|
A
Peta Document
1.Dissection: Lessons in
Cruelty
2. Animal Research: Overview
3.Inside the Fur Industry: Factory Farms
4. Meatless Meals for Dogs and Cats
5.Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary
6.Fishing: Aquatic Agony
7.Living in Harmony With Nature
8. Frequently Asked Questions About Animal Rights
9.Animal Abuse and Human Abuse
10.Free-Range Eggs and Meat: Conning Consumers?
11. Keeping a Healthy Heart
12. Stem Cell Research: Moving Beyond Vivisection
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.Dissection:
Lessons in Cruelty

Dissection
is the practice of cutting into and studying animals. Every
year, millions of animals are used in secondary and college
science classes. (1) Each animal sliced open and discarded
represents not only a life lost, but also just a small part of a
trail of animal abuse and environmental havoc.
Suppliers
Frogs
are the most commonly dissected animals below the university
level. Other species include cats, mice, rats, worms, dogs,
rabbits, fetal pigs, and fishes. The animals may come from
breeding facilities which cater to institutions and businesses
that use animals in experiments; they may have been caught in
the wild; or they could be stolen or abandoned companion
animals. One of PETA's undercover investigators at one of the
nation's largest suppliers of animals for dissection was told by
his supervisor that some of the cats killed there were companion
animals who had "escaped" from their homes.
Slaughterhouses and pet stores also sell animals and animal
parts to biological supply houses.
PETA
investigators documented cases of animals being removed from gas
chambers and injected with formaldehyde without first being
checked for vital signs (a violation of the Animal Welfare Act).
(Formaldehyde is a severely irritating caustic substance which
causes a painful death.) Investigators videotaped cats and rats
struggling during infusion and employees spitting on the
animals.
Depleting
the Ecosystem
Frogs
are captured in the wild to stock breeding ponds because
populations die out if not replenished. A completely independent
frog colony has never survived long without the introduction of
"outside" frogs. (2)
In
their natural habitat, frogs consume large numbers of insects
responsible for crop destruction and the spread of disease. In
the years preceding India's ban on the frog trade, that country
was earning $10 million a year from frog exports, but spending
$100 million to import chemical pesticides to fight insect
infestations. (3) In addition, economic losses in agricultural
produce were heavy. Today, Bangladesh is the main Asian market
for frogs, and in the United States, scientists have noted
severe declines in frog and toad populations that they blame on
the capture of these animals for food and experiments, as well
as on causes of general environmental decline such as the use of
pesticides and habitat destruction. (4)
Killing
Compassion Along With the Frog
Classroom
dissection desensitizes students to the sanctity of life and can
encourage students to harm animals elsewhere, perhaps in their
own backyard. In fact, serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer attributed
his fascination with murder and mutilation to classroom
dissections. In the last interview before his death, televised
on Dateline NBC, Dahmer stated, "In 9th grade, in
biology class, we had the usual dissection of fetal pigs, and I
took the remains of that [pig] home and kept the skeleton of it,
and I just started branching out to dogs, cats." According
to Dahmer, he enjoyed the excitement and power he experienced
when cutting up animals and fantasized about cutting up a human
body.
Students
with little or no interest in pursuing a career in science
certainly don't need to see actual organs to understand basic
physiology, and students who are planning on pursuing a career
in biology or medicine would do better to study humans in a
controlled, supervised setting, or to study human cadavers or
some of the sophisticated alternatives, such as computer models.
Those who are rightfully disturbed by the prospect of cutting up
animals will be too preoccupied by their concerns to learn
anything of value during the dissection.
Students
Speak Up
More
and more students are taking a stand against dissection before
it happens in their classes, from the elementary school level on
up to veterinary and medical school. In 1987, Jenifer Graham
objected to dissection and was threatened with a lower grade.
Jenifer went to court to plead her case and later testified
before the California legislature, which responded by passing a
law giving students in the state the right not to dissect.
Jenifer's mother and the National Anti-Vivisection Society have
set up a hotline for students who want to avoid dissection.
Since Jenifer's case, thousands of students have opted to study
biology in humane ways, and many schools have accepted the
students' right to violence-free education.
Alternatives
Students
and teachers may choose from a wide range of sophisticated
alternatives to dissection. The typical science "lab"
at many schools now emphasizes computers rather than animal
cadavers.
Computer
programs such as VisiFrog, available from Ventura Educational
Systems (910 Ramona Ave., Suite E, Grover Beach, CA 93433:
1-800-473-7383), can be used as either a lesson or a test.
Programs include an identification game and a self-quiz,
covering topics such as frog musculature, cardiovascular system,
and respiratory system. As of this writing, the system costs
$59.95. Operation Frog, made by Scholastic, Inc. (2931 E.
McCarty St., P.O. Box 7502, Jefferson City, MO 65102;
1-800-541-5513), costs $79.95 to $99.95, depending on the type
of software. It simulates an actual dissection on the computer.
The Cambridge Development Laboratory (86 West St., Waltham, MA
02154; 1-800-637-0047) has a selection of educational software
for the Apple II, Commodore 64, and IBM PC for elementary
through college level classes in biology, botany, physiology,
and more.
Many
books also offer humane science lessons. The Anatomy Coloring
Book and The Zoology Coloring Book, both published by Harper
& Row, Inc., (10 East 53rd St., New York, NY 10022) are
appropriate for high school and college students. These books
are available in many bookstores for $10.95 and $11.95,
respectively.Most non-animal tools and lessons last for many
years and cost less than maintaining a constant supply of
animals. Because computer methods allow students to learn at
their own pace, they have proved to be as good as, and often
superior to, dissection as a learning tool.(5) University of
Virginia professor Mabel B. Kinzie compared students who used
the interactive "frog" videodisc she developed with
those who cut up real frogs. She found that students using the
computer program learned anatomy just as thoroughly--in an
environment that didn't reek of formaldehyde or require killing
a living being.(6)
Every
Student's Choice
Whether
you are a student, a parent, or a concerned taxpayer, you can
act to end dissection in your town's school system. If you are
expected to perform or observe a dissection, talk to your
teacher as early as possible about alternative projects. Call
the NAVS dissection hotline,1-800-922-FROG [3764], for tips on
what to say and how to proceed. If there is an animal rights
group at your school or in your community, ask them to help.
Parents can urge their local Parent-Teacher Association to ask
the area superintendent of schools or school board to consider a
proposal to ban dissections in public schools or at least give
all students the option of doing a non-animal project. It may
help to collect signatures on a petition and to present the
school board with information on the cruelty and environmental
destruction caused by animal dissection and on readily available
alternatives. If you can, arrange to show PETA's video on
biological supply companies, "Classroom Cut-Ups."
Get
your school to drop dissection--it's deadly.
