I watched a stirring video on YouTube last month. A team of whale advocates and scientists in the Sea of Cortez in Mexico came across a humpback whale hopelessly entangled in a gill net, disabling the animal so severely that she could not have survived much longer without intervention. One member of the team swam over to her and tried to disentangle her. Eventually, the team pulled the boat beside her, and everyone labored to cut away the net and free her, fin by fin— celebrating after more than a half-hour of cutting and straining to finally allowing the leviathan to swim. The whale was gentle during the ordeal, even though she was in a life-threatening situation with people she did not know. She quickly learned these people were friends, and they were trying to help.

The team stuck around to bask in the wonder of the encounter and soon got a second surprise – a display worthy of any July 4th celebration. It wasn’t a fireworks show, but a display [...]]]>

I watched a stirring video on YouTube last month. A team of whale advocates and scientists in the Sea of Cortez in Mexico came across a humpback whale hopelessly entangled in a gill net, disabling the animal so severely that she could not have survived much longer without intervention. One member of the team swam over to her and tried to disentangle her. Eventually, the team pulled the boat beside her, and everyone labored to cut away the net and free her, fin by fin— celebrating after more than a half-hour of cutting and straining to finally allowing the leviathan to swim. The whale was gentle during the ordeal, even though she was in a life-threatening situation with people she did not know. She quickly learned these people were friends, and they were trying to help.

The team stuck around to bask in the wonder of the encounter and soon got a second surprise – a display worthy of any July 4th celebration. It wasn’t a fireworks show, but a display of breaching and splashing that signaled to the team that this whale was not only euphoric but deeply appreciative. You can judge for yourself by watching the full video here. (If you come across an injured marine mammal or other wild animal, your first response should be to contact personnel with a marine mammal stranding or rescue center).

In our field, there are people who save animals every day, though not that often the biggest animals who have ever lived on the planet. But what many people don’t realize is that animals exhibit some mighty acts of altruism toward us, too. It’s not uncommon for us to read in the papers about dogs fending off an intruder or alerting a family to a fire in the middle of the night.

But wild animals have also been known to come to our aid. In “The Bond,” I wrote about several of these stories, such as a pod of dolphins in New Zealand who protected a group of swimmers from a great white shark in 2004. The dolphins herded the swimmers together and formed a circle around them, slapping their tails and keeping the shark at bay until a rescue boat arrived.

Another rescue that captivated people around the world took place at the Brookfield Zoo in Chicago in 1996, and I open the second chapter in the book with this story. A 3-year-old boy climbed a fence and tumbled nearly 20 feet into a pit, hitting his head and falling unconscious. Not only was he injured, but he had fallen into an enclosure with seven lowland gorillas — powerful animals who can grow to be more than 400 pounds. But as the crowd watched, a mother gorilla named Binti Jua gently picked up the boy and carried him to the door of the exhibit, where zookeepers and emergency personnel could reach him. The child received treatment and recovered, and Binti Jua was hailed as a hero.

You can find many other accounts of dolphins saving swimmers, dogs and cats alerting their families to danger, and other animals such as parrots and horses helping people in trouble. These acts of bravery and selflessness are another reminder of how much we have in common with animals, and how much people have often underestimated the intelligence, emotions and altruism of other creatures.

For more on the special relationship between animals and humans, visit http://hsus.typepad.com/.

Photo credit: Tim Vreiling

Through the years, I’ve heard many flimsy arguments from the apologists for animal abuse, and among the most persistent has been an appeal to cultural prerogative or tradition – in short, that the conduct in question is an expression of the “culture” of a particular nationality, community, ethnicity or race, and therefore, it should somehow be treated as sacrosanct. The bullfighters in Spain invoke culture as a defense for the staged stabbing or slaughter of a bull in arenas often packed full of non-Spaniards on vacation in the country. Or in Louisiana, the last state to outlaw animal fighting, cockfighters claimed that these staged slashing derbies, with knives attached to the birds’ legs to augment the bloodletting, are a Cajun tradition, even though the forebears of today’s Acadians seemed to have little to do with this ancient form of animal combat.

