Factory Farming Facts

source: www.cowspiracy.com/facts

– GREENHOUSE GASES –

Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.   [i]

 

“Livestock’s Long Shadow: environmental issues and options”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome 2006

Transportation exhaust is responsible for 13% of all greenhouse gas emissions.  [.i]

 

Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector primarily involve fossil fuels burned for road, rail, air, and marine transportation.

“Livestock’s Long Shadow: environmental issues and options”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome 2006

Environmental Protection Agency. “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data”. 

Livestock and their byproducts account for at least 32,000 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per year, or 51% of all worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.

 

Goodland, R Anhang, J. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change were pigs, chickens and cows?”

Goodland, Robert & Anhang, Jeff. “Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are…cows, pigs and chickens?”. WorldWatch. November/December 2009

Hickman, Martin. “Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases”. Independent. November 2009

Hyner, Christopher. “A Leading Cause of Everything: One Industry That Is Destroying Our Planet and Our Ability to Thrive on It”. Georgetown Environmental Law Review. October 23, 2015. (New)

Methane is 25-100 times more destructive than CO2 on a 20 year time frame.

 

Shindell, Drew T, et al. “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”. Science. 326, 716 (2009)

Vaidyanathan, Sayathri. “How Bad of a Greenhouse Gas is Methane? The global warming potential of the gaseous fossil fuel may be consistently underestimated”. Scientific American. December 22, 2015.

“IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. 2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potential”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (New)

Methane has a global warming potential 86 times that of CO2 on a 20 year time frame.

 

Shindell, Drew T, et al. “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”. Science. 326, 716 (2009)

“IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007. 2.10.2. Direct Global Warming Potentials”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (new)

Livestock is responsible for 65% of all human-related emissions of nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas with 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, and which stays in the atmosphere for 150 years.

 

“Livestock’ Long Shadow: environmental issues and options”. FAO. Rome. 2006

“Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States”. U.S. Energy Information Administration. March 31, 2011

Emissions for agriculture projected to increase 80% by 2050.

Tilman, David & Clark, Michael. “Global diets link environmental sustainability and human health”. Nature. Vol. 515. 27 November 2014

Energy related emissions expected to increase 20% by 2040.

 

“Carbon Dioxide Emissions to 2040”. Energy Global. 06 January 2015

“World Energy Outlook 2014 Factsheet”. International Energy Agency. 

“International Energy Outlook 2016”. U.S. Energy Information. May 11, 2016

US Methane emissions from livestock and natural gas are nearly equal.

 

“Overview of Greenhouse Gases”. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

“Key facts and findings. By the numbers: GHG emissions by livestock”. FAO. (New)

“Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990-2015”. United States Environmental Protection Agency (new)

Cows produce 150 billion gallons of methane per day.   [xi]

 

Ross, Phillip. “Cow Farts Have ‘Larger Greenhouse Gas Impact’ Than Previously Thought; Methane Pushes Climate Change”. International Business Times. 26 November, 2013

250-500 liters per cow per day, x 1.5 billion cows globally is 99 – 198.1 billion gallons. Rough average of 150 billion gallons CH4globally per day.

Miller, Scot M, et al. “Anthropegnic emissions of methane in the United States”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 110. No. 50. 18 October 2013 (new)

Converting to wind and solar power will take 20+ years and roughly 43 trillion dollars.

 

“Infographic: How Much it Would Cost for the Entire Planet to Switch to Renewable Energy”. Inhabitat. 24 September, 2013

Evans-Pritchard, Ambrose. “Paris climate deal to ignite a $90 trillion energy revolution”. The Telegraph. 28 October, 2015 (New)

Even without fossil fuels, we will exceed our 565 gigatonnes CO2e limit by 2030, all from raising animals.

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Source: calculation is based on http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 analyses that 51% of GHG are attributed to animal ag.

Reducing methane emissions would create tangible benefits almost immediately.

“Industry Leaders, including Energy Companies, Forge Partnerships to Advance Climate Solutions and Reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants”. Climate Summit 2014.

– WATER –

Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) water use ranges from 70-140 billion gallons annually.

 

“Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources”. EPA. February 2011

Geetanjali, Chauhan, et al. “Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas and its Environmental Impacts”. Research Journal of Recent Sciences. Vol. 4 (ISC-2014), 1-7 (2015) (New)

Animal agriculture water consumption ranges from 34-76 trillion gallons annually.   [ii]  [xv]

 

“Summary of Estimated Water Use in the United States in 2005”. United States Geological Service

Pimentel, David, et al. “Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues”. BioScience. (2004) 54 (10): 909-918

Agriculture is responsible for 80-90% of US water consumption.   [xv]

 

“How Important is Irrigation to U.S. Agriculture?” USDA: Economic Research Service. 12 October, 2016

Growing feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of water in the US.   [xv]

 

Jacobson, Michael F. “Six Arguments For a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could Save Your Health and the Environment. Chapter 4: More and Cleaner Water”. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.

Californians use 1500 gallons of water per person per day. Close to Half is associated with meat and dairy products.

 

Fulton, Julian, et al. “California’s Water Footprint”. Pacific Institute. December 2012

2,500 gallons of water are needed to produce 1 pound of beef. 

 

(NOTE. The amount of water used to produce 1lb. of beef vary greatly from 442 – 8000 gallons. We choose to use in the film the widely cited conservative number of 2500 gallons per pound of US beef from Dr. George Borgstrom, Chairman of Food Science and Human Nutrition Dept of College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Michigan State University, “Impacts on Demand for and Quality of land and Water.” )

Robbins, John. “2,500 gallons all wet?” Earth Save: Healthy People Healthy Planet.

Pimentel, David, et al. “Water Resources: Agricultural and Environmental Issues”. BioScience (2004) 54 (10): 909-918.   (New)

“Water Content of Things: Data Table 19”. The World’s Water 2008-2009

Beckett, J. L, Oltjen, J. W “Estimation of the Water Requirement for Beef Production in the United States”. Journal of Animal Science. 1993. 71:818-826

“Water”. Environmental Working Group.

“Water footprint of crop and animal products: a comparison”. Water Footprint Network. (New)

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print

477 gallons of water are required to produce 1lb. of eggs;  almost 900 gallons of water are needed for 1lb. of cheese.

 

“Water”. Environmental Working Group.

“Food Facts: How Much Water Does it Take to Produce…?” Water Education Foundation. (New)

1,000 gallons of water are required to produce 1 gallon of milk.

 

Hoekstra, Arjen Y. “The water footprint of food”. Water for Food.

Mekonnen, Mesfin M. & Hoekstra, Arjen Y. “A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products”. Ecosystems (2012) 15: 401-415

5% of water consumed in the US is by private homes. 55% of water consumed in the US is for animal agriculture.   [xv]

 

Jacobson, Michael F. “Six Arguments For a Greener Diet: How a More Plant-based Diet Could Save Your Health and the Environment. Chapter 4: More and Cleaner Water”. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2006.

Animal Agriculture is responsible for 20%-33% of all fresh water consumption in the world today.  

 

Mekonnen, Mesfin M. & Hoekstra, Arjen Y. “A Global Assessment of the Water Footprint of Farm Animal Products”. Ecosystems (2012) 15: 401-415

Gerbens-Leenes, P.W. et al. “The water footprint of poultry, pork and beef: A comparitive study in different countries and production systems”. Water Resources and Industry. Vol. 1-2, March-June 2013, Pages 25-36

Herrero, Mario, et al. “Biomass use, production, feed efficiencies, and greenhouse gas emissions from global livestock systems”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. vol. 110 no. 52

Oppenlander DDS, Richard. “Freshwater Abuse and Loss. Where Is It All Going?” Forks over Knives. May 20,2013

– LAND –

Livestock or livestock feed occupies 1/3 of the earth’s ice-free land.

 

“Livestock a major threat to environment. Remedies urgently needed”. FAO Newsroom. 29 November 2006

Walsh, Bryan. “The Triple Whopper Environmental Impact of Global Meat Production”. Time. Dec. 16, 2013 (New)

Livestock covers 45% of the earth’s total land.

 

Thornton, Phillip, et al. “Livestock and climate change”. Livestock xchange. International Livestock Research Institute. November 2011

Smith, Pete & Bustamante, Mercedes, et al. “Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU)”. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Chapter 11

Animal agriculture is the leading cause of species extinction, ocean dead zones, water pollution, and habitat destruction.  [xix]  [iv]

 

Animal agriculture contributes to species extinction in many ways. In addition to the monumental habitat destruction caused by clearing forests and converting land to grow feed crops and for animal grazing, predators and “competition” species are frequently targeted and hunted because of a perceived threat to livestock profits. The widespread use of pesticides, herbicides and chemical fertilizers used in the production of feed crops often interferes with the reproductive systems of animals and poison waterways. The overexploitation of wild species through commercial fishing, bushmeat trade as well as animal agriculture’s impact on climate change, all contribute to global depletion of species and resources. [XIX]

 

“Biodiversity and Food Choice: A Clarification”. comfortablyunaware: Global Depletion and Food Choice Responsibility. June 9, 2012

“Freshwater Depletion: Realities of Choice”. comfortablyunaware: Global Depletion and Food Choice Responsibility. November 25, 2014

“What is a dead zone?” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

“What Causes Ocean ‘Dead Zones’?” Scientific American

“Nutrient Pollution: The Problem”. Environmental Protection Agency

“Livestock’s Long Shadow”. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations. 2006

Hogan, C Michael. “Causes of Extinction”. The Encyclopedia of Earth. June 13, 2014

“The Habitable Planet. Unit 9: Biodiversity Decline// Section 7: Habitat Loss: Causes and Consequences”. Annenberg Learner

“Impact of habitat loss on species”. WWF Global

“How Eating Meat Hurts Wildlife and the Planet”. Take Extinction Off Your Plate: a project of the Center for Biological Diversity.

Machovina, Brian, et al. “Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption”. Science of the Total Environment 536 (2015) 419-431

“Risk Management Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations”. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004Hance, Jeremy. “How humans are driving the sixth mass extinction”. The Guardian. 20 October 2015 (New)

Zielinski, Sarah. “Ocean Dead Zones Are Getting Worse Globally Due to Climate Change”. Smithsonian.com. November 10, 2014(New)

Tilman, David, et al. “Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices”. Nature 418, 671-677. August 2002 (New)

Wilcove, David S, et al. “Quantifying Threats to Imperiled Species in the United States”. BioScience. Vol. 48, No. 8 (Aug., 1998) pp. 607-615 (New)

 Livestock operations on land have created more than 500 nitrogen flooded deadzones around the world in our oceans.

 

“NOAA-, EPA-supported scientists find average but large Gulf dead zone”. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. August 4, 2014

Zielinski, Sarah. “Ocean Dead Zones Are Getting Worse Globally Due to Climate Change”. Smithsonian.com. November 10, 2014(New)

Largest mass extinction in 65 million years.

 

Eldredge, Niles. “The Sixth Extinction”. ActionBioscince. June 2001

“Mass extinction of species has begun”. Phys.org. February 23, 2006

Ceballos, Gerardo, et al. “Accelerated modern human-induced species loss: Entering the sixth mass extinction”. Science Advances. 19 June 2015. Vol. 1, no. 5

2-5 acres of land are used per cow.

 

McBride, William D., Mathews Jr., Kenneth. “The Diverse Structure and Organization of U.S. Beef Cow-Calf Farms”. USDA: Economic Research Service. Number 73. March 2011

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. 

Minneapolis, MN: Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Nearly half of the contiguous US is devoted to animal agriculture. 

 

Glaser, Christine, et al. “Costs and Consequences: The Real Price of Livestock Grazing on America’s Public Lands”. For the Center for Biological Diversity. January 2015

The US lower 48 states represents 1.9 billion acres. Of that 1.9 billion acres: 778 million acres of private land are used for livestock grazing (forest grazing, pasture grazing, and crop grazing), 345 million acres for feed crops, 230 million acres of public land are used for grazing livestock.

Nickerson, Cynthia, et al. “Major Uses of Land in the United States, 2007”. USDA: Economic Research Service. Number 89. December 2011

“Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns”. UN News Centre. 29 November 2006

1/3 of the planet is desertified, with livestock as the leading driver.   [xviii]

 

“UN launches International Year of Deserts and Desertification”. UN News Centre. 1 January 2006

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Hogan, C Michael. “Overgrazing”. The Encyclopedia of Earth. May 1, 2010

“Desertification, Drought Affect One Third of Planet, World’s Poorest People, Second Committee Told as It Continues Debate on Sustainable Development”. United Nations Sixty-seventh General Assembly: Second Committee. 8 November 2012

Oppenlander, Richard. “Saving the World With Livestock? The Allan Savory Approach Examined”. Free from Harm. August 6, 2013

– WASTE –

Every minute, 7 million pounds of excrement are produced by animals raised for food in the US.

 

This doesn’t include the animals raised outside of USDA jurisdiction or in backyards, or the billions of fish raised in aquaculture settings in the US.   [v]

“Animal Manure Management”. USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service. RCA Issue Bief #7. December 1995

“Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook”. USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service. Part 651

“Agricultural Waste Characteristics”. Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. USDA. Chapter 4

 

A farm with 2,500 dairy cows produces the same amount of waste as a city of 411,000 people. [vi]

 

“Risk Assessment Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations”.Environmental Protection Agency. 2004

130 times more animal waste than human waste is produced in the US – 1.4 billion tons from the meat industry annually. 5 tons of animal waste is produced per person in the US.   [xii]

 

“Animal Agriculture: Waste Management Practices”. United States General Accounting Office. July 1999

  In the U.S. livestock produce 116,000 lbs of waste per second: 

 

-Dairy Cows, 120 lbs. of waste per day x 9.32 million dairy cows

-Cows,  63 lbs. of waste per day x 83.68 million cows

-Calves, 30 lbs. of waste per day x 34.3 million calves

-Pigs, 14 lbs. of waste per day x 74 million pigs

-Sheep and Goats, 5 lbs. of waste per day x 7.84 million sheep and goats

-Turkeys, .87 lbs. of waster per day x 77 million turkeys

-Broiler Chickens, .50 lbs. of waste per day x 1.74 billion broiler chickens

-Laying Hens, .25 lbs. of waster per day x 350.7 million laying hens

*pigs are raised twice per year, (a total of 148.3 million per year) so on any given day in the United States there are about 74 million pigs.

*turkeys are raised three times per year (a total of 233 million per year) so on any given day in the United States there are 77 million turkeys.

*broiler chickens are raised 5 times per year, (a total of 8.69 billion per year) so any given day there are1.74 billion broiler chickens.

Dairy Cows produce (120 lbs. x 9.32 m.) = 1.1184 billion lbs.