References
-
National
Anti-Vivisection Society, "Objecting to Dissection--A
Student Handbook" (53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1552,
Chicago, IL, 60604; 800-922-3764), 1994.
-
Ethical
Science Education Coalition, Frog Fact Sheet (167 Milk St.,
#423, Boston, MA, 02109-4315; 617-367-9143), 1994.
-
Jayaraman,
K.S., "India Bans Frog Trade," Animal
Welfare Institute Quarterly, Spring/Summer 1987.
-
Booth,
William, "Frogs, Toads Vanishing Across Much of
World," The Washington Post, Dec. 13,
1989.
-
"Comparative
Studies of Dissection and Other Animal Uses in
Education," The Humane Society of the United States,
1994.
-
Orndorff,
Beverly, "Computer Program Is a Frog Saver," Richmond
Times-Dispatch, April 5, 1994.
|
2.
Animal Research: Overview

Experimentation
on animals in laboratories generally falls into one of
three categories—toxicity testing, education and
training, and basic or applied research. It is a common
misconception that most tests on animals are carried out
with the aim of finding a cure for cancer, AIDS, or
other devastating human diseases. Surveys clearly show
that the public accepts animal experimentation only
because it is believed to be necessary for medical
progress.(1) But according to some national statistics,
nearly two-thirds of all animal research has little or
nothing to do with curing human diseases or advancing
human medicine.(2) The reality is that much of this
research is little more than curiosity-driven cruelty.
Wasteful
and Unreliable
Each
year, around the world, millions of birds, cats, dogs,
farmed animals, fish, mice, monkeys, rats, rabbits, and
other domestic and wild animals are subjected to a wide
variety of experiments in the name of biology,
psychology, biochemistry, physiology, genetic
manipulation, and bio-warfare. The growing trend
toward curiosity-driven research is largely a product of
today’s “publish or perish” research environment,
in which scientists are recognized for the number of
research papers they publish rather than the
contribution that each study makes to the advancement of
science or medicine.
Even
animal research that is carried out for “medical
purposes” tends to be irrelevant to human health. A PETA
investigation revealed the grotesque abuse of animals in
laboratories at Columbia University, where baboons were
subjected to invasive surgeries and left to suffer and
die in their cages without any painkillers, and monkeys
were forced to endure surgical procedures in which metal
pipes were implanted into their skulls for the sole
purpose of inducing stress to study the connection
between stress and women’s menstrual cycles. In
another Columbia experiment, pregnant baboons were given
large doses of nicotine and morphine, had backpacks full
of instrumentation strapped to their backs, and were
tethered inside metal cages for observation. Their
babies underwent surgery while still in utero. One
baboon lost 40 percent of her bodyweight and developed a
severe bone infection that was left untreated. Please
visit ColumbiaCruelty.com
for more information.
Diseases
that are artificially induced in animals in a laboratory
are never identical to those that occur naturally in
human beings. And because animal species differ from one
another in many biologically significant ways, it
becomes even more unlikely that animal research will
yield results that will be correctly interpreted and
applied to the human condition in a meaningful way. The
fact that the species most often used in laboratory
experiments are chosen largely for nonscientific
reasons, such as cost and ease of handling, casts
further doubt on the validity of this research. In
addition, the results of animal experiments are often so
variable and easily manipulated that researchers have
used them to “prove”––depending on the source of
funding––that cigarettes do cause cancer and that
they do not! A careful scientific review of 10 randomly
chosen “animal models” of human disease found that
they made little, if any, contribution toward the
treatment of human patients.(7)
Funding
and Accountability
Through
their taxes, charitable donations, and purchases of
lottery tickets and consumer products, members of the
public are ultimately the ones who—knowingly or
unknowingly—fund animal research. The largest
proportion of funding comes from publicly funded
government granting agencies such as the U.S. National
Institutes of Health (NIH), the Canadian Institutes of
Health Research, and the U.K. Medical Research Council.
In 2004 alone, NIH awarded nearly $27 billion in grants
for basic and applied research, a large proportion of
which went toward laboratory studies rather than human
clinical studies.(8,9) In addition,
charities––including the March of Dimes, the
American/Canadian Cancer Society, and countless
others—use donations to fund experiments on animals.
Visit HumaneSeal.org to find out which charities do and
which do not fund research on animals.
Despite
the vast amount of public funds being used to underwrite
animal research, it is nearly impossible for the public
to obtain current and complete information regarding the
animal experiments that are being carried out in their
communities or funded with their tax dollars. The U.S.
Freedom of Information Act can be used to obtain
documents and information from federally funded
government agencies and institutions, but private
companies, contract labs, and animal breeders are
exempt. Secrecy is even more pervasive in the U.K. and
Canada, where everything from the protocols that
describe animal experiments to the lab inspection
reports and the list of registered research facilities
is considered “confidential” and off limits to the
public.
Oversight
and Regulation
Despite
the countless animals killed each year in laboratories
worldwide, most countries have grossly inadequate
regulatory measures to protect animals from suffering
and distress or to prevent them from being used when a
non-animal approach is clearly available. In the U.S.,
three of the most commonly used species in laboratory
experiments (birds, mice, and rats) are specifically
exempted from even the minimal protections of the
federal Animal Welfare Act.(10) Labs that use only these
species are not required by law to provide animals with
pain relief or veterinary care, to have an institutional
committee to review proposed experiments, or to be
inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
or any other entity.
Similar
gaps exist in the oversight system in Canada, which has
no federal legislation governing the care or use of
animals in laboratories. In place of such legislation is
a loose patchwork of provincial legislation and national
guidelines that makes it possible for certain types of
laboratories in some provinces to function without any
external oversight.(11)
Troublesome
Trends
In the
rapidly expanding field of biotechnology, commercial
pressures carry the threat of creating even more animal
suffering through deliberate genetic manipulation. By
inserting or removing genes from an animal’s genetic
makeup, experimenters are producing entirely new
(“transgenic” or “knockout”) breeds, which they
hope to patent, thereby ensuring monopoly rights on the
sale of these breeds. Major business applications of
this technology include the creation of new animals to
be used as “disease models” for research, animals to
act as “drug factories” for producing
pharmaceuticals and vaccines, and faster-growing animals
for factory-farming operations.(12) Another
controversial application of genetic-manipulation
technology is the creation of “humanized” animals to
serve as a source of organs and tissues for
transplantation, even though animal-to-human organ
transplants have never been successful and have the
potential to spread dangerous viruses.
Because
of the unpredictable nature of genetic manipulation, any
“mistakes” that are made can have disastrous
consequences for the animals involved. Transgenic pigs
who were bred to grow faster and leaner have suffered
from arthritis, lethargy, abnormal skull growth, and
impaired immune systems.(13) The widely recognized
potential for genetic manipulation to result in adverse
effects on animals’ health and well-being prompted the
Canadian Council on Animal Care to classify these
experiments in the second-most severe “category of
invasiveness”––with the potential to cause
“moderate to severe distress or discomfort.”(14,15)
The
creation of new strains of genetically manipulated
animals is also incredibly wasteful and inefficient.