In March, The New York Times reported on the latest instance in which the values of animal protection and cultural identity appear at odds – the debate in California [...]]]>

Through the years, I’ve heard many flimsy arguments from the apologists for animal abuse, and among the most persistent has been an appeal to cultural prerogative or tradition – in short, that the conduct in question is an expression of the “culture” of a particular nationality, community, ethnicity or race, and therefore, it should somehow be treated as sacrosanct. The bullfighters in Spain invoke culture as a defense for the staged stabbing or slaughter of a bull in arenas often packed full of non-Spaniards on vacation in the country. Or in Louisiana, the last state to outlaw animal fighting, cockfighters claimed that these staged slashing derbies, with knives attached to the birds’ legs to augment the bloodletting, are a Cajun tradition, even though the forebears of today’s Acadians seemed to have little to do with this ancient form of animal combat.

In March, The New York Times reported on the latest instance in which the values of animal protection and cultural identity appear at odds – the debate in California over the consumption of shark-fin soup. There, a broad coalition, including The Humane Society of the United States, is backing legislation to outlaw the possession, sale and trade of shark fins, which are the central ingredient in the soup that bears the same name.

There is a small minority within the Chinese-American community who have claimed the legislation to be a sort of thinly veiled cultural attack, and they want to preserve their right to see sharks caught, their fins slashed off, and their bodies dumped back in the ocean, so that the fanciers of this appetizer – a symbol of wealth and prestige – can eat their shark-fin soup in peace. To hell with the fact that up to 73 million sharks are killed across the globe each year for this soup. They want to eat the soup most describe as lacking flavor, and if so many sharks have to suffer and die for it, then so be it.

It seems that their recklessly selfish argument is, however, not quite as popular within the Asian and Asian-American communities as The New York Times piece may suggest. The author of the shark protection bill is California State Assembly Member Paul Fong, D-Cupertino, one of only a handful of Chinese-American lawmakers in the state legislature. He’s called the killing of sharks for their fins “a horrific scene.” Humane advocate Judy Ki also proudly claims an Asian lineage, but she offers a similar message: “Asian-Pacific Americans that want to enjoy premium quality seafood have many sustainable alternatives to shark fin. Those who are profiting from the slaughter of sharks solely for their fins are misusing race and culture to defend the industry.” A cohort of Asian chefs has also joined the campaign, along with a raft of scientists, animal welfare advocates, environmentalists, and commercial and recreational fishermen aware of the terrible animal welfare and ocean health implications of shark finning.

There are also similar shark-protection bills in Oregon and Washington state. The Washington legislation is sponsored by State Senate Majority Assistant Whip Kevin Ranker, D-San Juan Island, and has passed the Natural Resources & Marine Waters Committee that he chairs. If these bills are passed, it will be a major advance for the global campaign to protect tens of millions of sharks from the cruel deaths they now endure. Among other Pacific Rim states and territories, Hawaii and the Northern Marianas have already adopted similar prohibitions, and a similar bill awaits the Guam governor’s signature. And President Obama, who grew up in the Pacific Rim, signed legislation in January to ban landing sharks without their fins attached.

Culture is never a compelling defense for cruelty, especially when the cruelty is so dispensable and where alternatives abound. Animal protection is not the domain of any culture or community, but rather, it is a universal value. Good people of every background honor the notions of mercy and decency to other creatures. Stopping the killing of sharks for fins won’t diminish the proud culture of China or any other Asian nation. It will enhance it, since the presence of cruelty erodes the fabric of any civil society and mars the history books for any people who’ve ever elected to tolerate the vile mistreatment of helpless creatures.