Cows produce (63 lbs. x 83.68 m.) = 5.27184 billion lbs.

Calves produce (30 lbs. x 34.3 m.) = 1.029 billion lbs.

Pigs produce (14 lbs. x 74.0 m.) = 1.036 billion lbs.

Sheep and Goats produce (5 lbs. x 7.84 m.) = 39.2 million lbs.

Turkeys produce (.87 lbs. x 77.0 m.) = 66.99 million lbs.

Broiler Chickens produce (.5 x 1.74 b.) = 870 million lbs.

Laying Hens produce (.25 x 350.7 m.) = 87.675 million lbs.

*Total manure produced in one day is 9.519105 billion lbs.

*Total manure produced in one year is 3.475 trillion lbs.

*This is the equivalent of over 6.611 million lbs. per minute. (This does not include any animal raised outside of USDA Jurisdiction, backyards or fish raised for aquaculture)

 Animals produce Enough waste to cover SF, NYC, Tokyo, etc,

 

based off 1lb of waste per 1sqft at 1.4 billion tons.

*Total manure produced in one year is 3.475 trillion lbs. (From above calculation.)

US Livestock produce 335 million tons of “dry matter” per year.

– OCEANS –

3/4 of the world’s fisheries are exploited or depleted.

 

“Overfishing: a threat to marine biodiversity”. United Nations Environment Programme

“General situation of world fish stocks”. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

We could see fishless oceans by 2048.

 

Worm, Boris, et al. “Impacts of Biodiversity Loss on Ocean Ecosystem Services”. Science. Vol 314. 3 November 2006

Roach, John. “Seafood May Be Gone by 2048, Study Says”. National Geographic News.  November 2, 2006

Montaigne, Fen. “Still Waters: The Global Fish Crisis”. National Geographic

90-100 million tons of fish are pulled from our oceans each year.   [vii]

 

“World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Part 1”. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization

As many as 2.7 trillion animals are pulled from the ocean each year.

 

Mood, A & Brooke, P. “Estimating the Number of Fish Caught in Global Fishing Each Year”. July 2010

“Fish count estimates”. Fishcount.org.uk

For every 1 pound of fish caught, up to 5 pounds of unintended marine species are caught and discarded as by-kill.   [viii]

 

“Discard and bycatch in Shrimp trawl fisheries”. FAO: Fisheries and Aquaculture Department

As many as 40% (63 billion pounds) of fish caught globally every year are discarded.

 

Keledjian, Amanda, et al. “Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries”. Oceana. March 2014

Goldenberg, Suzanne. “America’s nine most wasteful fisheries named”. The Guardian. 20 March 2014

Scientists estimate as many as 650,000 whales, dolphins and seals are killed every year by fishing vessels.

 

Keledjian, Amanda, et al. “Wasted Catch: Unsolved Problems in U.S. Fisheries”. Oceana. March 2014

Goldenberg, Suzanne. “America’s nine most wasteful fisheries named”. The Guardian. 20 March 2014

Fish catch peaks at 85 million tons.

 

“World Review of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Part 1”. UN: Food and Argriculture Organization. 2012

Pala, Christopher. “Official statistics understate global fish catch, new estimate concludes”. Science. January 2016 (New)

Pauly, Daniel & Zeller, Dirk. “Catch reconstructions reveal that global marine fisheries catches are higher than reported and declining”. Nature Communications. Vol. 7. 2016 (New)

40-50 million sharks killed in fishing lines and nets.

 

“Shark Fin Trade Myths and Truths: BYCATCH”. Shark Savers

“Sharks at Risk”. Animal Welfare Institute

Stone, Dan. “100 Million Sharks Killed Every Year, Study Show on Eve of International Conference on Shark Protection”. National Geographic: Ocean Views. March, 2013 (New)

Worm, Boris, et al. “Global catches, exploitation rates, and rebuilding options for sharks”. Marine Policy. 40 (2013) 194-204 (New)

– RAINFOREST –

Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction.

 

Margulis, Sergio. “Causes of Deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon”. World Bank Working Paper No. 22. 2003

Tabuchi, Hiroko, Rigny, Claire & White, Jeremy. “Amazon Deforestation, Once Tames, Comes Roaring Back”. New York Times. February 2017(New)

Bellantonio, Marisa, et al. “The Ultimate Mystery Meat: Exposing the Secrets Behind Burger King and Global Meat Production”. Mighty Earth (New)

Oppenlander, Richard A. Food Choice and Sustainability: Why Buying Local, Eating Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. . Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

1-2 acres of rainforest are cleared every second.

 

“Measuring the Daily Destruction of the World’s Rainforests”. Scientific American (New)

Butler, Rhett. “10 Rainforest Facts for 2017”. Mongabay.com. January, 2017 (New)

“Avoiding Unsustainable Rainforest Wood”. Rainforest Relief

Reid, Walter V. & Miller, Kenton R. “Keeping Options Alive: The Scientific Basis for Conserving Biodiveristy”. World Resources Institute. October 1989

“Tropical Deforestation”. National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Facts

The leading causes of rainforest destruction are livestock and feedcrops.

 

Butler, Rhett. “Cattle Ranching’s Impact on the Rainforest”. Mongabay.com. July 2012 (New)

Veiga, J.B., et al. “Cattle Ranching in the Amazon Rainforest”. UN: Food and Agriculture Oragnization (New)

“Soy Agriculture in the Amazon Basin”. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Sudies: Global Forest Atlas (New)

Up to 137 plant, animal and insect species are lost every day due to rainforest destruction.

 

“The Disappearing Rainforests”. Save the Amazon.org

“What is Deforestation?” Kids.Mongabay.com

Message from Mr. Ahmed Djoghlaf. Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity. United Nations Economic Programme

Vidal, John. “Protect nature for world economic security, warns UN biodiversity chief”. The Guardian. August 2010 (New)

26 million rainforest acres (10.8m hectares) have been cleared for palm oil production.   [ix]

 

“Indonesia: Palm Oil Expansion Unaffected by Forest Moratorium”. USDA: Foreign Agriculture Service. June 2013

136 million rainforest acres cleared for animal agriculture.

 

Butler, Rhett. “Amazon Destruction”. Mongabay.com. January 2017

Butler, Rhett A. “Brazilian beef giant announces moratorium on rainforest beef”. Mongabay. August 2009

1,100 Land activists have been killed in Brazil in the past 20 years.   [x]

 

Batty, David. “Brazilian faces retrial over murder of environmental activist nun in Amazon”. The Guardian. April 2009

Butler, Rhett A. “20 years ago the Amazon lost its strongest advocate”. Mongabay. December 2008

Sandy, Matt. “Murder of Brazil official marks new low in war on Amazon environmentalists”. The Guardian. October 2016 (New)

Nuwer, Rachel. “The Rising Murder Count of Environmental Activists”. The New York Times. June 2016 (New)

Further reading on Sister Dorothy Stang.

 

“About Sister Dorothy Stang”. Sister of Notre Dame de Namur

– Wildlife –

USDA predator killing of wild animals to protect livestock.

 

“The USDA’s War on Wildlife”. Predator Defense

Washington state killed the wedge pack of wolves.

 

Maughan, Ralph. “Wedge wolf pack will be killed because of its increasing beef consumption”. The Wildlife News. September 2012

More wild horses and burros in government holding facilities than are free on the range.

 

“Program Data: On Range Population Estimates as of March 1, 2016”. Bureau of Land Management

 

Ten thousand years ago, 99% of biomass (i.e. zoomass) was wild animals. Today, humans and the animals that we raise as food make up 98% of the zoomass.

 

Ede, Sharon. “The Bomb is Still Ticking…”. Post growth: From bigger towards better. November 2010

Smil, Vaclav. “Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact”. 

Population and Development Review 37 (4): 613-636 (December 2011)

– HUMANITY –

414 billion dollars in externalized cost from animal ag.   [xvi]

 

Simon, David. “Are Big Macs Killing Bees?” Meatonomic$: The Bizarre Economics of Meat and Dairy. April 2014

Friedrich, Bruce. “Meatonomics: The Bizarre Economics of the Meat & Dairy Industries”. The Huffington Post. November 2013

80% of antibiotic sold in the US are for livestock.

 

Loglisci, Ralph. “New FDA Number’s Reveal Food Animals Consume Lion’s Share of Antibiotics”. Center for a livable future. December 2010

“2009 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals”. FDA: Departent of Health and Human Services. September, 2014

Zuraw, Lydia. “2015 in Review: Animal Antibiotics”. Food Safety News. December 2015 (New)

Flanders, Timothy F, RN, CNP, PHD, et al. “A Review of Antibiotic Use in Food Animals: Perspective, Policy, and Potential”. Public Health Reports 2012 Jan-Feb; 127 (1): 4-22 (New)

World population in 1812: 1 billion; 1912: 1.5 billion; 2012: 7 billion.

 

“Human Numbers Through Time”. Nova

“Current World Population”. Worldometers

70 billion farmed animals are reared annually worldwide. More than 6 million animals are killed for food every hour.

 

“Factory Farms”. A Well Fed World

“Strategic Plan 2013-2017: For Kinder, Fairer Farming Worldwide”. Compassion in World Farming

“Animals Slaughtered”. Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

 

Throughout the world, humans drink 5.2 billion gallons of water and eat 21 billion pounds of food each day.

 

There are 7.5011 billion people on earth

Based on rough averages of water at .5-1 gallon (.75 gallons) x 7.5011 billion = 5.626 billion gallons of water and 7,605 metric tons of food produced per minute = 24.143 billion pounds of food per day.

Worldwide, cows drink 45 billion gallons of water and eat 135 billion pounds of food each day.

 

Based on rough averages of 30 gallons of water & 100 lbs. of food per day x

of cows 1.468 billion cows

We are currently growing enough food to feed 10 billion people.

 

Holt-Giménez, Eric. “We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 Billion People…and Still Can’t End Hunger”. Common Dreams: Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community. May 2012

“U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat, Cornell ecologist advises animal scientists”. Cornell Chronicle. August, 1997

Cassidy, Emily S, et al. “Redefining agricultural yields: form tonnes to people nourished per acre”. Environmental Research Letters 8 (2013) 034015 (8pp). August 2013

Worldwide, at least 50% of grain is fed to livestock. 

 

“Executive Summary: Feed Supply”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (New)

“Meat and Animal Feed”. Global Agriculture. Agriculture at a Crossroads. Findings and recommendations for future farming. (New)

Shah, Anup. “Beef: Diverting resources to environmentally destructive uses”. Global Issues. August 2010

“Did you know? U.S. and Wisconsin soybean facts”. Wisconsin Soybean Marketing Board

82% of starving children live in countries where food is fed to animals, and the animals are eaten by western countries.

 

Oppenlander, Dr. Richard. “The World Hunger-Food Choice Connection: A Summary”. Comfortably Unaware Blog. August 2012

“Improving Child Nutrition: The achievable imperative for global progress”. UNICEF. April 2013

“Livestock production index”. The World Bank

“Global livestock production systems”. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome 2011

15x more protein on any given area of land with plants, rather than cows.

 

Soybeans can be produced at 52. 5 bushels per acre x 60 lbs. per bushel = 3,150 dry soybeans per acre

Soybeans protein content (dry) is 163.44 grams per pound

The protein content per acre of soybeans is 163.44 g x 3,150 lb. = 514,836 g per acre

Beef can be produced at 205 pounds per acre

Beef protein content (raw) is 95.34 grams per pound

The protein content per acre of beef is 95.34 g x 205 lb. = 19,544.7 g per acre

The average American consumes 209 pounds of meat per year.

 

DeBruicker, Julie. “How much do we eat, anyway?” John Hopkins Center for a Liveable Future. March 2011

“Kings of the Carnivores. Vegetarians should look away”. The Economist. April 2012

Barnard, M.D, Neal. “Do We Eat Too Much Meat?” The Huffington Post Blog. January 2011

Gould, Skye & Friedman, Lauren F. “The countries where people eat the most meat”. Business Insider. September 2015

Dairy consumption may lead to breast lumps.

 

Hicks, Cheryl. “Give up dairy products to beat cancer”. The Telegraph. June 2014

Dairy may “give guys man-boobs”

 

Davidson, Garry. “Milk & Dairy For Guys With an Boobs”. Chest Sculpting. August 2016

World Population grows 228,000+ people everyday.

 

“Current World Population”. Worldometers (New)

“Visualizations of population growth”. The Population Institute

Land required to feed 1 person for 1 year:

Vegan: 1/6th acre

Vegetarian: 3x as much as a vegan

Meat Eater: 18x as much as a vegan   [xvii]

Robbins, John. Diet for a New America, StillPoint Publishing, 1987, p. 352

 

“Our Food Our Future. Making a Difference With Every Bite: The Power of the Fork!” EarthSave International

Eishel, Gordon, et al. “Land, irrigation water, greenhouse gas, reactive nitrogen burdens of meat, eggs and dairy production in the United States”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 111 No. 33 June 2014

1.5 acres can produce 37,000 pounds of plant-based food.

1.5 acres can produce 375 pounds of beef.

 

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

“Direct Seeded Vegetable Crop Chart”. Johnny’s Selected Seeds

Schwab, Denise, et al. “Grass-fed and Organic Beef: Production Costs and Breakeven Market Prices, 2008-2009”. Iowa State University 2012

A person who follows a vegan diet produces the equivalent of 50% less carbon dioxide, uses 1/11th oil, 1/13th water, and 1/18th land compared to a meat-lover for their food.   [xx]

 

“The carbon foodprint of five diets compared”. Shrink That Footprint

Scarborough, Peter, et al. “Dietary greenhouse-gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”. Climactic Change. July 2014. Volume 125. Issue 2. pp. 179-192

Pimentel, David & Pimental, Marcia. “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment”. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. September 2003. vol 78. no 3 660S-663S

“Facts on Animal Farming and the Environment”. One Green Planet.

“Vegetarianism and the Environment. Why going meatless is important”. Vegetarian Guide

“Our Future Our Food. Making a Difference With Every Bite: The Power of the Fork!”. Earth Save International

Ranganathan, Janet & Waite, Richard. “Sustainable Diets: What You Need to Know in 12 Charts”. World Resources Institute. April 2016 (New)

Each day, a person who eats a vegan diet saves 1,100 gallons of water, 45 pounds of grain, 30 sq ft of forested land, 20 lbs CO2 equivalent, and one animal’s life.   [xiv]

 

Scarborough, Peter, et al. “Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK”. Climactic Change July 2014., Volume 125, Issue 2, pp 179-192

“Meat Eater’s Guide to Climate Change and Health”. Environmental Working Group. 2011

Ranganathan, Janet & Waite, Richard. “Sustainable Diets: What You Need to Know in 12 Charts”. World Resources Institute. April 2016 (New)

“How much have you saved?” The Vegan Calculator (New)

Ogden, Lillie. “The Environmental Impact of a Meat-Based Diet”. Vegetarian Times. (New)

Oppenlander, Richard A. Less Meat, and Taking Baby Steps Won’t Work. Minneapolis, MN : Langdon Street, 2013. Print.

