could not be treated as humans.” For this reason, Justice Minallah argues that although constitutions were written with humans in mind, they must be adapted to encompass other sentient beings.
The Source of Natural Rights: Sentient Life
Justice Minallah refers to the “natural rights”14 of animals, which he locates in the fact that they are “alive” and have been given the “gift of life” (p.59). While this is a broad category, he circumvents a slippery slope argument that might sweep up plants and bacteria by repeatedly mentioning sentience, as well as referring to living “beings.” Therefore, it seems the origin of the natural rights referenced in the ruling is the state of being alive and sentient:
The human rights are inherent because they stem from the attribute of being ‘alive’. Life, therefore, is the premise of the existence of a right. . . . An object or thing without ‘life’ has no right. A living being on the other hand has rights because of the gift of ‘life’. An animal undoubtedly is a sentient being. It has emotions and can feel pain or joy. (p. 59)
Justice Minallah also addresses — and handily dismisses — a common straw man fallacy employed by opponents of expanded legal rights for animals: namely that this means they will have the same rights as human beings:
It has never been the case of those arguing on behalf of animals to recognize that they have the same rights enjoyed by the human species. No relief has ever been sought on behalf of any animal to grant it freedom by releasing it from a zoo and thus allowing its free access to public places meant for humans. (pp. 58-59)
Rather, his use of the phrase “natural rights” refers to animality, or animals’ species-specific nature and needs:
By nature each specie has its own natural habitat. . . . It is unnatural for a lion to be kept in captivity in a restricted area. To separate an elephant from the herd and keep it in isolation is not what has been contemplated by nature. Like humans, animals also have natural rights which ought to be recognized. It is a right of each animal, a living being, to live in an environment that meets the latter’s behavioral, social and physiological needs. (pp. 59-60)
Which Animals?
This all raises the two-pronged question: 1) What natural rights do animals have, and 2) do they apply to all animals? Justice Minallah does not overtly state that only some animals have natural rights, but the examples and language used, as well as the case before the court, suggest he believes wild animals are the primary beneficiary of these rights. This could be because two of the petitions concern wild animals held in captivity. However, on the third petition, regarding the killing stray dogs, Justice Minallah is virtually silent.15
Without further details, it is impossible to say why this is. However, it could be noted that in the U.S., we are accustomed to companion animals like dogs and cats being the primary subjects of jurisprudential discussions about legal rights for animals (though cognitively complex wild animals like primates, elephants, and orcas also figure prominently) — when these rights are discussed at all.16
Yet, Pakistan has a different culture regarding companion animals, particularly dogs, who less commonly live indoors and are often perceived as workers more than household companions or family members.1718 Stray dogs, who sometimes become aggressive towards people, are a source of social conflict as well and are frequently victims of cruel treatment.19
The less prominent cultural belief that dogs are family, however, does not quite explain why the opinion primarily mentions wild animals — as the latter are not considered family either. The privileging of wild animals in this decision appears rather to be the belief that human rights are inexorably tied to the rights of wild animals via the bridge of habitat preservation, which is essential to the survival of humans and animals alike. If wild animals’ rights are disregarded, the argument seems to go, so too will their habitat be devalued, which in turn harms humans. The ruling does not refer to farmed animals except in quoted passages from the Quran that mention using them for food, transportation, and other utilitarian ends.
Resolution of the Case
The 67-page decision forms a lengthy backdrop and justification for the Islamabad High Court’s ruling that Kavaan the elephant must immediately be transferred from the zoo to an appropriate sanctuary. Justice Minallah found the black bear — who was the subject of the second petition — had been treated in a cruel manner and was therefore rightly seized, granting the petitioner permission to move him to a bear sanctuary. Regarding the third petition, any policy changes regarding the killing of stray dogs remain unclear and were delegated to a wildlife management board with the directive that the policy must be “humane.” Justice Minallah writes:
The Board is the competent authority to prescribe a policy and mechanism regarding stray dogs. It is expected that the Board while formulating the policy will have regard to the best practices observed internationally and the injunctions of Islam which teaches treating animals in humane manner. (pp. 64-5)
Moral Consideration, Law, and Social Norms
Justice Minallah places great weight on cognitive ability in his reasoning throughout the ruling. Likewise, his assertion that humans are superior to other animals is grounded in cognitive capacity. Arguments that locate moral consideration or legal rights in mental ability are often criticized as speciesist. However, in creating a de facto hierarchy based on cognitive capacity rather than the frequently invoked intrinsic value of being human, he arrives at a conclusion consistent with the utilitarian strand of animal rights theory popularized by Peter Singer in Animal Liberation (1975). Like Singer, Justice Minallah argues there is moral equivalency between cognitively impaired humans and nonhuman animals. Thus, he reaches what would seem a rather remarkable conclusion from an animal rights perspective: “An infant, a comatose or a mentally challenged person is not different to an animal” (p 58).
The implication of such conclusions must be interpreted with a large grain of salt given the context of the decision’s focus on wild animals and the fact that of the three petitions before the court, Kaavan the elephant is discussed by far at greatest length.
However, laws and judicial decisions serve an important symbolic function as well. When social norms are in conflict during times of social change — as they are now with regard to animals’ treatment in society — laws can work over time to “crowd out” some norms while amplifying others.20 While the practical impact of this ruling remains to be seen, statements supportive of animal rights issued from a high court signal a shift in consciousness regarding society’s treatment of animals that is underway.
Conclusion
Justice Minallah found that Kaavan the elephant has rights because he has legal protections. The Animal Legal Defense Fund is making a similar argument in Justice v. Vercher, which if successful will be the first lawsuit in the United States to establish that animals have a legal right to sue their abusers in court.21
In addition to this case, we fight on multiple fronts to expand the boundaries of the law toward greater recognition that animals are more than mere property and deserve a legal status that reflects their nature as living, feeling beings. In harmony with the sentiments articulated in this ruling, the Animal Legal Defense Fund envisions a legal system that ultimately protects animals’ right to flourish in their own ecological communities, to live their lives according to their emotional and physical capacities, and to be free from cruelty and exploitation.
1. The Islamabad High Court is the senior court of the Islamabad Capital Territory and has appellate jurisdiction over two district courts. It is one of the nation’s five high courts, which are under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
2. For example, of the zoo in question, Justice Minallah writes: “The caged living beings in the Zoo are undoubtedly in pain, distress and agony, definitely disproportionate to the purpose intended to be achieved by keeping them in this condition. As would be discussed in more detail, the conditions of captivity at the Zoo definitely amount to the criminal treatment of living beings.” (p. 6)
3. Justice Minallah notes that while his ruling focuses on Islam due to its prevalence in Pakistan, the context for his thinking is broader because there is consensus among the world’s religions that animals are sentient beings who must be protected:
“The emphasis and importance of ‘life’ and the protection of living beings cannot be overstated in every religion and faith. Be it Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism or any other religion, there is no dispute that ‘life’ is the most precious and superior creation of the Creator. There is consensus amongst all religions of the world that animals are ‘sentient beings’ i.e able to perceive and feel. However, the primary sources of law of Islam will be discussed in more detail because ninety seven percent of the population in Pakistan are its followers i.e Muslims. Moreover, Article 31 of the Constitution and its preamble expressly provides that ‘steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam’.” (p.47)
4. However, advancing a less hierarchical thesis, Justice Minallah also notes that although “human has been made superior to other forms because of its cognitive attributes. . . the other forms of life are not inferior but each have a specific and distinct purpose.” (pp. 47-8)
5. E.g., “This Court has been called upon to recognize that animals have rights which ought to be respected or, rather, it is the duty of the human species to protect these rights for its own survival.” (pp. 4-5)
6. “The invasive species i.e humans, have deprived the wildlife native species of its habitat, which was protected under the law. It manifests how humans have undermined the rule of law and threatened the balance created by nature.” (p. 23)
7. Of Kaavan, the court writes:
“[He] was gifted by the Government of Sri Lanka in 1985 when he was one year old. . . . For more than three decades Kaavan has been kept chained in a small enclosure described by the amicus and the Wildlife Management Board as small, with inappropriate conditions required to meet the physiological, social and behavioural needs of this extraordinary species of living beings. . . . This social living being has been kept in isolation since his female companion Saheli’s death at the age of twenty two in 2012. According to the report submitted on behalf of the Wildlife Management Board, because of the conditions of captivity, Kaavan exhibits severe stereotype behaviour and may have also developed neurological problems.” (pp. 10-11)
8. “The Bear was seized when it was being used for entertainment purposes by making it ‘dance’ and perform other tricks. It was in a shockingly distressing condition. A rope was passed through its muzzle and its teeth had been taken out in order to exercise control over it.” (p. 4)
10. The philosophical difference between so-called animal welfare and rights is sometimes summarized as the difference between advocating for bigger cages versus no cages. In the concrete realm of law and policy, these concepts are less easily separated as legal protections are a type of legal right.