Photo credit: JPhilipson

In September, the House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a hearing on this summer’s massive egg recall, and witnesses included the owners of the factory farms that spawned the salmonella crisis and a couple of the downstream victims – consumers who ate foods containing eggs contaminated with salmonella and nearly died. The testimony of some of the victims was chilling, and it even prompted one congressman, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, to declare he’s now switching to cage-free eggs.

He’s got the right instinct. The central problem is not that there were a couple of reckless factory farm operators, though it’s certainly true that Jack DeCoster, owner of one of the two farms linked to the salmonella outbreak, has had a history of cutting corners at his egg farms across the country. It’s really a systemic problem – with the industry as a whole adopting battery cage confinement systems that victimize every creature confined in these cages and create [...]]]>

In September, the House Energy and Commerce Committee conducted a hearing on this summer’s massive egg recall, and witnesses included the owners of the factory farms that spawned the salmonella crisis and a couple of the downstream victims – consumers who ate foods containing eggs contaminated with salmonella and nearly died. The testimony of some of the victims was chilling, and it even prompted one congressman, Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, to declare he’s now switching to cage-free eggs.

He’s got the right instinct. The central problem is not that there were a couple of reckless factory farm operators, though it’s certainly true that Jack DeCoster, owner of one of the two farms linked to the salmonella outbreak, has had a history of cutting corners at his egg farms across the country. It’s really a systemic problem – with the industry as a whole adopting battery cage confinement systems that victimize every creature confined in these cages and create an overcrowded, unhealthy environment that is high-risk for the spread of pathogens like salmonella.

We don’t just need to wash eggs better, or only make sure rodents haven’t colonized these places or that dead birds are removed from cages. We need to get rid of the cages and give animals more space. By giving them more space, we are better to the animals and reduce excessively high stocking densities that are among the root causes of the food safety problems, too.

And the evidence linking cages to unsanitary and inhumane conditions is hardly new. In fact, The HSUS’s investigation of Iowa egg factories earlier this year found nearly identical conditions to those found during the FDA’s inspection of the companies responsible for the current recall.

Our diet matters. We vote for or against cruelty, and for or against food safety, with our own food choices every day. That’s why I was also struck by the comments of former President Bill Clinton, who has adopted a nearly vegan diet. He told Wolf Blitzer of CNN that he’s now eating a plant-based diet, that he’s lost 24 pounds since he started it, and that’s he’s studied the issue very carefully, reading the works of Drs. Dean Ornish, Colin Campbell, and others. He’s said he feels like he’s now part of the experiment to prove that eating a plant-based diet is a way to improve the functioning of arteries and to deal with problems of cholesterol and fat.

When we are conscious eaters, we can help animals, protect the environment, enhance food safety, and protect our own health. We have an opportunity to live a healthy life and create the society we want through our actions, and one of the best opportunities is with our food choices every day.

Originally posted on A Humane Nation, Wayne Pacelle’s blog.

Photo Credit: Gabe Photos

?

It goes without saying that informed decisions regarding chemical safety cannot be made without adequate information (including testing to detect hazardous properties, and information concerning the levels to which humans and wildlife may be exposed). However, simply calling for more data is not the answer; it is also vital that the inadequacies of the current testing paradigm be acknowledged and overcome.

Today’s [...]]]>
In June 2010, the Environmental Defense Fund and its partners in the campaign to reform U.S. law to regulate chemicals made an impassioned plea for American consumers not to be treated like “guinea pigs.” I’d like to remind our friends and colleagues in the environmental and consumer protection communities that advocates for animal protection – while respecting the interests of all animals and believing that none of them should be treated like disposable lab equipment – also care about protecting human health and the environment, and that we all must work together to achieve a future that is both safer and more humane.

It goes without saying that informed decisions regarding chemical safety cannot be made without adequate information (including testing to detect hazardous properties, and information concerning the levels to which humans and wildlife may be exposed). However, simply calling for more data is not the answer; it is also vital that the inadequacies of the current testing paradigm be acknowledged and overcome.