Only between 1 and 10 percent of animals successfully
incorporate the foreign genetic material injected into
their embryos; those who do not are killed.(16) This
means that as many as 99 animals may be killed for every
“viable” transgenic animal who is born. As a result,
the number of animals subjected to genetic-manipulation
experiments in the U.K. since 1990 has increased more
than tenfold.(17) Today, one out of every four animals
in U.K. labs has been genetically manipulated in some
way.(18)
The
Way Forward
Human
clinical, population, and in vitro studies are critical
to the advancement of medicine; even animal
experimenters need them—if only to confirm or reject
the validity of their experiments. However, research
with human participants does require a different
outlook, one that perfectly illustrates the underlying
philosophy of ethical science. Animal researchers
artificially induce disease; clinical investigators
study people who are already ill or who have died.
Animal researchers want a disposable “research
subject” who can be manipulated as desired and killed
when convenient; clinicians must do no harm to their
patients or study participants. Animal experimenters
face the ultimate dilemma, knowing that their
artificially created “animal model” can never fully
reflect the human condition; clinical investigators know
that the results of their work are directly relevant to
people. Remarkably, however, health charities and
government research-funding agencies currently devote
more funds to animal studies than to investigations of
our own species!
Human
health and well-being can best be promoted by adopting
nonviolent methods of scientific investigation and
concentrating on the prevention of disease before it
occurs, through lifestyle modification and the
prevention of further environmental pollution and
degradation. The public needs to become more aware and
more vocal about the cruelty and inadequacy of the
current research system and must demand that its tax
dollars and charitable donations no longer be used to
fund research on animals.
What
You Can Do
Tell
research-funding agencies to kick their animal
experimentation habit.
Virtually
all federally funded research is paid for with your tax
dollars. Two of the main sources of funding for
animal-based research in North America, the U.S.
National Institutes of Health and the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research, need to hear that you
don’t want your tax dollars used to underwrite animal
experiments, whatever their purpose. When writing
letters, make the following two points:
• Animal
experimentation is an inherently violent and unethical
practice that I do not want my tax dollars to support.
• Funding for research into health and ecological
effects should be redirected into the use of
epidemiological, clinical, in vitro, and computer
modeling studies instead of laboratory experiments on
animals.
Please
ensure that all correspondence is polite:
Dr.
Elias Zerhouni, Director
National Institutes of Health
Shannon Bldg., Rm. 126
1 Center Dr. (Mail Stop 0148)
Bethesda, MD 20892
301-496-8276 (fax)
Ez26y@nih.gov
Dr.
Alan Bernstein, President
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
160 Elgin St., 9th Floor
Address Locator 4809A
Ottawa, ON K1A 0W9
613-954-1800 (fax)
abernstein@cihr.ca
References
1)“Attitudes
Towards Experimentation on Live Animals—Toplines,”
MORI, 2004.
2)Canadian Council on Animal Care, “Facts &
Figures, CCAC Animal Use Survey, 2001,” 2001.
3)Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Animals
Used in Research. Pain and/or Distress—No Drugs Could
Be Used for Relief (Category E), All Research
Facilities—Federal and Industry, Fiscal Year 2002,”
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2003.
4)Madhusree Mukerjee, “Speaking for the Animals: A
Veterinarian Analyzes the Turf Battles That Have
Transformed the Animal Laboratory,” Scientific
American, Aug. 2004.
5)Canadian Council on Animal Care, 2001.
6)“Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living
Animals, Great Britain, 2002,” Home Office, 6 Jun.
2003.
7)Christopher Anderegg, M.D., et al., “A
Critical Look at Animal Experimentation,” Medical
Research Modernization Committee, 2002.
8)American Association for the Advancement of Science,
“NIH Budget Growth Slows to 2 Percent in FY 2004,”
25 Feb. 2003.
9)T.A. Kotchen et al., “NIH Peer Review of
Grant Applications for Clinical Research,” Journal
of the American Medical Association, 291(2004):
836-43.
10)Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, “Animal
Welfare, Definition of Animal,” Federal Register,
69 (2004): 31513-4.
11)Canadian Council on Animal Care, “Responsibility
for the Care and Use of Experimental Animals,” CCAC
Guide Volume 1, 1991.
12)Canadian Council on Animal Care, “CCAC
Guidelines on Transgenic Animals,” 1993.
13)Michael W. Fox, Superpigs and Wondercorn: The
Brave New World of Biotechnology and Where It All May
Lead, New York: Lyons & Burford, 1992.
14)Canadian Council on Animal Care, 1993.
15)Canadian Council on Animal Care, “Categories
of Invasiveness in Animal Experiments,” 1991.
16)Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, “GM
Animals,” postnote, Jun. 2001.
17)Ibid.
18)“Annual Statistics,” Home Office, 6 Jun.
2003.
|
|
3.Inside
the Fur Industry: Factory Farms

Eighty-five
percent of the fur industry’s skins come from animals
living captive on fur factory farms.(1) These farms can
hold thousands of animals, and the practices used to
farm them is remarkably uniform around the globe. As
with other intensive-confinement animal farms, the
methods used on fur factory farms are designed to
maximize profits, always at the expense of the animals.
Painful
and Short Lives
The most farmed fur-bearing animal is the mink, followed
by the fox. Chinchillas, lynxes, and even hamsters are
also farmed for their fur.(2) Sixty-four percent of fur
farms are in Northern Europe, 11 percent are in North
America, and the rest are dispersed throughout the
world, in countries such as Argentina and Russia.(3)
Mink farmers usually breed female minks once a year.
There are about three or four surviving kits for each
litter, and they are killed when they are about half a
year old, depending on what country they are in, after
the first hard freeze. Minks used for breeding are kept
for four to five years.(4) The animals—housed in
unbearably small cages—live with fear, stress,
disease, parasites, and other physical and psychological
hardships, all for the sake of a global industry that
makes billions of dollars annually.
Rabbits
are slaughtered by the millions for meat, particularly
in China, Italy, and Spain. Once considered a mere
byproduct of this consumption, the rabbit fur industry
demands the thicker pelt of an older animal (meat
rabbits are killed at the age of 10 to 12 weeks). The
United Nations reports that “few skins are now
retrieved from slaughterhouses,” and countries such as
France are killing as many as 70 million rabbits a year
for fur, used in clothing, as lures in flyfishing, and
for trim on craft items.(5)
Life
on the “Ranch”
To cut
costs, fur farmers pack animals into small cages,
preventing them from taking more than a few steps back
and forth. This crowding and confinement is especially
distressing to minks—solitary animals who may occupy
as much as 2,500 acres of wetland habitat in the
wild.(6) The anguish of life in a cage leads minks to
self-mutilate—biting at their skin, tails, and
feet—and frantically pace and circle endlessly.
