AR-NEWS Digest 496 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) puppy mill case-washington state by NOVENAANN@aol.com 2) [UK] Study ordered into dangers of 1980's burgers by David J Knowles 3) [UK] Factory farms are 'a risk to health' by David J Knowles 4) [UK] Freddie Starr faces inquiry over hurling live chickens by David J Knowles 5) [UK] Don't get so cut up over animals by David J Knowles 6) (US) Okla.'s Tishomingo Refuge Final Public-Use Plan by JanaWilson@aol.com 7) Urgent:Sample Huntingdon Ltr by DobieBoy2@aol.com 8) Library Censors Animal Display by Debbie Leahy 9) (US) Chicken served to students possibly tainted by allen schubert Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 03:50:48 -0400 (EDT) From: NOVENAANN@aol.com To: ar-news@envirolink.org Subject: puppy mill case-washington state Message-ID: <970816035047_822463774@emout05.mail.aol.com> Washington v. Bergman and Bergman ---------------------------------------------------------- (broadcast on court tv on aug 15) Swen and Jeanette Bergman, the owners of a commercial puppy kennel which ships hundreds of dogs to paying customers, were each charged with 21 counts of second-degree animal cruelty. Investigators claim that the Bergmans grossley mistreated more than 230 dogs. During a raid of the Bergmans' Mountain Top Kennel in January 1997, sheriff's deputies and dog rescue volunteers found 15 dead canines (12 of which were piled in a mountain of snow). Six other dogs were so sickly, they had to be destroyed, and 19 healthy dogs were destoyed because they were deemed too dangerous to transport safely. Of the 230 surviving dogs, at least 40 had a documented medical malady. The kennel was pure squalor, seeping with urine and feces and devoid of adequate drinking water and heat to keep the dogs healthy. The Bergmans also faced six additional misdemeanor charges of illegally trimming dogs' ears. If convicted of the charges, both Swen and Jeanette Bergman could face six-year jail sentences. A Mountain of Complaints Swen and Jeanette Bergman ran Mountain Top Kennel near Newport, Wash. along the Washington-Idaho border. A series of documented complaints against the Bergmans and their Mountain Top Kennel sparked the investigation into their puppy mill. In October 1995, the Pend Oreille County Sheriff's Department received a complaint from an alleged Mountain Top client, Rodney Guidry, who claimed that he had agreed to pay Jeanette Bergman $900 for a one-and-a half-year-old American bulldog. Instead of show-quality animal, Guidry received a severely underweight two-and-a half-year-old dog. He had to nurse the dog back to health. Three months later, in January 1996, Marlon Talent of Rison, Ariz., complained to investigators about the Bergmans. Talent had agreed to buy three female and one male Bordeaux mastiffs from Jeanette Bergman for $4,368. He sent her the money and received two female dogs. According to the sheriff's reports, Jeanette allegedly told Talent he would have to send an additional $250 if he wanted the male dog. However, Talent refused, and Mrs. Bergman sent him a different dog. This dog died from parvo, an infectious intestinal disease, while in transit to Talent. Mrs. Bergman then reportedly sent Talent another dog, which was severely underweight. This canine died when Talent took the dog to the vet to have its ears clipped. Then, two other complaints about the Bergman puppy mill to the sheriff's department in December 1996 made investigators decide to plan a raid on the Mountain Top Kennel. Dr. Randy Tedrow, a veterinarian, had treated a golden retriever puppy for severe lethargy, vomiting, and bloody diarrhea the day after it had been purchased from the Bergman puppy mill. In Tedrow's letter about the incident, he threatened to petition the state attorney general and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to shut down the kennel. Tedrow was very familiar with Jeanette Bergman. Between 1993 and 1996, he had received many complaints about Mrs. Bergman from pet owners who had bought their dogs from Mountain Top Kennel. Tedrow had even treated a dog Bergman had brought to his animal clinic when she lived in Idaho. When Tedrow learned from local papers and authorities that she was on probation for a prior animal-related charge, he began monitoring the complaints he received about the Mountain Top Kennel and Mrs. Bergman. Two days after Tedrow's complaint, the sheriff's department received a complaint from Deanna Friberg, an English bulldog lover. Friberg had visited the kennel and was appalled at its conditions. She claimed she saw 20 to 30 puppies crammed into one pen, with little shelter or water, sleeping on ice and snow. Friberg said she saw dogs with infected eyes and torn nipples kept in feces-littered pens. After reading this complaint, Pend Oreille's Finest decided to act. The Raid With the help of about 40 volunteers recruited mostly by Seattle Purebred Dog