AccueilFAQRechercherS'enregistrerMembresGroupesConnexion

Partagez | 
 

 Meat

Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Aller en bas 
Aller à la page : Précédent  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Suivant
AuteurMessage
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Dim 5 Aoû - 13:42

VIDEO

http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/default2.aspx

From the meat industry's rampant abuse of animals and environmental devastation to the tremendous health benefits of a vegan diet to helping end world hunger and deplorable working conditions in slaughterhouses, there are countless reasons why more and more people are leaving meat off their plates for good and embracing a healthy and humane vegan diet.

Cruelty to Animals
Farmed animals are every bit as intelligent and capable of feeling pain as the dogs and cats we cherish as our companions. They are inquisitive, interesting individuals who value their lives, solve problems, experience fear and pain, and are capable of using tools.

Yet the more than 16 billion animals who are killed for food every year in the U.S. have little legal protection from cruelty that would be illegal if it were inflicted on companion dogs or cats. They are neglected, mutilated, genetically manipulated, put on drug regimens that cause chronic pain and crippling, transported through all weather extremes, and killed in gruesome and violent ways.

Even so-called "free-range" animals are often mutilated without the benefit of painkillers; kept in filthy, disease-ridden sheds; forced to endure long trips to the slaughterhouse without food or water; and killed in the same ways as animals from factory farms. Going vegan is the best way to stop these atrocities.

Your Health
Giving meat the boot is also the best way to ensure a lifetime of good health. Vegan foods provide us with all the nutrients that we need, minus the saturated fat, cholesterol, and contaminants that are found in meat, eggs, and dairy products. Plant-based diets help protect us from heart disease, diabetes, obesity, strokes, and several types of cancer. Vegans also tend to have stronger immune systems and, on average, live 10 years longer than meat-eaters do.

The Environment
Going vegan helps keep the Earth healthy too. America's meat addiction is poisoning and depleting our drinking water, arable land, and clean air. More than half the water used in the U.S. goes to animal agriculture, and since farmed animals produce 130 times more excrement than the human population does, the runoff from their waste greatly pollutes our waterways.

World Hunger
Not only does raising animals for food gobble up precious resources and produce tons of waste, it also steals food from hungry people. Raising animals for food is extremely inefficient. For every pound of food that they eat, only a fraction of the calories are returned in the form of edible flesh. If we stopped intensively breeding farmed animals and grew crops to feed humans instead, we could easily feed every human on the planet with healthy and affordable vegetarian foods.

Worker Rights
Animals aren't the only ones who are abused by the meat industry. Human Rights Watch has said that slaughterhouse workers have "the most dangerous factory job in America." The industry has refused to do what's necessary to create safe working conditions for its employees, such as slowing down slaughter lines and supplying workers with appropriate safety gear, because these changes could cut into companies' bottom lines. Many workers endure crippling injuries and many have even lost their limbs—or their lives—from working with dangerous meat-processing machines. Refusing to buy or eat meat ensures that you aren't contributing to this exploitative industry.

Factory Farms: Poisoning Communities
People who live near factory farms suffer too. Factory farms pollute the air and water for many miles in every direction, often spreading contamination and illness to the people who live and work nearby. Chronic sickness, brain damage, poisoned waterways, elevated cancer rates, and even death plague these communities, while the government does nothing to protect citizens or regulate the industry. It's up to us to help stop these farms from poisoning small-town America by refusing to buy their products.

Government Negligence
Between 2000 and 2005, agribusinesses funneled more than $140 million to politicians, who helped to ensure that laws that might protect consumers, animals, and the environment did not pass. The federal government does little to protect human health, animal welfare, and our environment from the factory-farming industry's negligence and excess, but each of us can make a major difference by going vegan and encouraging our friends and family to do the same.

Take PETA's Pledge to Be Vegan for 30 Days, and we'll send you tips and recipes to help you get started on a healthier, more compassionate way of life.

Browse hundreds of vegan recipes
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Dim 5 Aoû - 13:42

MAY 14 2012

URGENT: Help Stop Plans to Build Intensive 333,000 Chicken Farm in Shropshire before Thursday

Shropshire Council has received an application to build an intensive egg production facility which, if approved, would condemn 333,000 hens to a life of misery and suffering.
These inquisitive, highly social birds would be forced to spend their lives in cramped cages if this horrific plan goes ahead. Even so-called "enriched cages" do not allow hens to move freely, dust bathe or forage for food. Hens may still face the agonising pain of having the ends of their sensitive beaks cut off with a red-hot blade in a futile attempt to stop the frustrated birds from pecking at each other, and severe crowding and often filthy conditions would leave the hens highly susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. In addition to this suffering, each year, millions of male chicks are drowned, gassed or ground up alive shortly after birth because they considered a by-product of the cruel egg industry.
Please urge Shropshire Council to reject this application. The closing date for objections is 17 May.

Urgent! Stop Plans to Build Intensive Broiler Chicken Production Facility in Shropshire
Shropshire Council has received an application to build an intensive broiler chicken production facility which, if approved, would condemn 330,000 birds to a life of misery and suffering.

These inquisitive, highly social birds would be forced to spend their lives in ammonia-laden sheds with tens of thousands of other birds. After enduring the agonising pain of having the ends of their sensitive beaks cut off with a red-hot blade in a futile attempt to stop the frustrated birds from pecking at each other, the chickens would be dosed with antibiotics to fight disease and bred to grow so large so fast that many would become crippled under their own weight and suffer organ failure. Severe crowding and often filthy conditions would also leave the hens highly susceptible to chronic respiratory diseases. Chickens killed for their flesh reach "slaughter weight" and are killed when they are just 41 days old.

Please urge Shropshire Council to reject this application. The closing date for objections is 17 May.
SubjectI was distressed to learn that Harrison Farms have submitted an application (12/01367/EIA) to build an intensive broiler chicken production facility in Shropshire which would house hundreds of thousands of birds. Chickens on factory farms are forced to grow so fast that their bodies cannot keep up, and many are left unable to walk because their legs simply can't carry the extra weight. Birds also suffer horrific injuries as they fight for space.

Not only is factory farming a living nightmare for animals, it also has a severely detrimental effect on the environment, both locally and nationally. Locally, farm traffic, noise and unpleasant odours can all cause an unacceptable disruption. Furthermore, it is now universally recognised that on a global scale, farmed animals are among the main contributors to the greenhouse-gas emissions that cause climate change. Raising chickens and growing their feed also contributes significantly to other major environmental problems, including habitat destruction, air and water pollution, soil degradation and loss of biodiversity. A new UN report has said that people need to consume fewer animal-derived products in order to save the world from the worst impacts of climate change.

Local governments should adopt policies that encourage a move away from meat and dairy consumption and towards sustainable projects aimed at reinvigorating land to grow crops and feed people directly. Intensive farming also creates a much greater risk of disease in animals and contributes to the spread of diseases to the human population, as we have seen with bird flu, mad cow disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, E. coli infections and many other diseases.

I urge you to refuse planning permission for this development. It is now very clear that the best thing we can do for animals and the environment is to end factory farming.MessageSignoff All mandatory fields are marked with an asterisk. *
First Name *
Last Name *
E-Mail Address *
By signing up here and giving us your contact details, you're acknowledging that you've read and you agree to our privacy policy.
Sign me up for PETA UK E-News and other special announcements. In This Section
Action Alerts
Campaigns
Join the Action Team
Activist Resources
Sign Up for E-Mail



People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Foundation
PO Box 36678
London SE1 1YE
United Kingdom
+44 (0)20 7357 9229
+44 (0)20 7357 0901 (fax)
Info@peta.org.uk (general enquiries)
General Info:About PETAContact PETAContest Terms and ConditionsDisclaimerDonate NowPrivacy Policy© 2012 PETA. Read Our Full PolicySite Tools:AccessibilitySubscribe to E-NewsJobs andInternshipsVolunteerAbout This WebsiteSite MapInternational Sites:PETA USPETA FrancePETA GermanyPETA NetherlandsPETA IndiaPETA AsiaPETA LatinoPeople for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) Foundation – a charitable company limited by guarantee, with its registered office at Lacon House, Theobald's Road, London WC1X 8RW. Registered in England and Wales as charity number 1056453, company number 3135903.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Dim 5 Aoû - 13:43