Today’s chemical testing entails animal poisoning studies, most of which were designed decades ago, and which tell us a lot about how large doses of single chemicals affect small animals with short life spans, but very little about how mixtures of chemicals at typically low exposure levels affect larger, longer-living human beings. A rat force fed a chemical for his or her three-year life – often causing painful symptoms such as tumors and organ failure – cannot reliably predict the effects of a human lifetime’s worth of low-level exposure to a “cocktail” of environmental chemicals, which is the situation we’re faced with in the real world.

Animal tests are expensive and time consuming, and their relevance is often questioned by stakeholders on one side or the other. This leads to disputes over which chemicals represent a real threat, and a seemingly bottomless pit of animal testing to “prove” that a chemical is harmful or safe. (Remember the decades-long battle over whether cigarette smoking causes cancer? Today, history is repeating itself with Bisphenol A and other chemicals.) Even in optimum conditions, regulating chemicals on the basis of animal data takes years, and relies heavily on guesswork and unproven assumptions. And at the end of all that, the results can still – rightly – be called into question.

So instead of dealing with chemical safety and animal suffering as two separate issues, The Human Society of the United States (HSUS) and its affiliates are addressing the “guinea pig” problem with one ambitious project.

In 2007, the National Academy of Sciences published a report titled “Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy.” In it, a team of eminent scientists (including HSUS staff member Martin Stephens, PhD) established two guiding principles: first, animal testing is of limited value in predicting real-life human health effects of chemicals or for dealing with the current backlog of tens of thousands of chemicals that are being inadequately regulated; and second, a new approach – a paradigm shift – is needed. The Academy advocates moving away from conventional animal test requirements toward a combination of modern computer-based and human-relevant systems biology approaches that can deliver results in days rather than years, and at a small fraction of the cost of animal testing. In fact, many of the participating scientists envision the complete replacement of animal tests, and see this work as prompting a long overdue, and desperately needed, revolution in the regulation of chemicals.

The Human Toxicology Project we are promoting in the United States and globally is, like the Human Genome Project before it, a solution-oriented scientific program that will overhaul the current antiquated testing paradigm so we are no longer treated as guinea pigs – and neither are guinea pigs. It will prevent the horrible effects of testing toxic chemicals on millions of animals, greatly advance our understanding of the effects of chemicals on human biology, and lead to more reliable risk assessment decisions.

Photo Credit: MJames

I’ve always thought that to be a well-rounded animal advocate it’s important to spend time reading books. Because human-animal questions touch on so many different disciplines—politics, law, culture, history, sociology, and so many different fields of science—it is important not to limit study to just the identified literature within our field. But it has been exciting for me to see an upwelling of substantive writing and publishing in our field.

One of my favorite reads of 2009 was Dayton Duncan’s “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea,” a companion volume to the inspiring PBS series by filmmaker Ken Burns. I’ve been talking a lot about this book and another 2009 title I have just begun, Douglas Brinkley’s “The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America.” Both are tied to a big question for me. How do we make sense [...]]]> Looking for the perfect book to kick off 2010? Check out Wayne Pacelle’s most loved books of 2009 (plus a few from 2010) and have a happy Meatless Monday! Knowledge is power!

I’ve always thought that to be a well-rounded animal advocate it’s important to spend time reading books. Because human-animal questions touch on so many different disciplines—politics, law, culture, history, sociology, and so many different fields of science—it is important not to limit study to just the identified literature within our field. But it has been exciting for me to see an upwelling of substantive writing and publishing in our field.

One of my favorite reads of 2009 was Dayton Duncan’s “The National Parks: America’s Best Idea,” a companion volume to the inspiring PBS series by filmmaker Ken Burns. I’ve been talking a lot about this book and another 2009 title I have just begun, Douglas Brinkley’s “The Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America.” Both are tied to a big question for me. How do we make sense of Theodore Roosevelt as someone whose historical contributions to public lands and wildlife protection were unmatched and visionary, but who had an unquenchable personal lust for killing wildlife? Understanding Roosevelt’s contradictions is no easy task, perhaps as difficult as our struggles to understand how the nation’s constitutional framers advanced such an extraordinary call to human liberty at the same time that they were personally involved in chattel slavery.