12. “The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1890 . . . . makes overdriving, beating, or otherwise treating any animal so as to subject it to unnecessary pain or suffering illegal. The person found guilty of treating an animal in such a manner is liable to be sentenced with imprisonment besides the imposition of a fine.” (p. 52)
13. He writes:
“Researchers have found profound influences of a positive relationship between an animal and a child. The child tends to develop more empathy towards fellow human beings. In a nutshell, the relationship of the treatment of animals and the right to life of humans makes it an obligation of the State and its authorities to jealously guard against cruel and illegal treatment of animals. Protecting, preserving and conserving the animal species and preventing it from harm is a constitutional obligation of the State and the authorities.” (p. 57)
14. Natural rights, which tend to be grounded in philosophical or religious principles, are generally considered to be universal and inalienable, as opposed to legal rights, which are socially constructed, granted by governments, and vary by time and place. Of the natural rights of animals, Justice Minallah writes: “Like humans, animals also have natural rights which ought to be recognized. It is a right of each animal, a living being, to live in an environment that meets the latter’s behavioral, social and physiological needs.” (pp. 59-60)
15. While the killing of stray dogs was the subject of one of the three petitions, the ruling spends approximately two sentences out of 67 pages on this matter and the remainder on wild animals, particularly Kaavan and other elephants.
18. Though it should be noted that while the “dogs are family” narrative is common in U.S. culture, many people who keep dogs neither consider them to be family nor treat them as such.
20. See: Carbonara, Emanuela. 2017. “ Law and Social Norms” inThe Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics: Volume 1: Methodology and Concepts. Edited by Francesco Parisi; Sunstein, Cass R. 1999. “ Law’s Expressive Function.” The Good Society. Vol. 9, No. 2 (pp. 55-61).
21. Oral argument in Justice v. Vercher before the Oregon Court of Appeals was held on September 2, 2020.
Posted on October 27, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
26 people were arrested after locking down this Smithfield* slaughterhouse in LA — as actions happened around the world for #RosesLaw, an Animal Bill of Rights.
*Smithfield Foods, Inc. is the largest pork producer in the USA and is headquartered in Smithfield, Virginia / USA. The company belongs to the Chinese WH Group based in Luohe, Henan / China, which is the largest pig breeding and pork processing group in the world.
Smithfield is proud to operate itself the entire value chain of meat production, i.e. fattening, slaughtering, and further processing into meat products.
The multinational company produces 14 million piglets per year and processes 27 million pigs into various meat products. In 2006 this was a total of 2.7 million tons of pork and 635,000 tons of fresh beef, which were marketed under brand names such as Smithfield, Butterball, John Morrell, Gwaltney, Patrick Cudahy, Krakus, Cook’s Ham, and Stefano’s.
Smithfield has offices in 26 states and 9 countries, and sales in 44 countries worldwide. US government agencies have found Smithfield systematically violating workers’ rights (Wikipedia).
Posted on October 27, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
23/10/20
Press Release
Government backs Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill as it takes crucial step forward
Plans which will mean animal abusers could face up to five years in prison move a step closer.
The Government is backing legislation for tougher prison times for those who cruelly mistreat animals, as plans to introduce more stringent sentences move a step closer today (Friday 23 October 2020).
The Bill, introduced in Parliament by Chris Loder MP in February, will see the most serious perpetrators of animal cruelty face up to five years in prison, up from the current maximum of six months. Today, the Bill will have its Second Reading in the House of Commons, backed by the Government.
These tougher prison sentences would be among the toughest sanctions for animal abuse in Europe, strengthening the UK’s position as a global leader on animal welfare.
The Bill follows a public consultation in 2017, in which more than 70% of people supported the proposals for tougher prison sentences for those guilty of animal cruelty offences. This could include dog fighting, cruelty towards domestic pets or gross neglect of farm animals.
Chris Loder, MP for West Dorset, said:
It is high time as a nation that we take the lead on global standards for animal welfare and hand down tougher custodial sentences for those who inflict the worst kinds of cruelty on innocent animals.
My Bill, which I’m pleased has cross-party support and is fully endorsed by the RSPCA and other animal welfare charities, delivers a strong message to animal abusers that their behaviour will no longer be tolerated. We need to get it on the statute book and send a clear signal to potential offenders there is no place for animal cruelty in this country.
Animal Welfare Minister Lord Goldsmith said:
There is no place for animal cruelty in this country and this crucial piece of legislation will bring in more stringent sentences for animal abusers who commit the most heinous crimes, cementing our role as a global leader in animal welfare.
In addition to supporting this Bill, we are taking steps to ban primates as pets, crack down on the illegal smuggling of dogs and puppies, and we will be making good on our commitment to end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening of farm animals.
I would like to thank Chris Loder MP for introducing this vital Bill. We will do all we can to support its swift passage through Parliament.
RSPCA chief executive Chris Sherwood said:
We’re thrilled that The Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill has passed through this stage and that we’re one step closer to getting real justice for abused and neglected animals in this country.
In the three years since the Government pledged to increase the maximum sentence under the Animal Welfare Act from six months to five years, immediate custodial sentences have been imposed on 132 individuals following RSPCA investigations into cruelty and these included horrendous cases such as a dog who was kicked to death by her owner and a man who bit off a kitten’s ear.
Tougher sentencing would give courts more flexibility to impose longer prison terms on those people guilty of the most serious offences to better reflect the severity of the crimes and to act as a stronger deterrent to others.
The Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill is due to conclude on 23 October. The Bill will then go to Committee Stage, with Report Stage and Third Reading following this, before transferring to the House of Lords for further scrutiny.
You can track the progress of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill and read debates on all stages of the Bill’s passage on the Parliament website.
Posted on October 27, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Alternative to animal experiments: new applications for organoids from human intestinal tissue
26 October 2020
Researchers at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) have cultured so-called intestinal organoids from human intestinal tissue, which is a common byproduct when performing bowel surgery. These small ‘miniature intestines’ can be used for molecular biological examinations and allow for a direct application of research results to humans, thereby making animal experiments redundant.
The human intestine is vital for both digestion and absorbing nutrients as well as drugs. For any type of research that involves intestines, scientists require research models that reflect the physiological situation inside human beings with the highest possible accuracy.
Standard cell lines and animal experiments have certain disadvantages. One main issue is the lack of applicability of the results to humans. Now, a multidisciplinary research team covering the areas of nutritional science, general medicine, and chemistry has demonstrated how a modern in vitro model — made from human intestinal biopsies — can answer various questions regarding the molecular processes inside the human gut.
“When studying diseases or performing drug screenings, it is critical to have access to a human test system such as human organoids in order to prevent obtaining species specific test results,” said Tamara Zietek, who is part of the Chair of Nutritional Physiology at TUM.
She added that, “over the course of the last few years, organoids have become one of the most promising in vitro models due to their high physiological relevance; they also present a human-based alternative method to animal experiments.”
Posted on October 27, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Dear Mark
It’s been 55 days since the Gulf Livestock 1 capsized with the loss of 41 crew members, including two New Zealanders, and almost 6,000 cows. This tragedy led to the government announcing a temporary ban on live export and yet another review into this cruel and unnecessary trade.
Last month, Agriculture Minister Hon Damien O’Conner gave the okay for New Zealand to resume exports ‘conditionally’ on 24 October despite the risks. Disappointingly, that day has come.
The live export ship, Yangtze Fortune, will dock at Napier port on Tuesday 3 November and plans to take thousands New Zealand cows on a long and stressful sea journey in unnatural conditions. The majority of animals live exported from New Zealand are sent to countries with lower animal welfare standards than our own and sometimes no animal protection laws at all. This means our animals are being farmed and slaughtered in ways that are illegal in here New Zealand.
The only way we can truly help these animals is to get a permanent ban on live animal export. And we need your help.
The Gulf Livestock 1 disaster has highlighted the risks both humans and animals are forced to endure on live export ships. Tens of thousands of Kiwis have called for a ban on this cruel practice and we won’t stop until our Government leaders align the law with our Kiwi values by permanently banning live animal export.
Prime Minster Jacinda Ardern herself has questioned whether the cruel live export trade should be allowed to continue and has highlighted the fact that the trade is problematic, especially where animal welfare and New Zealand’s reputation is concerned.
Take action for animals by writing to the Prime Minster, Jacinda Ardern to echo her concerns about this trade and urge her to ban live animal export permanently.
