A n i m a l W r i t e s
© sm
The official ANIMAL
RIGHTS ONLINE newsletter
Publisher ~ EnglandGal@aol.com
Issue # 08/23/00
Editor ~ JJswans@aol.com
Journalists ~ PrkStRangr@aol.com
~
MicheleARivera@aol.com
~
SavingLife@aol.com
Layout ~ Corrynthia@aol.com
THE SIX ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE ARE:
1 ~ Where Humans Survive and Animals
Die by Steve Best
2 ~ Another Way to Help the Animals - submitted
by Diana Artemis
3 ~ USDA Seeks Comments on Definition of Animal
"Distress"
Submitted by Shirley
McGreal
4 ~ Beginners Guide to Genetic Engineering
Submitted by
info@viva.org.uk (Viva!)
5 ~ Poem: Someone Loves Me by RAJC@prodigy.net
(Richard Corsano)
6 ~ Quote to Remember - Song of Myself,
Leaves of Grass
`*³³¤³*´`´`*³:»§«:´*´`´`*³¤³«:*´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³:»«:*´`´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³*´`´`*:»§«:³*´`´`*¤³³*'
Where Humans Survive and
Animals Die
by Steve Best - sbest1@elp.rr.com
In an otherwise stale summer-rerun TV season, CBS
took a bold leap forward into the new trend of "reality TV" (an
interesting oxymoron if there ever was one) and aired the new show
"Survivor" which became an instant sensation, even beating the
insurmountable "Who Wants To Become a Millionaire" in the ratings
race. "Survivor" features 16 contestants dumped on the Pulau Tiga
Island off Borneo, each competing for a $1 million prize. Every week, after a
test of their physical abilities and endurance skills, the group votes one of
its members off the island until only one contestant remains to claim the
prize. When only two members are left, the entire cast returns to decide who
will win. Just think "Lord of the Flies" meets "Gilligan's
Island."
The genre of televising intimate details of the lives of ordinary individuals
began in the 1970s with the PBS series on the Louds family, and continued in
the 1990s with MTV shows "Real World" and "Road Rules." It
developed to new heights (or lows) in summer 2000 with "Survivor,"
"Big Brother," and "1900 House." Many more such shows are
in the works, and each has to become more bizarre and extreme to capture the
attention of jaded consumers.
Reality TV is part of a disturbing social trend where the boundaries between
private and public life erode, as media spectators become ever more
voyeuristic. This implosion is most
clearly revealed in phenomena such as confessional talk shows; the invasion of
the private lives of politicians and celebrities by the paparazzi and tabloids;
and webcams that allow individuals to broadcast the most intimate aspects of
their lives to a global internet audience.
"Survivor" is a showcase of American values and an allegory of
predatory capitalism. Competition, greed, narcissism, and the fetishization of
celebrity are blatantly on display. Social Darwinism moves to the foreground as
the contestants fight it out each week to outlast both the natural elements and
-- far more grueling -- one another. Initiially, the team members are split up
into "tribes." A bad choice
of words, for true tribes are organized around values of cooperation, whereas
the pseudo-tribes of CBS practice cutthroat competition and engage in
"alliances" only to further their own interests. As in capitalist
culture in general, the spirit of cooperation is rarely manifest; rather, a
war-of-all-against-all prevails.
Thus, the show does nothing to dispel the illusion that conflict, competition,
power, domination, struggle, and scarcity are the eternal order of things, in
both the natural and social worlds. Capitalism, thereby, is made perfectly
natural and the human condition appears to be nothing but the decaying rump of
possibility it is today. As always in the ideology of Social Darwinism, there
is a chronic slippage from (what allegedly are) natural conditions to social
conditions, and then back again. This oscillation justifies elitism, class
hierarchy, and brutal competition in society where the weak and
"unfit" are marginalized, cast aside, or allowed to expire -- just as
(we are led to believe) occurs in nature.
Yet there are no "losers" on "Survivor." Each of the
vanquished get their 15 minutes of fame on news and talk shows, as they receive
offers for further media work, to write books about their experience, to be
consultant to the contestants of "Survivor2," or even to pose for
Playboy. And brace yourself for the coming "Got Milk?" ads featuring
the final four. These junk celebrities have fame without achievement. Just as
they desire, their ordinariness is negated in the hot light of the media, but
in reality TV it is their prosaic being that makes them so extraordinary. They
are the Darva Congers of the world -- instant cultural icons, paragons of
nothingness. But soon enough the Warholian egg timer will run out and they will
plummet back into the banality of everyday life which will seem all the
gloomier after their massive inhale of celebrity crack.