I am sure my friend Meg Daley Olmert has thoughts on Roosevelt’s schizophrenic impulses with animals, and her book, “Made for Each Other: The Biology of the Human-Animal Bond,” was for me the most stimulating book of the year. She argues that there is a chemical explanation for the human-animal bond, and it’s largely driven by oxytocin. This hormone provides part of the neurobiological explanation for the intensity of the bond between mother and child and other person-to-person relations. But Olmert argues that humans and animals release this chemical in abundance when they interact, and that this is a primary driver of the human-animal bond. Olmert’s work associates her with the path-breaking thinking of E.O. Wilson, who some years ago advanced his biophilia hypothesis to explain our intimate connection to nature.

Charles Siebert is one of the finest writers who devotes his attention to animal issues, and his book, “The Wauchula Woods Accord,” provided a compelling case example of how the human-animal bond works in the real world. Siebert’s entire book, built around a transformative overnight encounter with a captive chimp, leads to a powerful formulation of inter-species solidarity and understanding. Here’s the accord itself: “The degree to which we humans will finally stop abusing other creatures, and, for that matter, one another, will ultimately be measured by the degree to which we come to understand how integral a part of us all other creatures actually are.”

Several books I reviewed on the blog in 2009 focused on farm animal welfare, and Jeffrey Masson’s “The Face on Your Plate,” Amy Hatkoff’s “The Inner World of Farm Animals,” and Nicolette Hahn Niman’s “Righteous Porkchop: Finding a Life and Good Food Beyond Factory Farms” all found receptive audiences. Tal Ronnen’s “The Conscious Cook” is a beautiful and hearty cookbook on vegan eating, and after his appearance on “Oprah,” it appeared on the New York Times’ bestseller list. In “The Quantum Wellness Cleanse,” Kathy Freston gives readers a 21-day how-to on eating and living better, and it’s readable and accessible and not the least bit doctrinaire. But it was Jonathan Safran Foer’s “Eating Animals” that was the biggest critical success in the genre of diet and agriculture. Foer wrestled with ethical questions related to his own eating habits and factory farming throughout his life, but it was the birth of his new son that prompted his own life-changing examination of the problems and his commitment to a vegetarian lifestyle. He takes apart factory farming in his account, and his book has provoked an intense and serious public discussion of the many problems associated with industrial animal agriculture.

One terrific wildlife book I blogged about is “Animal Investigators,” by Laurel Neme. Neme’s book offers a great look at the value of forensics to the investigation of wildlife crimes, and has an array of prescriptions for improving wildlife protection and enforcement work in the United States and abroad.

One of my college majors was history and it remains a great passion, so it’s good when I can read animal-focused historical works. I particularly liked Kathryn Shevelow’s “For the Love of Animals,” a history of the English animal protection movement. Her book helps to explain the social and cultural values that made the animal protection movement possible, and underscores the point that the idea of kindness to animals was in great currency before there was a formal movement. Two historical titles I wish I could have read in 2009, and sure to be on my 2010 reading list, are Ann Norton Greene’s “Horses at Work: Harnessing Power in Industrial America,” and Shelly Fisher Fishkin’s “Mark Twain’s Book of Animals.” Both have received great reviews and have come highly recommended to me. Greene examines the horse as a factor in the history of American technology and a central element in the 19th-century economy. Fishkin brings together some of the animal-focused writing of Mark Twain, one of the most prominent animal advocates of his era.

I’m also eager to read “Inside of a Dog” by Alexandra Horowitz. A psychologist with a Ph.D. in cognitive science, Horowitz explores the natural history of dogs and their evolutionary descent, leading you through a day in the life from a dog’s point of view.