We know caring people like you want to see an end to live export. And together we will continue to put pressure on our Government until this cruel trade is permanently banned.
Thank you for your support – together we will get a ban on live export.
Debra Ashton Chief Executive Officer
P.s Join the more than 30,000 people who have already called for a ban on live export from New Zealand. Together, we can stop this cruel trade.
Posted on October 26, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
In a world full of ignorance, indifference, and terror towards the weak, fighting for animal rights is not a feat.
It is a moral duty.
Wherever man exercises the fascist right of the strongest and sacrifices an animal for his own ends, he not only commits an injustice but a crime.
Posted on October 26, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Is there currently a ladybug plague in Germany? (!!!)
In any case, these small insects can be seen everywhere. There is a reason for that.
They hang from house walls, sit in window frames or crawl around in apartments in the bathtub: at the moment, ladybugs are not only found in gardens and on plants. Whole swarms are currently spreading in completely new habitats.
Ladybird plague 2020: Insects are looking for winter quarters from October
But how does it come about? According to a report by the editorial network Germany (RND), the small insects are currently looking for suitable winter quarters again.
To do this, in October and November – at the beginning of the cold season – they set off in large swarms to warmer regions.
Actually, the ladybirds are mostly drawn to European countries, where the winter is rather mild. Due to the mild autumn days in Germany, the spotted beetles are also looking for a roost here.
Many ladybugs now fly around in swarms in this country. This is particularly noticeable because the insects often rest on their journey – the walls of houses or the windows of apartments, among other things, serve as resting places.
To one or the other, it may seem like a ladybug plague. Because especially if you leave your window open for a few hours, you have to expect the bugs to get lost in the house or apartment.
But be careful: the insects cannot overwinter inside the living space, they need cool, frost-free rooms for their winter rest.
The harlequin ladybird from Asia is now more common than the native species in many regions of Germany.In autumn, the beetles sometimes unite to form large swarms in order to look for winter quarters together.Here some have settled down on the photographer’s pants for a break.– Photo: Helge May
Suitable winter quarters for ladybirds are piles of leaves, dead wood, moss blankets, tufts of grass, and cracks in piles of stones. There the beetles stay in their winter quarters until the next spring and lapse into rigidity.
Between March and April, when the temperatures rise, they leave their winter quarters again.
But if you feel disturbed (!!!) by the current accumulations of ladybugs in your own four walls, there are a few simple ways to get rid of the insects. Important: Ladybugs are absolutely harmless to humans – they should not be killed when they are disposed of.
A fly screen can prevent the bugs from nestling in the window frame.
There are also scents that keep the insects away. These include bay leaves, lavender, and vanilla.
By the way: The current plague of ladybirds mainly consists of beetles from Asia.
The species of the so-called harlequin ladybird was initially not native to Germany but has spread more and more in recent decades. The appearance of the insects ranges from orange without spots to black with red spots. Its wings are light yellow to dark red.
The Asian ladybug usually has 19 black spots.
The seven-spotted ladybird is primarily native to Germany. In Central Europe alone, he and his relatives do it in over 70 different ways. There are about 6000 species of the ladybird family worldwide.
And I mean...No! I don’t feel bothered and I have a lot of red flying visitors at my house.
Most people talk about the ladybird plague, the media join in as always.
We have destroyed the climate, the seasons are no longer right, most animals lose their concept because of us.
Animals are just trying to adapt to this disaster, to survive, and we call their response “plague”.
I see only one plague, human plague 2020.
What are we doing? We pollute the environment.
We build roads and new settlements over forests and greenery
We are building everything with supermarkets plus fat parking spaces! We produce so much waste that the seas will soon die …
But … we perceive the over-presence of ladybugs as a plague!
We are the most harmful and stupid species on the planet.
Posted on October 26, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Last week, Trump attempted an insult by saying Joe Biden would “listen to the scientists.”
Phew. Doesn’t that sound like a breath of fresh air?
Not only have our scientists at the Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund endorsed Joe Biden, but for the first time in its 175-year history, Scientific American has endorsed a presidential candidate in Joe Biden. Recently Nature followed suit, saying: “Joe Biden’s trust in truth, evidence, science and democracy make him the only choice in the U.S. election.”
We are working together to create a wave of change that will remake our nation and protect our environment by electing leaders like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
For the future,
Dianne DuBois
Campaigner Center for Biological Diversity Action Fund CenterActionFund.org
Oatly has slammed the EU Parliament after MEPs voted in favour of the ‘dairy ban’.
The proposal would stop plant-based dairy producers from using descriptive terms.
At this time, EU law already bans the use of terms including ‘almond milk’ or ‘vegan cheese’. However, the new rules would go further.
Consequently, descriptors such as ‘yogurt-style’ and ‘cheese-alternative’ could now be banned too. In addition, the rules could prevent companies from using packaging styles such as butter blocks and milk cartons.
‘Wacko’
The Swedish oat milk giant has responded to the motion, describing it as ‘wacko’ and ‘incomprehensible’ direction to take ‘in the middle of a climate crisis’.
“It isn’t so surprising considering there are more milk lobbyists in Brussels than actual cows in pasture during the summer months,” the brand said.
“…And when the Milk Lobby decides to flex its protein-rich muscles we all know what happens—the public loses out.
“How will consumers now be able to easily compare different food products in order to make more informed decisions about what they eat?”
‘A major blow’
Vice President of ProVeg International Jasmijn de Boo – who spearheaded the campaign against both the dairy and veggie burger ban – described the motion as a ‘major blow to the plant-based dairy sector’.
She added: “Plant-based dairy businesses could now be saddled with significant financial burdens and practical challenges.
“These include renaming, rebranding, and remarketing of products and the potential of high legal costs.”
Pre election promises that, once elected, become non reality.
President Moon of South Korea was elected in 2017; one of his election promises was that he was going to tackle, and make ‘war’ with those involved in the live dog meat farming business. We all remember him smiling while holding the little dogs – here was the hero who would tackle the trade. See one of our past posts with pictures of him cuddling dogs at:
In our post; which related to Covid disease, we stated:
“President Moon; you have failed your nation and you should have lived up to your pre election promises to take action for meat dogs. Kind of ‘Karma’ from the dogs one could say” !
We know that Covid came from wet markets and from deplorable conditions for animals who had to suffer in them. Korean dog meat farms are NO different – animals constantly under stress; no hygiene, no veterinary care – the perfect breeding ground for disease and Covid 19.
President Moon failed to tackle the dog meat industry early on when he was elected. Illegal dog farms continue to be exposed to this very day. Covid is still a major issue to this day. Would you not have thought that unsanitary conditions such as those at illegal dog meat farms would have been tackled early on in 2018; rather than the constant ignorance we have witnessed from the Korean government ?
As we said in our post, the suffering that Korean citizens have endured due to Covid is a kind of ‘Karma’ from the dogs on the illegal farms; the government failed them since the 1027 elections, fails them now and probably will continue to fail them.
TAKE ACTION
Korean dog campaigners have this to say:
We were very hopeful when South Korean president Moon Jae-In, took office in 2017. President Moon Jae-In has a pet dog, and we hoped that he might finally bring the dog and cat meat trade to an end in South Korea. However, President Moon has done absolutely nothing to improve the lives of companion animals.
The dog and cat meat trade continues while President Moon’s administration supports the shameful and illegal industry by turning a blind eye and taking no action to end it. Let’s urge President Moon to end the unethical and cruel dog and cat meat trade in his country once and for all, and to bring honour to his country and their citizens. Please take action today!
Please do what you can to spread the word for action to stop the dog meat trade.
Thanks and regards
WAV.
Visit the Koreandogs.org website at https://koreandogs.org/ for a huge range of actions that you can get involved with. Select your language from the list at the top.
Posted on October 25, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
From the Facebook page of “Committee against Bird Murder e.V.
Back to the Stone Age – bird catchers threaten hikers: In Malta, catching birds was allowed again – yesterday’s animal tormented became “scientists” overnight.
They are supposed to “only” catch the birds that they have otherwise locked in small cages and sold on the black market for a lot of money, check for any known bird rings and immediately release them again.
Effective control is not provided and with thousands of approved fishing facilities not even possible.
The video of a team from the “Committee Against Bird Murder”, recorded on Malta’s neighboring island of Gozo, shows how the new “scientists” behave in the field.
The bird-catcher threatens a walker with a stone because she comes too close to his trap!!
And I mean…When Malta joined the EU in 2004, the state was given five years to phase out the practice of bird trapping, which is illegal under the Birds Directive.
But the Maltese government, including hunters and poachers, was apparently trained enough in corruption and fraud to outsmart the EU and its laws, and that is why illegal trapping has continued unabated since 2009.