Zoologists at Oxford University who studied captive
minks found that despite generations of being bred for
fur, minks have not been domesticated and suffer greatly
in captivity, especially if they are not given the
opportunity to swim.(7) Foxes, raccoons, and other
animals suffer equally and have been found to
cannibalize each other as a reaction to their crowded
confinement.
Animals
on fur factory farms are fed meat byproducts considered
unfit for human consumption. Water is provided by a
nipple system which often freezes in the winter or may
fail because of human error.
Pests
and Parasites
Animals
on fur factory farms are more susceptible to diseases
than their free-roaming counterparts. Contagious
diseases such as pneumonia are passed from cage to cage
rapidly, as are fleas, ticks, lice, and mites. And
disease-carrying flies thrive in the piles of rotting
wastes that collect under the cages for months. Video
footage and photos taken by undercover investigators
show animals suffering from severe infections and
injuries, untreated and left to die slowly.
Unnatural Habitats
Fur factory farm cages are often kept in open sheds that
provide little to no protection from wind or harsh
weather. Their fur alone is not enough to keep them warm
in the winter, and in the summer, minks swelter because
they have no water in which to cool themselves. When
minks learn to shower themselves by pressing on their
drinking water supply nipples, farmers will modify the
nipples to cut off even this meager relief.
Poison
and Pain
No
federal humane slaughter law protects animals on fur
factory farms, and killing methods are gruesome. Because
fur farmers care only about preserving the quality of
the fur, they use slaughter methods that keep the pelts
intact but which can result in extreme suffering for the
animals. Small animals may be crammed into boxes and
poisoned with hot, unfiltered engine exhaust from a
truck. Engine exhaust is not always lethal, and some
animals wake up while being skinned. Larger animals have
clamps or a rod applied to their mouths while rods are
inserted into their anuses, and they are painfully
electrocuted. Other animals are poisoned with
strychnine, which suffocates them by paralyzing their
muscles in painful rigid cramps. Gassing, decompression
chambers, and neck-snapping are other common fur-farm
slaughter methods.
The
fur industry refuses to condemn even blatantly cruel
killing methods. Genital electrocution, deemed
“unacceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical
Association (AVMA) 1993 Panel on Euthanasia, is a fur
factory farm killing method that causes animals the pain
of cardiac arrest while they are fully conscious. In
1994, Indiana became the first state to file criminal
charges against a fur factory farm after PETA
investigators documented genital electrocution at V-R
Chinchillas. The chinchilla fur industry considers
electrocution and neck-breaking “acceptable.”(8)
In
1995, one district attorney filed charges against pelt
supplier Frank Parsons of Salisbury, Md., for injecting
a mixture of rubbing alcohol and weed-killer into the
chests of minks. PETA undercover investigators
videotaped Parsons using an illegal pesticide, Blackleaf
40, to painfully kill the minks.
Would
You Wear Your Dog?
An
undercover investigation by the Humane Society of the
United States, reported in a 1998 Dateline NBC piece,
revealed that dog and cat fur is a multimillion-dollar
industry in Asia and found that coats and toys made with
domestic dog fur are being sold in the U.S. “There are
no federal laws preventing anyone from importing dog and
cat fur into this country,” reported Dateline. “If
the imported item costs less than $150, the importer
doesn’t even have to reveal what it’s made of.”
Dateline footage shows a German shepherd, tail wagging
and head stuck in a restraint, moments before he is
skinned alive. A cat, crowded in a cage, watches and
waits his turn, as one by one, his cagemates are choked,
slung up, and hanged just inches away.(9) New
legislation outlawed the import or sale of clothing
containing dog or cat fur, but the fur still enters the
country illegally since it is intentionally mislabeled
and can only be detected by expensive DNA testing.
Environmental
Destruction
Contrary
to fur-industry propaganda, fur production destroys the
environment. The energy needed to produce a real fur
coat from ranch-raised animal skins is approximately 20
times that needed for a fake fur.(10) Nor does fur
biodegrade, thanks to the chemical treatment applied to
stop the fur from rotting. The process of using these
chemicals is also dangerous as it can cause water
contamination.
About
44 pounds of feces are excreted per mink skinned by fur
farmers. Based on the total number of minks skinned in
the U.S. in 1999, which was 2.81 million, mink factory
farms generate approximately 62,000 tons of manure per
year. One result is nearly 1,000 tons of phosphorus,
which wreaks havoc in water ecosystems.(11)
Fur
in Sheep’s Clothing
As fur
sales decline, sales of shearling—the skin of lambs
with the wool attached—have risen. Some fur
manufacturers have actually taken to disguising mink as
shearling.(12) Many people are unaware of shearling’s
origins or that shearling sales are an incentive for
sheep ranchers to increase their stock, thereby adding
to the plight of sheep (see PETA factsheet “Inside
the Wool Industry”).
In Afghanistan, karakul sheep are now raised to produce
lambs for the high-end market in “Persian lamb”
coats and hats. For “top-quality” lamb skin, the
mother is killed just before giving birth and her fetus
is cut out. The pelts of the unborn lambs are prized in
the fashion world for their silk-like sheen. It takes
the skin from an entire lamb to make one karakul
hat.(13)
Industry
in Decline
Austria
and the U.K. have banned fur factory farms, and the
Netherlands began phasing out fox and chinchilla farming
in April 1998.(14) In 2003 there were 307 mink farms in
the U.S., down 5 percent from the previous year.(15) In
a sign of the times, supermodel Naomi Campbell was
denied entry to a trendy New York club because she was
wearing fur. Said the club’s owner, “I really love
animals, and I wanted us to be the good guys.”(16)
Humane
Choices
Consumers
need to know that every fur coat, lining, or item of
trim represents the intense suffering of several dozen
animals, whether they were trapped, ranched, or even
unborn. These cruelties will end only when the public
refuses to buy or wear fur. Those who learn the facts
about fur must help educate others, for the animals’
sake. For more information, visit FurIsDead.com.
References
1)“Facts
on Furs,” International Fur Trade Federation, 2000.
2)“To Make 1 of These … You Need 183 of These,” E.S.
Magazine, 27 Oct. 2000.
3)“Fur Farming,” International Fur Trade Federation,
2000.
4)“General Livestock,” The Digital Daily, U.S.
Internal Revenue Service, Department of the
Treasury.
5)Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations, The Rabbit: Husbandry, Health and Production,
No. 21 (Rome: 1997).
6)“Minks,” The
Nebraska Game & Parks Commission .