One member of The HSUS family, board member Patrick McDonnell, had a banner 2009 with respect to his creative works. This year Patrick wrote “The Gift of Nothing” and “Wag!,” building on life experiences of his MUTTS’ characters, and with Eckhart Tolle, produced the remarkable “Guardians of Being.”

Nowadays, I do a lot of my reading on the road, in planes, in airports and train stations, and in the homes of friends or the hotels where I stay—whenever and wherever I get a chance. Naturally, I get sent a lot of notices from people about books on animals I should read. Do you have a favorite I haven’t mentioned here? I’m making up a list for 2010, and I’m looking forward to your suggestions.

Recently, The New York Times ran a detailed front-page investigative story from reporter Michael Moss about pathogens in ground beef and the consequences for public health. The piece led with the tragic details of Stephanie Smith, a former dance instructor from Minnesota who ate a hamburger at age 20 and is now paralyzed. It is a chilling report that shatters the assumption that government is carefully monitoring the integrity of the food supply, especially in a global economy where a single hamburger may be pieced together from parts of different cows from throughout the world.

I asked The Humane Society of the United States’ director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture, Dr. Michael Greger, for his thoughts…

E. coli O157:H7, the strain that nearly took Stephanie Smith’s life, is a relatively new pathogen. First discovered in 1982, its emergence and spread has been blamed on three factors: the beef industry’s transition to factory farms, the routine mass feeding of antibiotics to cattle, [...]]]>

Recently, The New York Times ran a detailed front-page investigative story from reporter Michael Moss about pathogens in ground beef and the consequences for public health. The piece led with the tragic details of Stephanie Smith, a former dance instructor from Minnesota who ate a hamburger at age 20 and is now paralyzed. It is a chilling report that shatters the assumption that government is carefully monitoring the integrity of the food supply, especially in a global economy where a single hamburger may be pieced together from parts of different cows from throughout the world.

I asked The Humane Society of the United States’ director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture, Dr. Michael Greger, for his thoughts…

E. coli O157:H7, the strain that nearly took Stephanie Smith’s life, is a relatively new pathogen. First discovered in 1982, its emergence and spread has been blamed on three factors: the beef industry’s transition to factory farms, the routine mass feeding of antibiotics to cattle, and the stress associated with trucking these animals as many as a thousand miles to slaughter.

E. coli O157:H7 remains the leading cause of acute kidney failure in U.S. children. Tens of thousands of Americans are sickened every year from this bacteria. And dozens die. But shockingly, the devastation caused by this pathogen is far from the worst of what emerges from today’s factory farms and food processing system.

By comparison, millions of people contract “extraintestinal” E. coli infections—urinary tract infections (UTIs) that can invade the bloodstream and cause an estimated 36,000 deaths annually in the United States. That’s more than 500 times as many deaths as E. coli O157:H7. We know where E. coli O157:H7 comes from—fecal matter from the meat, dairy, and egg industries—but where do these other E. coli come from?

When medical researchers at the University of Minnesota took more than 1,000 food samples from multiple retail markets, they found evidence of fecal contamination in 69 percent of the pork and beef and 92 percent of the poultry samples. Half of the poultry samples were contaminated with the UTI-associated extraintestinal E. coli bacteria.

Scientists now suspect that by eating chicken, women infect their lower intestinal tract with these meat-borne bacteria, which can then creep up into their bladder. In addition to the traditional hygiene measures aimed at preventing urinary tract infections, now women can add avoiding poultry as a way to help fend off UTIs.

In chickens, these bacteria cause a disease called colibacillosis, now one of the most significant and widespread infectious diseases in the poultry industry due to the way we treat these animals. Studies have shown infection risk to be directly linked to overcrowding in chicken factory farms. In caged egg-laying hens, the most significant risk factor for flock infection is hen density per cage.