And that happens in the “civilized” EU …
And then we blame the Africans for not respecting their tigers and for corrupting trophies.
And we ask the Indians to save their elephants and stop hunting them.
Although we ourselves are not able to clean up our own stable of “scientists” type Malta.
Well, the EU Parliament has this time at least seen part sense. It has been decided that us / you are intelligent enough to know the difference – that a beef burger comes from a dead cow, and that a veggie burger does not. Celebrate with a Vegan ‘Burger’. Now the term ‘milk’ seems more confusing to everyone in industry and the EU Parliament – milk comes from long suffering cows, but ‘milk alternatives’ such as soya milk must not be called such ! – I can sense my Litmus paper coming out later when I have a cup of tea to check if my ‘milk’ is non cow, or from a suffering cow. And to think these people are paid vast sums of Euros to decide for you because they do not think you are intelligent enough to know where your ‘white liquid’ comes from.
Friday 23/10/20 – European farmers lose attempt to ban terms such as ‘veggie burger’
Meat-related words can be used to describe plant-based foods, decides European parliament
Plant-based products that do not contain meat can continue to be labelled “sausages” or “burgers”, European politicians have said, after they rejected a proposal backed by the meat industry to ban the terms.
In votes on issues relating to agricultural products, the European parliament said that so-called veggie burgers, soy steaks and vegan sausages can continue to be sold as such in restaurants and shops across the union.
Europe’s largest farmers’ association, Copa-Cogeca, had supported a ban, arguing that labelling vegetarian substitutes with designations bringing meat to mind was misleading for consumers.
On the opposite side of the debate, a group of 13 organisations including Greenpeace and WWF urged lawmakers to reject the proposed amendments, arguing that a ban would have not only exposed the EU “to ridicule”, but also damaged its environmental credibility.
They said promoting a shift toward a more plant-based diet is in line with the European Commission’s ambition to tackle global warming. Losing the ability to use the terms steak or sausage might make those plant-based products more obscure for consumers.
After the vote, the European Consumer Organization, an umbrella group bringing together consumers’ associations, praised the MEPs for their “common sense”.
“Consumers are in no way confused by a soy steak or chickpea-based sausage, so long as it is clearly labelled as vegetarian or vegan,” the group said in a statement. “Terms such as ‘burger’ or ‘steak’ on plant-based items simply make it much easier for consumers to know how to integrate these products within a meal.”
Together with Greenpeace, the group regretted that lawmakers accepted further restrictions on the naming of alternative products containing no dairy. Terms like “almond milk” and “soy yogurt” are already banned in Europe after the bloc’s top court ruled in 2017 that purely plant-based products cannot be marketed using terms such as milk, butter or cheese, which are reserved for animal products.
E.U. Says ‘Veggie Burgers’ Can Keep Their Name
The European Parliament voted on Friday on proposals that would have banned products without meat from being labelled burgers or sausages.
LONDON — When is a burger not a burger? When it contains no meat. At least according to a divisive proposal that was in front of the European Parliament this week, part of a set of measures that would have banned the use of terms like “steak,” “sausage,” “escallop” or “burger” on labels for plant-based alternative products.
But after a decisive vote against the measure on Friday, it seems veggie burgers will still be on the menu.
“Reason prevailed, and climate sinners lost,” Nikolaj Villumsen, a member of the European Parliament from Denmark posted on Twitter. “It’s worth celebrating with a veggie burger.”
A proposal to expand a ban on descriptions such as “yogurt-style” or “cream imitation” for nondairy replacements did pass, extending previous limitations on the use of words like “milk” and “butter” on nondairy alternatives.
The proposed changes — a small part of a package of agricultural measures — received more attention than perhaps desired either by their proponents among meat and livestock groups, who said they would prefer to focus on helping farmers work sustainably, or the environmentalists and food manufacturers opposing it, for whom it is a distraction from climate-change policy.
Jasmijn de Boo, vice president of ProVeg International, a group aimed at reducing meat consumption, said that the proposal was not in the interest of consumers or manufacturers, and that shoppers were not confused by the labels currently on store shelves.
“Why change something to a ‘veggie disc’ or ‘tube’ instead of a sausage?” she said. “It’s ridiculous.”
Those in favor of the change said that labeling plant-based products with meat terms were misleading and could open the door for other confusing labels.
“We simply call for the work of millions of European farmers and livestock sector workers to be acknowledged and respected,” Jean-Pierre Fleury, the chairman of Copa-Cogeca, Europe’s largest farming lobby group, said in a statement this month. He described the use of meatlike names for plant-based products as “cultural hijacking.”
The decision is a victory for environmental advocates over an E.U. farming lobby that is one of the strongest voices in the bloc and plays an outsize role in policymaking, considering that the sector has been shrinking for years.
Camille Perrin, the senior food policy officer at the European Consumer Organization, called decision “great news” and a “common sense” vote.
“Consumers are in no way confused by a soy steak or chickpea-based sausage, so long as it is clearly labeled as vegetarian or vegan,” she said in a statement after the vote. “Terms such as ‘burger’ or ‘steak’ on plant-based items simply make it much easier for consumers to know how to integrate these products within a meal.”
It is not the first debate over plant-based foods as that sector has exploded in recent years.
Labels for plant-based dairy alternatives like “soy milk” or “tofu butter” are illegal in the bloc after dairy producers won a 2017 ruling backed by the European Court of Justice.
In 2018, France banned the use of meat terms to describe vegetarian products. In dozens of states in the United States, advocates of vegetarian food have clashed with farmers and lobbyists over legislation that makes it illegal for plant-based products to be called meat.
Several parties in the European Parliament had also submitted proposals with different caveats since the initial amendment was introduced, and those are still to be voted on. Manufacturers like Beyond Meat, Unilever and Ikea, along with the European Medical Association, have opposed the changes, which they described in an open letter as “disproportionate and out of step with the current climate.”
Many said that approving the amendment would be counter to a goal set by the European Parliament this month to reduce carbon emissions 60 percent by 2030.
And shoppers seem to like the names. In a 2020 survey from the European Consumer Organization, about 42 percent of respondents said they believed “meaty” names for plant-based products should be permitted if products were clearly labeled vegetarian or vegan. Twenty-five percent said that such names should be banned.
A spokesman for Copa-Cogeca said the organization did not believe that shoppers could not tell the difference between meat and plant-based products, and said that farmers were not against vegetable alternatives. But he said that differentiating the markets — much like those of butter and margarine — was among a host of initiatives that would support struggling farmers who are trying to adapt to a world more focused on sustainability.
Some said the proposal would provide more fodder for what critics call the European Union’s penchant for overregulation. Alexander Stubb, a former prime minister of Finland, said the bloc should legislate only “where there are impediments to the free movement of goods, services, money and people.”
He described the amendment as “overkill” that would bolster the arguments of those who campaigned for Britain’s exit from the bloc: “This is one of these symbolic sad cases — a bit like legislating on the curve of cucumbers.”
EU lawmakers vote for ‘veggie burgers,’ take hard line on dairy labels
(CNN)Restaurants and shops in the European Union should be allowed to label products as “veggie burgers” or “vegan sausages,” the European Parliament said on Friday, while calling for tighter curbs on labelling of plant-based dairy substitutes.
EU lawmakers voted to reject proposals, backed by farmers, to ban plant-based products from using terms such as steak, sausage or burger.
“I’m going to celebrate with a vegan burger,” Swedish EU lawmaker Jytte Guteland said after the result was announced.
Farmers had argued that the using words like burger or sausage for non-meat products could mislead consumers. European farmers association Copa Cogeca said allowing such terms would open a “Pandora’s box” of confusing wording.
But medical groups, environmentalists and companies that make vegetarian products have said that banning these terms would discourage consumers from shifting to more plant-based diets, undermining the EU’s environmental and health goals.
A majority of EU lawmakers also voted on Friday for stricter rules on labelling of dairy substitutes, backing a ban on terms such as “milk-like” or “cheese-style” for plant-based products that contain no dairy ingredients.
The European Court of Justice already banned terms like “soy milk” and “vegan cheese” three years ago, ruling that words such as milk, butter, cheese and yoghurt cannot be used for non-dairy products.
The labelling rules are part of a bigger EU farming policy package for 2021-2027, and are not final. Parliament must strike a compromise with EU member states on the final policy.
Elena Walden, policy manager at the non-profit Good Food Institute Europe, called on EU countries to “clear up this mess and reject confusing and unnecessary restrictions on plant-based dairy products.”
Lawmakers approved their position on the farming policy package on Friday despite calls from Green lawmakers and campaigners, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, to reject the proposal. They say it does not do enough to curb the sector’s emissions or protect nature from the effects of intensive factory farming.