Rescue, an organization that saves mistreated dogs and places them in homes, Pend Oreille officials raided Mountain Top Kennel the weekend of Jan. 4-5, 1997. The Bergmans were taken into custody while their three children were placed in a foster home for the weekend. The dog rescue team agreed that no dog would be destroyed unless its medical condition was so poor that its recovery would be questioned. They also agreed that aggressive dogs would be destroyed only if they could not be safely transported or cared for. The rescue team reportedly found all the conditions that were illustrated in Deanna Friberg's letter. Urine and feces everywhere. Water bowls filled with solid ice because of below freezing temperatures. Dogs eating snow to quench their thirst. Dogs suffering with untreated fractures and from skin diseases such as mange, roaming around without adequate shelter during a severe winter cold. Authorities expected to find 130 dogs in the kennel; they found nearly twice that amount. The Victims of Animal Rights Extremists? Defense lawyers for the Bergmans challenged the legality of the raid and seizure of the dogs and have claimed that their clients are the victims of radical animal rights activists with an irrational agenda. The defense claimed that most of the rescuers who participated in the raid were extremists who say people should neither keep animals as pets nor eat meat. Another defense strategy was to challenge the investigators' decision to kill the 19 healthy dogs who were determined too aggressive to handle safely. The Bergmans' lawyers argue that the county's decision was not motivated by its concern for the dogs but rather the potential for civil liability if a volunteer was bitten during the raid. The prosecution negated that defense theory by saying that the county insurance coverage had been extended to cover the volunteers just before the raid. Prosecutors also claimed that there was no proof that the rescuers belonged to any radical animal groups which had a personal crusade against the Bergmans. Finally, the defense argued that the conditions at the kennel were not as bad as described by the state and that the prosecution was basing its allegations of animal cruelty on the opinions of veterinarians rather than those of typical dog owners. The defense further argued that the animal cruelty statute dobeen extended to cover the volunteers just before the The Prosecutors A native of Los Angeles, Thomas Metzger has been a prosecutor for Pend Oreille County since 1985. After receiving a Bachelor of Arts degree in Economics from the University of California in 1974, Metzger graduated from cum laude from the Gonzaga University School of Law in Spokane, Wash. in 1979. Tony Koures also received his law degree from Gonzaga University. A native of Missoula, Mont., he was a deputy prosecuting attorney in Benton County, Wash. from 1989 to 1994 until landing his current position as deputy prosecutor in Pend Oreille County. Koures has bachelor degrees in both business and psychology from Eastern Montana College and the University of Montana, respectively. The Defense Lawyers Charles Dorn has extensive experience as both a trial judge and a lawyer. A native of Great Falls, Mont., Dorn was in private practice with Dorn, Reynolds & Gustafson from 1974 to 1978 before becoming a district court judge in Spokane County, Wash. in 1979. Dorn returned to private practice in 1991, forming Dorn & O'Brien. Representing Swen Bergman, Dorn estimates that he has been involved in hundreds of trials. Brian O'Brien also represents Swen Bergman. This Calgary, Alberta, CN native is Charles Dorn's partner and estimates that he and Dorn team-up for trials about twice a year. O'Brien has argued approximately 40 jury trials and about 15 cases before the state intermediate courts of appeal. He also has argued cases before the Washington State Supreme Court and the U.S. Ninth Circuit of Appeals. O'Brien was an assistant public defender in Spokane County from 1985 to 1991 before joining Dorn in private practice. Jeanette Bergman's attorney, Dennis Scott, has been a solo practitioner in Newport, Wash. and a public defender in Pend Oreille County since 1979. In his first trial as a public defender in Pend Oreille, Scott represented an accused serial murderer and won an acquittal based on an insanity defense. He received a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree the Bates College of Law in the University of Houston in 1975 ans was an associate of Brigham & Brigham (now known as Brigham & Musso) in Newport from 1976 to 1979. The Trial and Verdict The non-jury bench trial was tried before Judge Charles Baechler from June 16, 1997 to June 27, 1997. Swen and Jeanette Bergman were convicted of 16 out of the 27 misdemeanor charges. Judge Baechler originally sentenced Jeanette Bergman to a one-year jail sentence, which was later changed to a 9-month sentence. Swen Bergman was originally sentenced to nine months in jail. However, his sentence was suspended, and he was placed under three months house arrest. Both Bergmans also received various fines and were sentenced to an additional 720 hours of community service. Approximately 229 of the 230 living dogs removed from the Bergmans' Mountain Top Kennel during the raid reportedly are now living in foster homes throughout Washington State. While the Bergmans awaited trial, animal rescue groups involved in the raid appealed to the public for donations for food and facilities to help nurse the dogs back to health. According to local reports, the rescue groups raised approximately $90,000. Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 01:49:01 -0700 (PDT) From: David J Knowles To: ar-news@envirolink.org Subject: [UK] Study ordered into dangers of 1980's burgers Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970816014930.29af1634@dowco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >From The Electronic Telegraph - Saturday, August 16th, 1997 Study ordered into dangers of 1980's burgers A GOVERNMENT report has been ordered to discover how dangerous it was to eat burgers and other foods in the 1980's before the human health scare over "Mad Cow" disease provoked the beef crisis. The study, commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, will identify which beef tissues went into which foods over a series of five-year periods. It will also define trends in consumption. Scientists and researchers will attempt to tell how much tissue carrying a high BSE risk ended up in meat products before it was banned from human consumption. The answer will help to assess the threat to public health. The ministry said yesterday that the study was underway, but could not say when it would be completed. It would also not disclose which researchers were doing the work. It was not Government policy to name the author of a report before it was published. A spokesman said: "It is being carried out at a reputable establishment and the results will be made public in due course. It will take a fair amount of work because there is a lot of information to go through. It should show whether the bits now called SBOs (specified bovine offals) were being used in meat products. But we don't know how successful it will be because it relies on information from the manufacturers and producers at that time, and their records." The spokesman said: "We have never hidden any of our other research. However, any results are normally considered by our independent Spongiform Encaphalopathies Advisory Committee (SEAC) first and we would wait to get their reaction." The beef crisis erupted in March last year after the Government announced that the cattle brain disease may be connected to a new strain of fatal Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) in young people. So far, 21 confirmed and suspected cases of the new variant have been reported. Some scientists believe that there may be a link with cheap burgers and other meat products in the 1980's. The first incinerator plant to burn carcasses of older cattle culled under emergency Government measures to restore confidence in beef was approved by the Environment Agency yesterday. The new plant, operated by Durga International at Flagg, Derbys, is expected to start operations on Monday. © Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1997. Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 01:49:04 -0700 (PDT) From: David J Knowles To: ar-news@envirolink.org Subject: [UK] Factory farms are 'a risk to health' Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970816014934.29af967e@dowco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >From The Electronic Telegraph - Saturday, August 16th, 1997 Factory farms are 'a risk to health' FACTORY farming is putting public health at risk by creating large breeding grounds for diseases including salmonella and E coli, animal welfare campaigners said yesterday. The Compassion in World Farming Trust demanded tougher hygiene standards on farms and said that official statistics already painted a horrifying picture of contaminated animals entering the human food chain. The trust said research had shown: - One in three chilled, raw chickens contain salmonella - 48 per cent of fresh chickens contain diarrhoea-causing Campylobacter - 25 per cent of raw pork sausages and 22 per cent of raw beefburgers contain E coli. - While cooking killed disease-causing bacteria, the report said that food poisoning cases had risen by 400 per cent in the past 10 years. It blamed cramped conditions for livestock on farms for the contamination, coupled with lack of fresh air and animals forced to stand in their own excrement. The report also claimed that antibiotics used to prevent disease could increase animals' susceptibility to salmonella infection and lead to greater bacterial resistance to human medicines. Scientists had found "alarmingly high" levels of mutating salmonella and E coli that could make bacteria resistant to antibiotics. Dr Tim O'Brien, author of the report, said: "While consumers are told to improve hygiene in the kitchen, it is clear that the real risk is coming from the farm." © Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1997. Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 01:49:07 -0700 (PDT) From: David J Knowles To: ar-news@envirolink.org Subject: [UK] Freddie Starr faces inquiry over hurling live chickens Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970816014936.29afa1c2@dowco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" >From The Electronic Telegraph - Saturday, August 16th, 1997 Freddie Starr faces inquiry over hurling live chickens FREDDIE Starr, the comedian, could face animal cruelty charges after hurling live chickens into the audience at his seaside show. In an operating table sketch, Starr, 53, pulled the two birds from a fake body and flung them "like rugby balls" into the stalls. As women in the audience screamed, men threw the hens back on stage and one landed on its head in a cloud of feathers. Starr then picked up a bird and pretended to throttle it with his bare hands at the Britannia Theatre in Great Yarmouth, Norfolk. An investigation into the incident has now been launched by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals after it received complaints from theatre-goers. They plan to interview Starr and his management team, talk to witnesses and view a video of the show. Mike Hogg, Norfolk's chief RSPCA inspector, leading the investigation, said: "Lobbing birds around an auditorium is just not on." Trudy Coleman, Starr's manager, said: "Freddie's a great animal lover and wouldn't hurt a fly, let alone a chicken. He's been a vegetarian for years because he loves animals." © Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1997. Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 01:49:11 -0700 (PDT) From: David J Knowles To: ar-news@envirolink.org Subject: [UK] Don't get so cut up over animals Message-ID: <1.5.4.16.19970816014940.29afa0b0@dowco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" [This pro-vivisection piece ran in the science section of the Eletronic Telegraph. "Newsnight" is a News/Current Affairs program, which airs on BBC2] >From The Electronic Telegraph - Saturday, August 16th, 1997 Don't get so cut up over animals Steve Jones' view from the lab THIS week comes news that, after a long period of decline, the number of animals used in scientific research and product testing has increased. Only by a few thousand, but enough to give the animal rights lobby a chance for publicity. Newsnight fell for it: there was a late-night discussion of "vivisection". The language itself is worth noting: the term "vivisection" was invented by the anti-science movement. The debate was perfectly balanced; on one side anti-vivisectionists, on the other a Labour MP who felt (given the familiar shiftiness about pre-election commitments) that his party should move towards a ban on animal experiments. Although the discussion was preceded by a comment from a scientist in favour of animal research it added to the general impression seeping into the public consciousness that all work on animals is of its nature somehow evil. Any treatment of the subject is now surrounded by what seems an obligatory drizzle of misinformation from its opponents. The activists have an agenda: first ban tests on cosmetics, then on drugs, then stop animal research altogether. Their latest target is the new deputy director of the RSPCA, who once committed the terrible crime of studying in guinea pigs a disease that resembles human multiple sclerosis. The slow decrease in the number of experiments came from a move from animals to cells and then to genes. This year's increase reflects another advance: human genes can be put into other creatures to make animal models of disease. Drugs can be tested on mice rather than on patients, which to me (if not to Newsnight) seems devoutly to be desired. I was myself once asked to appear in a television debate on animal experiments. As I work on slugs (which are scarcely cuddly) I found this odd: but it was then revealed that the other speakers had criminal records. The Research Defence Society - which supports those who work on animals - refuses to appear with the thugs who attack laboratories, researchers, and (worst of all) their children. It is time for scientists to restrain their natural distaste and to show their opponents up for what they are. The enemies of science are winning the publicity battle. Even my shampoo is labelled "Sainsbury's are against animal testing". Its contents include formaldehyde and methylparaben, which have certainly been tested on animals. It would be, as the firm's lawyers well know, an act of gross negligence if they had not. Sainsbury's carefully (and Jesuitically) fail to point that out in their disclaimer. For a company that promotes - and, I am sure, believes in - an ethical agenda, this is disappointing. Are they happy to pander to the anti-science movement to sell a few more bottles of shampoo, or should they perhaps consider that ethics involves telling the plain truth? Animals will be used in medical research and in product testing for the foreseeable future. As it becomes possible to model more diseases in mice, the number may rise. Any ban or unreasonable restriction will cost lives. Indeed, the levels of animal care are already so extreme (and the security against vandals so expensive) that millions that might have gone to finding cures for disease are wasted in fighting off fanatics. The rot starts early. Biology students at school no longer carry out dissections as they find them distasteful. They are right. I well remember the disgust I felt at the age of 15 when I opened up a cow's eye (although that was succeeded, I persuade myself, by wonder at the beauties of how it worked). Students have every right to refuse to cut up animals - but if they do, they should not study biology. There are persistent rumours that a certain northern university will soon define itself as an "animal-free campus" in the hope of attracting more applicants. If the rumours turn out to be correct it is time for biologists to fight back. Every university in Britain should refuse to recognise that institution's degrees when its graduates apply to do research. This may be hard on the students, but it is essential for the future of science. University College London was, 80 years ago, at the centre of the "Brown Dog Affair" (the subject of a fascinating new book of that title by Peter Mason). Medical students destroyed a Battersea statue of a dog dishonestly claimed to have been cruelly vivisected. The Dog has returned, in a new and rather cute version. After some dispute, Wandsworth Council allowed the statue to be re-erected. With positively Sainsburian hypocrisy, though, it is hidden away in an obscure corner of Battersea Park, in case it should act as a centre of protest. It is time for those who put people before dogs to start protesting. Newsnight could start, with a special on the value of animal research. © Copyright Telegraph Group Limited 1997. Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 12:54:56 -0400 (EDT) From: JanaWilson@aol.com To: AR-news@envirolink.org Subject: (US) Okla.'s Tishomingo Refuge Final Public-Use Plan Message-ID: <970816125455_954691471@emout06.mail.aol.com> Giving in to public and political pressure, the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued its final public-use plan for the Tishomingo National Wildlife Refuge on Friday. This 16,464-acre refuge lies along the upper Washita Arm of Oklahoma's Lake Texoma. The plan expands refuge accommodations to anglers and campers. A struggle over use of the refuge lasted nearly two years and involved congressional hearings and community meetings in Okla. and Washington, DC. Local users of the refuge (and including former US Rep. Bill Brewster, D-Marietta) became upset when former refuge manager David Stanbrough conducted a compatibility study weighing the needs of the wildlife and public using the public land. Stanbrough changed some rules, limiting or banning public access to some areas and putting new restrictions of troutlines and motor boating. Mr. Brewster at one point wrote legislation to transfer management of the refuge to the state. A series of public meetings in Oklahoma and a new, more relaxed set of proposed rules placated sportsmen and brought about strong community support a/w Hans Stuart of the US Fish and Wildlife Service office in Albuquerque, NM. And after a series of public meetings, federal officials became more responsive to the outcry over Stanbrough's rules. (He later transferred out.) The final version of the rules: 1. Modifying the boating and fishing season on Cumberland Pond from Mar 1 thru Sept. 30. 2. Allowing noncommercial taking of bait fish on the refuge. 3. Lowering to $25 the fee for groups to reserve and use the refuge pavilion. 4. Developing camping facilities near the boat ramp at the refuge's headquarters. Fees (not yet determined) will be charged, with 80 % of the proceeds going toward further improvements and visitor services. 