Agriculture

Jolley: Five Minutes With Wayne Pacelle & The HSUS Controversies
03/05/2010 08:43AM

The last time I interviewed Wayne Pacelle, it was done by phone; a lengthy conversation that took considerably longer than five minutes. This time, when Rachel Querry, his senior director of communications, contacted me and asked if I might be interested in talking with him again, I was of two minds.

First, as a follow up to the David Martosko interview that took HSUS to task for their involvement in the Ringling Brothers suit – an effort that was thrown out of court after almost a decade of high-priced legal wrangling and resulted in the most famous Circus in the world hitting back with a RICO suit – absolutely I was interested! I thought it might make for a fascinating response to the charges leveled by Martosko.

Second, with so much HSUS stuff going on – the news has been chock full of tidbits about things like Prop 2, puppy mills and farrowing crates to name just a few – I didn’t want any misunderstanding between what was asked and what was said to taint the interview. I suggested I submit the questions in writing and Pacelle respond to them the same way. After a quick check, Querry said he would agree.

A few other points about this interview: The judge who dismissed the case against Ringling Brothers did so because he said the main witness against the circus was paid almost 0,000 which puts the validity of his testimony in serious question. Pacelle says he’s disappointed that the case was dismissed on a technical issue and there was a lot of additional testimony backing their claims.

The horse case I asked about has an interesting back story. Denisa Mallott, the woman at the center of the seizure, was first charged with 25 cases of felony abuse. Before the case made it to trial, though, the felony charges were dropped and she’s currently contesting a charge of one misdemeanor. Looking at some of the circumstances surrounding the seizure, I can only assume that an over anxious county sheriff mishandled the case from the start and Mallott is guilty of keeping horses in conditions made muddy by 18 inches of rain, the 100 feet of dry, covered space be damned. More on this one later.

As you read through this interview, you’ll notice several links. To better understand the context of the questions and the answers, please click on those links and read the background materials.

Read More

It’s been interesting watching the HSUS and Wayne Pacelle struggling to defend their organization in so many places at once. They have been unable to generate very few grassroots supporters of their group for online commenting. Instead they have been using paid employees to search for news articles about the HSUS and leave their tired talking points in the comment section. Pacelle himself has had to do several interviews like this in an attempt to minimize the damage being caused by farmers, ranchers, hunters and pet owners when they share the truth about the HSUS with others. I find it a bit humorous how he tries to portray the HSUS, the wealthiest vegan, animal rights group in the world, as being a victim. Pacelle claims to want constructive dialog with ag leaders, but the truth is that farmers and ranchers just need to be having constructive dialog with consumers of their products and then the HSUS become irrelevant.

Go to Source

Swiss voters reject lawyers for animals in referendum
Swiss voters have overwhelmingly rejected a controversial plan to appoint lawyers for animals.

By Alexandra Williams in Geneva
Published: 12:33AM GMT 08 Mar 2010

All of the 26 Swiss cantons on Sunday voted against the proposal by animal rights activists to extend nationwide a system already in place in Zurich.

Overall, just 29.5 per cent of voters were in favour. In seven cantons the “No” vote was more than 80 per cent.

The Alpine country already has among the most stringent animal rights laws in the world.
It recently changed its constitution to protect the “dignity” of plant life and made a law last year establishing rights for creatures such as goldfish and canaries. Pigs, budgies and other social creatures cannot be kept alone; horses and cows must be regularly exercised outside their stalls and dog owners are required to take a training course to learn how to properly care for their pets.

If citizens had voted for the initiative, each canton would have appointed a lawyer to act on behalf of animals at taxpayers’ expense. Read More

Last week I shared with you that this vote was taking place. I’m happy to share with you that the attempt to give legal standing to animals in Switzerland failed miserably.

Go to Source

What If Food Inc. Takes Home An Oscar?
03/02/2010 02:02PM
CattleNetwork.com

You may not care much about the Academy Awards, but this Sunday (Mar. 7) may be worth a bit of your time; at least pay attention to the “Best Documentary “ category.

Nominated for an Oscar is Food Inc.– The film that “lifts the veil on our nation’s food industry, exposing the highly mechanized underbelly that has been hidden from the American consumer with the consent of our government’s regulatory agencies USDA and FDA.” That’s a promotional line from the film that appeared in theaters for most of last summer.

While you’re not fooled by Food Inc. carrying the label “documentary”, most of the viewing public takes it more literally. The common logic is– in order for a film to be set apart as a documentary, it has to be truthful—Food Inc. is a documentary, therefore Food Inc. must be truthful.

Between the theater release and DVDs, millions of people have already seen this movie. Too often they walk away believing American farmers are greedy, reckless with food safety and the environment and are forcing unhealthy products upon the public—and U.S. regulators are supporting all of it.