Still no absolute maximum
time limit for animal transport
is introduced.
More than 1 Million EU – Citizens
call for a maximum time
limit of 8 hours for animals
transported for the purpose
of slaughter.
Written Declaration 49/2011
which calls for a maximum
transport time limit of 8hours
is approved and thus becomes
the official position of
the EU Parliament.
Pig suffering from heat
stress during longdistance
transport
Exhausted bull on longdistance
transport
Calves suffering from
thirst during longdistance
transport
Horse suffering from
heat stress during longdistance
transport
Pig suffering from heat
stress
Lamb with trapped leg
during long-distance
transport
Lamb whose legs were
trapped for many hours on
long-distance transport
Lambs suffering from
lack of water during
long-distance transport
Numerous thirsty lambs
trying to reach the
watering device
Dying pig on longdistance
transport
Sheep dies during longdistance
transport
Pig dies during longdistance
transport
Calf dies during longdistance
transport
Bull dies during longdistance
transport
Pigs die during longdistance
transport
EFSA published Scientific
Opinion concerning the Welfare
of Animals During Transport
(prepared on request
from European Commission).
EFSA confirms that Regulation
(EC) No 1/2005 is not in
line with scientific findings.
18
Better enforcement alone is not an
answer to the problems of
long-distance transports
Some stakeholders and authorities claim that the animal
welfare problems caused by long-distance transports
should be addressed just by better enforcement of the
existing Regulation, rather than by amending the Regulation
to include a limit on transport times.
This approach is simply not realistic!
Many efforts have been made over more than 15 years to
improve enforcement of the previous and of the current
legislation. These efforts are appreciated and necessary.
However, practice has shown that efforts to enforce
the legislation have only achieved limited success
and will only ever achieve limited success in the absence
of new provisions in the Regulation, most importantly
imposing a limit on transport times. The reasons for this
are on the one hand that certain problems are inherent in
long-distance transports and are thus not avoidable by
increased enforcement, and on the other hand that EUwide
checks to enforce the Regulation are simply not
practicable – among other reasons, simply for the lack
of personnel, funding and infrastructure.
In addition, the current legislation is extremely complex
and contains a vast number of provisions and derogations
concerning long-distance transports. This constitutes a
major and often unmanageable challenge not only for the
inspection authorities, but also for transport companies.
The following examples, which have been extensively
documented by the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) of
the European Commission and Animals’ Angels, are evidence
that enforcement has been insufficient over many
years and is still insufficient:
Unweaned calves regularly
not fed during transport:
Unweaned calves are regularly transported on long-distance
journeys (for example from Ireland to Spain) even
though it is technically impossible10 to supply them with
adequate liquid on board the trucks during transport:
these animals cannot properly use the drinking devices
(bite nipples) commonly installed on trucks; it is not possible
to work the commonly used drinking systems with
the liquid necessary for unweaned calves; heating up
the liquid – as it would be necessary for this category of
animals - is also not possible on regular road vehicles;
above all, however, in order to guarantee that each animal
drinks and that each animal drinks the correct amount of
liquid (this is of vital importance for unweaned animals), it
would be necessary to feed them by hand one by one –
this, however, is not feasible on board the truck.
Limiting transport times to a maximum of 8hours
would eliminate this problem, as the animals would
not need to be fed on board.
Unbroken (e.g. not tamed)
horses:
Unbroken (e.g. not tamed) horses are regularly transported
on long-distance journeys, even though transporting
these horses on journeys exceeding 8 hours
is forbidden by the current Regulation, as these young
horses are particularly prone to stress during transport.
It would be necessary for the authorities, before authorizing
a transport, to verify whether each horse is unbroken
and thus must not be sent on a long-distance
journey, or whether it is broken and thus its transport on
a long-distance journey is allowed. This is a lengthy procedure
which in practice often is not carried out.
Limiting transport times for all horses (broken and
unbroken) to a maximum of 8hours would eliminate
this problem, because it would no longer be necessary
to distinguish between broken and unbroken
horses; the authorities would know that in general
they must not authorize long-distance journeys.
Utopia versus Reality
19
Animals not able to stand
upright during transport:
Animals, and in particular ovines, are very frequently
transported on too many decks with the consequence
that the ceiling height is so low that they cannot stand in
a natural upright position and that the ventilation is compromised11
- even though this is forbidden by the Regulation.
This concerns short distance transports as well as
long-distance transports, but clearly the negative consequences
on the animals’ welfare are more serious during
long-distance transports.
Limiting transport times to a maximum of 8hours
would not eliminate, but considerably reduce the
negative consequences of insufficient ceiling height
for the animals, simply because the time during which
they have to endure inadequate transport conditions,
would be much shorter.
Lack of checks due to lack
of funding/lack of
veterinary staff:
For example in Greece, which in 2009 was found guilty by
the European Court of Justice12 for failing to fulfil its obligations
on the protection of animals during transport. Nevertheless
in 2010, out of 467 animal transports arriving at
the main Greek ports only 6 transports were checked13. In
France (port of Cherbourg) where each week large numbers
of calves arrive from Ireland and where provisions on
transport times and rest periods have been regularly ignored
for years - the competent veterinary office would be
eager to carry out these checks, but it is unable to do so
due to the lack of staff. In Spain it is practically impossible
to reach an official veterinarian outside the very restricted
office hours. Since 2004, Animals’ Angels staff has been
training several thousands of police and veterinarians
across Europe on the welfare of animals during transport.
In some regions the number and level of checks have improved,
but it’s impossible to have regular checks on the
tens of millions of animals transported every year across
Europe because this would literally require the multiplication
of competent staff – and consequently the multiplication
of the resources assigned to enforcement. This is not
only unlikely to happen, but it would be done only to subsidise
a practice opposed by most European taxpayers and
by the majority of Members of the European Parliament.
An 8-hour limit would drastically reduce this problem,
too: far fewer requirements would have to be
observed and thus it would be much easier for the
competent authorities to fulfil their inspection duties.
Approval of deficient journey
logs by the authorities:
Animals’ Angels investigations as well as FVO inspection
reports14 published in 2009 and 2010 concerning
17 missions to 13 Member States show that officials in
the Member States often accept and stamp journey logs
with unrealistically short estimated journey times. As a
result the obligatory rest stops for very long journeys are
neither planned nor carried out. Furthermore important
parts of the journey log are often left blank and, despite
this, officials stamp the journey log as being satisfactory.
A direct maximum 8-hour journey would make the
authorisation much less complicated. In addition, it
would be easier for inspection authorities carrying
out checks during transport to judge if times and
distances are reasonable.
Animals transported long
distances on inadequate
vehicles:
As Animals’ Angels roadside investigations show, vehicles
often are equipped with inadequate, broken, dirty or
frozen watering systems, which result in animals suffering
from severe thirst and thus exhaustion during longdistance
transports; or vehicles are constructed in such
a way that the animals remain stuck with parts of their
bodies under dividers or between the bars of the side
walls of the trucks, etc.
FVO inspection reports15 on missions carried out in 14
Member States between 2009 and 2011 show that officials
in the Member States frequently grant certificates
of approval for transports exceeding 8 hours to vehicles
which do not fulfil the requirements of Regulation (EC)
No 1/2005 (for example, concerning water system and
ventilation system). Clearly, the approval and thus the
use of vehicles that do not comply with the additional
standards for long-distance journeys causes negative
consequences for the protection of the transported animals.
Problems caused by irregular vehicles would have a
minor impact on animals if long-distance journeys
were not permitted.
20
Lack of infrastructure for
cases of emergency:
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 requires the Competent
Authorities of the Member States to take measures
in the event of emergency to safeguard the welfare
of animals during transport. As one necessary measure
the Regulation requires: “unloading the animals and
holding them in suitable accommodation with appropriate
care until the problem is resolved”. This action
becomes particularly important in cases where severely
sick or injured animals are found on board during
transport and the places of departure and destination
are too far away to send the animals back or let them
continue, or when water supply is impossible, the loading
density is severely exceeded or when the animals
suffer from severe heat or cold stress, etc. On many
occasions in recent years Animals’ Angels teams have
faced situations in which checks on road transport of
live animals resulted in the urgent need to unload the
animals from the vehicle. Especially when such emergency
situations occur during night-time and at weekends
it often turns out to be very difficult or impossible to
carry out the necessary unloading. 10 of the European
Member States do not have control posts at all; another
7 Member States only have 1 or 2 official control posts16.
In the cases where emergency unloading is carried out
it often takes many hours, which prolongs the animals’
suffering. The reasons can be, among others:
 official veterinary service not reachable by police authorities
 no emergency unloading facility available
 no control post located at a reasonable distance
 control posts (claiming to be) fully booked and therefore
not capable of accepting the animals
 control posts not equipped to accommodate the particular
species transported (example: the 7 official
control posts in Spain are authorised only for cattle)
 European legislation does not oblige the approved
control posts to be reachable 24 hours a day for emergency
cases
An 8-hour maximum journey limit would also mean
that in the event of emergency animals would not
have to travel for more than 4 hours to either arrive
at the destination or go back to the point of departure.
This is much less than is the case with longdistance
transports, unless Member States invest a
large amount of financial and human resources into
setting up emergency unloading facilities available
at a reasonable distance everywhere.
Animals suffer due to heat
stress during transport:
The Regulation requires that vehicles used for animal
transports exceeding 8 hours are equipped with
a ventilation system capable of maintaining temperatures
between 5°C and 30°C with a +/- 5°C tolerance.
In practice, in animal transport vehicles fans are the
only forced, i.e. mechanical, ventilation system. These
systems are – at best – capable of exchanging the
air, but they are not capable of reducing temperature.
Nevertheless these vehicles have been and are being
granted certificates of approval by the competent authorities
of Member States. Animals on board transport
vehicles do clearly suffer from heat stress during
the hot summer months, with temperatures often over
35°C particularly in Southern Europe. This concerns in
particular animals that are not used to high temperatures,
as for example pigs transported from Belgium
or the Netherlands to Italy. As investigations have
shown, especially pigs do immensely suffer from heat
stress during transport.
Slaughtering animals as close as possible to the
farm (i.e. observing an 8-hour maximum limit)
would enormously reduce these problems, also
because in summer transporters could make the
whole journey during night time when temperatures
are lower.
Failure to enforce the
requirement that animals
must be given food, water
and rest during long
journeys:
The FVO reports17 show that Member States often fail
to enforce the requirement that animals must be given
food, water and 24 hours rest after 24 hours travel in
the case of pigs and horses, 28 hours travel in the
case of cattle and sheep and 18 hours travel in the
case of unweaned animals. In some cases no rest
break at all is given; in other cases the rest break is
much shorter than required by Regulation 1/2005. The
failure to give the legally required breaks for food, water
and rest can arise because:
 the transporter gave an unrealistically short estimated
journey time in the journey log and this was not
detected by the Competent Authority, or
21
 an accurate estimated journey time was given and a
24 hour stop was planned in the journey log but in fact
the vehicle did not stop at all for the 24 hour rest break
or stopped but for less than the required 24 hours.
With an 8-hour maximum transport time limit, it would
no longer be necessary to unload the animals during
transport for rest. In addition, the need to feed and
water the animals would be considerably decreased.
Member States fail to inform
other competent authorities
of infringements / Lack of
follow-up of complaints by
other Member States:
Article 26 of Regulation 1/2005 stipulates that, where a
Competent Authority (CA) establishes that there is an
infringement, it must notify the CA that granted the
authorisation to the transporter or the certificate of
approval of the means of transport and, where appropriate,
the CA that issued the driver's certificate
of competence. Article 26 also provides that a CA of
destination which finds that a journey took place in
breach of the Regulation must notify without delay the
CA of the place of departure. The purpose of these
provisions is to enable the relevant CAs to take steps
to prevent recurrence of similar breaches in future.
Numerous Animals’ Angels investigations, as well
as various FVO reports18 show that these provisions
are frequently ignored and that CAs which discover
infringements often do not report them to the other
relevant CAs as required by Article 26. Furthermore
in cases where infringements are reported, they are
frequently not followed up. These problems especially
arise in the numerous cases where the deficient transport
concerns more Member States.
An 8-hour maximum journey limit would produce
a drastic reduction in the number of transports
of live animals between different Member States,
which would be replaced by trade in meat and carcasses.
Clearly, the transport of carcasses would
not produce as many problems as the one of live
animals.
Sanctions not effective,
proportionate or
dissuasive:
Regulation 1/2005 stipulates that the penalties provided
for infringements must be effective, proportionate and
dissuasive. Article 54 of Regulation 882/200419 provides
that when a CA identifies non-compliance with EU rules
for the protection of animal welfare “it shall take action
to ensure that the operator remedies the situation”. It
is clear from Animals’ Angels’ documentation that in
some cases no penalties are imposed and that in other
cases the penalties imposed are too low to be dissuasive.
Moreover, some Member States have no effective
powers to impose penalties on transporters from other
Member States. These findings are confirmed by the
FVO reports20.
While we welcome the establishment of adequate
sanctions, the establishment of an 8-hour maximum
journey limit would immediately lead to a
decrease of cases where sanctions are needed.
Furthermore as an 8-hour maximum journey time
limit would lead to fewer live animal transports between
Member States, the problems the inspection
authorities currently have in effectively enforcing
sanctions on foreign transport companies would
be reduced considerably.
More than 234,000 French citizens signed the 8hours petition
22
Enforcement is an illusion,
if long-distance transports
continue. Deficient
transports originating
from Spain - Commission
closes complaint file as
it is unable to obtain the
required information from
Spain
In 2007 Animals’ Angels and Compassion In World Farming
filed a Formal Complaint to the European Commission
concerning the systematic failure by competent authorities
of Spain to secure compliance with Community legislation
on the protection of animals during transport.
The essence of the Complaint was that at least since
2005, when Animals’ Angels submitted the first of its
comprehensive reports on severe irregularities concerning
the protection of animals during long-distance animal