7)“What Captive Minks Miss Most—Swimming,”
Reuters, 28 Feb. 2001.
8)“Standard Guidelines for the Operation of Chinchilla
Ranches,” Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food,
Mar. 1998.
9)Dateline NBC, 15 Dec. 1998.
10)Gregory H. Smith, “Energy Study of Real vs.
Synthetic Furs,” University of Michigan, Sep. 1979.
11)S.J. Bursian, G.M. Hill, R.R. Mitchell, and A.C.
Napolitano, “The Use of Phytase as a Feed Supplement
to Enhance Utilization and Reduce Excretion of
Phosphorous in Mink,” 2003 Fur Rancher Blue Book
of Fur Farming, Department of Animal Science,
Michigan State University.
12)Joan Verdon, “The Golden Fleece,” Hackensack
Record, 21 Sep. 2002.
13)Paul Haven, “Karzai’s Hat Made From Lamb
Fetus,” Associated Press, 23 Apr. 2002.
14)Eurogroup for Animal Welfare, “Commission Report
Reveals Serious Welfare Problems in Fur Farming,” 20
Dec. 2001.
15)U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service, “Mink,” 15 Jul. 2004.
16)“Fur Flies Out of Fashion,” MX, 13 Sep. 2002, p.
30.
|
4.
Meatless Meals for Dogs and Cats

If
you have been feeding your companion animals
commercial pet foods, you may be jeopardizing their
health. Supermarket pet foods are often composed of
ground-up parts of animals deemed by U.S. Department
of Agriculture inspectors unfit for human consumption.
The flesh of animals who fall into one of the
categories of the four D’s—dead, dying, diseased,
or disabled—is what often goes into pet food. Many
of these animals have died of infections and other
diseases. In all but a few states it is legal to
remove unusable parts from chickens and sell them to
pet food manufacturers. Most pet foods contain the
same hormones, pesticides, and antibiotics that are
found in commercial meat products for humans. If you
are concerned about your companion animals’ health
and about the cruelty of the meat industry, now is the
time to stop buying meat-based commercial pet food.
Vegetarian
Dogs and Cats
Many
vegetarians and vegans feed healthful, meatless diets
to their companion animals. One remarkable example is
that of Bramble, a 27-year-old border collie whose
vegan diet of rice, lentils, and organic vegetables
earned her consideration by the Guinness Book of
World Records as the world’s oldest living dog
in 2002.(1) Studies have shown that the ailments
associated with meat consumption in humans, such as
allergies, cancer, and kidney, heart, and bone
problems, also affect many nonhumans. Pet food has
also been recalled during mad cow disease, or bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), scares because of the
risk that contaminated meat was processed into the
food. One deputy commissioner states that cats
especially “are susceptible to BSE.”(2)
The
nutritional needs of dogs and cats are easily met with
a balanced vegan diet and certain supplements. James
Peden, author of Vegetarian Cats & Dogs,
developed Vegepet™ supplements to add to vegetarian
and vegan recipes. They are nutritionally balanced and
also come in special formulas for kittens, puppies,
and lactating cats and dogs.
Some people wonder if it’s “unnatural” to omit
meat from the diet of a dog or cat. Animals in the
wild commonly eat quite a lot of plant matter.
Besides, to feed them the meat that they would
naturally eat, you would have to serve them whole mice
or birds or allow them to hunt for themselves, an
option that is unfair to native species of birds and
other small animals, since companion cats and dogs
have been removed from the food chain and have
advantages that free-roaming animals lack. Vegetarian
or vegan dogs and cats enjoy their food and good
health, and a vegetarian diet for your companion
animal is ethically consistent with animal rights
philosophy.
Important
Supplements
Making vegetarian food for dogs is easy because dogs,
like people, are omnivorous and usually hearty eaters.
Recipes for vegetarian and vegan dogs are available
along with the Vegedog™ supplement from James
Peden’s company, Harbingers of a New Age. It is
important to follow directions carefully. If you make
any changes in ingredients, make sure that you do not
change the nutritional balance of the recipe. If a dog
receives too little protein, calcium, or vitamin D,
his or her health could be jeopardized.
Additionally, some dogs need two amino acids called L-carnitine
and taurine which are not generally added to
commercial dog foods and can be insufficient in
homemade dog food as well. A deficiency of these
nutrients can cause dilated cardiomyopathy, a serious
illness in which the heart becomes large and flabby
and can no longer function. This illness generally
strikes young or middle-aged dogs who are deficient in
L-carnitine or taurine because of breed, size,
individual genetic make-up, or diet. Supplemental L-carnitine
and taurine can be bought at your local health food
store
Cats are often more finicky than dogs, and their
nutritional requirements are more complicated. Cats
need a considerable amount of vitamin A, which they
cannot biosynthesize from carotene, as dogs and humans
do. Insufficient amounts may cause loss of hearing, as
well as problems with skin, bones, and intestinal and
reproductive systems. Cats also need taurine. A feline
lacking taurine can lose eyesight and could develop
cardiomyopathy. Commercial pet food companies often
add taurine obtained from mollusks. James Peden found
vegetarian sources of both taurine and vitamin A, plus
arachidonic acid, another essential feline nutrient.
He then developed veterinarian-approved supplements
Vegecat™ and Vegekit™ to add to his recipes. These
recipes are probably the healthiest way to feed cats a
vegan diet at this time.
Dogs and cats who are eating only cooked or processed
food also benefit from the addition of digestive
enzymes to their food. These are obtainable through
animal supply catalogs and health food stores. Any raw
vegetables in a dog’s diet should be grated or put
through a food processor to enhance digestibility.
Companies
That Sell Vegan Dog and Cat Food
Evolution
Diet
Dog and
cat kibble and canned food, ferret kibble, fish food
651-228-0632
If
you decide to prepare your own vegetarian dog or cat
food, we recommend that you read Vegetarian Cats
& Dogs to ensure that you understand the
nutritional needs of dogs and cats. Do not rely on
this factsheet for complete information. The book has
several recipes and helpful hints. If your library or
bookstore doesn’t have it, you can order it from Harbingers
of a New Age.
Making
the Adjustment
To
help with the adjustment to a vegetarian or vegan
diet, start by mixing the vegetarian food in with what
you usually serve. Gradually change the proportion
until there is no meat left. If your efforts are met
with resistance, tempt your animal friends by adding
soy milk, nutritional yeast (available at natural-food
stores), olive oil, tomato sauce (most dogs love
spaghetti!), catnip (for cats), powdered kelp, baby
food that doesn’t contain onions or other
seasonings, or by serving it warm. Many cats like
nutritional yeast and pieces of melon, and most love
mashed chickpeas and veggie burgers. If your companion
animals are addicted to supermarket pet food, it may
take a while for them to adapt.