The film is filled with mistruths and misrepresentations. “Our nation’s food supply is now controlled by a handful of corporations that often put profit ahead of consumer health, the livelihood of the American farmer, and the safety of workers and our environment.” Organic is the only sure choice, is one of the messages drilled home. Another tells consumers that they are the only hope to drive change, because the regulators and corporations are in control and don’t care. Read More

It’s troubling that we have so many high-profile people in the many different types of media that are more concerned about personal wealth through activism rather than journalism. Real journalists provide all of the information and allow people to form their own opinions. Wealthy activists like Pollan provide only what he wants his audience to know about and then tells them what to do with it. If Food Inc wins an award this weekend, we will need to view this as an opportunity and motivation to do a better job of sharing the real story of production agriculture.

Go to Source

Commission gives green light to genetically-modified potato
Published: 03 March 2010
Euractiv.com

In a controversial move, the European Commission yesterday (2 March) gave the green light for the first genetically-modified potato to be cultivated in the European Union.

At present, EU member states are able to restrict GM crop cultivation only under strict conditions as authorisation licences are valid across the 27-country bloc, in accordance with the principles of the single EU internal market.

José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, has voiced support for any plan that would allow the Commission to maintain EU-wide authority over GMO safety assessment and approval, while allowing countries the freedom to decide whether to cultivate GM crops.
Yesterday’s decision was taken with this principle in mind, as outlined in the political guidelines for the new European Commission.

The EU executive authorised the cultivation in the EU of Amflora, a genetically-modified potato developed by German chemical company BASF.

“Responsible innovation will be my guiding principle when dealing with innovative technologies,” said Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli.

The decision was based on a series of favourable safety assessments carried out over the years by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

After an extensive and thorough review of five pending GM files, it had become clear that there were no new scientific issues that merited further assessment, as those concerning safety had been fully addressed, the commissioner added. Read More

It’s nice to see the EU actually recognizing sound science as a good resource for their decision making process. That’s normally not the case across the pond. When it comes to genetic modification, the truth is that humans have been doing this for 10,000 years. It’s a good thing we have or we probably wouldn’t be here today.

Go to Source

National Review: Easy Boy, Your Dog Might Sue
by Wesley J. Smith

March 3, 2010

Should animals, like indigent criminal defendants, be provided with legal representation by the state? It could happen. As Time has reported, on March 7, voters in Switzerland will decide whether to give “domestic creatures . . . the constitutional right to be represented by (human) lawyers in court.”

What? Treating animals at law as if they were human? Don’t laugh. Lest we be tempted to dismiss the referendum as just the latest European post-modernistic folly, the effort to open our own courtrooms to animals is quietly advancing. Indeed, “animal standing,” as the issue is usually called, is at the very top of the animal-rights movement’s policy wish list.

But animals suing? For most people, the very idea is a surreal fantasy out of a Far Side cartoon. But from the viewpoint of animal-rights ideologues, nothing could be more logical. The dogma of animal liberation demands the obliteration of all animal industries and, eventually, the eradication by attrition of all domesticated animals. As Wayne Pacelle stated in 1993 before being appointed to his current post as head of the Humane Society of the United States, “One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are the product of human selective breeding.”

What could further the eradication goal more dramatically than allowing domesticated animals to sue their owners in court? The real litigants, of course, would be animal-rights activists — committed true believers who would use the raw power of litigation to force animal industries to their knees. Imagine the chaos: hundreds of animal lawyers, filing thousands of lawsuits, leading to hundreds of thousands of depositions, forcing industries to spend tens of millions of dollars on lawyers and legal costs defending their husbandry. No animal industry would be safe, and many would not survive. Read More

Giving animals legal standing in our courts is laughable and very scary. No one knows what an animal is thinking. For humans to represent animals in a court of law, which is based on rights granted to us by our creator, and claim to know what it wants is making a mockery of an incredible institution. With rights comes responsibility as well. So if human rights are going to be granted to animals, they must also bear human responsibility.

Go to Source

UK scientists have analysed their soil to get an accurate assessment of soil biology, and changes in soil biology over time.  Their conclusions show that the top 3 inches of soil there are 12.8 quadrillion (12,800 million million) soil microorganisms and that number has  increased by nearly 50% in a decade. Scientists report that the most likely reason for the increase in numbers is warmer, wetter weather conditions which translates directly into warmer, wetter soil micro environments. The theory is that these warm and wet soil environments encourage faster microbial reproduction. Read the article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/28/soil-biodiversity-invertebrates-countryside-survey

Full podcast here:

Filed under: soil Tagged: soil, soil health, soil microorganisms
Go to Source

Americans Wrongly Believe the Humane Society of the United States is a Pet-Shelter “Umbrella Group”

Consumer Group Reminds Americans that Less than One Percent of Donations to HSUS Benefit Local Pet Shelters



WASHINGTON, March 2 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Seventy-one percent of Americans questioned in a new opinion poll wrongly believe the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is an “umbrella group” for America’s local humane societies. Sixty-three percent incorrectly think their local “humane society” is affiliated with HSUS. And fifty-nine percent falsely believe HSUS “contributes most of its money” to local organizations that care for cats and dogs.