transports originating from Spain, the Spanish competent
authorities have had detailed knowledge of these severe
infractions that occur on a regular basis. Despite this, the
Spanish competent authorities at least since 2005 have
failed to adopt effective measures to achieve better enforcement.
Indeed, there has been no improvement in
the level of enforcement achieved between 2005, when
Animals’ Angels submitted the first of five comprehensive
reports, and 2010, the date of the most recent. Almost
every single transport going from Spain to Italy continues
to violate Community legislation on the protection of animals
during transport.
Concretely, in the various complaint files Animals’ Angels
and Compassion In World Farming complained about
transports originating from 9 different regions in Spain.
Finally, in October 2011 the Commission responded to
the Formal Complaint submitted in 2007, suggesting the
closure of the complaint file. As reason for the suggestion
to close the file, the EU Commission service explained
that in the Spanish Autonomous Community of Castilla
y León improvements concerning animal transport had
occurred. Furthermore, the Commission stated that
from the other 8 Spanish regions concerned they
could not obtain any information.
It is unrealistic for the Commission to draw conclusions
about all the nine regions to which the complaint referred
by considering just one single region, particularly as only
eight of the 48 non-compliant transports that we observed
and which formed the essence of our formal complaint
had their place of departure in the region of Castilla
y León.
An 8-hour maximum time limit would require fewer
controls, fewer interventions by the Commission and
in general would cause fewer problems to be brought
to the attention of the competent authorities.
As evident from these examples, Member States have been and are systematically
and permanently failing to enforce Reg. (EC) No 1/2005.
This situation has not significantly changed over the years, despite repeated commitments
to focus on enforcement as an alternative to an 8-hour limit.
The Commission itself in 200821 stated that “… efforts
in enforcing the legislation will only achieve limited progress
without a new approach to certain provisions in
the Regulation and, in particular, on travelling times and
space allowances. The Commission believes that the
present time limits are not fully in line with scientific
knowledge and are also inconsistent with the social
legislation applicable to drivers, making the overall
implementation of transport times difficult. Therefore
the Commission considers the revision of travelling
times and space allowances as a priority. “
And again in its long awaited report on the impact of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of
animals during transport, published in November 2011,
the Commission states “Enforcement of the Regulation
remains a major challenge, partly because of differences
in interpretation of the requirements and because of
lack of controls by the member States. Furthermore, the
quality of monitoring data, submitted to the Commission
by Member States, is often insufficient to provide a clear
analysis of the situation and to allow planning of specific
corrective measures at EU level”.
23
Despite years of efforts for better enforcement, many operators
still do not comply with the legal requirements and
it is unrealistic to believe that they will do it in the future if
the pressure is not further increased by literally placing a
police car behind every single truck. This, of course, will
not be possible taking into consideration the financial
situation in the Member States and the permanent lack
of personnel in the governmental veterinary services and
it is more than questionable whether it would be appropriate
to spend more public money in the surveillance.
This problematic applies for all long-distance transports
of animals transported for further fattening or slaughter.
The margin of profit in long-distance transports is so limited
and the financial pressure so high that many of the
transporters and operators of control posts simply cannot
afford to comply with the animal protection rules. This is
all the more shocking since the rules on animal protection
during long-distance transports do not even aim to ensure
the well-being of the animals but only to meet their very
minimum needs to that they can survive the transport.
Too many transporters and other operators involved in
long-distance transports of animals destined for slaughter
will not voluntarily comply with the relevant legal requirements
for animal protection. The competent authorities in
the Member States do not have the means for enforcement
able to guarantee compliance with the animal protection
rules applicable to long-distance transports.
The Technical Report submitted to EFSA (2009) states
that there are more than 100 hazards endangering
the welfare of mammals during transport22. It is not realistic
to believe that enforcement could ever be improved
in such a way as to eliminate all these hazards.
There is no reason to believe that these and other enforcement deficiencies which
have existed for decades will be resolved in the future!
To make this clear once more:
Enforcement is and remains of utmost importance. But for practical reasons, as far as longdistance
transport is concerned the efficiency of enforcement has never led and can never
lead to satisfactory results.
Member States are and must remain obliged to guarantee that legislation is efficiently
enforced. Any new legislation limiting transport to a maximum of 8 hours, will NOT release
Member States from their duty of enforcing legislation, but it will make enforcement easier
and more effective.
Current legislation is extremely complex, which constitutes a major and often unmanageable
challenge for the inspection authorities. An 8 hour limit would eliminate this problem.
A revision of the legislation and a drastic reduction of the permitted transport times to
a maximum of 8 hours from farm to final destination are the only realistic solution in
order to considerably reduce the suffering of the transported animals.
24
A number of EU and national authorities and other stakeholders
have been claiming over the years that long-distance
animal transports can be carried out under acceptable
conditions for the animals, IF there is enough room
for the animals on board, IF they have access to water
and food, IF they are transported under good climatic
conditions, IF the vehicles are of a high standard, IF only
healthy animals are loaded, IF obligatory rest breaks are
respected and so on.
This is simply NOT the way animal transports are
carried out in reality! Economic reasons are behind the
transport of live animals instead of carcasses, so there
will always be attempts to increase profit, which can result
in serious suffering for the animals. Long-distance
transport of millions of animals is largely uncontrollable.
Both the Commission and Member States have already
spent a lot of money to focus on short-term enforcement.
If this money is invested in infrastructure for the very limited
number of cases (i.e. very remote areas) where a
slaughterhouse might not be available within an 8-hour
journey, the Treaty’s mandate to consider animal welfare
will be implemented and long-lasting solutions will be established.
It must also be stressed at this point that – in contrast
to what many still think – the presence of a veterinarian
at the time of loading and unloading of long-distance
animal transports is not obligatory! Regulation (EC)
No 1/2005 simply does not require it. Thus in practice
there is no veterinarian present during loading who
is required to check if the truck is adequate (e.g. has
functioning water and ventilation systems), if the loading
conditions are correct (e.g. sufficient space for
the animals on board, sufficient ceiling height, correct
separation to avoid fight between aggressive animals).
What is more, in practice at the time of unloading very
often there is no veterinarian to check on transport
conditions, transport times and welfare conditions –
this can be simply because the transport arrives at the
slaughterhouse outside the working hours of the vet or
because it arrives at a fattening farm, where there is
almost never a vet present.
Thus in practice most long-distance transports
within the EU are not physically checked at any
point of the journey by any official authority for
compliance with Regulation (EC) No 1/2005.
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 does not require the
presence of a vet during loading and unloading for
an obvious reason: the Member States do not have
the financial and personnel resources to carry out
such checks.
It cannot be expected that the Member States
will ever accept such a requirement and thus it is
unrealistic to think that legislation allowing longdistance
transports could ever be adequately enforced.
The question is not whether it is THEORETICALLY
possible to carry out long-distance transports of animals
transported for the purpose of slaughter under
acceptable conditions for the animals. But the question
is whether it is realistic to think that long-distance
transports are or will be IN PRACTICE carried out under
acceptable conditions. Animals’ Angels has gathered
more than enough practical experience to be
able to answer the latter question with a clear “No!”.
The reason behind the transport of animals for slaughter
or further fattening is economics – the operators
want to make a profit. The discrepancy between financial
interests and protection of animals will always be
to the disadvantage of the animals.
Theory versus Reality!
25
Commission Report on the impact of
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005
The long-awaited Commission Report on the impact of
Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection of
animals during transport was published in November
2011. The report states “Even though animal welfare in
general has improved after the introduction of the Regulation,
the available information show that severe
animal welfare problems during transport persist.”
As examples the report lists:
 transport of unfit animals
 overstocking of vehicles
 transport of animals in vehicles in which the internal
height of the compartments is inappropriate;
 animals not receiving enough water during the journey
 animals being transported longer than the maximum
allowed travelling time
 authorities approving unrealistically short transport
times.
Clearly, the longer the transport takes, the more serious
all these welfare problems become for the animals.
Legal provisions concerning the aspects listed
above have been in force since 199523, i.e. for the
past 17 years (N.B. it is not the case, as some mistakenly
think that they came into force for the first time
in 2005 with the current Regulation (CE) 1/2005!), yet
they are still too often being infringed. This means
that for all these years the repeated commitments
to enforce the existing legislation rather than limit
the journey times have failed. To repeat in 2012 that
enforcement is enough is simply not realistic. We
should stop denying the problem and adopt the only
possible answer: a maximum of 8 hours from farm
to destination, be it a slaughterhouse or a farm for
further fattening before slaughter.
Nevertheless the Commission’s 2011 report concludes
that “appropriate enforcement of existing rules should
remain the priority”. Given the fact that these and other
provisions which have been in force since 1995 are
not yet enforced in the year 2012, it is clear that
proper enforcement will have a chance only if an
8-hour limit is established. Ignoring evidence once
again would mean turning a blind eye to the requirements
of the Treaty!
‘As early as 1994 the German Agriculture Minister
Jochen Borchert, shocked by the severe suffering
the animals experienced during long-distance
transports, demanded a reduction of the transport
times to a maximum of 8 hours for “slaughter” animals.
Commission and Council refused to introduce
this time limit. Several months later, Directive
95/29/EC established some rules on watering,
feeding and resting periods, but no overall journey
time limits. These rules are the ones that still apply
today with dreadful consequences for the animals.
How can the Commission still focus on the enforcement
of these rules, although it’s been proven that
after 17 years they have constantly failed to achieve
an acceptable level of animal protection?
The Commission fails again to propose the only realistic
answer to this problem: a review of the existing
legislation to establish a drastic reduction of transport
times.
This is in sharp contrast to the statement expressed
by the EU Commission in 2008: “…the Commission is
conscious that efforts in enforcing the legislation will
only achieve limited progress without a new approach
to certain provisions in the Regulation and, in particular,
on travelling times and space allowances. The Commission
believes that the present time limits are not fully
in line with scientific knowledge and are also inconsistent
with the social legislation applicable to drivers24,
making the overall implementation of transport time
difficult. Therefore the Commission considers the
revision of travelling times and space allowances
as a priority”.25
26
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 should
be reviewed.
The previous Commissioners agree !
Markos Kyprianou (2004-2008)
“In relation to the duration of animal transport, the
Commission envisages to propose a revision of the
Transport Regulation to the Council and Parliament
in 2009 at the latest on travelling times and space allowances
for the different species, to bring them into
line with the available scientific knowledge.”26
“I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the
statement that I have already made before the European
Parliament that I intend to re-visit this issue before
the end of my mandate. I am particularly interested
in pursuing a legislative initiative that will further
improve the transport conditions for animals.”27
Androulla Vasiliou (2008-2010)
“The Commission is aware of the problems of enforcement
of the Council Regulation on protection of
animals during transport (…). The Commission is currently
undertaking the necessary preparatory work,
notably an impact assessment, in order to examine
the possibility of bringing forward by the end of this
mandate a proposal to revise the Animal Transport
Regulation (…). This work is focused on maximum
travelling times and the space allowed for animals
during transport, as these were unchanged during the
discussions to adopt the regulation in 2004. Concerning
the transport of animals for slaughter, in the
Commission’s view, movements over long distances
should in principle be limited as far as possible
due to the related risks for the welfare and the
health of the animals.”28
“I have seen videos on the transportation of animals
which make me feel ashamed,” she said, promising
better protection under a new law.
(…)
The Commission believes that the current rules on journeys
and densities do not reflect science or travelling
time limits available to drivers under EU social laws. It
also thinks that current rules on densities of packing
animals into trucks “are not sufficiently precise to allow
proper enforcement”. Officials think that the current
regulation “leaves space” for distortion in the way the
regulation is applied.”29
Why does the current Commissioner responsible for
animal welfare, Mr. John Dalli, now NOT see the need
for revised legislation anymore? What has changed?
What new elements make the Commission think that
all the problems relating to enforcing the present Regulation,
acknowledged by the previous two Commissioners,
have been resolved?
How can the Commission be satisfied with proposing
“guides to good practices” instead of changing the
legislation in order to bring it in line with new scientific
evidence – knowing that “guides to good practices”
are not legally binding and thus not enforceable?
It is time to abolish the derogations to the 8-hours
rule that have been in existence for almost 20
years causing great harm to millions of animals.
We are not asking for something new, but simply
for the proper implementation of a principle
agreed at the EU level two decades ago and still
not implemented. This is the real enforcement the
Commission should pursue: proposing a review of
Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 to delete the derogations
to the 8 hours rule.
Experience over many years has shown that enforcement
of the current and previous legislation alone has
not led to satisfactory results. What makes the Commission
think that now enforcement alone will solve
the long standing problems?
The previous two European Commissioners responsible for animal welfare, Markos Kyprianou and Androulla Vasiliou,
clearly acknowledged the necessity for a revision of the existing rules on animal transport, in particular as regards
transport times and space allowances.
27
Widespread demands for a strict
limitation of the transport time
European Parliament, 200130
Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare (SCAHAW), 200231
Council of Europe, 200332
World Organisation for Animal Health – OIE, 201035
1.100.000 European Citizens, 8hours-petition, 2012
European Parliament, Written Declaration 49/2011, adopted on 15.03.2012
Federation of Veterinarians of Europe – FVE, 200733
European Commission, 200834
“ In the case of cattle, horses, goats, sheep and pigs not intended for specific breeding and/or sporting purposes,