Further reading on US food disparagement law

 

Eckley, Erika H & McEowen, Roger A. “Pink Slime and the Legal History of Food Disparagement”. Agricultural and Applied Economics Association: Choices. 4th Quarter 2012 (New)

Further reading on Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA)

 

“S. 3880 (109th): Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act”. govtrack

The problem with the Allan Savory’s grazing approach.

 

Oppenlander, Richard. “Saving the World with Livestock? The Allan Savory Approach Examined”. Free from Harm. August 2013

McWilliams, James F. “All Sizzle and No Steak. Why Allan Savory’s TED talk about how cattle can reverse global warming is dead wrong”. Slate

Wuerthner, George. “Allan Savory: Myth and Reality”. The Wildlife News. November 2013

 

 

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

[i] NOTE: In 2013 the UN-FAO lowered livestock’s GHG emissions to 14.5%.

There are many other factors to consider in terms of level of concern we should have regarding the role of food choice in climate change, global depletion in general, and certain applicable time lines as represented (or misrepresented) by the United Nations or any other governing or research institution. In particular:

1    does not represent the entire life cycle analysis (LCA) or supply chain of livestock products, notably omitting carbon dioxide production in respiration (on average 4.8 tons CO2 e/year/cow, 2.3 CO2 e/year/pig, etc.), provides no consideration for increased indirect radiative effects of methane on atmospheric aerosols and particulate capture related to smog (Shindell et al. 2009), and manages land use changes (LUC) with admitted “uncertainty” and under-counting/reporting

2    ultimately defers to a separate category for reporting of greenhouse gas emissions related to “deforestation” (20% of global GHG emissions per UN-REDD), of which livestock and feed crops play a significant role, needing to be added to direct emissions (80% of Amazonian rainforest deforestation and degradation, and destruction of Cerrado savanna since 1970 has been due to expansion for cattle, with another 10% loss due to planting crops to feed them and other livestock)

3    the global warming potential (GWP) for methane used in this report was from IPCC 2007, which was 21 at 100 years. However, the GWP of methane is actually 86 GWP at 20 years

4    the report gave no consideration to carbon sequestration potential lost on land now used for livestock and feed production, which should have been considered as emissions (45% of the land mass on Earth now used by livestock and crops to feed them–International Livestock Research Institute)

5    Consideration should be given to the fact that the lead authors have potential bias in this report; Pierre Gerber is the Livestock Policy Officer of the FAO and Henning Steinfeld is Chief, Livestock Information of the Livestock Sector Policy Branch of the FAO. There is little doubt why obvious omissions were therefore seen in their conclusions presented: “The global livestock sector is faced with a three-fold challenge: increasing production to meet demand, adapting to a changing and increasingly variable economic and natural environment and, lastly, improving its environmental performance.

This FAO report failed to represent urgency in regard to climate change and reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, performed no analysis of alternatives, and failed to present risks versus benefits of raising livestock on a global scale.

1    there was no consideration of the effects of raising livestock on continued warming, acidification, deoxygenation and therefore diminished climate regulatory mechanisms of our oceans or time lines related to potential detrimental effects on the oxygen-nitrogen-carbon dioxide cycling capacities.

2    the report gave no account for anthropogenic greenhouse gases generated by agricultural systems related to extraction or raising and eating fish–fuel, refrigeration, packaging, processing, transportation, etc. for both wild caught operations as well as those pertaining to aquaculture/aquaponics/aeroponics, which would thereby provide a more accurate and complete agricultural portrait related to our food choices making it easier for policy makers and consumers to interpret the data and findings

3    there is no discussion, in an overview sense, to provide clarity regarding the component this happens to represent in livestock’s role, or food choice for that matter, in our current state of un-sustainability and the interrelated issues we face–freshwater scarcity, collapse of sea life oceanic ecosystems, unprecedented extinctions and loss of biodiversity, food security and agricultural land use inefficiencies, implications in human health and disease, rising health care costs and loss of productivity, economic risk factors, questions of social justice and implications regarding future generations, etc. (many of these issues are irreversible in our lifetime)–all part of the task of basic but thorough environmental scientific assessment, perhaps beyond the scope of livestock researchers/proponents for this one report, but the critical connection and relevance are vital should have been mentioned, nevertheless.It is quite clear by this report, which presents a filtered and quite limited view of the role of livestock in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and global depletion, that our team should focus our attention on whythere is suppression of information, lack of clarity, or elucidation of facts by our leaders related to the overarching problem of animal based agriculture as a component of food choice–and then how to swiftly correct this. Global governmental institutions such as the United Nations and its FAO should examine all the facts and present them accordingly as they interrelate. Then, they should be able to call for the frank elimination (or comprehensive “replacement”) of imminent threats to our survival such as food choices and agricultural systems that are disease promoting, ecologically unsustainable, and which condone massive unnecessary slaughtering–rather than calling for their perpetuation.

 

[.i] Some have challenged that the 18% of GHG emissions from animal ag cannot be compared to the 13% of GHG for transportation emissions because it does not take into consideration the full lifecycle analysis of the transportation industry. We have made it clear in the film that 13% of GHG emissions only accounts for the exhaust from the worlds vehicles.

 

[ii] Although there are Cornell studies citing the water consumption of the US livestock industry at over 66 trillion gallons every year, we decided to go with a much more conservative figure of 34 trillion gallons based off the 2005 USGS figures putting the US total consumptive water use at 76 trillion gallons annually (non-consumptive is for thermoelectric and hydroelectric use that is typically returned directly back to its source immediately). The USDA says that agriculture is responsible for 80-90 percent of US water consumption and growing the feed crops for livestock consumes 56% of that water, bringing the total water consumption of the livestock industry to 34 trillion gallons.

 

[iii] 1 burger = 2 months showering: based on taking a 4-minute daily shower with a 2.5 gpm shower head.

 

[iv] “A typical five-acre hog waste lagoon releases 15-30 tons of ammonia into the air annually. Approximately half of the ammonia rises as a gas and generally falls to forests, fields, or open water within 50 miles, either in rain or fog. The rest is transformed into dry particles that travel up to 250 miles.

Ammonia is the most potent form of nitrogen that triggers algae blooms and causes fish kills in coastal waters. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality estimates that hog factories constitute the largest source of airborne ammonia in North Carolina, more than cattle, chickens, and turkeys combined. In 1995, Hans Paerl, a marine ecologist from the University of North Carolina, reported that airborne ammonia had risen 25% each year since 1991 in Morehead City, 90 miles downwind of the hog belt.”

 

[v] -Dairy Cows, 120 lbs. of waste per day x 9.32 million dairy cows

-Cows,  63 lbs. of waste per day x 83.68 million cows

-Calves, 30 lbs. of waste per day x 34.3 million calves

-Pigs, 14 lbs. of waste per day x 74 million pigs

-Sheep and Goats, 5 lbs. of waste per day x 7.84 million sheep and goats

-Turkeys, .87 lbs. of waster per day x 77 million turkeys

-Broiler Chickens, .50 lbs. of waste per day x 1.74 billion broiler chickens

-Laying Hens, .25 lbs. of waster per day x 350.7 million laying hens

 

*pigs are raised twice per year, (a total of 148.3 million per year) so on any given day in the United States there are about 74 million pigs.

*turkeys are raised three times per year (a total of 233 million per year) so on any given day in the United States there are 77 million turkeys.

*broiler chickens are raised 5 times per year, (a total of 8.69 billion per year) so any given day there are1.74 billion broiler chickens.

 

Dairy Cows produce (120 lbs. x 9.32 m.) = 1.1184 billion lbs.

Cows produce (63 lbs. x 83.68 m.) = 5.27184 billion lbs.

Calves produce (30 lbs. x 34.3 m.) = 1.029 billion lbs.

Pigs produce (14 lbs. x 74.0 m.) = 1.036 billion lbs.

Sheep and Goats produce (5 lbs. x 7.84 m.) = 39.2 million lbs.

Turkeys produce (.87 lbs. x 77.0 m.) = 66.99 million lbs.

Broiler Chickens produce (.5 x 1.74 b.) = 870 million lbs.

Laying Hens produce (.25 x 350.7 m.) = 87.675 million lbs.

 

*Total manure produced in one day is 9.519105 billion lbs.

*Total manure produced in one year is 3.475 trillion lbs.

 

*This is the equivalent of over 6.611 million lbs. per minute. (This does not include any animal raised outside of USDA Jurisdiction, backyards or fish raised for aquaculture)

 

[vi] Enough waste to cover, etc: based on 1 pound of waste per 1 square foot of land

“Animal farms produce as much manure as small and medium sized cities. A farm with 2500 dairy cattle is similar in waste load to a city of 411,000 people.”

On a 1000-pound live weight basis, each of these animals produces more waste than a human. A CAFO with 1000 animal units of turkeys produces a waste load comparable to a city of 87,700 people. A dairy CAFO with 1000 animal units is equivalent to a city of 164,500 people. The important difference lies in the fact that human waste is treated before discharge into the environment, but animal waste is either not treated at all or minimally treated by virtue of the storage methods used before disposal.” http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=901V0100.txt

 

[vii] Additionally – Oppenlander says 1-2 trillion fish extracted (inc. “bycatch,”) from our oceans each year (“by fishing methods such as trawling, purse seine, long lines, explosives, and other techniques that are damaging ecosystems”) http://comfortablyunaware.com/blog/biodiversity-and-food-choice-a-clarification/

 

[viii] The figures for by-kill rates can be as high as 20lbs of untargeted species trapped for every pound of targeted animals killed.

 

[ix] “The USDA currently forecasts 2013/14 palm oil production…total area devoted to oil palm plantings is estimated at a record 10.8 million hectares.” [26.7 million acres]

 

[x] “[Dorothy Stang’s] death prompted Amazon activists – more than 1,000 of whom have been murdered in the last 20 years – to demand Brazil’s government crack down on the illegal seizure and clearance of the rainforest to graze cattle, raise soy crops, and harvest timber.”

“More than 1,100 activists, small farmers, judges, priests and other rural workers have been killed in land disputes in the last two decades.”

 

[xi] A single cow can produce between 66-132 gallons of methane a day. The average US vehicle gas tank can hold about 16 gallons of gas.

 

[xii] “The US meat industry produced some 1.4 billion tons of waste in 1997— five tons of animal waste for every US citizen. (USDA)”http://www.worldwatch.org/fire-grill-mouthwatering-red-white-and-green-july-4th

 

[xiv] The average person in the U.S. uses 405,000 gallons of freshwater per year (combination of the subfractions which comprise 206 pounds of meat per year– divided between 46 pounds of pig, 58 pounds of cow, 102 pounds of chicken and turkey in addition to 248 eggs and 616 pounds of dairy products), which equates to saving 1,100 gallons of water each day.

– 45lbs of grain saved per day: Grain: multiply ounces of each meat consumed daily per person by the feed conversion factor for each animal.

– It is estimated that 80,000 acres of rainforest are cleared each day with an additional 80,000 degraded, with 70-91% of that degradation for the livestock industry.

– CO2 based of feed conversion ratios and the average US meat consumption of 209lbs per year, per person.

Beef is at 22-27 kg CO2 Eq per kg produced/consumed X 2.5 ounces/day=1.75 kgor 3.85 pounds

Cheese/milk is 13.5 kg per kg product X 2 pounds/day=12.15 kg or 12.5 pounds

Pork is 12 kg per kg product X 2 ounces/day=.68 kg or 1.5 pounds

Combination chicken and turkey is 7 kg per kg product X 4.48 ounces/day= .89 kg or 1.96 pounds minimally (using only chicken)

{turkey, for instance, is 11 kg per kg product}

Eggs are at 5 kg per kg product X 2/3 egg per day= (50 g/egg) .55 pounds

— which equals 20.36 pounds of CO2 Eq saved per day.

 

[xv] An important distinction must be made between water “use” and “consumption”. Hydroelectric power is one of the largest “users” of water in the US, but actually consumes very little water. The water is used to power turbines or for cooling and is almost always returned to the source immediately. Agriculture is the largest “consumer” of water because it pulls water from the source and locks it up in products, not returning it to the source immediately, if ever.

 

[xvi]  $414 billion of externalized costs breaks down to: $314 billion in health-care costs, $38 billion in subsides, $37 billion in environmental costs, $21 billion in cruelty costs, $4 billion in fishing-related costs. Learn more by reading Meatonomics, by David Robinson Simon.

 

[xvii]  On average, one acre of land of any level of fertility will be able to produce 15 to 18 times more protein from plant based sources than from animal products. Additionally, using any agricultural database regionally, nationally, or internationally, one can calculate that on average between 10 times and 100 times (in weight) more plant foods (vegetables, fruit, grain/nuts) on one acre of land than from animal products raised on that same acre of land, regardless of the level of fertility of that particular acre of land, presuming it is the same acre used for either product, animal or plant based.

 

[xviii] Many organizations are studying humanity’s effect on soil degradation, erosion, and eventual desertification but not willing to emphasize the final connection of dots to animal agriculture. According to the UNCCD (United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification), nearly 20 million acres of arable land is lost each year due to desertification and the primary reasons are:

1. deforestation due to cultivation of crops and pasture

2. overgrazing from livestock (“eating away grasses and eroding topsoil with hooves”)

3. intensive farming stripping away nutrients in soil

http://www.un.org/en/events/desertificationday/background.shtml

Overgrazing by livestock is the principal land problem related to desertification as indicated in the article: http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002-186/002-186.html And, according to the UNDDD: “Nearly 20% of the degrading land (globally) is cropland, and 20-25%, rangeland.” Understanding that over 70% of the global arable land used for agriculture is planted for crops grown for livestock, there is be ample support for the statement that “animal agriculture is the leading driver for approximately 1/3 of the land lost on earth due to desertification.” http://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.shtml

 

[xix]   Few prominent scientists will openly proclaim the connection of their research findings with the need to eliminate animal agriculture or promotion of fully plant based nutrition. This is an observation that spans all aspects of global depletion related to food choice, including the topic of loss of biodiversity and extinction of species.

The statement that animal agriculture is the primary driver of biodiversity loss and extinction of species is supported by many discussions and interviews with leading authors and scientists working for the Convention of Biodiversity and IUCN as well as publications regarding current biodiversity assessments as presented by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the IUCN Red List, and the Global Environmental and Biodiversity Outlook.