The poll, which sampled the opinions of 1,008 Americans, was commissioned by the nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) and conducted by Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) of Princeton, New Jersey.

“These numbers indicate that Americans don’t really know what the Humane Society of the United States is all about,” said CCF Director of Research David Martosko. “HSUS intentionally uses those sad dogs and cats in its TV infomercials as props in an animal rights fundraising shell game. Meanwhile, thousands of American pet shelters are underfunded and struggling.” Martosko blogs about HSUS at http://www.humanewatch.org/.

According to the federal income tax return filed by HSUS for the tax year 2008, less than one-half of one percent (0.5%) of the organization’s budget consisted of grants to hands-on pet shelters. HSUS does not run a single shelter for dogs or cats anywhere, and it is not affiliated with any local “humane society” organizations.

Martosko continued: “This poll indicates that most Americans think HSUS is a worthy charity. But very few Americans understand what HSUS really is—a super-rich lobbying group that puts more money into its executive pensions than in the hands of local humane societies.”

Survey Methodology

The survey of 1,008 adults nationwide was conducted by telephone between February 25 and February 28, 2010 by Opinion Research Corporation. The margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points.

Questions:

I’m going to read you the names of several nonprofit organizations. For each one, please tell me if you are very familiar, somewhat familiar or totally unfamiliar with the organization.

The Humane Society of the United States: 79% familiar (“very”/”somewhat” net)

I’m going to read you several statements. For each one, please tell me if you think the statement is true or false.

71% “TRUE”: The Humane Society of the United States is an umbrella group that represents thousands of local humane societies all across America.

63% “TRUE”: My local humane society or pet shelter is AFFILIATED with the Humane Society of the United States.

59% “TRUE”: The Humane Society of the United States contributes most of its money to local organizations that care for dogs and cats.

48% “TRUE”: My local humane society or pet shelter receives financial support from the Humane Society of the United States.

(Tax records filed by HSUS show that all four statements are false.)

Link

Just as Yellow Tail and Pilot Travel Centers were fooled into thinking that the HSUS was something they aren’t, so are most folks living in this country. This survey shows exactly how they have become so wealthy. It’s been accomplished on the backs of our hard-working local pet shelters. Because of the great work they do the HSUS profits. Wayne Pacelle will probably roll out the same old song about the Center for Consumer Freedom, but they didn’t do the survey. Along with that, the questions asked in the survey were very direct rather than misleading in way that could have affected the results. We’ve got a long way to go in educating the public about the HSUS, but this past month has shown that we can accomplish great things when we work together.

Go to Source

Biotech, Nanotech and Synthetic Biology Roles in Future Food Supply Explored

ScienceDaily (Feb. 25, 2010) — Some say the world’s population will swell to 9 billion people by 2030 and that will present significant challenges for agriculture to provide enough food to meet demand, says University of Idaho animal scientist Rod Hill.

Hill and Larry Branen, a University of Idaho food scientist, organized a symposium during the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting February 17 to explore ways biotechnology could provide healthy and plentiful animal-based foods to meet future demands.

Synthetic biology, nanotechnology, genetic engineering and other applications of biotechnology — and the public’s role in determining their acceptable uses — were all addressed by panelists during the session.

The goal for the session, which was part of the nation’s largest general science meeting held annually, was to encourage a dialogue among scientists and the public, said Hill, a Moscow-based molecular physiologist who studies muscle growth in cattle.

“There will be a significant challenge for agriculture and the science that will be required to provide a healthy, nutritious and adequate food supply in coming decades for a rapidly growing population,” Hill said.
A key question, he said, is whether the Earth can continue to provide enough food without technological support. The history of civilization and agriculture during the last 10,000 years suggests otherwise.

“Unaided food production is an unattainable ideal — current society is irrevocably grounded in the technological interventions underpinning the agricultural revolution that now strives to feed the world,” Hill said. Read More

I have no doubts that technology will continue providing with the answers to feeding a growing world. In contrast, obtaining the social license to use that technology could be the biggest challenge. Unfortunately, it may come down to a simple question that everyone will have to answer. Do we abandon technology and concede that millions, if not billions, of people will starve to death? Or do we utilize safe, proven technology to ensure we can feed as many people as possible? How you answer that question will probably depend on how full your stomach is at the time you are being asked.