transport should be limited to a maximum of eight hours duration”
“…after a few hours of transport welfare tends to become poorer as journey length increases.”
“Hence such animals should not be transported if this can be avoided and journeys should be as short as possible”
“…for reasons of animal welfare the period during which animals, including animals for slaughter, are
transported should be reduced as far as possible…”
“The amount of time animals spend on a journey should be kept to the minimum.”
“With my signature, I call for a restriction of 8 hours for animal transports in the member states of the
European Union.”
“The European Parliament calls on the Commission and the Council to review Regulation 1/2005 to establish
a maximum 8-hour limit for the journeys of animals transported for the purpose of being slaughtered;”
“…the (long–distance) transport of life animals carries serious risks for the welfare of these animals. Since
many years already, FVE holds the opinion that fattening of animals should take place within or near the place of
birth and animals should be slaughtered as near to the point of production as possible.”
“…the Commission is conscious that efforts in enforcing the legislation will only achieve limited progress without a
new approach to certain provisions in the Regulation and, in particular, on travelling times and space allowances. The
Commission believes that the present time limits are not fully in line with scientific knowledge and are also inconsistent
with the social legislation applicable to drivers, making the overall implementation of transport time difficult.
Therefore the Commission considers the revision of travelling times and space allowances as a priority.”
28
Political support:
Members of the European Parliament
Mojca Kleva
Saïd El Khadraoui Jill Evans
Romana Jordan Cizelj
Karl-Heinz Florenz
Nadja Hirsch
Tanja Fajon
Kriton Arsenis Sandrine Belier Thijs Berman
Pavel Poc
Satu Hassi
Monika Hohlmeier
Tarja Cronberg
Jan Philipp Albrecht
Elisabeth Kostinger
Andrea Zanoni
Georges Bach
Jelko Kacin
Luigi Berlinguer
Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy Martin Häusling
Dan Jorgensen
Bas Eickhout
Michael Cramer
Carl Schlyter Esther de Lange
Chris Davies
Julie Girling Mikael Gustafsson
29
Raül Romeva i Rueda
Vladimír Maňka
Niccolò Rinaldi
Keith Taylor and Jean
Lambert
Zofija Mazej Kukovič
Oreste Rossi Brian Simpson
David Martin
Ulrike Lunacek
Peter Skinner
Sirpa Pietikäinen
Helga Trüpel
Paul Murphy
Werner Schulz
Peter van Dalen
Sabine Wils Milan Zver
Claudio Morganti
Alojz Peterle
Francesco Speroni
Guido Milana
Corinne Lepage Kartika Liotard
Cristiana Muscardini
Anna Rosbach
Giancarlo Scottá Joanna Senyszyn
Jörg Leichtfried
David Sassoli
Gianni Pittella
Judith Merkies
Michéle Striffler
Gianni Vattimo
30
Transport of meat instead of live
animals is more sustainable
A study37 related to the year 2007 found out that if transports
of live “slaughter” horses between EU Member
States was banned and meat was transported instead,
only 56% of the diesel fuel would be needed (thus the
emission of CO2 would be considerably reduced) and
transport costs would be reduced to 52% of the cost of
live transport.
Concerning pigs and piglets the same study concluded
that if transports of live pigs and piglets between
EU Member States were banned and meat was transported
instead, emission of CO2 would decrease by
40% and total transport costs would be almost 30%
lower.
Furthermore the pressure put on drivers to drive for longer
hours in order to maximise profit has an effect on the
drivers’ welfare too. This would not happen if an 8-hour
limit was in place. Besides this, the widely criticised and
problematic discrepancy between the permitted number
of driving hours for the drivers and the transport time
for the animals would no longer exist.
There is no necessity to transport animals alive all
across Europe and even export them to Third Countries,
as in general it is possible to reach a slaughterhouse
within 8 hours and then the meat can be transported
to wherever there is demand for it. Even now, as
well as in previous years, in volume the intra community
trade in meat is and has been far more important than
trade in live animals.36
Should it be objectively verified that from very remote
areas of the EU it is really not possible to reach a
slaughterhouse within 8 hours, then other solutions are
imaginable, such as mobile slaughterhouses or in fact
exemptions to the rule to a limited extent.
No necessity for long-distance transports –
8hours is enough to reach a
slaughterhouse
Picture Picture
NetAp supporters. Over 37,300 Swiss citizens have signed the 8hours petition
31
The severe problems of animal protection and animal
welfare are inherent in long-distance transports, and
have been for some decades. It is not realistic to assume
that they will be resolved in the future. It is evident,
extensively documented and confirmed by scientists
that as the journey time gets longer the negative consequences
for the animals increase.
Thus, long-distance transports of animals destined for
slaughter are no longer legitimate in a European Union
whose ethical beliefs include the protection of animals
and high animal welfare standards.
The European agriculture industry will find ways to replace
long-distance transports of live animals by other
production paths, which already account for most of the
meat trade, and Europe will no longer be responsible
for the easily avoidable suffering of tens of millions of
animals on Europe’s roads.
 European politicians and stakeholders can no longer
turn a blind eye to the appalling situation for the animals
transported for the purpose of slaughter on longdistance
transports
 European politicians have to take into consideration
the goals of the EU Treaty. One of these – expressed
in Article 13 TFEU – is to care for our animals and
avoid causing them suffering
 European legislation should be amended to establish
a maximum 8-hour journey limit, to reflect the demands
of European citizens - expressed through
over a million signatures presented to the Commission
in 2012 - and of the European Parliament, confirmed
in Written Declaration 49/2011 adopted on 15
March 2012.
Therefore, the organizers and supporters of the 8hours
campaign INVITE:
 The European Commission and the Council to act
promptly to propose a review of Regulation (EC)
No 1/2005 to establish a maximum 8-hour limit for
all animals transported for the purpose of slaughter,
i.e. slaughtered on arrival or after a fattening
period following transport and similar limits for other
animals transported for breeding purposes.
 Members of the European Parliament to support the
parliamentary actions aimed at establishing a maximum
8-hour limit;
 Parliaments and competent authorities in the Member
States to express their support for the establishment
of a maximum 8-hour journey limit
 The media to inform the public about the severe
problems regularly encountered in animals transported
on European roads.
 European citizens, of whom over a million have already
expressed their support by signing the 8hours
petition, to ask their representatives in the institutions
to establish a maximum 8-hour journey limit.
Tens of millions of animals are still suffering on European roads. Long-distance
transports of animals transported for the purpose of slaughter must end.
8 HOURS IS MORE THAN ENOUGH!
It is time to make a change!
Take action!
32
Europeans call for an end to long-distance
transports of live animals!
Perpetuum Jazzile (Slovenia)
Gemany Spain
Licia Coló (Italy) Jadranka Juras (Slovenia)
33
Maurizio Costanzo and
Susanna Schimperna (Italy)
Dieter Moor and
Nadeshda Brennicke (Germany)
Poland Slovakia
8hours website with
Jane Goodall’s appeal 8hours sticker
Photo: Sloboda Zvierat
Photo: Klub Gaja archive
Photo: Wolfgang Stephanow
34
1 http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative
2 “In the case of cattle, horses, goats, sheep and pigs not intended
for specific breeding and/or sporting purposes, transport should
be limited to a maximum of eight hours’ duration, or a distance
of 500 km; …” European Parliament resolution on the Commission
report on the experience acquired by Member States since the
implementation of Council Directive 95/29/EC amending Directive
91/628/EEC concerning the protection of animals during
transport, text adopted: 13.11.2001, Strasbourg
3 “The European Parliament calls on the Commission, national governments
and candidate states to enforce the existing regulations and
to enact the recommendation adopted by the Parliament in
November 2001 that a maximum limit of 8 hours or 500 km
on journeys for slaughter or further fattening;” Written Declaration
4/2003, adopted on 04.06.2003.
4 For details please see Animals’ Angels’ compilation report “Longdistance
transports of unweaned animals, August 2008”
5 Page 30, Technical Report “Project to develop animal welfare risk
assessment guidelines on transport” submitted to EFSA (2009)
6 Technical report “Project to develop Animal Welfare Risk Assessment
Guidelines on Transport, submitted to EFSA in November
2009, p. 13
7 TECHNICAL REPORT “Project to develop Animal Welfare Risk Assessment
Guidelines on Transport”. submitted to EFSA, November
2009, p. 80, 78, 11
8 Karl Fikuart, Karen von Holleben, Gerhard Kuhn, Hygiene der Tier
transporte, 1995, p. 65
9 Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a
request from the Commission related to the welfare of animals during
transport, 30th March 2004, The EFSA Journal (2004) 44), p.11
10 See Technical Report “Project to develop animal welfare risk
assessment guidelines on transport” submitted to EFSA (2009)
p.30; see FVO reports DG(SANCO)2010-8387 (Poland, p. 19) and
DG(SANCO)2010-8384 (Czech Republic, p. 19); see Animals’ Angels
report “Compilation report on Long-distance Transports of Unweaned
Animals”, published in August 2008.
11 In 2010, for example, Animals’ Angels found that in 10 out of
15 irregular ovine animal transports the ceiling height was insufficient
- this corresponds to 66,67 %. Furthermore in 9 out of 30
irregular transports of adult bovine animals the ceiling height was
found to be insufficient - this corresponds to 30%. Many times this
permanent and systematic enforcement failure has been brought
to the attention of the authorities concerned and of the EU Commission.
FVO-mission reports confirm Animals’ Angels’ findings:
DG(SANCO)2009/8241 (Slovenia, p.12); DG(SANCO)2007/7335 (Slovenia,
p.16); DG(SANCO)2009/8252 (Lithuania, p.11);
DG(SANCO)2007/ 7581 (Germany, p.7); DG(SANCO)8042/2006
(Greece, p.6); DG(SANCO)2009/8252 (Lithuania); DG(SANCO)
2010/8384 (Czech Republic, p.19)
12 Case C-416/07
13 See FVO mission report DG(SANCO)2011-6212: “The constraints on
carrying out official controls have worsened since the last inspection,
with fewer staff, additional restrictions on reimbursement for the
use of vehicles, and no lifting of the overtime ban despite repeated
requests from the CCA for additional funding” and that “’(…) as level
of roadside checks remain extremely low, it remains easy for the
transporters to avoid being checked”. There is no reason to believe
that in times of economic crisis more funds will be attributed to
increase these checks. It is also questionable whether it would be a
good use of public money to pay for more checks rather than establishing
an 8-hour maximum journey time, which would immediately
produce a decrease of incidents and problems.
14 DG(SANCO)2009-8255 (Belgium), DG(SANCO)2009-8263 (Bulgaria),
DG(SANCO)2010-8383 (Bulgaria), DG(SANCO)2008-7765 (Estonia),
DG(SANCO)2009-8245 (France), DG(SANCO)2010-8388 (Italy),
DG(SANCO)2008-7768 (Ireland), DG(SANCO)2009-8271 (Latvia),
DG(SANCO)2009-8252 (Lithuania) , DG(SANCO)2010-8385 (Luxembourg),
DG(SANCO)2010/8386 (Malta, p.14), DG(SANCO)2010-8387
(Poland), DG(SANCO)2009-8256 (Romania), DG(SANCO)2009-8269
(Romania), DG(SANCO)2010-8389 (Romania),
DG(SANCO)/2008-8347 (Spain), DG(SANCO) 2009-8284 (Spain)
15 DG(SANCO)2009-8255 (Belgium), DG(SANCO) 2009-8263 (Bulgaria),
DG(SANCO) 2010-8383 (Bulgaria), DG(SANCO)2010-8384 (Czech
Republic), DG(SANCO)2009-8245 (France), DG(SANCO) 2011-6212
(Greece), DG(SANCO)2009-8271 (Latvia), DG(SANCO)2009-8252
(Lithuania), DG(SANCO)2010-8387 (Poland), DG(SANCO)2009-8242
(Portugal), DG(SANCO)2011-6052 (Portugal), DG(SANCO)2010-8389
(Romania), DG(SANCO)2009-8284 (Spain), DG(SANCO)2010-8391
(Sweden), DG(SANCO)2010-8400 (The Netherlands), DG(SANCO)
2009-8268 (United Kingdom)
Footnotes
16 List of approved control posts (updated 03.02.2012)
17 Examples: DG(SANCO)2009/8255 (Belgium, p.9),
DG(SANCO)2009/8245 (France, p.14, 17), DG(SANCO)2010/8386
(Malta, p.14), DG(SANCO)/2008-8347 (Spain),
DG(SANCO)2009-8284 (Spain), DG(SANCO)2009/8245 (France),
DG(SANCO)2009-8256 (Romania), DG(SANCO)2009-8269 (Roma
nia), DG(SANCO)2010-8388 (Italy), DG(SANCO)2010-8387 (Poland).
18 Examples: DG(SANCO)2009/8255 (Belgium, p.9),
DG(SANCO)2009/8245 (France, p.5,15), DG(SANCO)2009/2869
(Romania,p.4), DG(SANCO)2009/8284 (Spain, p.14, 18),
DG(SANCO)2010/8386 (Malta,p.14)
19 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the
verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and
animal welfare rules.
20 Examples: DG(SANCO)2009/8263 (Bulgaria, p.19),
DG(SANCO)2009/8242 (Portugal, p. , DG(SANCO)2009/8256
(Romania, p. 19), DG(SANCO)2009/8284 (Spain, p. 18),
DG(SANCO)2010/8390 (France, p. 12)
21 Letter on behalf of José Manuel Barroso, President of the European
Commission, dated 28.11.2008
22 TECHNICAL REPORT “Project to develop Animal Welfare Risk As
sessment Guidelines on Transport”. submitted to EFSA, November
2009, p. 78 - 83
23 Concerning the transport of ill or injured animals: the ban on transporting
severely ill or injured animals was already included in Council
Directive 91/628/EEC; Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 added several
examples in order to illustrate when an animal is to be considered
severely ill or injured.
24 Even if a truck is driven by two drivers social legislation (Regulation
(EC) No. 561/2006) does not allow them to drive for more than
20 hours. However, the current Regulation on the welfare of animals
during transport allows for example cattle, sheep and goats to be
transported for 29 hours. Obviously these times are inconsistent.
25 Letter on behalf of José Manuel Barroso, President of the European
Commission, dated 28.11.2008
26 27 February 2008, Joint answer given by Markos Kyprianou on behalf
of the Commission to Written Parliamentary questions:
E-6503/07, E-6608/07, E-6535/07
27 8 June 2005, Speech by Markos Kyprianou to the Animal Welfare
Intergroup of the European Parliament, http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
ReleasesAction.do?reference=SPEECH/05/335&format=HTML&age
d=0&language=EN
28 12 June 2008, Answer given by Androulla Vassiliou on behalf of the
Commission to Written Parliamentary Question E-2067/2008
29 3 July 2008, EuropeanVoice.com, http://www.europeanvoice.com/
article/imported/vassiliou-calls-for-more-space-for-animals-intransit/
61551.aspx
30 European Parliament resolution on the Commission report on
the experience acquired by Member States since the implementation
of Council Directive 95/29/EC amending Directive 91/628/EEC
concerning the protection of animals during transport, text adopted:
13.11.2001, Strasbourg
31 SCAHAW Report “The Welfare of Animals during Transport”, March
2002, p. 95
32 Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of
Animals during International transport (revised), Official Journal of
the European Union, 13.07.2004
33 Community Animal Health Strategy 2007–2013, „Prevention is better
than cure“, FVE comments, FVE/07/doc/099
34 Letter on behalf of José Manuel Barroso, President of the European
Commission, dated 28.11.2008
35 OIE World Organisation for Animal Health, Terrestrial Animal Health
Code 2010, Art. 7.3.1
36 Study on the impact of Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the protection
of animals during transport, IBF, International Consulting, page 75
37 Sustainable production: transporting animals or meat? By Baltussen,
Backus (Agriculture Economics Research Institute, LEI-Wageningen
UR), Spoolder, Lambooij (Animal Science Group, ASG-Wageningen
UR)
35
Dr. med. vet. Dietrich de Frenne
Retired principal administrator of the
Food and Veterinary Office
of the European Commission
“The previous Council Directive 91/628/EEC as amended, as well as the current Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 on the
protection of animals during transport fill pages with derogations to a laid down, basic principle. The principle reads
as follows:
Journey times for animals “shall not exceed eight hours”.
Unfortunately, in practice, things have completely changed to the contrary:
During many years of work within the Commission, in the field of animal welfare, I found out that the derogations
became the rule.
I remember the incidents in Bari, back in summer 1999. Many dozens of sheep and lambs suffered to death, on
board of trucks with insufficient space and in burning heat. Sure, the situation has improved since 1999, but it is far
from being acceptable – still in 2011 there are documented incidents of dozens of sheep, as well as cattle, originating
from EU Member States that died during long-distance transport.
Thus the Regulation must be amended. Not by making it even more complicated. Not by including even more
derogations. But the most important sentence of the Regulation should always be respected. This sentence
reads – I repeat:
Journey times for animals “shall not exceed eight hours”.
36
www.8hours.eu