There is more simulation than reality in "Survivor." Medical crews
are never far away, food often is brought in, the characters are chosen for
their videogenic qualities or likelihood to generate conflict, the action is
edited for maximum dramatic effect, and the ubiquitous presence of cameras and
microphones effects the way contestants talk and act. The spectacle of scarcity
and "roughing it" therefore is totally negated, as it certainly was
in episodes where contest winners ate pizza flown in from a chopper or dined on
a luxury yacht.
Unfortunately, one aspect of "Survivor" is all too real as the
contestants frequently kill animals for food. Fish, eels, manta rays, rats, and
chickens die on the slaughterbench of CBS profits and the vanities of celebrity
wanna-bes. Some very disturbing scenes
depicted the castaways laughing while trying to club rats to death, and
chopping the head off a frightened chicken and then zestfully devouring its
cooked corpse. One of the castaways was kind enough to name the chickens --
"breakfast, lunch, and dinner."
Such killing reinforces the widespread public opinion that animals exist
as entertainment value for humans -- a tradition some might think expired with
the Roman culture, but of course is alive and well in zoos, circuses, rodeos,
the entertainment industries, and now reality shows. Moreover, it underscores
the ideology that killing animals is natural for human beings, that we still
live in a pre-technological food chain where we have to kill to survive.
Outside of appeals to the Biblical claim that God created animals as
"meat" for humans, this is the most common legitimation for killing
animals. Thus, the ideology effect of "Survivor" -- which captivated
over one hundred million viewers for its final episode -- is damaging to the
movement for vegetarianism and non-violence (ahimsa).
Curiously, there hasn't been much uproar over "Survivor" in the
animal rights community. One notable exception is PETA, which was inundated
with complaints about the show. In a letter to the president of CBS, they
emphasized that the show delivered a dangerous message that it's fun to harm
animals, a belief our violent and anthropocentric culture certainly does not
need reinforced. "Survivor has
lightheartedly depicted cruelty that in many U.S. states is considered a
felony," PETA wrote, "we urge you to educate future contestants so
that they can identify and survive on edible vegetation. Please leave the
animals alone."
Columnists such as Marc E. Fisher and Deroy Murdock took great delight in
mocking PETA's defense of "rat rights" and reducing all animal rights
philosophy to absurd positions such as misanthropy. In his acrimonious
caricature of PETA and animal rights, Fisher points out that "rats were
responsible for one of the greatest plagues in history in the 14th century when
Europe lost between one third and one half of its entire population." I
don't think the brave warriors of "Survivor" were endangered at any
point by swarms of bubonic rats. The point is not whether rats have rights, but
that "Survivor" indulges in gratuitous killing and therefore
contributes to violent sensibilities and the lack of empathy for nonhuman
species.
While people living in conditions of true scarcity have no choice what to eat,
and may have to kill to survive, the world of "Survivor" is a meretricious,
manufactured, ultra-contrived simulacrum of pseudo-scarcity. The producers
intentionally rigged the show to encourage the islanders to kill fish, rats,
and chickens, and the conniving castaways all-too happily obliged. As columnist
Mesia Quartano observes, "There is more than enough drama when sixteen
people are placed in a difficult situation. Do viewers really want to see
unnecessary cruelty to animals?" Quartano rightly argues that the
producers could have made the game find the food stash rather than kill an
animal. But she misses the point: since
violence and killing bring huge ratings in TVland, the profit imperative
commands it.
It is instructive to think how different the series would be if one of the
contestants were a vegetarian (ideally, a vegan). He or she could educate
fellow islanders and the nation alike about the health, environmental, and
ethical problems that stem from the Global Meat Culture that itself barely
survives on animal products. A vegetarian could discuss how a diet heavy with
animal fats predispose one to an array of diseases; how the factory farm system
degrades the air, water, land, and forests; how the island terrain would be
most efficiently used to grow a plant-based diet; and how animals suffer
miserably in cages, boxes, shipping trucks, and slaughterhouses before they
land on the cafeteria tray or dinner plate.
But don't hold your breath for the vegetarian equivalent of an
"Ellen" to make it to a major network. In the meantime, you can take
some action to help prevent reality TV from going the way of crush videos.