Most organizations that associate their work with species and ecosystem/biodiversity concerns as well as the scientific community as a whole believe that the six main threats to our oceans are climate change, overfishing, predator loss, pollution, destruction of habitat, and bycatch, (“bykill”).

(For instance: The Species Survival Commission of the World Conservation Union and the Convention on Biological Diversity).

As of August 2012, the 2004 Global Species Assessment was the most recent empirical data on global extinction rates, based on birds, mammals, and amphibians. According to an interview conducted by Dr. Oppenlander with Simon Stuart, PhD, chair of the International Union for Conservation of Nature Species Survival Commission:

“Habitat loss from grazing livestock and feed crops is far and away the most pervasive threat to terrestrial animal species, impacting 86 percent of all mammals, 88 percent of amphibians, and 86 percent of all birds. One in every eight birds, one in every three amphibians, and one in every four mammals is facing an extremely high risk of extinction in the near future. Overexploitation of wild animals for consumption remains a second major factor for extinction, such as can be seen in bushmeat trade in Africa and Southeast Asia and all hunting endeavors on land, globally.”

The Alliance for Global Conservation estimates 36 percent of all species on our planet are in danger of extinction.

Scientists have divided our planet into 825 terrestrial “ecoregions” (as well as 450 freshwater and a number of oceanic ecoregions), each defined by its own distinct set of animal and plant species, as well as climate. Of all these land ecoregions, almost half are reported by lead scientists (interviews/discussions) to have livestock as a current threat. The World Conservation Union reported in 2010 that “most of the world’s endangered or threatened species” on their Red List (which lists the species that are most endangered) are suffering habitat loss due to livestock—not due to agriculture but to livestock.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Nagoya, Japan, in October 2010 agreed that none of their goals from 2002 for lessening the rate of biodiversity loss were met. The attendees confirmed that the main pressures for the rapid loss of species—habitat change, overexploitation, pollution, invasive species, and climate change—were all increasing in intensity.

Current biodiversity assessments (as presented by Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the IUCN Red List, and the Global Environmental and Biodiversity Outlook) now generally agree that land use change, modification of river flow, freshwater pollution, and exploitation of marine environments are the most significant drivers of biodiversity change and loss of species. Because more than 50% of the land use changes on Earth are related to livestock (ILRI), 70 to 90% of freshwater pollution in western countries (particularly the U.S. and China) can be traced back to animal agriculture, minimally 14.5% of anthropogenic GHG emissions/climate change, and 100% of “exploitation of marine environments” is related to the global commercial fishing industry, it can be safely and confidently demonstrated that “the primary driver of global species’ extinctions and loss of biodiversity is animal agriculture.”

 

[xx] The amount of water, land and fuel used for differing diets varies greatly from the types of foods consumed, amount consumed and the geographical region where the food was raised. Taking into consideration that 1lb of beef requires upwards of 2500 gallons of water to produce compared to only 25 gallons for 1lb of wheat, the water footprint of a person consuming a high meat diet could be 100x greater than that of a person consuming only plant foods. The same applies for land and oil use. Many arid areas of the world can not support 1 cow per 2 acres and require 50+ acre per cow, compared to a crops such as potatoes that can produce 50,000lbs+ per acre. The energy/fuel inputs are similar. 1 calorie of beef can take 27x more energy to produce than soybeans.

xxi (New) As of 2016 the estimates of wild horses and burros has increased on the range to 67,027 and the amount of wild horses and burros in holding fcailities is more than 45,000. However the BLM considers the amount of wild horses and burros on the range too populated and will attempt to remove 40,000 to bring the level back to what is considered by the BLM the ‘acceptable level’

Advertisements

Activist murdered for exposing what our government is doing?

Anti-GMO activist found dead in hotel pool, hours before planned delivery of 200,000 petition signatures to the EPA

Image: Anti-GMO activist found dead in hotel pool, hours before planned delivery of 200,000 petition signatures to the EPA
(Natural News) An activist who opposed genetically engineered mosquitoes has been found dead in the swimming pool of a Washington D.C. hotel, just hours before she was due to submit a petition with over 200,000 signatures to the EPA.Derrick Broze of Activist Post has investigated the story and spoken to a close friend of the victim, whose name is Mila de Mier from Key West, Florida (see below).The mysterious death has also been covered by WJLA, which reports:The D.C. Fire Department says the reported incident happened at the Cambria Hotel & Suites Washington, D.C. Convention Center on 899 O Street, NW. They say they were called to the scene at around 9:35 a.m. Medical crews say they attempted to treat the victim but later pronounced her dead.Her death, of course, reminds informed observers of all the death threats that other anti-GMO activists have been subjected to over the years, thanks to the “black ops” biotech industry running intimidation campaigns, reputation smear campaigns and political bribery campaigns to grease the palms of politicians. If you weren’t aware that people who oppose the biotech giants or vaccine industry are being routinely assassinated across America, you’re not up to speed on what’s really happening.

Erin Elizabeth of Health Nut News has documented 85+ doctors who have been found dead over the last few years. Most of them were holistic health practitioners offering alternative or naturopathic medical treatments. The majority of those individuals were also opposed to genetically engineered foods. “Mila was a very well known activist who fought hard against GMO’s and the use of GMO mosquitoes in Florida. In fact, she fought them so hard she was known to be a nemesis of the GMO mosquito industry,” writes Elizabeth. “Is that perhaps why the “witness” who found her floating in the pool didn’t try and get her out of the pool? Is that why they didn’t try, like any normal human being would, to perform CPR?”Suspicious death raises red flags about anti-GMO activists being murderedIs the GMO industry now running assassin squads to murder anti-GMO activists? It’s not a far-fetched idea, given how aggressively the GMO industry has pursued online character assassination teams backed by millions of dollars in annual funding.It’s also, by the way, why wise activists never use their real names when staying at hotels. (And they don’t pay for hotel rooms using credit cards.) More and more anti-GMO activists, I’m told, are arming themselves in self-defense, creating a fascinating mix of left-leaning anti-GMO activists who are pro-Second Amendment.Here’s the full story from Broze at Activist Post:Florida Activist Who Fought Release of GM Mosquitoes Found Dead in Hotel PoolBy Derrick Broze, Activist PostOn Tuesday morning Mila de Mier—a 45-year-old activist from Key West, Florida who opposed the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes—was found dead in a swimming pool at a hotel in Washington D.C. De Meir was visiting D.C. to deliver a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency demanding the agency deny a permit for the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes in Florida and Texas.WJLA reported:

The D.C. Fire Department says the reported incident happened at the Cambria Hotel & Suites Washington, D.C. Convention Center on 899 O Street, NW. They say they were called to the scene at around 9:35 a.m. Medical crews say they attempted to treat the victim but later pronounced her dead.

Fox5 in D.C. notes that the police report claims a witness found de Mier floating inside the rooftop pool and called 911. The Metropolitan Police Department in D.C. is investigating the exact circumstances of the drowning.In the days preceding her death, Mila de Mier posted on her Facebook page about the fight against genetically engineered mosquitoes. “The time is now Please sign and share ! We are not guinea pigs,” she wrote. “Is time to set standards when it come to people and Biotecnology.”Activist Post spoke with Barbara Napoles, a fellow activist and long-term friend of de Mier who accompanied her on the trip to Washington D.C., and one of the last people to see her alive. Napoles worked with de Mier for years as part of the Never Again Foundation, an organization that focused on a variety of environmental causes. Napoles explained that she and de Mier had worked on the GE mosquito issue for years and had previously made trips to the Food and Drug Administration in an attempt to express their concerns.According to Napoles, de Mier called her on Thursday April 5 to announce her intention to drive from Florida to Washington D.C. to file her petition with the EPA. The two headed to Washington on Sunday, arrived on Monday, and planned to deliver their petition on Tuesday morning. Around 8:45 a.m. Tuesday morning de Mier left q Napoles saw de Mier alive. Regarding the possibility of death by accidental drowning, Napoles said Mila de Mier was not known to be a weak swimmer and had swum with whale sharks in the past. Napoles said the two also had plans to go swim with dolphins in June.“She wanted the people of Houston to have time to comment on the release of GE mosquitoes. She would want people to continue the fight,” Napoles stated. Napoles is referring to the potential upcoming release of GE mosquitoes in the Houston area. The mosquitoes to be released in Houston are created by Oxitec, the British biotechnology company responsible for the same mosquitoes de Mier was fighting in Key West.Oxitec was involved in the controversial vote in the Florida Keys during the 2016 election. In that vote, residents of the Key Haven voted against the release of the mosquitoes in their community. However, shortly after, the trials were approved for a different location in the Keys. Despite the approval, opposition to the controversial project has not ceased. In late November 2016, Health News Florida reported that a coalition of groups, including the Center for Food Safety and the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition, have filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.In 2017 the Houston Chronicle reported that Oxitec is working on a deal with Harris County officials to release GE mosquitoes in the Houston area. Oxitec is attempting to sway Houston officials by stating that their product has a nearly 100% success rate. Gizmodo reported:

The company claims that trials in Brazil, Panama and the Cayman Islands have reduced mosquito populations by 90%, calling the success “an unprecedented level” of human control over nature. (The World Health Organization, for it’s [sic]part, has stated that while the technology “has demonstrated the ability to reduce the [mosquito] populations in small-scale field trials” there is still “an absence of data on epidemiological impact.”)

Activist Post will continue to follow the developments related to the release of GE mosquitoes, as well as any new developments regarding the death of Mila de Mier. We would like to offer our condolences to the family of Mila, as well as give thanks and appreciation to Mila de Mier herself for all of her tireless work to educate the people of Key West. She was supported and loved by many people who took inspiration from her efforts. Let us honor her memory by continuing her fight.

(Natural News) An activist who opposed genetically engineered mosquitoes has been found dead in the swimming pool of a Washington D.C. hotel, just hours before she was due to submit a petition with over 200,000 signatures to the EPA.Derrick Broze of Activist Post has investigated the story and spoken to a close friend of the victim, whose name is Mila de Mier from Key West, Florida (see below).The mysterious death has also been covered by WJLA, which reports:The D.C. Fire Department says the reported incident happened at the Cambria Hotel & Suites Washington, D.C. Convention Center on 899 O Street, NW. They say they were called to the scene at around 9:35 a.m. Medical crews say they attempted to treat the victim but later pronounced her dead.Her death, of course, reminds informed observers of all the death threats that other anti-GMO activists have been subjected to over the years, thanks to the “black ops” biotech industry running intimidation campaigns, reputation smear campaigns and political bribery campaigns to grease the palms of politicians. If you weren’t aware that people who oppose the biotech giants or vaccine industry are being routinely assassinated across America, you’re not up to speed on what’s really happening.

Erin Elizabeth of Health Nut News has documented 85+ doctors who have been found dead over the last few years. Most of them were holistic health practitioners offering alternative or naturopathic medical treatments. The majority of those individuals were also opposed to genetically engineered foods. “Mila was a very well known activist who fought hard against GMO’s and the use of GMO mosquitoes in Florida. In fact, she fought them so hard she was known to be a nemesis of the GMO mosquito industry,” writes Elizabeth. “Is that perhaps why the “witness” who found her floating in the pool didn’t try and get her out of the pool? Is that why they didn’t try, like any normal human being would, to perform CPR?”Suspicious death raises red flags about anti-GMO activists being murderedIs the GMO industry now running assassin squads to murder anti-GMO activists? It’s not a far-fetched idea, given how aggressively the GMO industry has pursued online character assassination teams backed by millions of dollars in annual funding.It’s also, by the way, why wise activists never use their real names when staying at hotels. (And they don’t pay for hotel rooms using credit cards.) More and more anti-GMO activists, I’m told, are arming themselves in self-defense, creating a fascinating mix of left-leaning anti-GMO activists who are pro-Second Amendment.Here’s the full story from Broze at Activist Post:Florida Activist Who Fought Release of GM Mosquitoes Found Dead in Hotel PoolBy Derrick Broze, Activist PostOn Tuesday morning Mila de Mier—a 45-year-old activist from Key West, Florida who opposed the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes—was found dead in a swimming pool at a hotel in Washington D.C. De Meir was visiting D.C. to deliver a petition to the Environmental Protection Agency demanding the agency deny a permit for the release of genetically engineered mosquitoes in Florida and Texas.WJLA reported:

The D.C. Fire Department says the reported incident happened at the Cambria Hotel & Suites Washington, D.C. Convention Center on 899 O Street, NW. They say they were called to the scene at around 9:35 a.m. Medical crews say they attempted to treat the victim but later pronounced her dead.

Fox5 in D.C. notes that the police report claims a witness found de Mier floating inside the rooftop pool and called 911. The Metropolitan Police Department in D.C. is investigating the exact circumstances of the drowning.In the days preceding her death, Mila de Mier posted on her Facebook page about the fight against genetically engineered mosquitoes. “The time is now Please sign and share ! We are not guinea pigs,” she wrote. “Is time to set standards when it come to people and Biotecnology.”Activist Post spoke with Barbara Napoles, a fellow activist and long-term friend of de Mier who accompanied her on the trip to Washington D.C., and one of the last people to see her alive. Napoles worked with de Mier for years as part of the Never Again Foundation, an organization that focused on a variety of environmental causes. Napoles explained that she and de Mier had worked on the GE mosquito issue for years and had previously made trips to the Food and Drug Administration in an attempt to express their concerns.According to Napoles, de Mier called her on Thursday April 5 to announce her intention to drive from Florida to Washington D.C. to file her petition with the EPA. The two headed to Washington on Sunday, arrived on Monday, and planned to deliver their petition on Tuesday morning. Around 8:45 a.m. Tuesday morning de Mier left Napoles to go for a quick swim at the hotel’s rooftop pool before heading to the EPA. This was the last time Napoles saw de Mier alive. Regarding the possibility of death by accidental drowning, Napoles said Mila de Mier was not known to be a weak swimmer and had swum with whale sharks in the past. Napoles said the two also had plans to go swim with dolphins in June.“She wanted the people of Houston to have time to comment on the release of GE mosquitoes. She would want people to continue the fight,” Napoles stated. Napoles is referring to the potential upcoming release of GE mosquitoes in the Houston area. The mosquitoes to be released in Houston are created by Oxitec, the British biotechnology company responsible for the same mosquitoes de Mier was fighting in Key West.Oxitec was involved in the controversial vote in the Florida Keys during the 2016 election. In that vote, residents of the Key Haven voted against the release of the mosquitoes in their community. However, shortly after, the trials were approved for a different location in the Keys. Despite the approval, opposition to the controversial project has not ceased. In late November 2016, Health News Florida reported that a coalition of groups, including the Center for Food Safety and the Florida Keys Environmental Coalition, have filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.In 2017 the Houston Chronicle reported that Oxitec is working on a deal with Harris County officials to release GE mosquitoes in the Houston area. Oxitec is attempting to sway Houston officials by stating that their product has a nearly 100% success rate. Gizmodo reported:

The company claims that trials in Brazil, Panama and the Cayman Islands have reduced mosquito populations by 90%, calling the success “an unprecedented level” of human control over nature. (The World Health Organization, for it’s [sic]part, has stated that while the technology “has demonstrated the ability to reduce the [mosquito] populations in small-scale field trials” there is still “an absence of data on epidemiological impact.”)