4
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Dim 5 Aoû - 13:44



3rd of july , 2010

Factory Farms

nonprofit organization dedicated to
reducing the suffering of farmed animals
by promoting informed, ethical eating.

Vegan Outreach

DC VegFest World Farm Animals Day

“U.S. society is extremely naive about the nature of agricultural production.

“[I]f the public knew more about the way in which agricultural and animal production infringes on animal welfare, the outcry would be louder.”

Farm Animal Welfare

Many people believe that animals raised for food must be treated well because sick or dead animals would be of no use to agribusiness. This is not true. The competition to produce inexpensive meat, eggs, and dairy products has led animal agribusiness to treat animals as objects and commodities. The worldwide trend is to replace small family farms with “factory farms”—large warehouses where animals are confined in crowded cages or pens or in restrictive stalls.Bernard Rollin, PhD, explains that it is “more economically efficient to put a greater number of birds into each cage, accepting lower productivity per bird but greater productivity per cage…individual animals may ‘produce,’ for example gain weight, in part because they are immobile, yet suffer because of the inability to move…Chickens are cheap, cages are expensive.”2

In an article recommending space be reduced from 8 to 6 square feet per pig, industry journal National Hog Farmer suggests that “Crowding pigs pays.”
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Dim 5 Aoû - 13:44

december 6 , 2008

remember the animals living on factory farms

You have done a lot to stop the suffering of animals on factory farms this year without perhaps realizing it. Your support of PETA has helped lead to the closure of the world's biggest kosher slaughterhouse, brought livestock abuse and neglect charges against farm workers we caught abusing pigs, and helped win a historic victory against the cruel confinement of farmed animals. Now we need your help to bring many more compassionate changes to the lives of animals in 2009.

https://ibiz.isiservices.com/peta-e/peta/donation.asp?section_code=H08Y175Q&ask4=--25-35-50-100-o

Please make a tax-deductible, year-end contribution online right now.

In just the past few months, we have won several major victories that changed the lives of countless cows, pigs, chickens, turkeys, and other animals. First, PETA's undercover investigators spent two months in hell on an Iowa pig farm that supplies meat-industry giant Hormel. The investigators caught on tape workers who bashed piglets' heads against concrete floors, abused a sow by spraying toxic paint up her nose and across her face and eyes, and tortured a downed sow with a broken hip, repeatedly kicking her in the face. We have all the evidence on film. As a result, the Greene County, Iowa, sheriff has filed 22 counts of livestock neglect and abuse against six people employed by the farm during our investigation, and 14 of the counts are the stiffest possible charges under Iowa state law for crimes committed against farmed animals—each carrying up to two years behind bars. This is unprecedented!

With your loyal support for our work, PETA will turn up the heat on Hormel to reform its suppliers, and we will do even more to expose the despicable cruelty that is going on out of sight in slaughterhouses and intensive farming sheds.Not long after our Hormel investigation, PETA made headlines again by exposing the horrific treatment of cattle by Agriprocessors, the world's largest kosher slaughterhouse. Faced with a number of civil and criminal charges and having lost 76 percent of its employees in one of the largest immigration raids ever, Agriprocessors closed its doors and has filed for bankruptcy. And the good news doesn't end there. The rabbi who was running the place is in jail, and three of the five largest kosher beef slaughterhouses in the U.S. are not currently operating.