After switching dogs or cats to a vegetarian diet,
monitor them closely to make sure that their new diet
agrees with them, especially if they are still puppies
or kittens. Watch for chronic gastrointestinal and
skin problems, and note any new health problems. Most
dogs and cats’ health improves on a vegetarian diet,
but occasionally an animal may not thrive, so use
common sense if this occurs.
References
1) “27-Year-Old Vegan Collie Could Be
World’s Oldest Living Dog,” Ananova, 29 Aug. 2002.
2) Steve Mitchell, “FDA May Recall Pet Food Due to
Mad Cow,” United Press International, 24 Dec. 2003.
|
5.Why
Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary

Today,
hunting, which was a crucial part of survival
100,000 years ago, is nothing more than a
violent form of recreation that is unnecessary
for the subsistence of the vast majority of
hunters.1 Hunting has contributed
to the extinction of animal species all over
the world, including the Tasmanian tiger2
and the great auk.3
Although less than 5 percent of the U.S.
population hunts,4 it is permitted
in many wildlife refuges, national forests and
state parks, and other public lands. Forty
percent of hunters kill animals on public
land,5 which means that every year,
on the half-billion acres of public land in
the U.S., millions of animals who “belong”
to the more than 95 percent of Americans who
do not hunt are slaughtered and maimed by
hunters,6 and by some estimates,
poachers kill just as many illegally.7
Conservation and Management Programs
Fail
To attract more hunters (and their money),
federal and state agencies implement
programs—often termed “wildlife
management” or “conservation”
programs—to boost the number of “game”
species so that there are plenty of animals
for hunters to kill and, consequently, plenty
of revenue from the sale of hunting licenses.
Duck hunters in Louisiana persuaded the state
wildlife agency to direct $100,000 a year
toward “reduced predator impact,” which
involved trapping foxes and raccoons so that
more duck eggs would hatch, giving hunters
more birds to kill.8 The Ohio
Division of Wildlife teamed up with a
hunter-organized society to push for
clear-cutting (decimating large tracts of
trees) in Wayne National Forest to “produce
habitat needed by ruffed grouse.”9
In Alaska, the Department of Fish and Game is
trying to increase the number of moose for
hunters by “controlling” the wolf and bear
populations. Grizzlies and black bears have
been moved hundreds of miles from their
homes—two were shot by hunters within two
weeks of their relocation, and others have
simply returned to their homes10—and
wolves have been slaughtered in order to
“let the moose population rebound and
provide a higher harvest for local hunters.”11
In the early 1990s, a program designed to
reduce the wolf population backfired when
snares failed to kill victims quickly, and
photos of suffering wolves were seen by an
outraged public.12
Colorado is dealing with an overpopulation of
elks, but programs aimed at controlling their
numbers have led to “mistaken identity”
killings of protected moose.13
Although more hunting permits are being issued
and tens of thousands of elks are killed every
year by hunters, there has been no reduction
in the population.14
Nature Takes Care of Its Own
If left unaltered, the delicate balance of
nature’s ecosystems ensures the survival of
most species. Natural predators help maintain
this balance by killing only the sickest and
weakest individuals. Hunters, however, kill
any animal they would like to hang over the
fireplace—including large, healthy animals
who are needed to keep the population strong.
Even when unusual occurrences cause temporary
animal-overpopulation problems, natural
processes quickly stabilize the group.
Starvation and disease are unfortunate, but
they are nature’s way of ensuring that
healthy, strong animals survive and maintain
the strength of the entire herd or group.
Shooting an animal because he or she might
starve or become sick is arbitrary and
destructive.
Sport hunting not only jeopardizes nature’s
balance, but also exacerbates other problems.
For example, the transfer of captive-bred deer
and elk between states for the purpose of
hunting is believed to have contributed to the
epidemic spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD).
As a result, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) has given state wildlife
agencies millions of dollars to “manage”
deer and elk populations.15 The
fatal, neurological illness that affects these
animals has been likened to mad cow disease,
and while the USDA and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention claim that CWD has no
relationship to any similar diseases that
affect humans or domesticated livestock, the
slaughter of deer and elk is slated to
continue.16,17
Another problem with hunting involves the
introduction of exotic “game” animals who,
if able to escape and thrive, pose a threat to
native wildlife and established ecosystems. A
group of non-native wild boars escaped from a
private ranch and moved into the forests of
Cambria County, Pa., prompting that state to
draft a bill prohibiting the importation of
any exotic species.18
Canned Hunts
Most hunting occurs on private land, where
laws that protect wildlife are often
inapplicable or difficult to enforce. On
private lands that are set up as for-profit
hunting reserves or game ranches, hunters can
pay to kill native and exotic species in
“canned hunts.” These animals may be
native to the area, raised elsewhere and
brought in, or purchased from individuals who
are trafficking unwanted or surplus animals
from zoos and circuses. They are hunted and
killed for the sole purpose of providing
hunters with an exotic “trophy.”
Canned hunts are becoming big business—there
are an estimated 1,000 to 2,000 game preserves
in the U.S.19 Ted Turner, who owns
more land than any other landowner in the
nation, operates 20 ranches where hunters pay
thousands of dollars to kill bison, deer,
African antelopes, and turkeys.20
Animals on canned-hunting ranches are often
accustomed to humans and are usually unable to
escape from the enclosures, which range in
size from just a few yards to thousands of
acres across. Most of these ranches operate on
a “no kill, no pay” policy, so it is in
the owners’ best interests to ensure that
clients get what they came for. Owners do this
by offering guides who know the location and
habits of the animals, permitting the use of
dogs, and supplying “feeding stations”
that lure unsuspecting animals to food while
hunters lie in wait.
Only a handful of states prohibit canned
hunting,21 and there are no federal
laws regulating the practice at this time,
although Congress is considering an amendment
to the Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act
that would prohibit the transfer,
transportation, or possession of exotic
animals “for entertainment or the collection
of a trophy.”22
“Accidental” Victims
Hunting “accidents” destroy property and
injure or kill horses, cows, dogs, cats,
hikers, and other hunters. In 2001, according
to the International Hunter Education
Association, there were dozens of deaths and
hundreds of injuries attributed to hunting in
the United States—and that only includes
incidents involving humans.23 It is
an ongoing problem, and one warden explained
that “hunters seem unfamiliar with their
firearms and do not have enough respect for
the damage they can do.”24
A Humane Alternative
There are 20 million deer in the U.S., and
because hunting has been an ineffective method
to “control” populations (one Pennsylvania
hunter “manages” the population by
clearing his 600-acre plot of wooded land and
planting corn to attract deer), some wildlife
agencies are considering other management
techniques.25 Several recent
studies suggest that sterilization is an
effective, long-term solution to
overpopulation. A method called TNR (trap,
neuter, and return) has been tried on deer in
Ithaca, N.Y.,26 and an experimental
birth-control vaccine is being used on female
deer in Princeton, N.J.27 One
Georgia study suggested for 1,500 white-tailed
deer on Cumberland Island concluded that
“herd size in closed populations can be
regulated in the field relatively quickly if
fertile and sterile animals can be identified
… and an appropriate sterilization schedule
is generated.”28
What You Can Do
Before you support a “wildlife” or
“conservation” group, ask about its
position on hunting. Groups such as the
National Wildlife Federation, the National
Audubon Society, the Sierra Club, the Izaak
Walton League, the Wilderness Society, the
World Wildlife Fund, and many others are
pro-sport-hunting or, at the very least, they
do not oppose it.
