|
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.
|