Researchers have calculated that affording just a single quart of additional living space (about equivalent to a 4-inch cube) to each hen would be associated with a corresponding 33 percent drop in the risk of colibacillosis outbreak. This is one of the reasons our efforts to improve the lives of farm animals are critical not only for animal welfare, but for the health of humans and animals alike.

At The HSUS, we are engaging in a range of cost-cutting management actions to cope with the downturn in the economy, but we are doing our best not to cut any essential animal protection programs. Especially in tough economic times, the determined actions of The HSUS and other animal protection groups are needed more than ever for animals in crisis.

Consumers are having to make tough cost-saving decisions, too. And as they strike some non-essential items from their shopping lists, they are shrinking [...]]]> It’s week two of Crazy Sexy Life’s Meatless Monday campaign and we hope you’ll join us again for the ride! In today’s blog, Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of The Humane Society of the US sheds more light on the profound effect we can all have on the planet and the wellness of our fellow beings just by modifying our choices as a consumer.

At The HSUS, we are engaging in a range of cost-cutting management actions to cope with the downturn in the economy, but we are doing our best not to cut any essential animal protection programs. Especially in tough economic times, the determined actions of The HSUS and other animal protection groups are needed more than ever for animals in crisis.

Consumers are having to make tough cost-saving decisions, too. And as they strike some non-essential items from their shopping lists, they are shrinking demand for certain products that cause harm to animals. For example, the fur industry, which produces a luxury product, is experiencing waning sales. The Federal Trade Commission reported in 2005 that an estimated 3.5 million animal fur garments and accessories were for sale annually in the United States, and in 2009, that number has dropped to just more than 1 million—an astonishing decline of more than 70 percent. In fact, prices for seal pelts from Canada have declined by a record amount, though part of that steep decline is due to our closing markets for the pelts through policy changes in Europe and elsewhere.

Gourmet magazine is reporting that people are reducing to some degree their consumption of meat products. Given the inordinately high per capita consumption of animal products in America, this is good news for animals, the environment, and public health. The HSUS is a big tent organization, and we support people who want to switch to more humanely raised animal products, reduce the amount of meat in their diets, or try a vegetarian lifestyle—but the reduction of meat consumption is one of the best things we can do for the planet given how unsustainable the current levels of factory farming are.

Reductions in meat consumption means less support for factory farms—many of which confine animals in small cages or crates, and subject them to other procedures and handling practices that compromise their welfare. In fact, Smithfield Foods, which has pledged but not yet completed the shift toward eliminating gestation crates for sows, reported major financial losses during the last quarter, and it says it needs to shrink its pig population to account for decreasing demand. The dairy industry is also in the throes of reducing its size because of oversupply.

Gourmet notes “the USDA estimates that the production of meat from every major category of farm animal will drop for the first time since 1973.” This is also good news for the environment, since the massive numbers of animals on Confined Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, produce enormous volumes of waste, and pollute watersheds and streams. It also means less in the way of greenhouse gas emissions, since the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has reported that the animal agriculture sector worldwide accounts for 18 percent of all emissions—more than the entire transportation sector.

Unfortunately, some members of Congress don’t want the farm animal industries to do their fair share to combat the problem. Lawmakers aligned with the Farm Bureau and other ambassadors of agribusiness are actively working to exclude agriculture from the impact of any remedial actions to reduce climate change. As a result, you may hear from The HSUS soon to contact your lawmaker to turn this situation around.

As Gourmet’s editor Ruth Reichl noted in a powerful editorial about the detriment of raising so many animals for food on factory farms, “Now it is becoming increasingly clear that we ought to change our ways.”

Since its beginnings in the 1950s, The Humane Society of the United States has always taken aim at farm animal abuses. The only difference now is our greater sense of urgency, since confinement, transport, and slaughter systems have become needlessly harsh and because the number of animals raised for food is so staggeringly large.

If the howls from leaders within the big agribusiness sector are solid indicators, we are making some meaningful progress. And never more so than in 2008, when we broke our Hallmark/Westland slaughter plant investigation and also led the charge to pass Proposition 2 in California.