Activist Post will continue to follow the developments related to the release of GE mosquitoes, as well as any new developments regarding the death of Mila de Mier. We would like to offer our condolences to the family of Mila, as well as give thanks and appreciation to Mila de Mier herself for all of her tireless work to educate the people of Key West. She was supported and loved by many people who took inspiration from her efforts. Let us honor her memory by continuing her fight.

Is cow milk really unhealthy?

Yes… milk is Mother Nature’s “perfect food” …for a calf… until it is weaned.

Everything you know about cow’s milk and dairy is probably part of a Dairy industry MYTH.

Cow’s milk is an unhealthy fluid from diseased animals that contains a wide range of dangerous and disease-causing substances that have a cumulative negative effect on all who consume it.

MILK’S BASIC CONTENTS

*ALL* cow’s milk (regular and ‘organic’) has 59 active hormones, scores of allergens, fat and cholesterol.

Most cow’s milk has measurable quantities of herbicides, pesticides, dioxins (up to 200 times the safe levels), up to 52 powerful antibiotics (perhaps 53, with LS-50), blood, pus, feces, bacteria and viruses. (Cow’s milk can have traces of anything the cow ate… including such things as radioactive fallout from nuke testing … (the 50’s strontium-90 problem).

LEADING CAUSES OF DEATH IN AMERICA
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadc… (1998)

Rank Total Description

1 724,859 Heart Disease (think fats/cholesterol: meat/dairy)
2 541,532 Malignant Neoplasms (cancer: think toxins/milk/dairy)
2a 250,000 Medical system (drugs/etc. think ignorance/incompetence)
3 158,448 Cerebro-vascular (think meat milk and dairy)
4 112,584 Bronchitis Emphysema Asthma (think toxins/milk/dairy)
5 97,835 Unintentional Injuries and Adverse Effects
6 91,871 Pneumonia & Influenza (think weak immune systems and
mucus)
7 64,751 Diabetes (think milk/dairy)
7a 40,000+ Highway slaughter (men, women and children)
8 30,575 Suicide (think behavioral problems)
9 26,182 Nephritis (Bright’s disease: inflammation of the
kidneys)
10 25,192 Liver Disease (think alcohol and other toxins)

(2a and 7a were added for completeness)

(note: Number 13 on the CDC list is -18,272 Homicide & Legal Intervention-. It is curious that the CDC would readily list law enforcement and homicides… and not the 250,000 deaths caused by the medical system!)

CANCER FUEL

Of those 59 hormones one is a powerful GROWTH hormone called Insulin- like Growth Factor ONE (IGF-1). By a freak of nature it is identical in cows and humans. Consider this hormone to be a “fuel cell” for any cancer… (the medical world says IGF-1 is a key factor in the rapid growth and proliferation of breast, prostate and colon cancers, and we suspect that most likely it will be found to promote ALL cancers).

IGF-1 is a normal part of ALL milk… the newborn is SUPPOSED to grow quickly! What makes the 50% of obese American consumers think they need MORE growth? Consumers don’t think anything about it because they do not have a clue to the problem… nor do most of our doctors.

(See http://www.notmilk.com/igf1time.txtfor a time line)

QUANTITY

Each bite of hard cheese has TEN TIMES whatever was in that sip of milk… because it takes ten pounds of milk to make one pound of cheese. Each bite of ice cream has 12 times … and every swipe of butter 21 times whatever is contained in the fat molecules in a sip of milk.

MONSANTO AND rbGH (Posilac)

Monsanto Chemical Co., maker of fine poisons such as DDT, agent orange, Roundup and more… spent around half a billion dollars inventing a shot to inject into cows… to force a cow to produce MORE milk (for an already glutted taxpayer subsidized market).

Unfortunately, they created *FIVE* errors in their Frankenstein Posilac (rbGH) shot that direly affected all test animals… but that important report (Richard, Odaglia & Deslex, 1989) has been hidden from everyone under Clinton’s Trade Secrets act. The Canadians read enough of this report (before it was stolen) to reject rbGH for their country.

Monsanto’s Posilac creates additional IGF-1 in milk: up to 80% more.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) insists that IGF-1 is destroyed in the stomach. If that were true, the FDA has proven that breast feeding cannot work. Common sense says their “finding” is ridiculous because this growth factor DOES make the baby calf grow (rapidly, as mother natured intended). Visit the Dairy Education Board athttp://www.notmilk.com/deb/100399.htmlto review a DAIRY study that confirms what the FDA has lied about this for years.

IGF-1 INCREASES

This study involved two groups. One group consuming 12 ounces of milk a day and the other consuming the USDA recommended allowance of 24 ounces (three cups). This report notes that the participants consuming 12 ounces more milk per day… HAD A 10% RISE IN IGF-1 IN THEIR BLOOD SERUM! Now, consider that PER DAY, from ALL sources, the typical milk/dairy consumer ingests approximately 39% of daily diet from dairy… and that 10% increase becomes the “tip of the iceberg”. We have NO idea of the non-dairy versus full-dairy difference but considering cancer rates… it has to be significant.

FAT

Whole milk 49% of the calories are from fat.
“2%” milk 35% of the calories are from fat.
Cheddar cheese 74% of the calories are from fat.
Butter 100% of the calories are from fat.

Most folks suspect that butter is all fat. Most folks have no concept of the just how much fat is in the rest of milk and dairy. Perhaps the 54% of Americans who are obese need to comprehend that milk, ice cream, cheeses, yogurts, and all the OTHER products that use milk derivatives (casein, whey, lactose, colostrum) are most likely a significant cause for their weight and health problem.

CALCIUM

Calcium? Where do the COWS get calcium for their big bones? Yes… from plants! The calcium they consume from plants has a large amount of magnesium… necessary for the body to absorb and USE the calcium.

The calcium in cow’s milk is basically useless because it has insufficient magnesium content (those nations with the highest amount of milk/dairy consumption also have the highest rates of osteoporosis. Proof? How about a controlled study of 78,000 nurses over a period of 12 years?

Read more about it at:

http://www.notmilk.com/deb/030799.html Article on the 78,000 nurse study
http://www.notmilk.com/deb/092098.html CALCIUM AND BONE DISEASE
http://www.notmilk.com/badbones.html WHO GETS BONE DISEASE?
http://www.notmilk.com/bonehead.txt CRIPPLING BONEHEADS
http://www.notmilk.com/calcium/index.html Consolidated info

Cows milk has three times the calcium as does human breast milk. No matter, neither are very usable because in order to be absorbed and used their MUST be an equal quantity of MAGNESIUM (as exists in the greens that cows eat to get all the calcium they need for their big bones). Milk has only enough magnesium to absorb around 11% (33mg per cup) of calcium.

Per the USDA 8 ounces (one cup) of cows milk contains:

Calcium, Ca mg 291.336
Magnesium, Mg mg 32.794

The USDA recommends 1200mg of calcium per day. The USDA recommended three cups of milk a day only have 900mg of calcium. Some argue that only 1/3 of the magnesium is necessary. Mother nature seems to suggest it should be one to one. If the ratio for proper absorption were 1/3 magnesium to one calcium then no more than 300mg of that 900mg of calcium is usable. If, in fact, it is a one to one ratio… only 98.38mg of calcium is usable.

It is not a matter of how much calcium one ingests… but how much one does not lose.

PROTEIN

Milk can be thought of as “liquid meat” because of its high protein content which, in concert with other proteins, may actually LEACH calcium from the body. Countries that consume high protein diets (meat, milk and dairy) have the highest rates of osteoporosis.

THE ‘WHOLESOME’ PROTEIN MYTH

87% of milk is water. That makes it VERY expensive water.

Broken down into its basic groups… WHOLE MILK is:

WATER FAT CASEIN OTHER PROTEIN
87% 3.25% 4% 1% 4.75

(note: that is 3.25% “milkfat” which includes the 87% water.)

80% of the protein in milk is casein. Casein is a powerful binder… a
polymer used to make plastics… and a glue that is better used to make
sturdy furniture or hold beer bottle labels in place. It is in
thousands of processed foods as a binder… as “something” caseinate.

Casein is a powerful allergen… a histamine that creates lots of
mucus. The only medicine in Olympic athlete Flo-Jo’s body was Benedryl,
a power antihistamine she took to combat her last meal… pizza.
For the whole Flo-Jo story:

http://www.notmilk.com/deb/092198.html,
http://www.notmilk.com/deb/111598.html and
http://www.notmilk.com/deb/112398.html for the whole story.

BACTERIA

Cow’s milk is allowed to have feces in it. This is a major source for bacteria. Milk is typically pasteurized more than once before it gets to your table… each time for only 15 seconds at 162 degrees Fahrenheit.

To sanitize water one is told to boil it (212 degrees F) for several minutes. That is a tremendous disparity, isn’t it!

Keep in mind that at room temperature the number of bacteria in milk DOUBLE around every 20 minutes. No wonder milk turns rotten very quickly.

PUS

ONE cubic centimeter (cc) of commercial cow’s milk is allowed to have up to 750,000 somatic cells (common name is “PUS”) and 20,000 live bacteria… before it is kept off the market.

That amounts to a whopping 20 million live squiggly bacteria and up to 750 MILLION pus cells per liter (bit more than a quart).

1 cup = 236.5882cc 177,441,150 pus cells ~ 4,731,600 bacteria
24 oz (3 glasses) = 532,323,450 pus cells ~ 14,220,000 bacteria
(the “recommended” daily intake)

The EU and the Canadians allow for a less “tasty” 400,000,000 pus cells per liter.

Typically these levels are lower… but they COULD reach these levels and still get to YOUR table.

CHOLESTEROL

The cholesterol content of those three glasses of milk is equal to what one would get from 53 slices of bacon. Do you know of any doctor who recommends that much bacon per day?

KOSHER

Is cow’s milk and dairy “Kosher”? Consider this:

“D-3 always is derived from an animal. The sunlight reaction that converts 7-dehydrocholesterol to vitamin D-3 is a ‘pure’ chemical reaction that occurs in your skin in certain cells.”

“The provitamin known as 7-dehydrocholesterol is extracted and isolated from the skins of mammals and purified.” (Marian Herbert of the Vitamin D Workshop U of C)

Vitamin D-3 can come from four different sources:

Pig skin, sheep skin, raw fish liver, and pig brains. Most of the time, Vitamin D-3 is extracted from pig skin and sold to dairy processors.

Short answer to “is milk kosher” – probably not.

OTHER ‘STUFF’

Fat and cholesterol. Lots of it. Per the dairy influenced USDA “food pyramid” all milk, dairy and meats should represent no more than 8% of the diet. Statistically, by volume of sales in a nation of 281 million Americans, it works out to almost 40% of the diet for MILK AND DAIRY.. without the meat.

The milk of each of the over 4,700 mammals on earth is formulated specifically for that species. There are special lactoferrins and immunoglobulins (cow specific immunizing stuff) that in humans serve as allergens.

LEUKEMIA

According to Hoards Dairyman (Volume 147, number 4)… 89% of America’s dairy herds have the leukemia virus. (more at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/notmilk/message/835)

DIABETES

The protein lactalbumin, has been identified as a key factor in diabetes (and a major reason for NOT giving cows milk to infants).

CROHN’S DISEASE

Mycobacterium paratuberculosis causes a bovine disease called “Johne’s.”

Cows diagnosed with Johne’s Disease have diarrhea, and heavy fecal shedding of bacteria. This bacteria becomes cultured in milk, and is not destroyed by pasteurization. Occasionally, the milk-borne bacteria will begin to grow in the human host, and the results are irritable bowel syndrome and Crohn’s Disease.

MAD COW DISEASE

There may also be prions (pronounced PREons) in the milk and meat. This is crystalline substance that acts like a virus… with an “incubation” period of from 5 to 30 years. The end result is MAD COW DISEASE!

HOMOGENIZATION

Large fat molecules cannot get through the intestinal wall into the bloodstream. The cream no longer rises… because homogenization breaks up those large molecules into small ones that DO get into the bloodstream! This becomes an expressway for any fat-borne toxins (lead, dioxin’s, etc.) into your (otherwise) most protected organs.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

How does this impact humans who consume cow’s milk and dairy? Obesity (over 50% of Americans and rising), heart disease, cancer, allergies, digestive problems, diabetes, asthma, desensitization to antibiotics, behavioral problems, and the constant ingestion of dioxin’s, herbicides, pesticides (and anything else the cow eats that is not good for any critter), that winds up getting stored in HUMAN fat… is not healthy by any measure.

Those who resist believing the truth should understand that MOST of the world’s population CANNOT tolerate the lactose in cow’s milk. Up to 95% of the black population, around 53% of the Hispanics, etc.) So much for cow’s milk being “natures perfect food” for humans! Mother nature knows better.

Common sense question: Where was this massive “milk is a must” before refrigeration, pasteurization and mass transportation? Back when cows gave only 1-4 pounds a day it was quickly made into BUTTER and cheese! Now that those same cows have been tweaked and shot-up with Posilac to produce up to 55 or more pounds of milk per day… almost all year long… it is suddenly (after many thousands of years) a daily “staple”. NOT!

POLLUTION

There are around 9.2 million dairy cows in the United states. Each dairy cow ingests around 330 pounds of feed (perhaps 50 pounds) and water (around 280 pounds or 33 gallons) per day. Allowing for the best dairy production of 55 pounds of milk per day (over ten times what mother nature designed the cow to produce) that means that what remains becomes “slurry”.

That means around 275 pound of urine and feces per day… per cow, for a daily total of 2.53 BILLION pounds of pollution. Per year… that amounts to around 923 billion pounds of UNTREATED pollution entering our streams, rivers, lakes… and drinking water systems.

Cows are hot-blooded mammals. Like all other mammals they pass gas. Somewhat like elephants their compartmented digestive system is rather inefficient… which leads to the creation of MORE gas. During a Discovery Channel documentary on elephants a parting quip was that the average adult elephant passes enough methane gas per day to run a car about 20 miles.