Your support this year also helped make possible the landslide victory of Proposition 2, California's precedent-setting ballot initiative that, by 2015, will make it illegal to confine egg-laying hens, calves used for veal, and mother pigs in ways that prevent them from standing, lying down, turning around, and fully extending their limbs. PETA staff and members helped gather signatures by organizing numerous demonstrations using special highly realistic-looking pig models that we imported from New Zealand and by phone-banking in the months before this groundbreaking vote for animals. Now our goal is to build support for similar measures in other states. This year has been great, and we must build on the victories and keep the momentum for animals going and growing in 2009. In a difficult economy, it is animals who suffer the most. We know that factory farms are even more likely to "cut corners" and cause animals to suffer when money is tight, and some people will cross animals off their giving lists. Your contribution is needed today more than ever so that we can win more victories for animals in the year ahead.

This is the difference that only true friends like you can make. Please help us end the suffering of even more animals by making a tax-deductible, year-end gift today.Thank you for being such a powerful voice for those whose voices are not heard without our help. The remarkable victories that we won this year on factory farms have steeled our resolve to do even more for all animals caught up in this cruel industry in 2009. I hope that you will continue to stand with PETA—by making a tax-deductible donation right now—as we fight hard for animals next year.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Dim 5 Aoû - 13:45

APRIL 16 , 2008

Pamela Anderson's Explicit New Video

You won't find my new release at your local cinema. My latest project is an undercover exposé blowing the whistle on the cruel treatment of animals at KFC's factory farm and slaughterhouse suppliers. The video details just how horribly KFC's suppliers treats chickens – birds are so crippled that they can't even walk, live birds are forced into tanks of scalding-hot water while completely conscious and able to feel pain, and in West Virginia, slaughterhouse workers kill birds by slamming them against the wall and stomping on them! I'm calling on consumers to "Kick the Bucket" and boycott KFC until the company demands to make some simple improvements in the way animals killed for its restaurants are treated.

Please sign the petition below to join me and other compassionate consumers everywhere in taking your business elsewhere until the company agrees to take animal welfare seriously. Of course, the best thing that you can do to help animals is to stop eating them, so please consider trying a vegetarian diet – just like me. And if you don't think cruelty to animals is a strong enough argument for vegetarianism, you might want to read up on how eating meat causes impotence and slows the flow of blood to all the organs, not just to the heart, if you catch my drift. Pledge to Boycott KFC I pledge to boycott KFC until it stops selling birds who have had their wings and legs broken, their throats slit, and their bodies dunked into tanks of scalding-hot water while they are still alive and able to feel pain
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Dim 5 Aoû - 13:45

may 20 , 2010

Birds

Chickens raised for meat

“In my opinion, if most urban meat eaters were to visit an industrial broiler house, to see how the birds are raised, and could see the birds being ‘harvested’ and then being ‘processed’ in a poultry processing plant, they would not be impressed and some, perhaps many of them would swear off eating chicken and perhaps all meat.”

Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture

In the United States, virtually all birds raised for food are factory farmed.4 Inside the densely populated buildings, where they are confined their entire lives, enormous amounts of waste accumulate. The resulting ammonia levels commonly cause painful burns to the birds' skin, eyes, and respiratory tracts.5

As reported in “Settling Doubts About Livestock Stress,” published in the March 2005 issue of Agricultural Research magazine (USDA ARS), "Farmers trim from a third to a half of the beaks off chickens, turkeys, and ducks to cut losses from poultry pecking each other." This causes severe pain for several weeks.8 Some, unable to eat after being debeaked, starve.2 Professor John Webster, of the University of Bristol’s School of Veterinary Science, has said: “Broilers are the only livestock that are in chronic pain for the last 20% of their lives.

See also: “Enter the Chicken Shed” (PDF); ducks; the life of a broiler; the turkey industry (2006); photos; more photos.

Egg-Laying Hens

Packed in wire cages (the industry average is less than half a square foot of floor space per bird),6 hens can become immobilized and die of asphyxiation or dehydration. Decomposing corpses are found in cages with live birds. Tens of millions (approximately 14%) of egg-laying hens die during production each year.6,7
Laying hens in battery cages (click for larger image; courtesy of Farm Sanctuary).

Those who survive are removed from the farms when deemed no longer economically viable. Some of these “spent hens” (the industry term for layers who have completed their egg production cycles) are sold for slaughter; the rest are rendered, composted, or destroyed by other means (e.g., on two California farms, workers fed 30,000 live hens into wood chippers). By the time spent hens are removed for low production, their skeletons are so fragile that many suffer broken bones during catching, transport, or shackling.36

Male chicks, of no economic value to the egg industry, are typically gassed2 or macerated (ground up alive).9 Maceration is becoming a common method for disposing of male chicks.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Dim 5 Aoû - 13:45

February the 21 , 2010

pigs

The Food Marketing Institute’s (FMI) Animal Welfare Program guidelines do not require that a sow (mother pig) have enough room to walk or turn around, but rather that she actually has enough room to fit in the cage without being forced against the bars.31 Some in the pig industry believe that these regulations that don't allow for walking or turning are something to be proud of: “Hog producers should toot own horn.” In the September 1976 issue of the industry journal Hog Farm Management, John Byrnes advised: “Forget the pig is an animal. Treat him just like a machine in a factory.” Piglet biting cage

Today’s pig farmers have done just that. As Morley Safer related on 60 Minutes: “This [motion picture Babe] is the way Americans want to think of pigs. Real-life ‘Babes’ see no sun in their limited lives, with no hay to lie on, no mud to roll in. The sows live in tiny cages, so narrow they can’t even turn around. They live over metal grates, and their waste is pushed through slats beneath them and flushed into huge pits.” On September 17, 2008, the Associated Press reported on a cruelty investigation performed by PETA at a pig farm in Iowa. The report stated in part:

The video, shot by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, shows farm workers hitting sows with metal rods, slamming piglets on a concrete floor and bragging about jamming rods into sows’ hindquarters.…At one point in the video, workers are shown slamming piglets on the ground, a practice designed to instantly kill those baby pigs that aren’t healthy enough. But on the video, the piglets are not killed instantly, and in a bloodied pile, some piglets can be seen wiggling vainly. The video also shows piglets being castrated, and having their tails cut off, without anesthesia.
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 3:10

june 20 2008

October 14, 2010

Bulletin from the cause: Animal Liberation Front
Go to Cause
Posted By: Hiram Ⓥ Jin
To: Members in Animal Liberation Front
ALF Liberates Captive Deer Population from Molalla, Oregon Deer Farm
https://twitter.com/untilallarefree/status/27265090875

October 13, 2010 — Negotiation Is Over

Posted by NAALPO

For Immediate Release
October 13, 2010

Animal Liberation Front Liberates Captive Deer Population from Molalla, Oregon Deer Farm

Molalla, OR: In an anonymous communique received by the North American Animal Liberation Press Office yesterday, the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) claims to have liberated captive deer from an unnamed Molalla, Oregon deer farm. The deer on so-called “farms” are slaughtered at the youngest age possible to ensure maximum profit for the farm’s owner.

The communique received reads, in full:

On the morning of October 9th, we raided a deer farm located at 32155 S Grimm Road in Molalla, OR. A large section of fencing was stripped away allowing the captive deer herd a chance to escape into the surrounding forest. The venison meat industry remains small in this country, but as long as they exploit sentient animals, they will remain a target of the ALF. For the animals enslaved, mutilated, and murdered by this society: we will be tearing down the fences to set them free. –Animal Liberation Front

Although raised in captivity, the deer remain genetically wild and fully capable of survival on their own without human intervention. A similar liberation of the entire captive deer population of GNK Deer Farm in Monterey County, California was carried out by the ALF in January 2005. In a communique taking responsibility for that action, activists stated “Our hearts go out to victims of the larger problem, the billions of lives we are unable to save – cows, chickens, pigs, mice, rats, and others – casualties of the meat, dairy, vivisection and other industries of suffering and blood. Their pain is our own.”

Contact: (818) 227-5022
Animal Liberation Press Office
6320 Canoga Avenue #1500
Woodland Hills, CA 91367

www.animalliberationpressoffice.org
press@animalliberationpressoffice.org
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 3:12

October 1st, 2010

Farm Aid Concert: Important For Animals

posted by: Sharon Seltzer 87 days ago

Tell a FriendSharePrint.DiggRedditCare2StumbleUponmore Select a service:StumbleUponRedditDiggBuzz UpFacebookTwitterMySpaceMixxDel.icio.usGoogle BookmarksFavoritesCare2
sender info:your name: your email: recipient info:recipient's address(es): Separate multiple e-mail addresses by a comma. You can send up to 100 recipients. personal messageFarm Aid Concert: Important For Animals Too Hello,
I saw this on Care2 and thought you'd like it as well.

Care2 is the largest and most trusted information and action site for people who care to make a difference in their lives and the world.Care2.com send We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.38 commentsOctober 2 marks the 25th year of the Farm Aid concert to preserve family farms and promote humane treatment for farm animals.



Musicians Willie Nelson, Neil Young and John Mellencamp organized the first Farm Aid concert in 1985 and Dave Matthews joined the Board of Directors in 2001.



The goal of Farm Aid is to “build a vibrant, family farm-centered system of agriculture in America.” Farm Aid members accomplish this goal by hosting an annual concert to inspire people to “chose family-farmed food.”



The organization has raised more than $37 million, since 1985.



How Farm Aid Helps Farmers

•Farm Aid networks with a network of 460 family farm organizations that help farmers transition to sustainable farming practices.
•The organization distributes grants to teach family farmers techniques about profitable farming practices.
•Farm Aid awards emergency funds to keep farmers on their land.
•Farm Aid fights against factory farms and genetically modified foods.
•The organization promotes the Good Food Movement that advocates for local, organic and humanely raised food.


The Concert

The 25th anniversary concert will feature 11 acts which include the original artists plus, Tim Reynolds, Kenny Chesney, Norah Jones, Jason Mraz, Jeff Tweedy, Jamey Johnson, Band of Horses, The BoDeans, Amos Lee, Robert Francis, Lukas Nelson, The Blackwood Quartet and Randy Rogers Band. Tavis Smiley will host the event.



For those who cannot attend the Milwaukee, WI concert, it can be heard on the Willie Nelson channel of Sirius radio and viewed on DirectTV.



Since the start of Farm Aid and the Good Food Movement, Wisconsin has grown to be the nation’s leader in providing fresh locally grown produce to cities and second in the country for its number of organic and grass-based dairy farms.



You can read more about Farm Aid and their year-round work by checking out a story by Care2 writer Judi Gerber titled, “Why Farm Aid Still Matters.”