Posted on October 25, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
We are sending this out in advance – so please make a note of the date.
It is ‘World Vegan Day’ on November 1st.
Veganism was once dismissed as just another short lived trend, but with plant-based diets surging in popularity over the past few years, vegan food has hit the mainstream. 51% of people questioned are happy to see vegan food in shops and restaurants.
Israel touts itself as the world leading vegan country with 5.2% of the population relying on a plant-based diet
People who eat vegan and vegetarian diets have a lower risk of heart disease, but will require supplements of B12; which is stored in the liver. Researchers found that those who didn’t eat meat had 10 fewer cases of heart disease and three more strokes per 1,000 people compared with the meat-eaters This B12 issue is more than easy to resolve:
To get the full benefit of a vegan diet, vegans should do one of the following:
Eat fortified foods (see below) two or three times a day to get at least three micrograms (mcg or µg) of B12 a day.
OR Take one B12 supplement daily providing at least 10 micrograms.
OR Take a weekly B12 supplement providing at least 2000 micrograms.
Fortified foods are those that have nutrients added to them that don’t naturally occur in the food. These foods are meant to improve nutrition and add health benefits. For example, calcium may be added to fruit juices.
Here are some leads from the Vegan society in the UK which may make you think a bit:
If the world went vegan, it could save 8 million human lives by 2050, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds and lead to healthcare-related savings and avoided climate damages of $1.5 trillion.
Staggering ! – If the UK population was killed at the same rate farmed animals are killed around the world, it (UK population) would be ended in just 11 hours.
Over a billion farmed animals in Britain are killed each year in slaughterhouses.
UK – Over 10 million pigs, 15 million sheep, 14 million turkeys, 15 million ducks and geese, 982 million broiler chickens, 50 million ‘spent hens’, 2.6 million cattle, 4.5 billion fish and 2.6 billion shellfish are killed in the UK each year – over 8 billion animals.
Interest in ‘veganism’ increased seven fold in the five years between 2014 and 2019, according to Google trends. It now gets almost four times more interest than vegetarian and gluten free searches.
With WAV being part based in the UK (also in Germany); lets check out some UK information:
Demand for meat-free food in the UK increased by a massive 987% in 2017 and going vegan was predicted to be the biggest food trend in 2018. Sources:[1], [2]
The UK plant-based market was worth £443 million in 2018. Source
Meat substitute sales grew by 451% in the European market in the four years to February 2018. Source
The number of vegans in the UK quadrupled between 2014 and 2019. In 2019 there were 600,000 vegans, or 1.16% of the population.
Vegans and vegetarians look set to make up a quarter of the British population in 2025, and flexitarians just under half of all UK consumers.Source
Why ?
Cruelty Free – Over half (56%) of Brits adopt vegan buying behaviours such as buying vegan products and checking to see if their toiletries are cruelty-free. 50% of Brits questioned said they know someone who is vegan, and 1 in 5 Brits (19%) would consider going vegan. Source: Research carried out by Opinion Matters for The Vegan Society between 14 and 16 July 2017 involving a sample of 2,011 UK adults
Europe:
Meat substitute sales grew by 451% in the European market in the four years to February 2018. Source
USA:
The number of vegans in America grew by 600% from nearly 4 million in 2014 to 19.6 million in 2017. Source
Consumption of plant milk increased by 61% while consumption of cow’s milk decreased by 22%. Sources: [1], [2]
Plant milks make up 13% of the entire milk category. Their sale grew by 6% in 2019, while cow’s milk sales declined by 3%. Source
41% of US households purchase plant-based milks.Source
Get this – Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of all US water consumption. Source
80% of all antibiotics sold in the US are for farmed animals – not to treat illness but to promote growth and preventatively due to the stressful conditions the animals are raised in. Sources: [1], [2], [3]
There were as many people searching for vegan Thanksgiving recipes as there were people searching for turkey Thanksgiving recipes in November 2018. Source
A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people.Source
72% Americans oppose testing cosmetics products on animals.Source
The are a few basic reasons why people often choose to undertake a vegan diet. Two of the main issues are the health benefits associated with and also animal welfare. There is no doubt that changing to vegan can be good for your health.
Many people go plant based because they have big concerns about the animal welfare; intensive farming and what it is doing to the planet.
80% of all antibiotics sold in the US are for farmed animals – not to treat illness but to promote growth and preventatively due to the stressful conditions the animals are raised in. Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of all US water consumption. A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people.
Intensive farming and the transport and slaughter of the animals in the system is of major concern to many – they don’t like it and want to break free from supporting it.
On the left of the page there is a ‘SEARCH’ box; type in any subject relating to a specific issue (live export, intensive farming etc) and you will be taken to all posts on the site relating to that issue. Search out what you want to obtain more on.
Veganism is here to stay; there is no doubt about that.
Posted on October 25, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
“Can you imagine if the day of your execution was planned the moment you were born?
This is a reality for every animal killed in the meat, dairy, and egg industries”.
Speaker: Gary Yourofsky
And I mean…Meat is a big business.
More precisely, a very big business.
Wherever we look, meat is practically everywhere.
Obviously you need a lot of animals to produce as much meat as is bought, sold, and consumed in our society.
In 2003, ten billion animals were killed in slaughterhouses in the United States alone. That is more than 27 million animals a day, today there are many more.
The situation worldwide is that more than 50 billion animals – mainly chickens, but of course also cattle, pigs, sheep, goats, ducks, geese, and turkeys – are slaughtered for their meat every year. That is more than five times the human population on earth.
But nobody cares about which animals this meat comes from.
The meat mafia has long been aware of the disgust it would cause consumers to learn how animals are kept, abused, and slaughtered.
Therefore, the meat industry invests a lot of money to keep the system of animal exploitation secret, or to fake it.
The organic farms with the happy cows in the pasture, the humanely slaughtered animals, the animal-friendly farm next door… these are all myths that help us to remain either uninformed or misinformed.
Myths are the meat industry’s tools to make meat-eaters think of what they are going to eat, and not the suffering of the animals they eat.
We never tire of saying: Eating meat is not normal, not natural, and not necessary. Eating meat is murder.
And everyone who eats meat is complicit in this murder.
Posted on October 24, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
against circus / stop cruelty to animals
…Elephants are born in the wild for living free.
The circus owners enslave them very early, as children, they separate them from their mother and for a lifetime they turn them into stupid clowns,
who have to do stupid shows
for stupid parents
who drag their children to the circus,
so that both sides have stupid fun with the suffering of the animals.
That keeps this business going, they have the greatest responsibility.
In chains,
trained with heels or whips so that they obey,
transported back and forth …
animals are the slaves of the circus industry.
Boycott all circuses that work at the expense of animals
Educate your children properly and explain to them why they never have to go to a circus,
where animals are kept captive.
Posted on October 24, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Finally, an important blow was made against the bullfighting lobby!
In the context of the EU agricultural reform (which is not a reform at all) the animal rights activists prevailed and achieved a narrow majority for the cancellation of the bullfighting subsidies!
This is a sensation because up to now there has been a majority in favor of maintaining all attempts to stop these EU subsidies.
Leading Spanish politicians are family members themselves with bullfighting breeders.
The amendment was approved by 335 votes in favor, 297 against, and 60 abstentions, thanks mainly to the European left.
With 335 to 297 votes, the EU parliamentarians have now for the first time in the history of Europe effectively decided against this animal cruelty, which in some countries has even been celebrated.
But the image of bullfighting has deteriorated over the past few years thanks to the efforts of tens of thousands of animal rights activists and the public’s pity for the bulls has steadily increased.
Anja Hazekamp from the Dutch Animal Welfare Party fought against bullfighting for years together with the Spanish Animal Welfare Party.
This time, Francisco Guerreiro, who was elected to the European Parliament for the Portuguese Animal Welfare Party, tried it – and it worked!
At least for now, because the topic is not yet through. The Spanish government is expected to do everything possible to circumvent this decision.
And the bullfighters association has already announced that it will file a lawsuit against it.
Hopefully, in the end, morality and common sense will prevail in Europe!
And I mean…For the first time, we get a positive surprise from the EU front!
Parliament has noticed that it is backward when animals continue to be tortured for fun in the 21st century and that this is also financed with public money.
With this cruelty to animals, Spain brings up the rear in Europe when it comes to animal welfare.
We are proud and grateful to Anja Hazekamp and her fighters from the Animal Welfare Party of Holland, and thanks to the Spanish Animal Welfare Party and of course to Francisco Guerreiro from the Animal Welfare Party of Portugal.
We get confirmation that if we unite we can achieve something.
Bullfights like in Spain will not last long for animal welfare reasons.