To combat hunting in your area, post “no
hunting” signs on your land, join or form an
anti-hunting organization, protest organized
hunts, and spread deer repellent or human hair
(from barber shops) near hunting areas. Call
1-800-448-NPCA to report poachers in national
parks to the National Parks and Conservation
Association. Educate others about hunting.
Encourage your legislators to enact or enforce
wildlife protection laws, and insist that
nonhunters be equally represented on wildlife
agency staffs.
References
1)National
Research Council, “Science and the
Endangered Species Act,” Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press, 1995: 21.
2)Grant Holloway, “Cloning to Revive Extinct
Species,” CNN, 28 May 2002.
3)“Great
Auk,” Canadian Museum of
Nature, 2003.
4)United States Fish and Wildlife Service,
“National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife—Associated Recreation,”
Washington, D.C.: GPO, 2001: 5.
5)U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 80.
6)United States Department of the Interior,
“Public Land Statistics,” Table 1-3, Mar.
2000.
7)“Poaching
Is a Serious Crime,”
Illinois Department of Natural Resources, May
2003.
8)Bob Marshall, “Is Predator Program
Enough?” Times-Picayune, 2 Mar.
2003.
9)Dave Golowenski, “Grouse Numbers Go Up If
Trees Come Down,” The Columbus Dispatch,
20 Feb. 2003.
10)“Hunters Shoot Two Relocated Bears,” Associated
Press, 9 Jun. 2003.
11)Joel Gay, “McGrath Wolf Kills Fall
Short,” Anchorage Daily News, 25
Apr. 2003.
12)Gay, “Governor Takes Heat From Hunters
Expecting Aerial Wolf Control,” Anchorage
Daily News, 8 Apr. 2003.
13)Charlie Meyers, “Professor’s Prime
Advice: Trim the Elk Herds, Now,” The
Denver Post, 20 May 2003.
14)Meyers.
15)United States Department of Agriculture,
“USDA
Makes $4 Million Available to State Wildlife
Agencies for Strengthening Chronic Wasting
Disease Management,” 15
Apr. 2003.
16)Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Services, “What
is Chronic Wasting Disease?”
United States Department of Agriculture, Nov.
2002.
17)CDC Media Relations, “Fatal
Degenerative Neurologic Illnesses in Men Who
Participated in Wild Game Feasts—Wisconsin,
2002,” Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, Feb. 2003.
18)Judy Lin, “Pennsylvania Worried About
Wild Boar Escape,” Associated Press,
17 Mar. 2002.
19)Jeffery Kluger, “Hunting Made Easy,” Time,
11 Mar. 2002.
20)Audrey Hudson, “Greens Cut Turner a
Break; Critics Question His Stewardship of
Western Land,” The Washington Times,
20 Jan. 2002.
21)National Conference of State Legislatures,
“Canned
Hunting,” Environment,
Energy and Transportation Program, Apr. 2003.
22)H.R. 3464 Captive Exotic Animal Protection
Act, Session 107, introduced 11 Nov. 2001.
23)“Hunter
Incident Clearinghouse,”
International Hunter Education Association,
2001.
24)Tom Harelson, “1998 Deer Gun Season
Report,” Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, 8 Dec. 1998.
25)Andrew C. Revkin, “States Seek to Restore
Deer Balance,” The New York Times,
29 Dec. 2002
26)Roger Segelken, “Surgical Sterilization
Snips Away at Deer Population,” Cornell
News, 19 Mar. 2003.
27)“Princeton’s Deer Hunt Coming to a
Premature End,” Associated Press,
21 Mar. 2003.
28)James L. Boone and Richard G. Wiegert,
“Modeling Deer Herd Management:
Sterilization Is a Viable Option,”
University of Georgia, 1994.
|
6.Fishing:
Aquatic Agony

Like
the animals many people share their homes with,
fish are individuals with their own unique
personalities. Dive guides have been known to
name friendly fish who follow divers around and
enjoy being petted, just like dogs or cats. Yet
billions of fish die every year in nets and on
hooks—some are destined for human consumption,
many are tortured just for “sport,” and
others are nontarget victims who are maimed or
killed simply because they were in the wrong
place at the wrong time.
Fish
Can Communicate, Make Tools, Think, and Feel
Pain
According
to Culum Brown, a researcher at the University
of Edinburgh, fish have cognitive abilities that
equal and sometimes even surpass those of
nonhuman primates; they can recognize
individuals, use tools, and maintain complex
social relationships.(1) In Fish and
Fisheries, biologists wrote that fish are
“steeped in social intelligence, pursuing
Machiavellian strategies of manipulation,
punishment and reconciliation, exhibiting stable
cultural traditions, and co-operating to inspect
predators and catch food.”(2) Many species of
fish learn how to avoid predators by watching
experienced fish, and according to Dr. Jens
Krause of the University of Leeds, while some
fish live in large hierarchical societies and
others have smaller family units, all rely on
these “social aggregations,” which “act as
an information center where fish can exchange
information with each other.”(3)
Fish
communicate through a range of low-frequency
sounds—from buzzes and clicks to yelps and
sobs. These sounds, most of which are only
audible to humans with the use of special
instruments, communicate emotional states such
as alarm or delight and help with courtship.(4)
Atlantic croakers, for example, are so named
because they croak when they are frightened.(5)
Scientists have only recently discovered the
alto croaking sounds made by a rare fish
believed to be similar to the deep-sea blue
grenadier, a tiny fish who lives beyond the
continental shelves and is in danger of being
fished to extinction. The fish’s call is
believed to be necessary for mating, since there
is no light where they live.(6)
While
fish do not always express pain and suffering in
ways that humans can easily recognize,
scientific reports from around the world
substantiate the fact that fish feel pain.
Researchers from Edinburgh and Glasgow
Universities studied the pain receptors in fish
and found that they were strikingly similar to
those of mammals and concluded that “fish do
have the capacity for pain perception and
suffering.”(7) A study conducted by the Roslin
Institute examined rainbow trouts’ reactions
to “noxious stimulation” and concluded that
fish “experience suffering.”(8) Anglers
often claim that fish do not feel pain, yet they
go to great lengths to hide their hooks with
bait and lures, knowing that even fish who have
already experienced being hooked and released
will continue to seek out food, and those who do
get hooked will fight to stay alive.