Read more: animals, animal welfare, farm aid concert 2010, farm aid concert 25, humane farming, family farms
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 3:14

November 18, 2010

NW IDA Thanksgiving Potluck in Portland, Ore.
Our monthly potluck for November has been moved from our usual first Sunday of the month to Thanksgiving Day. Please join NW In Defense of Animals and friends to celebrate compassion for a potluck at our Portland office on Thanksgiving Day.
What: Thanksgiving Day Potluck
When: Thursday, November 25, 4:00 p.m., dinner at 5:00 p.m.
Where: NW IDA's Office 1732 NE Alberta Street, Portland

If you are planning on joining us, you must RSVP to eric[at]idausa[dot]org so that we have an accurate count of how many folks are attending.
We ask all guests bring a vegan dish of your choice; main entry, salad, or dessert, that can serve 6-8 people. ("vegan" means no animal products or animal derived ingredients including no dairy or eggs).
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 6:31

November 18, 2010

A Special Message from Fiona Phillips

Share Fiona Phillips, like millions of other people across the UK, is looking forward to Christmas, but one thing that you won’t find on her holiday table is turkey – or any other kind of meat. That’s because the Mirror columnist and former GMTV presenter went vegetarian many years ago, and she’s never looked back. So when PETA asked Phillips to narrate its hard-hitting new video about the suffering of turkeys who are raised and killed for food, she leapt at the chance.

“Christmas should be a time of peace and goodwill for all … but it isn’t for turkeys”, begins Phillips, who won PETA’s 2007 Sexiest Vegetarian Celebrity poll. “Christmas represents the culmination of weeks of fear and pain for them. Jam packed into filthy, windowless sheds, they’re bred to grow so large that they suffer hideous leg injuries …. It doesn’t have to be this way. Why not this Christmas, have a heart, not a drumstick. Go vegetarian.”

http://blog.peta.org.uk/2010/12/a-special-message-from-fiona-phillips/
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 6:32

Noticia del 12 de marzo de 2005

Dairy cows

Veal calf

From 1940 to 2008, average per-cow milk production rose from 2 to 10 tons per year;38 some cows have surpassed 30 tons.9 High milk production often causes udder breakdown, leading to early slaughter.1

It is unprofitable to keep cows alive once their milk production declines. They are usually killed at 5 to 6 years of age,1 though their normal life span exceeds 20.

Dairy cows are rarely allowed to nurse their young.1 Many male calves are slaughtered immediately, while others are raised for “special-fed veal”—kept in individual stalls and chained by the neck on a 2–3 foot tether for 18 to 20 weeks before being slaughtered.9

See also: How does drinking milk hurt cows?; Tour a Dairy Farm; and this Q&A explaining the fate of cows on an organic dairy farm.

1
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 6:33

Free-range farms

A growing number of people are looking to free-range products as an alternative to factory-farmed animal products. Poultry meat may be labeled “free-range” if the birds were provided an opportunity to access the outdoors. No other requirements—such as the stocking density, the amount of time spent outdoors, or the quality and size of the outdoor area—are specified by the USDA.37 As a result, free-range conditions may amount to 20,000 birds crowded inside a shed with a single exit leading to a muddy strip, saturated with droppings.

The free-range label applies only to birds raised for meat, not eggs. There is a cage-free label for eggs; but it is not regulated by the USDA, nor does it guarantee that the hens were provided access to the outdoors. Neither label requires third-party certification. Even for USDA Organic, the most extensively regulated label, minimum levels of outdoor access have not been set and specific rules do not apply to stocking density or flock size.37

Male chicks, of no value to the egg industry, are killed at birth; and female chicks, whether destined for cages or not, are typically debeaked at the hatchery. Although hens can live more than 10 years, they’re killed after a year or two.

Free-range and cage-free farms vary greatly, and while they may be an improvement over conventional farms, they are by no means free of suffering. Visiting the farms and slaughterhouses is the only way to know how the animals are being raised and killed before the meat hits your plate.

2


Dernière édition par végétalienne-13 le Jeu 6 Sep - 6:36, édité 1 fois
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 6:34

“To visit a modern CAFO (Confined Animal Feeding Operation) is to enter a world that, for all its technological sophistication, is still designed according to Cartesian principles: animals are machines incapable of feeling pain. Since no thinking person can possibly believe this any more, industrial animal agriculture depends on a suspension of disbelief on the part of the people who operate it and a willingness to avert your eyes on the part of everyone else.
Chick being debeaked
Chick being debeaked (click for larger image; courtesy of PETA).

“From everything I’ve read, egg and hog operations are the worst. Beef cattle in America at least still live outdoors, albeit standing ankle deep in their own waste eating a diet that makes them sick. And broiler chickens…at least don’t spend their eight-week lives in cages too small to ever stretch a wing. That fate is reserved for the American laying hen, who passes her brief span piled together with a half-dozen other hens in a wire cage whose floor a single page of this [New York Times] magazine could carpet. Every natural instinct of this animal is thwarted, leading to a range of behavioral ‘vices’ that can include cannibalizing her cagemates and rubbing her body against the wire mesh until it is featherless and bleeding.… [T]he 10 percent or so of hens that can’t bear it and simply die is built into the cost of production. And when the output of the others begins to ebb, the hens will be ‘force-molted’—starved of food and water and light for several days in order to stimulate a final bout of egg laying before their life’s work is done.…
Many breeding sows spend their adult lives in gestation and farrowing stalls where they cannot turn around (click for larger image; courtesy of PETA).

“Piglets in confinement operations are weaned from their mothers 10 days after birth (compared with 13 weeks in nature) because they gain weight faster on their hormone- and antibiotic-fortified feed. This premature weaning leaves the pigs with a lifelong craving to suck and chew, a desire they gratify in confinement by biting the tail of the animal in front of them. A normal pig would fight off his molester, but a demoralized pig has stopped caring. ‘Learned helplessness’ is the psychological term, and it’s not uncommon in confinement operations, where tens of thousands of hogs spend their entire lives ignorant of sunshine or earth or straw, crowded together beneath a metal roof upon metal slats suspended over a manure pit. So it’s not surprising that an animal as sensitive and intelligent as a pig would get depressed, and a depressed pig will allow his tail to be chewed on to the point of infection. Sick pigs, being underperforming ‘production units,’ are clubbed to death on the spot. The USDA’s recommended solution to the problem is called ‘tail docking.’ Using a pair of pliers (and no anesthetic), most but not all of the tail is snipped off. Why the little stump? Because the whole point of the exercise is not to remove the object of tail-biting so much as to render it more sensitive. Now, a bite on the tail is so painful that even the most demoralized pig will mount a struggle to avoid it.…

“More than any other institution, the American industrial animal farm offers a nightmarish glimpse of what capitalism can look like in the absence of moral or regulatory constraint. Here in these places life itself is redefined—as protein production—and with it suffering. That venerable word becomes ‘stress,’ an economic problem in search of a cost-effective solution, like tail-docking or beak-clipping or, in the industry’s latest plan, by simply engineering the ‘stress gene’ out of pigs and chickens. Our own worst nightmare such a place may well be; it is also real life for the billions of animals unlucky enough to have been born beneath these grim steel roofs, into the brief, pitiless life of a ‘production unit’ in the days before the suffering gene was found.”

Michael Pollan, “An Animal’s Place,” The New York Times Magazine, 11/10/02

3
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 6:35

In 2002, after collecting thousands of records from state and federal regulatory agencies, Sierra Club researchers compiled a report and database called The RapSheet on Animal Factories, documenting “crimes, violations or other operational malfeasance at more than 630 industrial meat factories in 44 states.”

The two-and-a-half-year investigation revealed that “environmental violations by the meat industry add up to a rap sheet longer than War and Peace.” Among other findings, the RapSheet documents:

*
Government files show that approximately 50 corporations, or their managers, racked up a total of more than 60 misdemeanor or felony indictments, charges, convictions or pleas. Criminal fines total nearly $50 million. The criminal counts included animal cruelty, bribery, destroying records, fraud, distributing contaminated meat and pollution.

*
Millions of gallons of liquefied feces and urine seeped into the environment from collapsed, leaking or overflowing storage lagoons, and flowed into rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands and groundwater. Hundreds of manure spills have killed millions of fish.

Despite lax federal and state law enforcement, these companies were assessed tens of millions of dollars in fines, penalties and court judgments. More than 20% of the 220 companies profiled in detail have been hit with criminal charges or convictions.

Intensive pig farms have made the air so unbearable in some rural communities that some residents must wear masks while outdoors 28 and made some people sick. Poultry and pig waste has contributed to the growth of pathogenic organisms in waterways, which have poisoned humans and killed millions of fish.29 From 1995 to 1997, more than forty animal waste spills killed 10.6 million fish.30

See also: “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler” from The New York Times, regarding environmental destruction and resource allocation; “Eating as if the Climate Mattered” provides more links. For more general environmental information, see this report by Lacey Gaechter of the University of Colorado.

4
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 6:38


Noticia del 15 de mayo de 2006

tRANSPORT AND stockyards

Vegan Outreach is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization dedicated to
reducing the suffering of farmed animals
by promoting informed, ethical eating.

Vegan Outreach

POB 30865, Tucson, AZ 85751-0865
DC VegFest World Farm Animals Day

Crammed together, animals must stand in their excrement while exposed to extreme temperatures in open trucks, sometimes freezing to the trailer.10 Approximately 200,000 pigs arrive dead at U.S. slaughter plants each year;34 many of these deaths are caused by a lack of ventilation on trucks in hot weather.35

Workers shock the animals with electric prods, which increases the incidence of “downers”—animals too sick or injured to stand.10,35 Downers are hauled from the trucks with skid loaders and forklifts.10

See this 2008 Washington Post article and HSUS video about the treatment of downers.

Right: Animal Protection Institute photographed this sheep in 108-degree weather. (M. Engebretson, “Long Distance Transport,” Satya, November 2006, p 48.)

“Like this bull I had last year—this bull was one of the biggest bulls I’ve ever seen. It was at the very front of the trailer. And the spirit it had, he was just trying his hardest to get off the trailer. He had been prodded to death by three or four drivers…but his back legs, his hips have given out. And so basically they just keep prodding it. So it took about 45 minutes to get it from the front nose of the trailer to the back ramp.…

“Then from there it was chained with its front legs, and it fell off the ramp, smashed onto the floor, which I don’t know how many feet that would be but quite a racket…I just said, ‘Why don’t you shoot the damn thing? What’s going on? What about this Code of Ethics?’

“This one guy said, ‘I never shoot. Why would I shoot a cow that can come off and there’s still good meat there?’ When I first started, I talked to another trucker about downers. He said, ‘You may as well not get upset. It’s been going on for many years. It will go on for the rest of my life and your life. So just calm down about it. It happens. You’ll get kind of bitter like I did. You just don’t think about the animals. You just think that they aren’t feeling or whatever.’”

1
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 6:38



interview with a Canadian livestock trucker, from A Cow at My Table, 1998 documentary

Above: Turkeys stacked for tranport; downer pigs left in a holding pen (photo courtesy of Farm Sanctuary); piglets stacked for transport. Below: A downed, disemboweled calf left to suffer at a Pennsylvania stockyard, where workers refused to humanely euthanize him (photo courtesy of Farm Sanctuary); a pig who has collapsed in his vomit at the slaughterhouse; and a “deadpile” of pigs (photo courtesy of PETA). Click images for larger views.

What About Fish?
Fish caught in net
Fish caught in net (photo courtesy of David Falconer).