The corrida is not just a spectacle, but archaic cruelty to animals, the corrida is death.
And a spectacle that drains the cultural reputation of an entire country into the mud.
Posted on October 24, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
The province of Guadalajara has experienced a traumatic episode.
The Nature Protection Service of the Civil Guard is investigating the appearance of numerous canine corpses in an area of the Montezarzuela urbanization in the town of El Casar.
The bodies of at least 20 animals have been thrown into the sewer inside sacks,some decapitated to prevent their identification through the microchip.
As detailed in a press release by the Civil Guard, it is urbanization whose construction was paralyzed, leaving only the roads and the sewage system built and where everything indicates that it has been used by many people as a place to dispose of dead domestic animals.
The proceedings began after a complaint filed by the Association ‘Amores Peludos’ whose collaboration with Seprona has been essential for the successful completion of the proceedings.
Two agents of the Civil Guard examining the animal remains found. CIVIL GUARD
Once the skeletal remains had been collected, some put in sacks, others scattered inside the sewer and even several decapitated corpses, Seprona specialists have carried out the obtaining of the data of the animals and their owners through the identification system individual of CLM animals (SIIA-CLM) to file the appropriate administrative complaints.
Legislation on animal health and municipal ordinances require the owners of domestic animals to notify the competent administration of the deaths of the animals for their corresponding discharge, as well as to proceed to the disposal of the carcasses in an established manner, usually in a licensed incinerator.
Los cadáveres de los animales habrían sido arrojados al alcantarillado en el interior de sacos, algunos decapitados para impedir su identificación a través del microchip. pic.twitter.com/I5AVkjajbq
In addition, dead animals can pose a risk to animal health, public health, or the environment. In this case, the fines can amount to 3,000 euros.
From the Civil Guard, they stressed that “society needs to evolve and develop and one of the characteristics that make this difference compared to the most primitive societies is to protect animals more”.
“Dead animals should be treated with respect, they should never be abandoned. Let your advice, vet, or Seprona know and they will tell you how to behave,” they advised.
And I mean..It is not certain that the dogs have been disposed of as dead.
But even in the case of an illegal cemetery, there are two fundamental problems to be considered.
The one problem is the judiciary, which is usually criminal-friendly, and most perpetrators get away with a fine of a few hundred euros.
The other problem is the silence of the population in the case of animal abuse, people are intimidated not to testify as a witness, or they will not endanger the “good” relationship with the neighbor.
A population that is passive against animal suffering, that is permanently divided and kept in fear, is the enemy of animals.
And we cannot expect that people will change their moral principles of themselves.
Only severe punishment can change it.
And the civil courage of courageous citizens of society.
Posted on October 23, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
What’s going on with Germany’s farmers ?!
In Baden-Württemberg,south Germany, a country butcher stunned his cattle with gunshots from a long gun.
Outwardly, the farm presented itself as an idyllic butcher’s shop, but behind the facade, the animals stood in their own feces.
Before being slaughtered, he stuns them with shots from a long gun – absolutely illegal.
“It was filmed in secret for three weeks,” says Philip Hermann from the organization Butcher Against Animal Murder. “This is a trustworthy butcher who runs a family farm. The keeping of the animals and the slaughtering process are so cruel that it is hard to imagine.”
Some explanations about the video:Philipp Herrmann visits the crime scene with the journalist, where the organization “Butchers Against Animal Murder” secretly filmed the “animal-friendly” stable for three weeks.
He himself used to be a butcher, today he campaigns for animals.
The farmer shoots and does not hit the cow. She falls on the floor with full consciousness.
He doesn’t shoot again until two and a half minutes later.
In addition, because there are other animals around, there is a risk of accidents, according to the veterinarian and animal welfare officer.
The cow is then carried to the slaughterhouse with a crane, and you can clearly see that it was not completely hit by the farmer’s shots, so it is still alive.
The recordings show that it is not re-stunned.
The cow is cut up in this condition, although it is completely smeared with feces. Violation of the hygiene regulations
You can see how the animals are kept in the excrement up to the knee.
The vet doctor finds the images shocking.
The reporter then visits the butcher’s shop, which delivers “own” meat.
She orders turkey steaks and asks if everything comes from one source.
The butcher proudly says: “It’s all our own production, we do everything ourselves, we have our own farm, if you need something for Christmas, you would get it too”.
When the reporter leaves the shop, you can see how many meat eaters are waiting to buy meat from the farmer next door without suffering.
Or rather, to pay dearly for the farmer’s lie.
You can then see in the recordings with what good conscience these consumers can buy the turkey from this “animal-friendly” farm
The turkeys are slaughtered without anesthesia. Their necks are twisted and left bleeding on the ground.
When confronted with the farmer, he claims:” I almost always hit when I shoot, the one in the video was just an exception. I did everything to make the animals feel good”.
As soon as the activist says that he cuts the turkeys himself and makes them bleed and suffer, he replies … no, he doesn’t … “this is all an exaggeration … the activist should leave the court, immediately”!!
Although he hired his lawyer to take over the matter, he couldn’t help much too!
The veterinary office has revoked his license to slaughter animals.
And he has to hand over the animals by the end of the year.
Only the butcher’s shop remains open !!
Maybe he comes up with the idea of transforming the butcher’s shop into a barbershop.
Well Alexandra (animal rights) has now been in contact with us from Hungary to inform us that a petition has been started in Hungary for the elephants.
Also, next Monday (26/10) they are holding a demonstration about this in front of the Ministry of Agriculture building. Please support them if you cn.
Note – for the petition, you can provide your details; but then a new link is e mailed back to you which you need to confirm before your name is added to the petition.
Posted on October 23, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
All eyes on EU court for decision on religious slaughter
22 October 2020
Stunning animals before slaughter and avoiding unnecessary suffering is surely the least we owe these fellow sentient beings.
The practice of pre-stunning is mandatory throughout the EU.
Although the EU Animal Slaughter Regulation allows for a ‘religious exception’, it also expressly enables member states to adopt “national rules aimed at ensuring more extensive protection of animals at the time of killing”.
That’s how Denmark, Sweden and Slovenia were able to ban slaughter without stunning.
However, today a compromise between a religious exception, allowing slaughter without stunning, and an outright ban of the practice is close to reach.
EU court adviser backs ritual animal slaughter without stunning
By Reuters Staff
BRUSSELS (Reuters) – EU judges should strike down a Belgian law requiring all animals be stunned prior to their death, which has effectively outlawed slaughter according to Jewish and Muslim rites, an EU court adviser said on Thursday.
Gerard Hogan, an advocate general of the Court of Justice of the European Union, said an EU law of 2009 set out that animals should normally be stunned before they are slaughtered, but made a clear exception for slaughter prescribed by religious rites.
EU judges typically follow the opinions of advocate generals although are not bound to do so. They would normally deliver their ruling in two to four months.
The case came to the EU court in Luxembourg after a 2017 decree in the Belgian region of Flanders to amend its law on protection and welfare of animals by requiring all animals be first stunned.
Jewish and Muslim association challenged the decree and Belgium’s Constitutional Court referred the case to the EU Court of Justice.
Hogan said the religious exception reflected the European Union’s desire to respect freedom of religion and the right to manifest religious belief in practice and observance despite avoidable suffering caused to animals.
Jewish and Muslim methods of slaughter involves the animals’ throats being cut with a sharp knife, which advocates says results in death almost immediately. Traditionally, prior stunning is not permitted.
Belgian campaign group Global Action in the Interest of Animals (GAIA), whose representatives were present at the court on Thursday, said it was disappointed and perplexed by the opinion, but noted the judges might rule differently.
“How will the court deal with (EU) members that have for years had general bans on slaughter without stunning: Denmark, parts of Finland, Slovenia and Sweden?” said GAIA lawyer Anthony Godfroid.
All eyes on EU court for decision on religious slaughter
The popular image of a ritual killing is that of a butcher restraining an animal to expose its throat, covering its eyes with its ears while muttering prayers to calm it.
Sadly, this is far from the experience of animals being killed without pre-stunning for halal or kosher meat, where they are strung up and knifed in a relentless industrial process.
By now technological development makes it possible for animals to be butchered humanely, while still preserving religious freedom (Photo: Lukas Budimaier)
Even when their throat is cleanly cut, the massive injury triggers a barrage of sensory information to the brain, meaning their last, long minutes of consciousness as they bleed out are filled with pain and terror.
Stunning animals before slaughter and avoiding unnecessary suffering is surely the least we owe these fellow sentient beings.
That’s why the practice of pre-stunning is mandatory throughout the EU.
Although the EU Animal Slaughter Regulation allows for a ‘religious exception’, it also expressly enables member states to adopt “national rules aimed at ensuring more extensive protection of animals at the time of killing”.