<> <> <> <> <>
Please write to, fax, or call CBS to tell them there is nothing entertaining
about killing animals and not to repeat this mistake in future episodes of
"Survivor2" (the show's web site says the next contestants will have
"to build shelter, catch food and establish a new society").
Les Moonves, President and CEO
CBS Television, Inc.
CBS Television City
7800 Beverly Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Tel.: 323-575-2345
Fax: 323-651-0285
`*³³¤³*´`´`*³:»§«:´*´`´`*³¤³«:*´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³:»«:*´`´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³*´`´`*:»§«:³*´`´`*¤³³*'
Another Way to Help the Animals
from Diana Artemis - artemisd123@hotmail.com
You
know that annoying "junk mail" we all get that comes with
"Return Reply Envelopes"?
Well, those return envelopes are opened by living beings, who may just pause to
read something you send them! I've started enclosing a pamphlet or
brochure (PETA, AAVS, Farm Sanctuary have good ones you can get for free or
VERY cheap: go to their websites to see how to order) with a little stick-it
note that says, "Please take a moment to read and share with others"
or similar words that add a personal, human touch.
Just another subversive tactic to get the word out!
PETA - About PETA
http://www.peta-online.org/about/index.html
FARM Sanctuary
http://www.farmsanctuary.org/
American Anti-Vivisection Society
aavsonline@aol.com
`*³³¤³*´`´`*³:»§«:´*´`´`*³¤³«:*´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³:»«:*´`´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³*´`´`*:»§«:³*´`´`*¤³³*'
USDA
Seeks Comments on
Definition of Animal "Distress"
Submitted by Shirley McGreal - spm@awod.com
The USDA is currently considering the problem of
"Definitions for and reporting of Pain and Distress" and new
definitions have been proposed. They were published in the Federal Register on
10 July 2000 (Volume 65, No. 132, pages 42304-42305). Public comments are due
by 8 September 2000. It is very important that people concerned with the
plight of experimental animals comment. I have seen reports to USDA from
primate centers and other facilities in which the claim is made that, for the
year of the report, no animal suffered unrelieved pain or distress.
The information comes from:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
[[Page 42304]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 1 and 2
[Docket No. 00-005-1]
Animal Welfare; Definitions for and Reporting of Pain and Distress
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Request for comments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are considering several changes to the Animal Welfare regulations
to promote the humane treatment of live animals used in research, testing, and
teaching and to improve the quality of information we report to Congress
concerning animal pain and distress. Specifically, we are considering adding a
definition for the term "distress.'' Although this term is used throughout
the Animal Welfare regulations, it is not defined. The addition of such a
definition would clarify what we consider to be ``distress'' and could help
assist research facilities to recognize and minimize distress in animals in
accordance with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
We are also considering replacing or modifying the system we use to classify
animal pain and distress. Professional standards regarding the recognition and
relief of animal pain and distress have changed significantly since we
established our classification system. Some biomedical research professionals
and animal welfare advocates believe our classification system is outdated and
inadequate. A different categorization system could produce data that more
accurately depict the nature of animal pain or distress and provide a better
tool to measure efforts made to minimize animal pain and distress at research
facilities.
We are soliciting public comments on the changes we are considering. We are
also interested in obtaining information on specific pain and distress
classification systems other than the one we now use.
DATES: We invite you to comment on this docket. We will consider all comments
that we receive by September 8, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Please send your comment and three copies to:
Docket No. 00-005-1,
Regulatory Analysis and Development,
PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03,
4700 River Road,
Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 00-005-1. You may read any
comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room
is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street
and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours
are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
APHIS documents published in the Federal Register, and related information,
including the names of organizations and individuals who have commented on
APHIS dockets, are available on the Internet at
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html
FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Jodie Kulpa, Staff Veterinarian, AC, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 84, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234; (301) 734-7833.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the Secretary of
Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other requirements
regarding the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain
animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, carriers and intermediate
handlers. The Secretary has delegated responsibility for administering the AWA
to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Regulations established under the AWA are
contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in title 9, parts 1, 2, and
3 (referred to below as the regulations). Part 1 contains definitions for terms
used in parts 2 and 3. Part 2 contains general requirements for regulated
parties. Part 3 contains specific requirements for the care and handling of
certain animals.
We are soliciting comments on an approach, discussed below, for amending the
regulations by defining ``distress'' in part 1 and by modifying or replacing
the animal pain and distress classification system in part 2.