Hooked fish struggle because of fear and
physical pain. Once fish are brought out of
their environment and into ours, they begin to
suffocate. Their gills often collapse, and their
swim bladders can rupture because of the sudden
change in pressure. Some deepwater species, such
as red snapper, are particularly affected by the
dramatic changes in pressure that occur when
they are pulled to the surface. One scientist
says, “The physiological stress is enormous.
Even if they swim off, a lot of those fish will
be easy prey because they’re in a stunned
condition when they’re released.”(9)
“Sport”
Fishing
While
the numbers are down from 10 years ago, more
than 34 million people still went fishing in
2001, spending billions of dollars on their
“hobby.”(10) According to a Florida State
University study, sport fishers are responsible
for killing almost 25 percent of overfished
saltwater species.(11)
Many
trout streams are so intensively fished that
they are subject to catch-and-release
regulations, requiring that all fish caught be
released; the aquatic animals in these streams
are likely to spend their short lives being
repeatedly traumatized and injured. One
fisheries expert adds that catch-and-release
victims “could be vulnerable to predators,
unable to swim away, or if nesting, not capable
of fending off nest raiders. Some guarding males
could in fact abandon the nest.”(12) Biologist
Ralph Manns points out that fish such as bass
are territorial, and once caught and released,
these fish may be unable to find their homes and
“be fated to wander aimlessly.”(13)
Fish
aren’t the only victims of sport fishing.
Water birds can get their feet caught in fishing
lines or snag their wings in the invisible
filaments. Unable to escape, they die from
dehydration or starvation. One Rookery Bay,
Florida, biologist who has seen egrets hanged by
their necks and pelicans mortally wrapped up in
fishing line laments that “[t]hese were all
birds that were going to raise a family.”(14)
Ospreys sometimes use discarded fishing line in
their nests, and both parents and their young
have been found entangled in it or impaled on
fishing hooks.(15) A U.K. study found that 3,000
swans are victimized in angling-related
incidents every year.(16)
One
out of every five manatee rescues conducted in
the 1980s and ’90s was related to fishing-line
entanglement, and during a four-year span, at
least 35 dolphins died from injuries that they
sustained from being tangled in fishing line in
the Southeast.(17) Along with boat strikes and
discarded plastic, fishing line is one of the
top three threats to sea animals, according to
Virginia Marine Science Museum officials.(18)
Commercial
Fishing and Aquaculture
The
average U.S. consumer eats more than 15 pounds
of fish every year. To meet this demand,
commercial fishers reel in more than 9 billion
pounds of fish and shellfish annually, and the
aquaculture industry raises more than 800
million pounds per year.(19)
Commercial
fishers use vast factory-style trawlers the size
of football fields to catch fish. Miles-long
nets stretch across the ocean, capturing
everyone in their path. These boats haul up tens
of thousands of fish in one load, keeping the
most profitable and dumping the rest (such as
rays, dolphins, and crabs) back into the ocean.
Fish are scraped raw from rubbing against the
rocks and debris caught in the nets with them.
Then they bleed or suffocate to death on the
decks of the ships, gasping for oxygen and
suffering for as long as 24 hours.(20) Millions
of tons of fish who are considered to be
“undersized” are left to die on the decks or
are tossed back into the ocean, where they
usually die soon afterward.(21)
Hundreds
of thousands of marine mammals die annually from
commercial-fishing practices.(22) Some fishing
boats use gill nets, which are believed to be
responsible for the majority of incidents
involving the accidental netting of marine
mammals. These nets ensnare every animal they
catch, and fish are further mutilated when they
are extracted from the tangled nets. Longline
fishing—in which 40 miles of monofilament
fishing line dangles thousands of individually
baited hooks to catch tuna and swordfish—is
believed to be responsible for the deaths of
250,000 loggerhead and 60,000 leatherback
turtles every year.(23)
Because
of the industry’s indiscriminate practices,
the population of the world’s large predatory
fish, such as swordfish and marlin, has declined
90 percent since the advent of industrialized
fishing.(24) Several species of sturgeon are
endangered, but some commercial fishers still
capture them for the caviar industry because,
according to a fisheries management specialist,
“they don’t care if they’re endangered.
They want the money.”(25) In the
Mediterranean, one big tuna “can be worth as
much as the most expensive Mercedes-Benz,”
according to a United Nations official,
so—despite the dwindling number of bluefins—little
can be done to prevent private fleets of
commercial fishers from killing the few fish who
remain.(26) Cod stocks are expected to be wiped
out by 2020.(27)
Aquaculture
accounts for close to one-third of the fish
consumed in the United States, along with more
than half the salmon, nearly all the catfish and
trout, and about two-thirds of the shrimp.(28)
Thousands of fish are raised in tubs or are
confined to roped-off areas of the sea or ocean
where each animal has just a bit more room than
the space taken up by his or her body. Farmed
fish consume 12 percent of all commercially
caught fish, as well as a steady diet of
pesticides, antibiotics, and herbicides.(29)
Fish and crustaceans who could live for years in
the ocean live only a few short months on fish
farms.
Eating
Fish Is Hazardous to Your Health
Like
the flesh of other animals, fish contains
excessive amounts of protein, fat, and
cholesterol, and 6.5 million Americans are
believed to be allergic to it.(30) Seafood also
causes more food poisoning than any other type
of food and is responsible for 37 percent of all
food-borne illnesses in the U.S.(31)
The
flesh of fish (including shellfish) can
accumulate extremely high levels of carcinogenic
chemical residues, such as polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs), thousands of times higher than
that of the water in which they live.(32) The
flesh of farmed salmon has seven times more PCBs
than the flesh of wild-caught salmon.(33) Levels
of mercury exceed government standards for
safety in one-third of the nation’s lakes and
in one-quarter of its riverways.(34) The New
England Journal of Medicine asserts that
fish “are the main if not the only source of
methyl mercury,” which has been linked to
cardiovascular disease, fetal brain damage,
blindness, deafness, and problems with motor
skills, language, and attention span.(35,36) Consumer
Reports noted that canned tuna has been
found to contain “levels of mercury high
enough to pose a risk,” yet a Now With
Bill Moyers report indicated that the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) only tests about a
dozen cans of tuna for mercury every year and
doesn’t expect the tuna industry to test its
own product.(37,38) Because of mercury levels in
the flesh of marine animals, the Environmental
Protection Agency and the FDA warn women of
child-bearing age and children to refrain from
eating fish such as shark, swordfish, and king
mackerel and to consume fewer than 12 ounces a
week of other fish flesh.(39)
Even
the active ingredien | | | | |