That’s how Denmark, Sweden and Slovenia were able to ban slaughter without stunning.
However, today a compromise between a religious exception, allowing slaughter without stunning, and an outright ban of the practice is close to reach.
This is the method known as reversible stunning, which renders the animal unconscious for the time it takes to cut its throat while respecting the religious requirement of it remaining alive so the blood is pumped out by its still-beating heart.
According to well-established scientific evidence, this method is not only less traumatising for the animal and makes its handling easier for the butcher, but it is also accepted by a growing number of representatives of these religious communities.
However, reversible stunning now faces a major legal challenge across Europe.
After the Flemish region introduced reversible stunning in 2017, various Jewish and Muslim associations contested this decree before national courts and sought its total or partial annulment.
The case reached the Belgian Constitutional Court, which referred the matter to the European Court of Justice for a final decision.
What’s at stake in the present case is not a ban on religious slaughter, but whether a member state may adopt measures to improve the welfare of animals being slaughtered in the context of a religious rite – the aim of the Flemish legislation in requiring the animal to be reversibly stunned.
Not only does this method meet religious community requirements to have animals alive at the time of the throat cut, but it is also proportionate to its declared goal to protect animal welfare while guaranteeing the religious liberty and freedom contained in the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Reversal on reverse stunning?
However, in a recent opinion, though seemingly favourable to the adoption of other technical conditions to minimise the suffering of animals at the time of the killing, a member of the Court of Justice of the EU – Advocate General (AG) Hogan – proposed that the court should find that member states were not permitted to implement reversible stunning.
The opinion argues that the ‘religious exception’ was intended to “grant more specific protection to the freedom of religion” in this context and that when establishing stricter national rules, member states must “operate within [its] confines”.
Yet this appears to overlook the fact that the EU legislation submits the adoption of stricter national rules to only one condition, that the importing country – in this case, Belgium – does not prevent the circulation of animal products from another member state with a laxer regime, i.e. meat from animals that were not stunned before slaughter.
There would be no need for this provision to exist if countries were entirely bound by the ‘religious exception’.
We disagree with the contention that the “preservation of the religious rites of animal slaughter often sits uneasily with modern conceptions of animal welfare” and that as a result, the court should not allow member states to “hollow out” the ‘religious exception’. Technology and best practices are there to guarantee that both interests can be reconciled and respected.
Far from being motivated by Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, the Flemish decree prescribing reversible stunning is the outcome of long-standing consultations with the relevant religious communities in an effort to strike a new balance between the exercise of religious freedom and animal welfare.
The acceptance of reversible stunning appears all the more important when analysing the broader context: in Europe, there are many more animals slaughtered without stunning than those needed, but no labelling is required for such meat.
This situation severely affects EU consumers’ right to know if they’re buying and consuming meat that might be derived from animals that have not been stunned before killing.
When these religious traditions were established, there were well-founded sanitary reasons for encouraging people to shun the flesh of animals they could not identify as being recently alive. But advances in food safety have long made such practices redundant.
By now technological development makes it possible for animals to be butchered humanely, while still preserving religious freedom. It is time for European law to recognise it is no longer acceptable to deny them a kinder end to their lives.
Well Alexandra (animal rights) has now been in contact with us from Hungary to inform us that a petition has been started in Hungary for the elephants.
Also, next Monday (26/10) they are holding a demonstration about this in front of the Ministry of Agriculture building. Please support them if you can.
Note – for the petition, you can provide your details; but then a new link is e mailed back to you which you need to confirm before your name is added to the petition.
Please do this; it is important.
We need justice for Mambo and Betty.
We wish our Hungarian activist friends the very best with all their work and demonstrations.
Posted on October 22, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Cruelty to animals, the destruction of nature, and climate change will continue in the EU for the next seven years!
In total, there are almost two thousand amendments to the European Commission’s draft for agrarian reform.
This shows how little agreements could be made in advance. There is pure chaos, so to speak, and ideological battles are waged, regardless of democracy or ethics.
IMAGE-GREECE/
And of course, the excruciating slaughter of animals is also involved because the minimal changes to the new seven-year agricultural budget do not provide for any improvements in animal welfare. Everything goes on as before!
It is possible that bullfighting subsidies will continue to be granted and instead of promoting plant-based agriculture, terms such as “veggie burger” or “with cheese flavor” will be banned.
The EU’s agricultural policy has no concept, is lobby-sensitive, anti-democratic, and despises people, animals, and nature.
Not even the official climate targets are taken into account, but rather simulated arithmetically.
Abolition of factory farming, reduction of methane gas, prevention of animal diseases, a ban on arable toxins?
And I mean… The direction is clear: there will be no fundamental realignment of EU agricultural policy in the 2021-2027 budget period.
According to the decision of the heads of state and government, 345 billion euros are to flow into agricultural policy from July 2021 to 2027. That is almost a third of the total budget.
The basic principle for the distribution of the funds remains unchanged after the resolutions: a large part of the money, around three quarters, goes directly to the farmers.
But not to the little farmers.
WWF, BUND, and Greenpeace, like the Greens, have called for a completely new agricultural policy from the start.
One approach would have been to decouple the allocation of subsidies from the area. Farmers in Germany receive around 300 euros per hectare.
The suggestion was that the money should no longer be linked to the size of the farms, but to the award of eco-points.
Then farmers who ignore environmental protection would no longer receive any money.
But that was never on the agenda.
Factory farming with up to 80,000 pigs on a single farm and the constant demand from consumers for their cheap schnitzel have created an agricultural mafia that lives on completely nonsensical subsidies and cheap workers.
This agrarian mafia will continue to exist as before.
Agricultural companies do an incredible amount of lobbying. They have a massive presence in Brussels and millions are used to exert influence.
EUROPE needs politicians who will liberate us from the EU.
We didn’t know Betty’s name yet, now we know what her name was.
And we don’t just know that! we also know a lot of other things about the cause of death for both of them.
A report from an informant from Hungary (where both animals died) shows that circuses that make money with animals work according to Mafia methods.
Like every industry that makes money with animal exploitation.
Here is the report from the Facebook page of the organization “Action Alliance – Animals do not belong to the circus”
“Obviously, the Cassellys managed to hide the death of their two elephants from the public for weeks.
Betty and Mambo died on the night of August 17th, reports an informant on the Hungarian online platform “Allatierdekessegek”, which means: “The Cassellys had transported their five elephants – spread over two trucks – within Hungary.
After arriving at Szada Safari Park, they were left in the van overnight in stormy weather; an insufficient air supply in the larger container is said to have led to the disaster. “
Unbearable to imagine the scenery. 💔
Three elephants were pulled out lifeless the next morning, according to the report. Mambo and Betty were dead,Tonga could still be rescued by a veterinarian who was called in. Severely beaten and traumatized, she survived.
The two other elephants of the Cassellys, Kimba and Nanda, spent the unlucky night in a separate van and are also alive.
An official government agency has also confirmed this version of the events including the date via a comment on social media. The veterinarian could not determine anything about an infection.
The rumor that a virus caused the death of the elephants is obviously a lie so that the Cassellys wanted to protect themselves.
According to the informant’s report, Mambo and Betty were immediately buried!
It was only on October 21st today that René Casselly jr. the death of the two elephants announced on social media – more than 9 weeks after the tragedy.
Apparently the processes are being investigated by the Ministry of Agriculture – with how much honesty it remains to be seen. We stay tuned”!
Please sign the petition, it goes to Hungary’s Minister for Rural Development, Dr. Fazekas Sándor, and has until now 28,000 votes!
Mambo and Betty will at least get justice after their death if we manage to get the Casselly Gang a fair punishment.
And maybe that will be a reason, with the help of the second corona wave too, to shut down the Casselly business.
Posted on October 21, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
We meet them everywhere, every day.
They are abandoned, homeless house pigeons, the strays in our cities.
The way we deal with them is a scandal, a shame.
We take the right to domesticate, breed, exploit, abandon, scare, torture, starve, and kill these animals because we mean that their existence harms us.
Pigeons used to be on the rocks, we humans caught and bred them.
Because of the excessive expansion of the human population, pigeons have lost their houses and are therefore settled in the cities.
That is where their misery began.
They eat our waste to avoid starvation, they get sick, they are injured and die in agony because of our traps
People constantly blaspheme against their excrement, but no one blasphemes against the plastic waste by the sea and in barbecue areas
We accuse pigeons of transmitting diseases to us humans, but the Robert Koch Institute has proven the opposite
You don’t have to speculate for long as to who instigated the “arguments” against the pigeons … those responsible always refer to the so-called experts, such as hunters, falconers, and scare-off companies who fill their pockets with the suffering of the animals!