Cows are not much better. The English New Scientist (page 5 -31.8.96) mentions that cattle produce around 48 kilograms (105 pounds) of methane each per year and that more bubbles out of the animals’ manure. Dairy cows eat more because they produce milk. With 9.2 million dairy cows times a minimum of 100 pounds of methane gas per year… that amounts almost a billion pounds of methane gas released into the atmosphere each year. With around 100 million beef cattle… pigs, sheep, and other “factory farmed” animals it should not be difficult to fathom the extent of this problem.

This means that “Beef is a greenhouse-intensive food” and a major cause of global warming (with dairy a significant part of the problem).

Another major point is:

“Milk is a very strong pollutant: it is about 400 times more polluting than untreated sewage. To put it another way, 1,000 gallons of milk has the same polluting potential as the untreated sewage from a town of 7,000 people.” Morlais Owen. Chief Scientist for Welsh Water. North Wales Weekly News. 24.3.88.

“It’s not natural for humans to drink cow’s milk. Humans milk is for humans. Cow’s milk is for calves. You have no more need of cow’s milk than you do rats milk, horses milk or elephant’s milk. Cow’s milk is a high fat fluid exquisitely designed to turn a 65 lb baby calf into a 400 lb cow. That’s what cow’s milk is for!” –Dr Michael Klaper MD

“I no longer recommend dairy products after the age of 2 years. Other calcium sources offer many advantages that dairy products do not have.” –Dr. Benjamin Spock