Definition for Distress
In the regulations, we define a ``painful procedure'' as any procedure that
would reasonably be expected to cause more than slight or momentary pain or
distress in a human being to which that procedure was applied. Although we use
the term ``distress'' in this definition and elsewhere in the regulations,
there is no definition for distress in the regulations. We are considering
adding such a definition because of requests from the biomedical research
community and animal advocacy groups. These parties have asked USDA to provide
guidance on what is considered to be distress in a procedure involving research
animals in order to improve recognition of animal distress, to classify and
report it more accurately, and to create a heightened awareness of the
regulations' requirement to minimize animal distress and pain.
Pain and Distress Classification System
Section 13(a)(7)(B) of the AWA requires research facilities to annually
provide "information on procedures likely to produce pain or distress
in any animal.'' In accordance with the
AWA, the regulations at Sec. 2.36 require facilities that use or intend to use
live animals for research, tests, experiments, or teaching to submit an annual
report to the Animal Care Regional Director for the State where the facility is
located. Among other things, the report must state the common names and the
numbers of animals upon which teaching, experiments, research, surgery, or
tests were conducted involving: (1) No pain, distress, or use of pain-relieving
drugs; (2) accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which
appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs were used; and (3)
accompanying pain or distress to the animals and for which the use of
appropriate anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs would have adversely
affected the procedures, results, or interpretation of the teaching, research,
experiments, surgery, or tests.
To provide these data, each research facility must assess the potential for
animal pain or distress associated with the proposed procedures.
This assessment is performed prospectively (i.e., before the procedure)
and typically forms the basis for the pain and distress report provided by the
facility to USDA. The assessment, therefore, is an estimate based on
professional judgment, knowledge, and experience, and the resulting report may
or may not accurately reflect the conditions the animals actually experience.
The research facility can, as an option, retrospectively (i.e., during or after
the procedure) assess the animal pain and distress observed and report these
results.
We do not know how often facilities perform retrospective reporting.
There is no provision in the current classification system to address some
areas identified by the research community and animal advocacy groups. For
example, the current system does not include a means to report:
• An assessment of the relative intensity or duration of pain or distress
either observed in the animal or anticipated to be experienced by the
animal;
• An assessment of the anticipated or observed efficacy of the pain- or
distress-relieving agent provided to animals undergoing a painful or
distressful procedure;
• A distinction between procedures causing animal pain and procedures causing
animal distress;
• Animals that were prevented from experiencing pain or distress by the
appropriate and effective use of pain- or distress- relieving methods or
procedures (e.g., well-anesthetized animals that undergo terminal surgery);
• Animals that did not experience pain or distress due to the appropriate and
effective use of pain- or distress-relieving methods or procedures other than
anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing agents;
• Animals that experience unrelieved pain or distress for a reason other than
that the use of anesthetic, analgesic, or tranquilizing drugs would have
adversely affected the procedures, results, experiments, surgery, or tests; or
• Animals that experience pain or distress without having been used in a
procedure (e.g., illness in animals that have been genetically altered to
develop disease).
We are aware of several alternative pain and distress classification systems.
For example, the system adopted by the Canadian Council on Animal
Care, "Categories of Invasiveness in Animal Experiments,'' may be
viewed on the Internet at
http://www.ccac.ca/english/categ.htm.
The
system proposed by the Humane Society of the United States may be viewed on the
Internet at:
http://hsus.org/
programs/research/usda_proposed_scale.html.\1\
Other
classification systems, varying greatly in complexity, are in use in
other countries, such as Switzerland and Sweden.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you do not have access to the Internet, you may obtain a copy of the system
adopted by Canadian Council on Animal Care or the system proposed by the Humane
Society of the United States by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of this document.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modifying the current USDA system, in lieu of replacing it, could also be an
option. This could involve replacing or redefining the existing categories to:
• Separately report pain and distress;
• Quantify pain and distress intensity and duration;
• Separately classify anesthetized or otherwise treated animals
undergoing potentially painful procedures but not experiencing pain or
distress; or
• Modify the system in other ways.
We invite your comments on adding a definition for distress to the regulations
and replacing or modifying our animal pain and distress classification
system. We are particularly interested
in soliciting comments addressing the following questions:
1. Would adding a definition for distress to the regulations help institutions
using animals for research, testing, or teaching better recognize, minimize,
and report animal distress?
2. If a definition for distress is added to the regulations, what key elements
should be included in that definition?