Go to Source

Ohioans have spoken about animal care
Congressman Zack Space • 18th District • February 28, 2010

An open letter to Wayne Pacelle, president of Humane Society of the United States:

Dear Mr. Pacelle,

I was disappointed and troubled to hear of the recent decision by the Humane Society of the United States to move forward with attempts to further their political agenda and force it on the people of Ohio. This news proves that clearly you and your organization have not been listening.

HSUS was obviously not listening when residents across the state of Ohio spoke in one voice — overwhelmingly supporting Issue 2 and ensuring that Ohioans regulate our own standards for animal care. HSUS was obviously not listening when a majority of Ohio’s federal and state delegation endorsed the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board — overwhelmingly denouncing the HSUS’ efforts to undermine it. And HSUS was obviously not listening when farmers across the state of Ohio weighed in on this disastrous policy — overwhelmingly opposing it.

In addition to a majority of Ohioans, Issue 2 also had great support among Ohio’s legislators, Governor Strickland and groups representing animal interests, including The American Humane Association and the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association. It is unconscionable to me that an outside group would come into our state and claim that they know better.

The OLCSB was created just four months ago with a strong mandate by the people of Ohio, and it would be wrong for it to be hijacked by overzealous special interests based out of Washington, D.C. Our board will ensure that livestock and animals in Ohio are treated humanely and that our agricultural producers — a major sector of Ohio’s economy — are not unfairly penalized with unacceptable regulations.

The experts that will make up the OLCSB are the best sources for determining Ohio’s minimum standards of care for our animals, and not a liberal group whose real intentions are less about animal care and more about control over what we in Ohio eat.

Your attempts to dictate our state policies regarding animal care are misguided, and I will not stand for them. Ohio’s standards of animal care should be determined by those who know the issue best and have a vested interest in the outcome — Ohioans.

I joined the farmers of my district to support the passage of Issue 2, which passed with almost 64 percent of the vote on Nov. 3. Ohioans statewide have spoken. It is clear exactly where they stand on this issue.

Mr. Pacelle, Ohio has spoken. Why haven’t you been listening?

Regardless of party or position, Ohio’s elected officials have adamantly against Wayne Pacelle and the HSUS coming to Ohio trying to hijack the very popular Livestock Care Standards Board before it’s even been formed. Thank you Congressman Space for defending rural America and farmers and ranchers against this vegan animal rights group.

Go to Source

Ohioans have spoken about animal care
Congressman Zack Space • 18th District • February 28, 2010

An open letter to Wayne Pacelle, president of Humane Society of the United States:

Dear Mr. Pacelle,

I was disappointed and troubled to hear of the recent decision by the Humane Society of the United States to move forward with attempts to further their political agenda and force it on the people of Ohio. This news proves that clearly you and your organization have not been listening.

HSUS was obviously not listening when residents across the state of Ohio spoke in one voice — overwhelmingly supporting Issue 2 and ensuring that Ohioans regulate our own standards for animal care. HSUS was obviously not listening when a majority of Ohio’s federal and state delegation endorsed the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board — overwhelmingly denouncing the HSUS’ efforts to undermine it. And HSUS was obviously not listening when farmers across the state of Ohio weighed in on this disastrous policy — overwhelmingly opposing it.

In addition to a majority of Ohioans, Issue 2 also had great support among Ohio’s legislators, Governor Strickland and groups representing animal interests, including The American Humane Association and the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association. It is unconscionable to me that an outside group would come into our state and claim that they know better.

The OLCSB was created just four months ago with a strong mandate by the people of Ohio, and it would be wrong for it to be hijacked by overzealous special interests based out of Washington, D.C. Our board will ensure that livestock and animals in Ohio are treated humanely and that our agricultural producers — a major sector of Ohio’s economy — are not unfairly penalized with unacceptable regulations.

The experts that will make up the OLCSB are the best sources for determining Ohio’s minimum standards of care for our animals, and not a liberal group whose real intentions are less about animal care and more about control over what we in Ohio eat.

Your attempts to dictate our state policies regarding animal care are misguided, and I will not stand for them. Ohio’s standards of animal care should be determined by those who know the issue best and have a vested interest in the outcome — Ohioans.

I joined the farmers of my district to support the passage of Issue 2, which passed with almost 64 percent of the vote on Nov. 3. Ohioans statewide have spoken. It is clear exactly where they stand on this issue.

Mr. Pacelle, Ohio has spoken. Why haven’t you been listening?

Regardless of party or position, Ohio’s elected officials have adamantly against Wayne Pacelle and the HSUS coming to Ohio trying to hijack the very popular Livestock Care Standards Board before it’s even been formed. Thank you Congressman Space for defending rural America and farmers and ranchers against this vegan animal rights group.

Go to Source