vegan&proud · 1 decade ago

The Danger of Being Wrong About Animal Rights

Jerold D. Friedman

A Social Justice Attorney’s View

borrowed from www.nlg.org/nlg-review/

Jerold D. Friedman has been an activist since winning the “Super Environmentalist” award in grade school. He’s served on several boards of charities, been published in several books, and has been an NLG member since 2001.
Because I am a civil rights activist, I am also an animal rights activist. Animals and humans suffer and die alike. Violence causes the same pain, the same spilling of blood, the same stench of death, the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life. We don’t have to be a part of it. —Dick Gregory
Dogs and suitcases are personal property under the law. For the most part, that enables humans to use, neglect, and abuse them indiscriminately. Dogs and other nonhumans1have been property at least since the invention of money as suggested by the common etymologies of “chattel,” “cattle,” and “capital.” The status of nonhumans as property is so ingrained that humans reflexively don’t consider whether nonhumans should be emancipated and distinguished from luggage. Animal rights theory says they need to be because property has no opportunity for legal redress. Legal persons (hu¬mans) can seek damages for past injuries, injunctions for future injuries, and enjoy full protection by the state, but personal property (nonhumans and luggage) cannot. Presently, slicing a hen’s throat is not murder, boiling a lobster is not torture, taking a calf is not kidnapping, caging a chimpanzee is not false imprisonment, and killing billions of fishes2 is not genocide. Yet the neglect, abuse, and terror that nonhumans routinely suffer are no less than humans similarly situated.
The animal rights movement seeks to emancipate nonhumans by hav¬ing their legal status changed from “property” to “person” and to let them be free to live their lives as they wish. Animal rights draw from the same ethical tradition as human rights and ask the same types of questions: Can an individual’s market value outweigh their moral value? When is owning, using, or exploiting another considered slavery? Is slavery always wrong? Is it immoral to exploit or otherwise use another even if it isn’t technically slavery? What qualities do humans have that make slavery wrong and do nonhumans have the same qualities? If using humans in a certain way is slavery, is using nonhumans in a similar way also slavery? Is it wrong to keep a slave if the individual doesn’t know he or she is enslaved? What if they were conditioned to accept it, benefit from it, or seem to enjoy it? Should nonhuman emancipation be opposed because of the drastic changes it will cause to human culture, economics, or politics?3 Should all nonhumans be emancipated or only certain classes like apes (since they are genetically most similar to humans) or dogs and cats (as quasi-family members)?
Animal rights and human rights4 reject genetic tests because genes are ir¬relevant and oppression is found where genes are said to be relevant. Animal rights disregard “species” for the same reason human rights disregard so-called “race.” Rather than genes, animal rights consider what qualities one should have to be a legal person. If one individual is a person and a second individual has the same relevant qualities, then the second individual should also be a person—period. This merit-driven analysis concludes that nonhu¬mans should be legal persons because the qualities that give rise to human personhood also exist in nonhumans: a mind, a will to live, and a capacity to suffer. Humans and nonhumans are living, thinking, feeling beings, and these qualities entitle all of us to the rights to life and liberty.5
Our property laws are no better than a genetic test on the question of moral rights. Take for example an episode of Judge Judy.6 In a widely re¬ported episode, the plaintiff alleged that his young poodle, Baby Boy, was stolen and sold to the defendant.7 Judge Judy told the defendant to set Baby Boy on the ground who then ran to the plaintiff and began jumping on the plaintiff’s leg while vigorously wagging his tail. “Take him home,” Judge Judy told the plaintiff.
Judge Judy opted for reason rather than law. She treated Baby Boy as a legal person. She let him testify, albeit through body language, because she recognized that Baby Boy’s interest in his future was primary. She recognized that Baby Boy had a mind capable of love and that he would suffer if that love was denied. The fact that a television entertainer reached justice through moral reasoning while proper judges who follow property law might have awarded Baby Boy to the wrong party is one small example of what property law brings when it’s used to decide the fate of living beings.
U.S. society grappled with these same legal and moral issues in the de¬cades leading to its civil war. The presumed supremacy of property law was upended in U.S. v. Schooner Amistad8 after a heated legal battle over the fate of a number of enslaved African people. The presiding judge de¬fied the rule of law and enormous political pressure and set the slaves free. “Let justice be done though the heavens fall,” he said. Animal rights calls for the same justice.
I raise Baby Boy and Amistad to separate a lawyer’s instinctive reliance on traditional property constructs from the question of rights. Moral rights—the rights to life and liberty, and to be free from suffering—exist independently of law. The founders of the U.S. government preserved this idea in the Dec¬laration of Independence. Moral rights are directly protected by the Fifth, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, among other laws, but laws do not create moral rights, they protect and enforce them. The aforementioned constitutional amendments were enacted to prohibit the government and public from violating moral rights valued by the amendments’ framers and ratifiers. Moral rights are also inalienable. They must be inalienable because they would be fleeting if they depended on government. Imagine if the president and legislature decriminalized marital rape, forced weddings, and genital mutilation because the public elected misogynists or lobbyists paid politicians the right price. We don’t lose a moral right to life because a tyrant is elected although we may lose the legal protection of it.
Altogether, the principles of animal rights are identical to human rights: (1) Moral rights are discovered through philosophy. (2) Governments should create legal rights that protect and ensure moral rights. (3) Governments cannot defend their failure to protect moral rights by claiming the law cre¬ates morality. Finally, (4) moral rights should be fairly evaluated and cannot exist within a system of hierarchy and oppression. Male legislators should not control women’s rights, white registrars should not be the gatekeepers of black voters, and humans who use, consume, or profit from nonhumans should not decide their liberty.
The perils nonhumans face
The sparks that initiate social justice movements come from witnessing in¬justice. So, while comparing dogs and suitcases helps to make a point, it hides the perils nonhumans face. I recommend that you watch the documentary Earthlings (2005) to witness the breadth and depth of human-caused nonhu¬man suffering. And, for scale, Noam Mohr calculated 63 billion nonhumans were killed for food in the U.S. market in 2011.9
An example typical of nonhuman suffering was caught on video and later described by Michael Shermer, president of the Skeptic’s Society:
Appropriately entitled “saddest slaughterhouse footage ever,” the clip shows a bull waiting in line to die. He hears his mates in front of him being killed, backs up into the rear wall of the metal chute, and turns his head around seeking an escape. He looks scared. A worker then zaps him with a cattle prod. The bull shuffles forward far enough for the final death wall to come down behind him. His rear legs try one last time to exit the trap and then . . . Thug! . . . down he goes in a heap. Dead. Am I projecting human emotions into a head of cattle? Maybe, but as one meat plant worker told an undercover USDA inspector, who inquired about the waste stench: “They’re scared. They don’t want to die.”10 Shermer begins to dismantle the idea that it is anthropomorphic (the wrong¬ful assignment of human qualities to nonhumans) to claim the bull understood and feared death, but he doesn’t finish the analysis. All animals, including humans, evolved under “survival of the fittest” rules. Animals who care about their lives are more likely to survive because they will flee or attack preda¬tors. They are more “fit” and are more likely to reproduce than animals who ignore predators. They pass their fight or flight genes to their children. Thus, it’s anthropocentric (the wrongful belief of humans as singularly important) to believe that nonhumans don’t care about their lives because every extant animal, including the bull, is the product of millions of ancestors who wanted to live. That and the bull’s behavior establish that he wanted to live, knew his death was imminent, and tried to save his own life. His life mattered but he was killed intentionally and maliciously: he was murdered.
Why nonhumans have moral rights:
Innate moral interests create moral rights
Expanding human rights from “all [wealthy, white] men are created equal” to “all humans are created equal” has been slow because unequal rights benefit those in power and those who benefit most are deft at sabotaging liberation movements. For example, the political majority incites minorities to attack each other. The animal rights movement resists these types of sabotage be¬cause it focuses on the qualities that compel moral rights more than simply getting its own members into the majority. This approach means that animal rights necessarily include human rights. Rather than argue that it’s immoral to conduct medical experiments without informed consent only for a class, the animal rights perspective means that informed consent, as a general moral principle with universal application, is necessary for everyone.
Moral rights start with having an interest in something of moral value, like Shermer’s bull having an interest in his own life. Interests come from an active, functioning mind. Minds come from a nervous system, and nervous systems come from nerves. Animals have nerves.11 Therefore, the idea that animals have moral rights makes a great deal of sense. Those with minds are called “sentient” because they can sense their environment and interpret those sensations. Plants, fungi, bacteria and other microorganisms have no nerves—and therefore no brain, mind, sentience, nor moral rights.
How interests actually translate into moral rights has been argued ad nau¬seam. These arguments typically focus on human rights that describe how evolution miraculously resulted in a human brain that can think and feel. The arguments typically overlook that nonhumans operate with a neurol¬ogy that is functionally identical to humans. We all evolved from the same primordial ancestors who wanted to live and be free, and who avoided pain and suffering. We are all sentient. There has yet to be any sound scientific or philosophical reason to believe that humans experience thoughts and feelings differently than nonhumans in a morally meaningful way. Charles Darwin explained this when he said humans had no unique qualities in the animal kingdom.12 Some biologists like Richard Dawkins suggest that some nonhumans may have a greater capacity to suffer.13 Altogether, if human rights derive from biological qualities (sentience, fear, suffering, etc.), and if nonhumans have those same biological qualities, then nonhumans must have their moral rights recognized.
Further, when recognizing who has moral rights we should err on the side of inclusion because there is no margin for error. Life cannot be restored once wrongfully taken. Time and enjoyment of life lost in captivity cannot be returned. Pain and suffering cannot be undone. This precautionary principle simply means that we should assume others’ lives matter. There would be no hate crimes, genocide, nor anything in between if inclusion and precaution were the norm.
Nonhumans are denied rights with the same techniques used against humans
The animal rights movement matured in the 1970s when more humans began to critically question the power disparity between humans and non¬humans. Arguments were then fashioned to comfort those who opposed the disparity—“Cows must be killed because humans must eat meat.” “Rats must be killed to cure cancer.” “Minks must be killed for fashion or warmth.” These arguments are no different than any other type of genetic supremacy ideol¬ogy by inflaming the fears of ardent supporters and seducing the undecided to oppose animal rights.
Common themes to delegitimize minorities are sometimes elusive but suddenly obvious when they’re revealed. For example, René Descartes in¬famously nailed dogs and cats to boards to dissect them alive. He reasoned that their screams were not the result of meaningful pain or suffering14 because their reaction was like a machine or clock that chimed a bell. Not coincidentally, J. Marion Sims, who is regarded as the father of modern gynecology, managed to preempt objections to his painful experiments on black women by convincing the public that they don’t feel pain. The capac¬ity of nonhumans and black women to suffer was inconvenient to those who wanted to profit from cutting them. The capacity of nonhumans to suffer is still denied today by those who want to profit from their bodies and the same mindless arguments are offered to deaden objections. Consider what the U.S. pig killing industry suggests, “Forget the pig is an animal. Treat him just like a machine in a factory.”15
Such themes are known to social justice advocates. We know that op¬pressors control the narrative by explaining how the dominated need to be oppressed for their own good, like cutting the beaks off hens so they don’t peck each other or bombing Iraq into democracy. These narratives are more potent when they provide a gift to the listener, like promising to cure lung cancer by forcing beagles to inhale smoke or banning Muslims to stop ter¬rorism. Advocates must recognize these themes not only for their individual falsehood but to understand the patterns behind such propaganda. Even if Iraq could be bombed into democracy, that does not entitle the U.S. to com¬mit mass murder. Even if lung cancer could be cured by torturing beagles to death, vivisectors are not entitled to commit mass murder. Iraqis and beagles have a right to live that cannot be trumped for another’s profit or pleasure.
All arguments to deny nonhumans moral rights are logical fallacies
Themes of oppression spawn individual arguments. One can master the philosophy of animal rights by swapping each instance of “human” with “nonhuman” in arguments for and against human rights. For example, a pro-human-slavery argument might claim that the ability to force a human to labor justifies doing so. This is of course absurd because might does not make right. This argument is just as absurd when applied against nonhumans because strength does not become the measure of morality by changing spe¬cies. The ability to force a bird into a cage, a dolphin into an aquarium, a dog in front of a sled, or a rat into a medical experiment does not make any of these things moral.
All arguments against animal rights fit into a few categories and each category commits a logical fallacy, such as the appeal to force fallacy of “might makes right.” Learning logical fallacies is useful because they help us to quickly dispense with bad arguments.
Human exceptionalism has been the source of the most popular argu¬ments against animal rights such as, “Humans are on top of the food chain; therefore, humans have a right to eat others.” I’ll use this argument to walk you through its fallacies.
(1) It is an appeal to force when it means: whoever is on top of the food chain has a right to kill others because they have the power to kill others.
(2) It is also an appeal to tradition, which means: we have a right to kill others because our ancestors did. We shouldn’t base morality on what our ancestors did. Chances are that murder and rape are in everyone’s family tree. Similarly, we shouldn’t argue that enslaving horses is moral because horses have been enslaved for millennia any more than we can make the same argument to enslave humans. Traditions should not con¬tinue for tradition’s sake but because the tradition is moral.
(3) It is also an appeal to evolution, which means: we have a right to kill others because evolution gave us the ability to kill others. This argu¬ment is irrational because evolution has given us the ability to do many things (again, murder and rape) but that does not make those things moral. Humans who make this argument confuse themselves with real predators, like sharks, who will actually die without eating prey.
Apart from its logical failures, it’s a popular myth that humans evolved to eat nonhumans. Here is a quick human evolution timeline: Mam¬mals who lived around 70 million years ago ate insects. Some of them colonized trees in pursuit of those insects. Over time, these arboreal mammals adapted to a flower and fruit diet. These mammals were our ancestors who evolved into primates. The earliest evidence of meat-eating by our primate ancestors comes from around 3.4 million years ago in the form of carved bones. A cache of carved bones and stone tools discovered in the Olduvai Gorge and dated to around 1.8 million years ago fueled the belief that pre-humans were hunters. The cache provided no data as to how the meat was acquired nor how much meat the pre-humans ate. (Imagine trying to determine the diet of college students by examining petrified cafeteria trash and not knowing the stu¬dent population.) Evidence shows only scarce and opportunistic meat eating until 50,000 years ago when hunting became feasible but low technology ensured that these humans were not particularly successful. Meat is still not a significant part of the human diet except for some in wealthy nations. This timeline means humans have only eaten meat out of tradition and not evolution.
(4) It is also an appeal to intellect, which is a variant appeal to evolution. Rapid scientific discoveries around the 1900s coincided with enormous egalitarian pressures. White patriarchs composed the political and sci¬entific majority worldwide and predictably white scientists used their disciplines to aid white men to stay in power. In the U.S., black people had recently been emancipated and women demanded the vote. One response from the science community was that white men were smarter and selected by evolution to rule because women had smaller brains than men16 and black people had smaller brains than white people.17 Even if white males had larger brains, it should go without saying that that does not impute white males with a greater intellect or the right to rule. Similarly, the typically large brain of humans compared with non¬humans does not impute us with greater intellect (we have a penchant for electing dictators, waging war, and threatening our own extinction) nor a right to rule.18
The appeal to intellect can also be viewed as a variant appeal to force. Aristotle pushed this idea with his Nature’s Ladder argument. He claimed that the most rational beings are higher on the Ladder and have a right to dominate those beneath: the less rational. Thus, divine be¬ings dominate natural beings. Conveniently, philosophers like Aristotle were next in line. He considered all men more rational than women and all humans more rational than nonhumans. Yet neither mental strength nor physical strength provide a moral basis for harming others. Brain size should not be confused with intelligence, nor intelligence with wis¬dom, nor any of these with a right to rule.
These several fallacies are also undone by their apparent hypocrisy. Imagine any scenario where extraterrestrials were in the seat of power. What if the Earth was colonized by Kanamits, as it was in the famous episode of the The Twilight Zone? Fans of the show know that this big-brained species is much stronger and smarter than even the most exceptional humans. If humans would not immediately surrender to Kanamits or to any other physically and intellectually superior alien race obedient to Nature’s Ladder, then clearly the reasoning many of us use to dominate nonhumans is dishonest and self¬ish. The king says whoever wears the crown shall rule until the crown is taken from him! It is as unjust for “superiors” to enslave us as it is for us to enslave “inferiors.”
Social justice includes animal rights
Social justice is called for when individuals of a class are denied moral rights or the laws that protect those moral rights. For example, SeaWorld imprisons orcas (a class) and denies them their moral right to liberty. Tili¬kum, the tragic star of the Blackfish documentary,19 was captured in 1983 and died at SeaWorld in 2017. He was a slave for thirty-four years to generate profits for his owners. All orcas and other prisoners of euphemistic “marine parks,” whether born in captivity or captured, want to be free. As sentient beings, they deserve to be free. Tilikum and others like him deserve freedom through social justice.
The National Lawyers Guild made a large step forward by recognizing animal rights as a social justice issue when it adopted its Food Justice Guide¬lines (2015). The Guidelines include the following language, “Whereas the Guild has begun to recognize and include animals and animal rights within our larger anti-oppression and anti-violence framework. . . .” Animal rights is a social justice issue no less than any other. Many social justice luminaries recognize that oppression is not limited to humans alone. Dick Gregory and Cesar Chavez included veganism20 in their advocacy because they identified suffering per se as the moral wrong, not just human suffering. I authored dozens of micro-biographies in the Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism21 that included numerous human rights ad¬vocates who also pursued animal rights, but they are few compared to the many less famous social justice advocates today who also don’t distinguish human rights as different or superior to animal rights.
Philosopher Steven Best wrote extensively on total liberation to unite all of the oppressed rather than to allow divisions between each oppressed class.22 This approach is vital. Nature’s Ladder is tribal, hierarchal, and seductive. Fighting against tribalism one rung of the ladder at a time is contrary to the NLG’s policy of universal justice and would ignore the identical struc¬tural injustice of each battle. Tribalism is the enemy of egalitarianism. In this way, feminists should also fight for the environment, environmental¬ists should also fight for animal rights, and animal advocates should also fight for feminism. Each of us can and should support and help all other progressive movements.
Nonhumans are an extreme political minority because they are thinking and feeling beings whose moral rights are ignored. Many live in misery and die horribly. Their suffering is made invisible by the society who claims to love animals but still wants to benefit from their exploitation. They are vic¬tims without end because few humans recognize their suffering and fewer do anything about it. Women and other minorities have made significant gains with legal rights due to social justice activism and because they are the same species as the political majority. Nonhumans have the anatomy to suffer but they don’t look like us so they have a long way to go before they receive due empathy and activism.
Nonhumans and their advocates need lawyers. At a minimum, animal rights activists need help on both sides of civil litigation and occasionally in criminal defense. Remarkably, at the time of this writing, the FBI is searching for two baby pigs who were taken by animal advocates when they were newborn and near death at a feedlot.23 How could a compassionate act, which at worst should be charged as larceny, be considered domestic terrorism? Answer: 18 U.S.C. § 43 labels interstate economic harm to an animal enterprise as terrorism. Nonhumans also need lawyers to push the legal envelope toward their emancipation. Steven Wise heads the Nonhu¬man Rights Project with the mission to achieve nonhuman personhood for the great apes. Recently, NhRP petitioned for habeas corpus on behalf of two chimpanzees: Hercules and Leo.24 Some attorneys have dedicated their entire law practice to reducing the suffering of nonhumans and sup¬porting their advocates like Christine Garcia (California) and Adam Karp (Washington). I administer an e-mail list for nearly one hundred attorneys who litigate at least part-time for nonhumans or their advocates.
In the U.S., attorneys like Steven Wise,25Christine Garcia, and Adam Karp are vanguards. Attorneys in Brazil were granted habeas corpus for Suíça, a chimpanzee,26 while in Argentina attorneys secured “basic rights” for an orangutan named Sandra.27 Zurich, Switzerland appointed attorney Antoine Goetschel specifically to prosecute animal cruelty cases. And legal advocacy is not limited to the courtroom. In 2013, the Indian Ministry of the Environment and Forests declared dolphins to be “nonhuman persons” to end their private and public exhibition throughout the country.28 This declaration was made one year after scientists passed the Declaration of [Moral] Rights for Cetaceans.29 Mexico City has banned dolphin exhibitions as of January 2018.30 Nonhumans need more advocates of all types to help in and out of court to end their nightmare. I hope that this article helps to inspire you to consider becoming one of their defenders.
What animal emancipation may look like
I ate cows during the 1970s and ’80s, but not whales. I reasoned that eating a whale was eating a person because they were smart and formed families. In the late ’80s, I first understood that cows were smart and had families too. They were people by my “whale” definition but culture had taught me to eat cows and not whales. Without intending it, I created a fictional world where cows were dumb and solitary so I could justify eating them. Now I believe that every form of oppression is caused by individuals creating a fictional world to justify hurting others. Learning about animal rights convinced me whales, cows, and all other nonhumans have moral rights because they all want to live and be free, and don’t want to suffer. I no longer believe only humans are persons. All sentient members of the animal kingdom are persons.
As surprising or shocking as my change of values may sound, living with¬out violence against nonhumans has brought enormous peace to me in the last twenty-five years as well as to the nonhumans I would have consumed. The average person in the U.S. eats 4,925 nonhumans in twenty-five years.31
I recognize that paradigm shifts sometimes cause panic. You may feel panic if you imagine no longer eating, wearing, or otherwise consuming or using nonhumans. Fear of change is no reason not to change. It was once unimaginable that human slavery would end. Now human slavery is illegal worldwide and its practice has vastly diminished. Human economies and behaviors must change again for animal rights and all of us will be better for it. I also recognize that animal rights seeks unprecedented change that will take time to normalize. Animal rights will end the meat and dairy industries. It will end leather, wool, fur, and silk. Even the pet trade will end. Every industry and practice that uses nonhumans will end when nonhumans are no longer treated as chattel but as persons. This revolution is necessary today but these industries and practices will be replaced gradually as entrepreneurs find substitutes. Mechanized labor helped accelerate the end of slavery for economic reasons. The end of nonhuman slavery is also accelerating on these economic grounds. The public continues to learn that plants are overall superior and less expensive sources of nutrition compared to any nonhuman flesh. New foods are finding customers such as plant milks (derived from soy, rice, almonds, etc.) are less expensive, less perishable, more healthful, and use less land, water, and other resources than animal milks. Medical research, once inseparable from vivisection, has spawned more accurate non-animal research.
While the economy changes, those who profit most by using nonhumans as property will attack animal rights exactly as every other social justice movement has been attacked by those who fear their own loss of privilege or income. McDonald’s infiltrated a small environmental group and unsuc¬cessfully sued its members for libel.32 The Center for Consumer Freedom represents several industries that enslave nonhumans and CCF constantly feeds the media with false and misleading stories of sinister animal advocates. And pig rescuers are being hunted as domestic terrorists! It’s important to recognize that these attacks are the usual propaganda and backlash waged by unjust industries and government enforcers.
Finally, social justice advocates should welcome animal rights even if they reject egalitarian arguments because animal rights directly helps humans. The meat and dairy industries are notorious abusers of workers who are typically undocumented immigrants and these industries have poor occupational safety (for example, those who kill chickens suffer the most finger amputations). Ending meat and dairy would dramatically improve our environment, since the meat industry is the top cause of climate change,33 and reverse deforesta¬tion. Farmland rededicated from feeding nonhumans to humans can easily end world hunger by not wasting food on nonhumans. Drought would be less threatening as a vast amount of water is lost to grow nonhumans. Wars ultimately caused by food and water shortages will be averted. A plant diet lowers the risk of almost all diseases, especially the top killers (cancer, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, etc.) and many current and potential pandemics originate from using nonhumans for food (avian flu, swine flu, Ebola from bats, etc.). Meat and dairy industries receive enormous tax subsidies that should be stopped or at least used for public services. Every industry that uses nonhuman animals does so at the cost of humans, not only meat and dairy. The fur industry, for example, wastes land and other resources, and poisons the environment with concentrated nonhuman waste and fur preservatives.
For further reading, please choose The Dreaded Comparison,34 about hu¬man and nonhuman slavery; The Sexual Politics of Meat,35 about patriarchy’s offenses against women and nonhumans; Rattling the Cage,36about nonhu¬man personhood; and The Politics of Total Liberation,37 about uniting social justice movements.
_______________________
NOTES
1. “Humans and nonhumans” is the correct dichotomy, not “humans and animals,” because humans are animals. Compare “Drugs and alcohol,” which wrongfully implies that al¬cohol is not a drug. Thus, I use “nonhumans” to refer to nonhuman animals. However, I preserve “animal” in “animal rights” because it’s an established term.
2. Animal rights theory recognizes individuals, so all group-names are pluralized, e.g., fishes, deers, sheeps, etc.
3. This question prompts a discussion on the differences between human and animal rights, which is outside the scope of the article.
4. Collectively, “human rights” and “animal rights” are referred to as “moral rights.”
5. Animal rights philosophy can be found throughout history. It was developed into a cogent philosophy in the mid-1900s. See RuthHarrison, Animal Machines (1964).
6. Judge Judy is a retired judge who presides over a popular arbitration-based reality court television show.
7. Oliver Gettell, Watch Judge Judy Set a Dog Loose in Court to Determine its True Owner, Entertainment Weekly (Aug. 15, 2017, 6:37 PM), http://ew.com/tv/2017/08/15/judge-judy-dog-finds-owner-court-video.
8. 40 U.S. 518 (1841).
9. Noam Mohr, How Many Animals Die to Feed Americans? Animal DeathCount (May 2014), http://animaldeathcount.webnode.com/all-animals-2011. This titanic number is dwarfed by counting the nonhumans killed for other reasons, in other countries, and those who are oppressed but not killed.
10. Michael Shermer, Confessions of a Speciesist: Where Do Nonhuman Mammals Fit in Our Moral Hierarchy?, Scientific American(Jan. 2014), available at https://michaelshermer.com/2014/01/confessions-of-a-speciesist.
11. Sea sponges and five other animal species have no nerves and are excluded.
12. See Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man(1871) (“There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties [and all the differences are] of degree, not of kind.”).
13. See Richard Dawkins, Is Animal Cruelty the New Slavery?, BigThink (Sept. 2, 2017), http://bigthink.com/videos/richard-dawkins-is-animal-cruelty-the-new-slavery.
14. Descartes admitted that dogs and cats felt pain but he said their pain was different than human pain and unimportant.
15. JohnByrnes, HogFarmManagement (Sept. 1976).
16. See, e.g., Leigh van Valen, Brain Size and Intelligence in Man, 40 Am. J. of Physical Anthropology 417 (1974).
17. See, e.g., Urmee Khan, Scientists Claim Black People are Less Intelligent than Whites in Channel 4 Show, The Telegraph (Oct. 15, 2009, 7:00 AM), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ culture/tvandradio/6327171/Scientists-claim-black-people-less-intelligent-than-whites-in-Channel-4-show.html.
18. Some nonhumans have a larger brain (e.g., whales, elephants, etc.) and a proportionately larger brain (e.g., shrews, Peters’ elephantnose fish) than humans.
19. Blackfish(Magnolia Pictures 2013).
20. Vegans do not use or consume nonhumans.
21. Cultural Encyclopedia of Vegetarianism(Margaret Puskar-Pasewicz ed., 2010).
22. See StevenBest, The Politics of Total Liberation: Revolutionfor the 21st Century (2014).
23. See Justin Wm. Moyer, FBI Raids Animal Shelters, Searching For Piglets Rescued From Factory Farm, Activists Say, Wash. Post (Sept. 14, 2017), www. washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/09/14/fbi-raids-animal-shelters-searching-for-piglets-rescued-from-factory-farm-activists-say.
24. See Two Former Lab Chimpanzees Exploited For Scientific Research, Waiting To Be Released To Sanctuary. NonhumanRights Project, https://www.nonhumanrights.org/ hercules-leo (last visited Feb. 4, 2018).
25. Brigit Katz, Lawsuit Seeks “Personhood” for Three Connecticut Elephants, Smithsonian.com(Nov. 16, 2017), https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/ lawsuit-contends-three-elephants-are-legal-persons-180967240/.
26. See Introduction to the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, 9th Salvador Crim. No. 833085-3, 2005 (Salvador, Bahia, Braz.) (“[Petitioners] bring action under Art. 5º, LXVIII, Brazil Constitution and Art. 647, Code of Criminal Procedure. The Petitioners seek the Great Writ on Behalf of Suíça, Chimpanzee who is a prisoner at the Zoo Getúlio Vargas, to relief from illegal and abusive acts perpetrated by the director of the govern¬ment Secretariat for Biodiversity, Environment, and Water Resources.”).
27. See Helen Regan, In Argentina, a Court Grants Sandra the Orangutan Basic Rights, Time (Dec. 22, 2014), http://time.com/3643541/argentina-sandra-orangutan-basic-rights/.
28. Venus Upadhayaya, India Calls Dolphins ‘Non-Human Persons’, Bans In-Captivity Shows, EpochTimes (May 24, 2013, 9:26 AM), http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/73290-india-calls-dolphins-non-human-persons-bans-in-captivity-shows/.
29. Dolphins Deserve Same Rights As Humans, Say Scientists, BBCNews (Feb. 21, 2012), http://www.bbc.com/news/world-17116882.
30. Emily Green, Mexico City Is Banning Dolphin Shows, Taking A Lead On Animal Rights, PRI (Aug. 25, 2017, 12:30 PM). https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-08-25/mexico-city-banning-dolphin-shows-taking-lead-animal-rights.
31. See Mohr, supra note 9 (using Noam Mohr’s 63 billion total for 2011).
32. See McLibel Case, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case (last visited Feb. 4, 2018).
33. See The World’s Leading Driver of Climate Change: Animal Agriculture, New Harvest (Jan, 18, 2015), http://www.new-harvest.org/the_world_s_leading_driver_of_climate_ change_animal_agriculture (The U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization published “Livestock’s Long Shadow” that concluded the meat and dairy industries contributed 18 percent of greenhouse gases. Experts at the World Bank published “Livestock and Climate Change” that re-analyzed the FAO report and concluded the industries contributed 51 percent of greenhouse gases.).
34. Marjorie Spegel, The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery (3d ed. 2014).
35. Carol J. Adams, The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-VegetarianCritical Theory (Anniversary ed. 2015).
36. Steven M. Wise, Rattling The Cage: Toward Legal Rights For Animals (1st ed. 2000).
37. Best, supra note 22.