They are peaceful, harm no one.
They recognize faces, at least my face, as soon as I go to the train station in my city to feed them under strict discretion.
For most people, animal welfare ends when pigeons are fed.
That is why they are hunted, kicked, and arbitrarily harassed.
The only animal-friendly solution is dovecotes, which are built where pigeons live: in the city centers.
Animal rights activists (who are not paid for it) would provide them with species-appropriate feed and water as well as suitable breeding sites.
By exchanging pigeon eggs with gypsum eggs, an animal welfare-friendly and sustainable control of the population takes place.
Some cities have already started to successfully control pigeon populations in this way – but most of them still treat pigeons like strays in southerners.
We have to finally stop waging war against the pigeons, we have to make peace with them by helping them and giving back what we took from them: A roof over their head and appropriate food!
They love wheat, lentils, flax seeds, birdseed.
It is finally time to take responsibility for these animals.
Please feed the pigeons.
Posted on October 21, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
The animal agriculture industry is feeling extremely threatened by the growth in the numbers of people going vegan and consuming a plant only diet, and, in response, is calling for a ban on the use of terms such as burger, sausage, cheese, milk, ice cream etc for plant based equivalents. The Irish Farmers Union is attempting to persuade Irish MEP’s to vote to ban words traditionally used by the animal agriculture industry such as burger, steak, milk, cheese etc.
Interview on Newstalk
Sandra Higgins was interviewed by Mark Cagney, along with IFA President Tim Cullinanon on this morning’s Newstalk Breakfast.
The production of plant based equivalents of animal foods has a history that is thousands of years old, dating to Chinese Buddhist monk’s use of seitan (made from wheat gluten) and tofu (made from soya beans). There has been an enormous growth in the production and supply of plant based substitutes for animal foods which meets the demand by people for more ethical food production which necessitates the use of plants instead of animals. Many vegans would prefer to dissociate from terms which have been used to associate living, sentient animals with food, because they are not food, they are feeling beings with rights. It is perfectly feasible to eat a wholefoods, plant diet without these substitutes. Indeed, it is cheaper and in many cases healthier to do so. However, people buying and consuming plant based substitutes, for the most part, live in countries where we have all grown up consuming animal products such as burgers, cheese, milk and ice cream. It is a matter of convenience to have plant based substitutes replace dietary patterns and recipes based on animal products. Many of these products are a very useful way of meeting our nutritional needs. They ease the transition to a plant diet and to veganism for many people and that can only be a good thing. Most terms such as burger, sausage, etc refer to the shapes of food. Many animal versions of these products already contain more plant ingredients than animals’ bodies. It is the right of the plant based foods industry to label their products in a manner that facilites their sale.
Is this threatened Ban something Vegans should Be Concerned About?
The cost to the plant based food industry of changing it’s labelling and packaging would be harmful to a growing, ethical, and sustainable method of food production which, in every way, is better than using the lives and bodies of other animals who share our capacity to feel and have an interest in staying alive. Interestingly, there are two cases in the US that we are aware of, that have won their right to use dairy terminology (Miyoko’s Butter and Plant Based Milk in Virginia).
The EU has already banned the use of dairy terms such as milk on plant milks. The ban has done little to halt the rapid expansion of the market for plant substitutes for dairy products. Most people do not even notice the label. The Gestalt principles of perception operate even when most of an object is missing. Our minds are programmed to logically make sense of the world in terms of our understanding. That is why a carton of a product made from oats or soy does not have to be labelled ‘milk’ for the consumer to purchase it on the understanding that it is milk. The main concern in the consumer’s mind is that the milk did not violate the rights of other animals to their lives; that it is not harmful to the environment; and that it contributes to a diet that is nutritionally adequate, healthy, tasty, and affordable.
Misplaced Perception of Threat
The perception of threat by the animal agriculture industry is completely misplaced. The future of food production must, necessarily, be plant based and farmers will be necessary for the production of that plant food and are entitled to earn a living and be supported to transition in other ways to a more ethical, sustainable way of farming that excludes the use of other animals. The industry itself has seen the potential for expansion into the production of plant based foods; many of the vegan substitutes on our supermarket shelves are produced by the industry as it cashes in on this growing market. Given the current crises facing us in terms of a pandemic that has its origins in our oppression and use of other animals, combined with the loss of biodiversity and the climate crisis, which are caused, to a significant extent, by animal agriculture, surely it is in our interests to find solutions to halt disaster and ensure the sustainability of human life, than to argue over the terminology of the food we consume.
Misleading? The Kettle Calling the Pot Black
The argument that plant based substitutes for animal foods are misleading is ironic. The most misleading products of all on our shop shelves are those made from the bodies of other animals. The lengths to which the industry goes to to hide the standard legal practices on farms and in slaughterhouses, to fight against the science that explains the damage that animal agriculture inflicts on the environment and on other life, and to attempt to dispute the facts on the health benefits of a plant diet, are evidence that it is an industry based on misleading consumers. There isn’t a single producer of animal products that would sanction putting the facts of animal agriculture on its food packaging.
Milking It
Why the furore over plant based foods and not a similar reaction to the use by the cosmetic industry of the term ‘cleansing milk’, the fruit and veg industry’s use of terms ‘coconut milk’ and the ‘flesh’ of fruit, or the pharmaceutical industry’s reference to ‘milk of magnesia’ or the medical phrase ‘milking’ referring to the expression of the contents of a tube or duct to obtain a specimen or to test for tenderness? Has anyone ever reacted to the term ‘milking it’? It is a derogatory phrase referring to the unjust taking advantage of another; a term which aptly derives from the dairy industry’s unjust process of breeding mammals so that they can be impregnated and lactate milk for their babies which is then taken from them for human consumption; the atrocious breeding of animals to give birth and lactate even though they are prevented from this natural right to feed their babies who are separated from them after birth; the exploitative and violent process of selectively breeding animals so that their bodies can be exploited for dairy products that humans do not need, until the burden of metabolic stress, continual lactation and pregnancy, combine to reduce their production of milk and their lives are ended in slaughterhouses.
Posted on October 21, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Idaho opens first-ever swan hunting season.
In August, 50 tags were issued first-come, first-serve for Idaho’s first ever swan hunting season; those who were early to the draw will get to participate when the season opens October 19.
Swan hunting will only be available in Benewah, Bonner, Boundary and Kootenai counties, and runs until December 1.
Hunters will be limited to one swan bagged per day and one swan possession per day; they are also encouraged to take the Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s swan orientation course to get familiar with identifying the bird.
Hunters also have to follow these rules:
Have a swan tag
Have a migratory bird permit
Have a federal migratory bird stamp
Have a shotgun that holds no more than three shells
Posted on October 21, 2020 by Serbian Animals Voice (SAV)
Wild boar family killed by police in Rome children’s playground
The mayor of Rome has ordered an investigation after a family of wild boar were shot and killed by police in a children’s playground.
A female boar and her six piglets wandered into the playground near the Vatican last week, and crowds of children soon came to feed the animals.
But when police arrived on Friday, they shot the boar with tranquiliser darts and gave them lethal injections.
Their killing prompted anger from residents and animal rights groups.
“It was decided to hastily kill [the animals] who had found shelter in the Aurelio play area, instead of saving their lives given the alternative solutions that had been offered,” a statement from the International Organization for Animal Protection said.
“I was offering to capture, transfer and host [the] wild boars,” Michela Brambilla, an MP who heads an animal rights group, told the Corriere della Serra newspaper. “I was proposing a non-bloody choice.”
But, in a statement, one local official said the decision to kill the boar was taken because there were no cages available to capture them.
“The preferred choice is to capture them with special cages,” councillor Laura Fiorini wrote on Facebook. But the regional authorities had not prepared them, she said.
The city’s investigation is expected to examine why the decision to kill the animals was made and whether official protocol was followed, local media report.
What happened?
The boar are believed to have entered the Mario Moderni park in the west of the city after they were attracted by overflowing rubbish bins.
Police closed off the area on Thursday, but children continued to feed the animals through gaps in the fencing.
Animal rights groups say they offered to assist with the relocation of the boar but their suggestions were ignored.
On Friday, there were scuffles with riot police near the park. Some officers arrived with rifles and people reportedly shouted “Assassins!” as the incident unfolded.
Vets were on hand to provide the lethal injections before the boar were removed from the park.
Protesters gathered in the area over the weekend, and flowers and hand-painted signs have been left at the scene.
Wild boar are commonplace in Rome and much of Italy, but their presence is controversial. They are believed to be responsible for thousands of traffic accidents a year and people have been injured or killed in attacks.
Cows in chains, Germany
Cows in chains, Germany