3. What are the benefits and limitations of our pain and distress
classification system?
4. Should our animal pain and distress classification system be modified or
replaced? If so, what specific modifications or alternate classification
systems should we consider?
5. Should animal pain and distress be prospectively or retrospectively
reported?
Written comments should be submitted within the 60-day comment period specified
in this document (see DATES and ADDRESSES).
Shirley McGreal, Chairwoman, International Primate Protection League
POB 766 Summerville SC 29484 USA
Phone: 843-871-2280 Fax: 843-871-7988
E-mail spm@awod.com or ippl@awod.com
`*³³¤³*´`´`*³:»§«:´*´`´`*³¤³«:*´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³:»«:*´`´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³*´`´`*:»§«:³*´`´`*¤³³*'
Beginners Guide to Genetic
Engineering
Submitted by info@viva.org.uk (Viva!)
Aimed
at those who don't know their genome from their mosaic virus, the useful little
guide, Genetic Engineering, by the animal charity Viva!, takes readers by
the hand and gives them a tour of the new technology. It costs just £1.50
(including p&p) [approximately $2.50 American money] and is available
direct from Viva!, 12 Queen Square, Brighton BN1 3FD. Call 01273 777688.
With Europe now giving the green light for the widespread introduction of
genetic modification, the timing is perfect. Genetic Engineering confirms
that the publics reaction against Frankenstein foods wasn't irrational and
sets out clear reasons why they have every reason to be worried.
It explains how genes are engineered and what they're used for --
including plants, animals, xenotransplantation and cloning. It then simply
and clearly runs through the failures that have already occurred and possible
future dangers for animal welfare, human health, the environment and hopes of a
sustainable future. It reveals that we are eating genes that have never been
part of the human diet -- genes from alien bacteria, rats and scorpions. This
reasoned argument against gene tampering is introduced by Luke
Anderson, author of the book Genetic Engineering, Food and our
Environment.
Perhaps just as worryingly, Genetic Engineering reveals that decisions
governing the introduction of this new technology have more to do with
political influence, commercial blackmail and friends in high places than sound
science. Professor of Genetics at
Harvard University, Richard Lewontin, sums up the fears: "We have
such a miserably poor understanding of how the organism develops from its DNA
(genetic blueprint) that I would be surprised if we don't get one rude shock
after another."
For further information or copies of the guide, contact:
Juliet Gellatley or Tony Wardle
Viva!
Vegetarians International Voice for Animals
12 Queen Square, Brighton BN1 3FD, UK
Tel: 01273 777688 Fax: 01273 776755
http://www.viva.org.uk
Registered Charity No. 1037486
`*³³¤³*´`´`*³:»§«:´*´`´`*³¤³«:*´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³:»«:*´`´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³*´`´`*:»§«:³*´`´`*¤³³*'
Someone Loves Me
by RAJC@prodigy.net (Richard Corsano)
I was just a puppy tied outside,
I was lonely, I cried--
You opened the door to yell at me,
I went quiet.
Something rattled the trash can lid,
I cried for you, I hid--
You cursed me and then you beat me,
I went quiet.
I didn't make anymore noise,
I cried out in my heart's voice--
And Someone came to me,
Someone comforted me.
Now I'm all grown up and you're afraid I'll bite
I won't, I'll kiss your hand--
Because in the dark, cruel, lonely night,
Someone taught me to forgive.
`*³³¤³*´`´`*³:»§«:´*´`´`*³¤³«:*´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`³:»«:*´`´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³*´`´`*:»§«:³*´`´`*¤³³*'
Quote To Remember
"My
tread scares the wood-drake and wood-duck on my distant and day-long ramble,
they rise together, they slowly circle around. I believe in those wing'd
purposes, and do not call the tortoise unworthy because she is not something
else.
~ Song of Myself, Leaves of
Grass
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
Susan Roghair - EnglandGal@aol.com
Animal Rights Online
P O Box 7053
Tampa, Fl 33673-7053
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1395/
-=Animal Rights Online=-
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
(Permission Granted To Quote/Forward/Reprint/Repost This
Newsletter In
Whole Or In Part with credit given to EnglandGal@aol.com)
* Please forward this to a friend who
you think
might be interested in subscribing to our newsletter.
* ARO gratefully accepts and
considers articles for publication
from subscribers on veg*anism and animal issues.
Send submissions to JJswans@aol.com