Editor’s Preface (Fall 2017)March 26, 2018Similar post
Humans, Hierarchy, and Human RightsMarch 26, 2018Similar post
On Accepting the Champion of Justice Award, NYC Chapter of the NLG on June 9, 2017August 31, 2017Similar post
Post navigation
← Rosario, Vilardi, and Their Progeny:…
Activism as a Legal Strategy:… →
NLG Review: Social justice law journal by the National Lawyers Guild

Don’t Speak

You and me
We used to be together
Everyday together always
I really feel
That I’m losing my best friend
I can’t believe
This could be the end
It looks as though you’re letting go
And if it’s real
Well I don’t want to know
Don’t speak
I know just what you’re saying
So please stop explaining
Don’t tell me ’cause it hurts
Don’t speak
I know what you’re thinking
I don’t need your reasons
Don’t tell me ’cause it hurts
Our memories
Well, they can be inviting
But some are altogether
Mighty frightening
As we die, both you and I
With my head in my hands
I sit and cry
Don’t speak
I know just what you’re saying
So please stop explaining
Don’t tell me ’cause it hurts (no, no, no)
Don’t speak
I know what you’re thinking
I don’t need your reasons
Don’t tell me ’cause it hurts
It’s all ending
I gotta stop pretending who we are
You and me I can see us dying, are we?
Don’t speak
I know just what you’re saying
So please stop explaining
Don’t tell me ’cause it hurts (no, no, no)
Don’t speak
I know what you’re thinking
And I don’t need your reasons
Don’t tell me ’cause it hurts
Don’t tell me ’cause it hurts!
I know what you’re saying
So please stop explaining
Don’t speak
Don’t speak
Don’t speak
Oh I know what you’re thinking
And I don’t need your reasons
I know you’re good
I know you’re good
I know you’re real good
Oh, la la la la la la, la la la la la la
Don’t, don’t, uh-huh hush, hush darlin’
Hush, hush darlin’ hush, hush
Don’t tell me tell me ’cause it hurts
Hush, hush darlin’ hush, hush darlin’
Hush, hush don’t tell me tell me ’cause it hurts

Less Than Human

The Backyard Dog

You see one in every community, a dog tied day after day to a back porch or fence, lying lonely on a pad of bare, packed dirt. The water bowl, if there is one, is usually empty or out of reach. Abandoned, but chained up, backyard dogs cannot move to comfort, shelter, or companionship. In winter, they shiver, in summer, they languish… year round they suffer.

Of course, dogs can be forced to live outside, alone and away from their human pack, but to force this kind of life on a dog is one of the worst things you can do. Being alone goes against the dog’s most basic instinct. If you doubt this, think of all the whining, barking, clawing dogs you have seen tied alone outside. These dogs are trying desperately to get the attention of their human families.

People who keep their dogs constantly tied outside rationalize it, saying that they do spend time with them. But even the most well-meaning among them do not spend significant time with their animal companions. Under the best of circumstances, the backyard dog gets a bowl of food and water, a quick pat on the head and maybe a few minutes of contact with another living being each day.

Dogs can offer people the gifts of steadfast devotion, abiding love and joyful companionship. Unless people accept these offerings and take the time to return them in kind, it would be best to not get a dog. A sad, lonely, bewildered dog tied out back only suffers, and what sort of person wants to maintain suffering?

Concerta Found To Cause Birth Defects, Duh!

Concerta was tested on animals without birth defects in their offspring, so the greedy pharmaceutical companies use this as their gage of human safety.  This is so wrong as humans and animals are similar but different enough that they respond to medications completely different some so much that one thing that is safe in animals can be deadly in humans and vice versa.  For example, chocolate is deadly to dogs

www.reuters.com/article/us-health-adhd-pregnancy-defects/adhd-drug-tied-to-heart-defects-in-babies-idUSKBN1EU1ZY

Other examples why testing products on animals is a bad idea and should be banned………

As few as 20 holly berries would be fatal to a human child, but birds such as cedar waxwings, mockingbirds, American robins, etc. eat them greedily.

The Monarch butterfly, of course, is well-known for exclusively eating toxic milkweed in order to concentrate the toxins in its own body, rendering the adult butterfly bitter and poisonous to other animals.

Deer browse on plants like skunk cabbage and false hellebore. One tiny bite of skunk cabbage would leave a burning sensation in the human mouth for hours.

Lots of animals eat acorns, raw, right out of the shell. Humans can eat them, but only after they’ve been washed repeatedly in water to remove the tannins – the nuts are toxic to us due to the high level of tannins, prior to that treatment (not to mention, too bitter to be palatable).

Deadly nightshade, aka belladonna – a plant that will cause hallucinations, delirium, and death in humans. Only two berries will kill a child, and 10 to 20 will kill a healthy adult. Eating a single leaf may prove fatal. Cattle, horses, goats, sheep, and rabbits munch it down with impunity (though many of our pets may be killed by it as well).

So, in short; the idea that you can figure out what’s safe to eat in the woods by watching what the animals eat couldn’t possibly be more wrong.

Now, the reason so many of our foods are toxic to dogs and cats, but not the other way around, is that dogs and cats are carnivores. They evolved to eat meat. And while dogs are partway down the evolutionary path to omnivory, they’re not very far down it. Meat-eaters don’t have to tolerate plant toxins, so they’re much more sensitive to a variety of chemicals found in plants, but not in meat. Humans are omnivores. The wider the range of foods we can eat, the better; but our ability to identify edibles and discern between plants easily means we didn’t evolve resistance to as many things as typical herbivores have.

Video: Plastic microfibers entering the food chain via plankton

Corner of the Cabinet

The damage caused by plastic products entering Earth’s oceans is well-documented and widely understood by the general public (at least in the developed parts of the world) and we know that plastics are often ingested by marine life. For the animals that don’t die as a result of that ingestion, researchers know that the chemicals derived from those plastics, such as PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), can become sequestered and concentrated in the animals’ tissues. Those chemicals are then passed-up the food chain and can ultimately reach humans, potentially causing nervous, immune, and endocrine system dysfunction in addition to impaired reproductive function and cancer (source).

It’s easy to imagine fish, sea turtles, or birds consuming plastics but there is an equally, if not more, devastating phenomenon happening mostly beyond the reach of the unaided human eye. Microscopic plastics formed by photodegradation or simply microscopic by virtue of their inherent…

View original post 404 more words

Kibble Kills Cats

source Dr. Jean Dodds....

Yes; wet food should be a cat’s primary source of nutrition.

How many of you are irked by this statement? You’ve tried and TRIED! Yet, your cat is a creature of habit and can be particularly stubborn. Some cats would rather not eat altogether than sacrifice their beloved kibble. Of course, these eating habits are not exclusive to cats but can be applied to some finicky dogs as well. What is a frustrated pet caregiver to do?

Why a Cat Needs Wet Food

Let’s step back for a second and discuss the WHY. Domesticated cats are descended from the African Wildcat. Observations have demonstrated that the African Wildcat only derives 10% of his moisture needs from freshwater sources and 90% from prey. Even though cats started the domestication process over 10,000 years ago, their primary purpose was to curb rodent populations so they continued to receive moisture from prey. During the early 20th Century, humans started imposing 6-10% moisture kibble diets on domesticated cats. Unfortunately, cats have not naturally replaced the moisture with drinking water but are still driven by their instincts to avoid vulnerable, head down positions.

Due to this, domesticated indoor cats whose primary diets are kibble based have experienced life-threatening urinary and kidney conditions, which can cost pet caregivers thousands of dollars in emergency care. Dr. Becker has several articles on the subject – see below for these links.

Compromising with Kibble

As I stated earlier, cats and finicky dogs raised on kibble can be difficult to switch to canned, dehydrated or, the preferred, raw diets. So, how do you work with kibble?

1. Switch to a “Better-for-You” kibble. (Visit your locally owned and operated pet supply retailer for help.)

  • Avoid artificial colors. Several pet foods and treats are injected with artificial colors to enhance their visual appeal to humans. For instance, yellow dye No. 5 (tartrazine 102 and yellow 2G107) and yellow No. 6 (sunset yellow FCF 110) contain carcinogenic benzidine and other chemicals that bodies convert to benzidine. Yellow dye No. 5 is believed to cause hypersensitivity reactions, especially in aspirin-sensitive individuals, and hyperactivity in some children. Yellow dye No. 6 has been reported to cause adrenal and kidney tumors, as well as severe hypersensitivity reactions in some people. Additional adverse reactions in both humans and pets have been reported such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal cramping and pain, headache, provocation of asthma, inhalant dermatitis and behavioral disorders.
  • Avoid the bad, synthetic antioxidants: butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) and butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). BHA and BHT are often used to prevent fat spoilage and rancidity in pet foods and human foods. According to the National Institutes of Health, BHA in diets has been found to consistently produce certain types of tumors in laboratory animals and they have carcinogenic (cancer causing) properties.
  • Avoid ethoxyquin. More cancer causing agents! Ethoxyquin is used as a pesticide AND a food preservative (the irony!). It has been linked clinically with liver and kidney cancer in dogs, as well as anemia, reproductive failure, and elevations in serum liver-related enzymes in some animals.
  • Avoid rosemary and oregano. Rosemary and oregano are often used as natural dog and cat food preservatives. While I applaud the use of natural preservatives over synthetic, rosemary and oregano are contraindicated in pets who are epileptic or prone to seizures. (Absolute contraindication means that a substance could cause a life-threatening situation and should be avoided.)
  • It’s OK! Tocopherols and ascorbic acid. Kibble and some other pet foods do need preservative additives. Tocopherols are derived from Vitamin E and ascorbic acid refers to Vitamin C. You may want to ensure that the tocopherols are not derived from soy, though, or any food ingredient your dog or cat may react to.

2. Try freeze-dried.
Freeze-dried foods contain less moisture than kibble and have a close texture to kibble. However, freeze-drying removes the moisture without heat so it preserves the ingredients in a more natural state compared to kibble. At the time of this writing, most pet food companies that specialize in freeze-dried also source ingredients more responsibly. Once you transition to freeze-dried, you can attempt to add sprinkles of water, slowly increase the water to make a moisture-based diet, and eventually transition to frozen raw, dehydrated or canned.

3. Drinking fountains.
Filtered drinking fountains should be a staple in any cat household. They provide burbling streams of water with which cats love to interact and help keep the head in a more upright, less vulnerable position. If you need to save up for a drinking fountain, I would strongly suggest a tall glass or Bisphenol-A (BPA)-free plastic cup of water. As well, you can turn on the tub slightly while you are in the bathroom to encourage drinking.

Dr. Becker’s Articles on Cat Urinary Health

Idiopathic Chronic Cystitis in Pet Cats

Urinary Tract Infection: Eliminate the #1 Reason Cats Go to the Vet 

Accurately Diagnosing Bacterial Urinary Infection in Cats

Bladder Infection: The Number 1 Reason Cats Visited the Vet in 2011 

W. Jean Dodds, DVM
Hemopet / NutriScan
11561 Salinaz Avenue
Garden Grove, CA 92843


References

“BHA — A Time Bomb in Your Dog’s Food?” Dog Food Advisor, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2015. <http://www.dogfoodadvisor.com/red-flag-ingredients/bha-in-dog-food/&gt;.

Dodds, Jean, DVM, and Diana Laverdure, MS. Canine Nutrigenomics: The New Science of Feeding Your Dog for Optimum Health. Wenatchee: Dogwise, 2015. Print.

“Water, African Wildcat.” Cats Protection, n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2015. <http://learnonline.cats.org.uk/content/ufo/22.html&gt;.

Yacono, Ann. “Food Additives That Could Cause an Allergic Reaction.” LIVESTRONG.COM, 28 Jan. 2015. Web. 18 Oct. 2015. <http://www.livestrong.com/article/530389-food-additives-that-could-cause-an-allergic-reaction/&gt;.

Yoquinto, Luke. “The Truth About Food Additive BHA.” LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 01 June 2012. Web. 18 Oct. 2015. <http://www.livescience.com/36424-food-additive-bha-butylated-hydroxyanisole.html&gt;.