5. Monitoring the effects of fishing on wildlife in the 1,000 acre sanctuary area of the Cumberland Pool during next year's fishing season by new refuge manager Johnny Beall. The refuge was reopened last February for night fishing from the banks of Cumberland Pool at the headquarters area, Sandy Creek Bridge and the Murray 23 units. Unchanged are restrictions on set tackle fishing in the Cumberland's Pool most shallow 1000 acres -- areas less than three feet deep - in a/w Okla law. Jug fishing is also prohibited. For the Animals, Jana, OKC Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:18:20 -0400 (EDT) From: DobieBoy2@aol.com To: ar-news@envirolink.org Subject: Urgent:Sample Huntingdon Ltr Message-ID: <970816161816_-1739332959@emout06.mail.aol.com> Below is a sample letter used by some activists to obtain hearings on the abuse of animals at Huntingdon Life Sciences. The address for all Senators is US Senate, Washington, DC 20510; for your Representative it is US House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. Dear Senator (or Representative) __________, I am writing regarding shocking revelations of animal abuse in a New Jersey laboratory, and hoping that you will help arrange Congressional hearings on the matter. As the enclosed article from the Cincinnati Enquirer indicates, USDA inspections do not seem to be preventing violations of the Animal Welfare Act. Remarkably, the same corporation that operates the laboratory in East Millstone, New Jersey (Huntingdon Life Sciences) just had their license suspended to operate a laboratory in England. The suspension, to take effect in November, occurred only after Parliament held hearings on abuse revealed when an undercover television crew released film of Huntingdon employees punching and throwing beagle dogs. The Home Inspectorate Office (England's version of the USDA) had failed to prevent or document the abuse. If the tape had not been obtained by the television crew and reviewed by Parliament, the abuse would continue. Now it seems that the USDA is choosing to ignore the videotape of animal suffering described in the Cincinnati Enquirer article. USDA has failed to prevent animal abuse before, and only Congressional action has prompted reform and adherence to the Animal Welfare Act. I believe that Congress must subpoena from the USDA all written and video evidence related to Huntingdon Life Sciences' treatment of animals, and hold hearings to examine how such abuse will be prevented in the future. Please act to have such hearings held. I look forward to your response. Thank you. Your Name Your Address Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 16:31:02 -0400 (EDT) From: Debbie Leahy To: ar-news@envirolink.org Subject: Library Censors Animal Display Message-ID: <01IMIIJW3IPK90NPDW@delphi.com> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII DISPLAY SPARKS LIBRARY FLAP Daily Southtown, Wednesday, August 13, 1997 By Amy Hetzner, Staff Writer There still are the black-and-white photographs of pigs slit from gullet to gut, cartoons of rabbits being readied for experimentation and dire warnings about the effects of eating meat. What the display at Grande Prairie Public Library in Hazel Crest no longer contains, however, is the handcrafted mesh cage holding life-size replicas of mutilated hens. Administrative Librarian Susan Roberts ordered the removal of the beakless birds after they first appeared in the library Saturday. No one complained about the hens, she said. They were just one "piece of realia" too much among Illinois Animal Action's exhibit, located in the hallway leading to the librarys youth services department. "I told them if they wanted to put rubber chickens in there, that would be fine," Roberts said. "We were just afraid they would frighten the children." Joe Espinosa, who created the graphic display, calls the library's actions censorship and has appealed to the American Civil Liberties Union for assistance. "I'm amazed that showing them the way that chickens really live is too much for them," said Espinosa, campaign coordinator for the 3- year-old animal rights group based in Warrenville. Espinosa said he tried to get a set of rules about what could be shown in the library's space, which is open to non-commercial, community groups. Unlike a similar display at the University of Illinois at Chicago in March, Espinosa kept this one devoid of blood, guts and gore. "I really see this as a First Amendment issue. I really wanted to tell the story of what laying hens go through, and I wasn't allowed to," he said. What most egg-laying hens go through, according to both Espinosa and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is a life confined to a wire cage--about a 1-1/2 feet on each side--with about five of their feathered friends. The hens have their upper beaks trimmed about a quarter of an inch using an electrified piece of metal to cut and then cauterize the wounds, said Tim Allen with the USDA Animal Welfare Information Center. The "debeaking" keeps them from pecking each other in the close quarters. Espinosa called his battery cage display an "exact replica" of those conditions, with hens hand-made out of papier-mache, synthetic fur for feathers and plastic foam for their stunted beaks. It was to be the centerpiece of a presentation targeting "the exploitation of animals for food, clothing, entertainment, sport and science." The goal of such educational efforts, Espinosa said, is the "liberation of animals." "There's opposition almost every time we try and do something, because the reality is that behind animal exploitation is money," he said. That's why he turned to the public library for a forum. Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals hosted a similar display for two weeks in March at the Chicago Circle Center at UIC without incident, said Tom Ryan, a university spokesman. "The exhibit got much more attention than usual, but there were absolutely no problems, no complaints," he said. "They never had to remove anything, and this was not a problem." The difference, according to Roberts, is that the library display is in a place frequented by small children. Although the library's policy does not outline what can and cannot be shown, it does state that any exhibits are "subject to the discretion" of the library. Roberts said when she asked Espinosa to remove the hens, he did so without protest. So she was surprised when Illinois Animal Action started fussing about the incident. "He said he would abide the policy when I spoke to him," Roberts said. Espinosa, however, claims he tried to clear things up with the library prior to Saturday because he knows it can be a touchy subject. "We don't try to be controversial," he said. "We try to work with people." Date: Sat, 16 Aug 1997 22:50:38 -0400 From: allen schubert To: ar-news@envirolink.org Subject: (US) Chicken served to students possibly tainted Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970816225035.006c5f74@clark.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" SAD food issues plus possible link to strawberry contamination from spring time. from Mercury Center web page: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted at 7:28 p.m. PDT Saturday, August 16, 1997 Chicken served to students possibly tainted LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Fried chicken fed to local schoolchildren the past school year may have contained slight traces of a suspected carcinogen, but not at dangerous levels, according to an internal district memo. A memo delivered to school board members last week revealed that 650 cases of chicken possibly tainted with dioxin were delivered to 77 Los Angeles Unified School District cafeterias in October and February. Schools are being notified not to use any remaining in their freezers -- although a second memo released Friday indicated that all but part of one case had been served. Federal officials do not consider the low level of dioxin a health risk, ranking the problem far below last spring's scare over hepatitis-tainted strawberries. In that case, potentially contaminated strawberries from Mexico were found to have been fed to students nationwide. ``This was a very low level, a very low-key thing,'' Margaret Webb, spokeswoman for the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said of the chicken. However, officials also acknowledge that little is known about the effects of dioxin -- a dangerous industrial byproduct that has worked its way into many foods, especially fish and dairy products. Dioxin occurs naturally in the environment. It becomes a concern when humans are exposed to it at high levels over a long period of time. Under those conditions, it is considered a probable carcinogen. The highest dioxin level detected in chicken samples was about 4 parts per trillion in the chicken's fat, where it accumulates, and levels were usually closer to the permissible 1 part per trillion in the meat, according to the USDA. Arthur Whitmore, spokesman for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, said the agency views dioxin the same way it does lead: ``If the source of contamination is avoidable, then steps must be taken to avoid it.'' The dioxin in the chicken was traced to Mississippi, where clay was mined for mixing with feed to prevent caking, Whitmore said. All of that feed has been destroyed. The USDA has recalled 532,000 pounds of chicken sent to schools nationwide by the group of vendors that used the feed. The recall comes just a couple months after federal officials reported finding the carcinogen in chickens pulled from slaughterhouses in Arkansas and Texas, but said the levels posed no public health risk. The dioxin was traced to Mississippi where soybean meal was mixed with a clay additive at a feed company. Some production lines were stopped when the discovery was made, and federal officials ordered that tainted chickens be kept out of the food supply. It was not immediately known if the chicken used by the school districts came from the same plants. The FDA, Environmental Protection Agency and USDA standards for dioxin levels have been called into question recently by Rep. Jay Dickey, R-Ark., who wants congressional hearings to find out why the allowed dioxin levels have changed. The government had allowed dioxin levels up to 25 parts per trillion in fish and less than three parts per trillion in poultry until recently.