In late May, Wendy’s agreed to start purchasing a modest but meaningful portion of eggs from cage-free producers. And two weeks ago, one of our staff members spoke at a McDonald’s shareholder meeting urging the company to align itself with other fast-food giants and begin to phase in the use of cage-free eggs at its American outlets, or even [...]]]>

Since its beginnings in the 1950s, The Humane Society of the United States has always taken aim at farm animal abuses. The only difference now is our greater sense of urgency, since confinement, transport, and slaughter systems have become needlessly harsh and because the number of animals raised for food is so staggeringly large.

If the howls from leaders within the big agribusiness sector are solid indicators, we are making some meaningful progress. And never more so than in 2008, when we broke our Hallmark/Westland slaughter plant investigation and also led the charge to pass Proposition 2 in California.

In late May, Wendy’s agreed to start purchasing a modest but meaningful portion of eggs from cage-free producers. And two weeks ago, one of our staff members spoke at a McDonald’s shareholder meeting urging the company to align itself with other fast-food giants and begin to phase in the use of cage-free eggs at its American outlets, or even to mirror its action in Europe, where McDonald’s has already agreed to switch to 100 percent cage-free whole eggs by next year.

We also had major votes on farm animal welfare issues in California—and with great results, thanks in part to the political aftershocks generated by the landslide passage of Prop 2. The California Senate, by a vote of 27-12, approved a bill to ban the painful mutilation procedure of tail docking of dairy cattle—and that’s especially significant because California is the largest dairy state in the nation, with 1.8 million of the nation’s 9 million dairy cows. And the California Assembly passed A.B. 1437, a bill to ban the sale of eggs from battery cage operations, for both humane and health reasons.

Both bills have a ways to go, needing approval by the other legislative chamber and then the governor, but these are exciting advances.

There’s also an uptick in publishing on food and farm animal issues, and I’ve just read two books on the subject. The first, “The Face on Your Plate,” is by Jeffrey Masson, author of a number of books on the emotional lives of animals. Masson lays out the case against industrial animal agriculture methodically, focusing chapters on the global environmental costs of meat consumption; the emotional capacities of animals raised for food and the cruelty imposed upon them throughout their lives; the disturbing business of fish farming as a source of cruelty and environmental despoliation; the psychological mechanisms by which we shield ourselves from the reality of animal suffering; and his personal experience with what he calls a “veganish” diet.

I found Masson’s chapter on denial most provocative, drawing as it does on his training as a psychoanalyst. Having created a stir in the psychoanalytic community some years ago with his criticisms of Sigmund and Anna Freud, he is no stranger to provocation. When it comes to farm animals, he believes, the range of empathy on the part of the general public is still quite narrow, and he is blunt about the self-deluding practices that many consumers engage in when it comes to thinking about animal welfare and diet. Masson argues his case with passion and intelligence, and “The Face on Your Plate” is an important contribution to a growing body of work on farm animals.

The second work, Amy Hatkoff’s “The Inner World of Farm Animals,” focuses on the social, emotional, and intellectual capacities of farm animals, and I provided an afterword for it. I read this fine work in draft form while in the midst of the Prop 2 campaign in California, and I was glad to have before me such a compelling case for improved treatment of farm animals during that crucial time.

Hatkoff’s book is aimed at young audiences, and, drawing on the latest scientific evidence available, it really fills a niche. In chapters devoted to chickens; geese, ducks and turkeys; cows; and pigs, sheep and goats, the author intersperses general accounts with charming vignettes of individual animals.

These books, and all of the other activity on farm animal issues, are markers of a national movement to re-examine where our food comes from, to assess the economic and non-economic costs of industrial animal agriculture, and imagine ways of doing better. As individuals, we must be conscious consumers, and we can do our part to educate ourselves, to influence corporate practices, and to influence policy. When millions of us take collective action like that, there can be no other outcome except forward movement for farm animals.