An article published in the Journal of Fish Biology explains:

The scientific study of fish welfare is at an early stage compared with work on other vertebrates and a great deal of what we need to know is yet to be discovered. It is clearly the case that fish, though different from birds and mammals, however, are sophisticated animals, far removed from unfeeling creatures with a 15 second memory of popular misconception.…

[I]t has been argued that the longer the life span of a given species of animal and the more sophisticated its general behaviour, the greater its need for complex mental processes similar to those that in humans generate the conscious experience of suffering. In this context, therefore, it is relevant that the longest-living vertebrates are found among the fishes and that fish behaviour is rich, complicated and far from stereotyped.… Indeed, current literature on fish cognition indicates that several fish species are capable of learning and integrating multiple pieces of information that require more complex processes than associative learning.12

2
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 6:39

Fish

Aquaculture is the fastest growing animal food–producing sector; nearly half the fish consumed as food worldwide are raised on fish farms rather than caught in the wild.13 As with other forms of animal agriculture, the practices employed by fish farmers are designed to increase profitability but can reduce the well-being of the fish. Welfare concerns include: poor water quality, aggression, injuries, and disease associated with inappropriate stocking densities; health problems due to selection for fast growth; handling and removal from water during routine husbandry procedures; food deprivation during disease treatment and before harvest; and pain during slaughter.12

In the world’s marine fisheries, more than 80 percent of fish stocks are already fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted.13 A UN Chronicle article on overfishing warns that “oceans are cleared at twice the rate of forests” and “the dramatic increase of destructive fishing techniques destroys marine mammals and entire ecosystems.”14 It’s estimated that, each year, hundreds of thousands of dolphins, seals, and other marine mammals die in fishing nets worldwide.23

See also: NOAA “Ecological Effects of Fishing” report (PDF); “Would You Like Mercury With Your Sushi?”; “Science-based assessment of welfare: aquatic animals” (PDF) from the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE); USDA ERS Aquaculture Outlook report for 2006 (PDF).

Wildlife

Bison killed to prevent “competition” with livestock (click for larger image; courtesy of PETA).

USDA APHIS Wildlife Services and livestock producers kill wildlife to protect farmed animals.

Having eliminated native populations of wolves and grizzly bears,4 federal government hunters now kill about 100,000 coyotes, bobcats, feral hogs, bison, and mountain lions each year.15 They are shot, caught in steel-jaw leghold traps or neck nooses, or poisoned with cyanide.15

If Slaughterhouses Had Glass Walls

3
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 6:40

If Slaughterhouses Had Glass Walls

Vegan Outreach is a 501(c)(3)
nonprofit organization dedicated to
reducing the suffering of farmed animals
by promoting informed, ethical eating.

Vegan Outreach

POB 30865, Tucson, AZ 85751-0865
DC VegFest World Farm Animals Day

These turkeys are shackled by their feet, entering the area where they will be slaughtered (click for larger image; courtesy of Farm Sanctuary).


“You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson “Fate,” The Conduct of Life, 1860


Above: Pig being skinned (click for larger image; courtesy of PETA). Below: Birds account for more than 95 percent of land animals killed for food in the United States; however, there is no federal law that requires they be rendered insensible to pain before being slaughtered (click for larger image; courtesy of USDA).

“The question is not,
Can they reason? nor,
Can they talk? but,
Can they suffer?”

Jeremy Bentham
An Introduction to the Principles of Morals & Legislation, 1789

Slaughtered chickens (click for larger image; courtesy of Farm Sanctuary).


If they survive the farms and transport, the animals—whether factory-farmed or free-range—are slaughtered.

Animals in slaughterhouses can smell, hear, and often see the slaughter of those before them.

As the animals struggle, the human workers, who are pressured to keep the lines moving quickly, often react with impatience towards the animals.

Federal law requires that mammals be stunned prior to slaughter (exempting kosher and halal). Common methods of stunning:

1
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 8:09

Captive bolt stunning

A “pistol” is set against the animal’s head and a metal rod is thrust into the brain.Shooting a struggling animal is difficult, and the rod often misses its mark.16

Electrical stunning

Current produces a grand mal seizure; then the throat is cut. According to industry consultant Temple Grandin, PhD, “Insufficient amperage can cause an animal to be paralyzed without losing sensibility.”17

For ritual slaughter, animals are fully conscious when their carotid arteries are cut. This is supposed to cause unconsciousness within seconds, but because of blood flow through the vertebral arteries in the back of the neck, some animals can remain conscious as they bleed for up to a minute.18 Additionally, Temple Grandin, PhD notes “Unfortunately, there are some plants which use cruel methods of restraint such as hanging live animals upside down.”19 This can cause broken bones as the heavy animal hangs by a chain attached to one leg.

An article in The Washington Post noted: “Hogs, unlike cattle, are dunked in tanks of hot water after they are stunned to soften the hides for skinning. As a result, a botched slaughter condemns some hogs to being scalded and drowned. Secret videotape from an Iowa pork plant shows hogs squealing and kicking as they are being lowered into the water.”20

To induce paralysis in birds for ease of handling, electric stunning is normally used. However, it is not known whether stunning renders the birds unconscious;2 the shock may be an “intensely painful experience.”21 Each year, large numbers of chickens, turkeys, ducks, and geese reach the scalding tanks alive and are either boiled to death or drowned.22

2
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 8:10

In February of 2007, a Mercy For Animals (MFA) undercover investigator took a job at one of the largest poultry slaughter plants in the country. There he found workers:

* Punching live animals for fun.
* Ripping eggs out of the hens’ cloacae to throw at other workers.
* Ripping the heads off of turkeys who had gotten their feet stuck in the transport truck cages.
* Throwing turkeys.
* Letting birds lie on the ground flapping in misery for hours at a time.

Click here to see the video footage.

MFA’s investigation comes on the heels of a February 2005 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals undercover investigation at a large Tyson plant in Alabama, where the investigator found:

* Workers ripping the heads off birds who had missed the throat-cutting machines.
* Birds frequently mutilated by throat-cutting machines that didn’t work properly; one bird had her skin torn entirely off her chest.

3
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 8:10

From October 2003 to May 2004, an undercover investigator working for PETA, took footage at a Pilgrim’s Pride chicken slaughterhouse in Moorefield, West Virginia. Workers were filmed violently and repeatedly throwing live chickens into a wall, picking chickens up by their legs and swinging their heads into the floor, and kicking and jump up and down on live chickens. This was documented in the New York Times (“KFC Supplier Accused of Animal Cruelty,” July 20, 2004), and the video can be seen on PETA’s dedicated website.

The USDA oversees the treatment of animals in meat plants through meat inspectors. Arthur Hughes, Vice Chairman of the National Council of Food Inspection Locals, a union of 6,000 federal meat inspectors, states: “Drastic increases in production speeds, lack of support from supervisors in plants, new inspection policies which significantly reduce our enforcement authority, and little or no access to the areas of the plants where animals are killed, have significantly hampered our ability to ensure compliance with humane regulations.”24

Above: Discarded cow pieces (click for larger image; courtesy of PETA). Below: Workers hoisting cow (click for larger image; courtesy of PETA).

Even when problems are reported by inspectors, the government often ignores them. For example, no action was taken against a Texas beef company despite 22 citations in 1998 for violations that included chopping the hooves off live cattle.20

On May 24, 2000, King5.com new service in Seattle, WA, broke a story about undercover footage taken at a nearby IBP slaughterhouse. According to their report, “The video shows fallen cows being trampled and dragged, others are tortured with electric prods. One cow has fallen and workers stick an electric prod on its head, then place the prod down its mouth. Still other cows are hung on chains, fully conscious, blinking and kicking. The worker who shot the tape said one cow was already at a station where legs are removed. ‘It would be horrible if someone were to cut off your leg without anesthesia.’”25 (See also this report on kosher slaughter.)

4
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 8:11

According to Steve Cockerham, a USDA inspector at Nebraska slaughterhouses, and former USDA veterinarian Lester Friedlander, some U.S. slaughterhouses routinely skin live cattle, immerse squealing pigs in scalding water, and abuse still-conscious animals in other ways to keep production lines moving quickly.

The men stated that the federal law requiring slaughterhouses to kill animals humanely has been increasingly ignored as meat plants grow bigger. Cockerham said that he often saw plant workers cut the feet, ears, and udders off cattle that were conscious on the production line after stun guns failed to work properly. “They were still blinking and moving. It’s a sickening thing to see,” he said.26

“Animals are God’s creatures, not human property, nor utilities, nor resources, nor commodities, but precious beings in God’s sight.”

Rev. Andrew Linzey, Oxford University
Animal Theology, 1995

In 2007 and 2008, a set of investigations (with video) came to light regarding a large, widely-praised slaughterhouse in California. The Des Moines Register pointed out: “The undercover videos were bad enough: packing-plant workers abusing sick or disabled cattle and dragging at least one of the cows to be slaughtered, a violation of federal food-safety standards. But consumer advocates say what’s also disturbing is what happened within days of that video being shot at a California slaughterhouse. Independent inspectors from two auditing firms visited the Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. plant and gave it glowing marks.”

Investigator Gail Eisnitz writes about widespread violations of the Humane Slaughter Act in her 1997 book Slaughterhouse.27 One of many such stories: “It was a plant where squealing hogs were left straddling the restrainer and dangling live by one leg when workers left the stick pit for their half-hour lunch breaks; where stunners were shocking hogs three and four times…where thousands of squealing hogs were immersed in the plant’s scalding tank alive.”

5
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
saveallGOD'sAnimals
Admin


Masculin Nombre de messages : 19960
Date d'inscription : 17/05/2007

MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Jeu 6 Sep - 8:11

“It takes 25 minutes to turn a live steer into steak at the modern slaughterhouse where Ramon Moreno works. For 20 years, his post was ‘second-legger,’ a job that entails cutting hocks off carcasses as they whirl past at a rate of 309 an hour. The cattle were supposed to be dead before they got to Moreno. But too often they weren’t.

“‘They blink. They make noises,’ he said softly. ‘The head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around.’
Inside a meat processing plant (photo courtesy of USDA).

“Still Moreno would cut. On bad days, he says, dozens of animals reached his station clearly alive and conscious. Some would survive as far as the tail cutter, the belly ripper, the hide puller.

“‘They die,’ said Moreno, ‘piece by piece.’

“Under a 23-year-old federal law [which exempts the slaughter of birds], slaughtered cattle and hogs first must be ‘stunned’—rendered insensible to pain—with a blow to the head or an electric shock. But at overtaxed plants, the law is sometimes broken, with cruel consequences for animals as well as workers. Enforcement records, interviews, videos and worker affidavits describe repeated violations of the Humane Slaughter Act at dozens of slaughterhouses, ranging from the smallest, custom butcheries to modern, automated establishments such as the sprawling IBP Inc. plant here where Moreno works.

“‘In plants all over the United States, this happens on a daily basis,’ said Lester Friedlander, a veterinarian and formerly chief government inspector at a Pennsylvania hamburger plant.

“‘I’ve seen it happen. And I’ve talked to other veterinarians. They feel it’s out of control.’”

“Modern Meat: A Brutal Harvest,” The Washington Post, 4/10/01

6
Revenir en haut Aller en bas
Voir le profil de l'utilisateur
Contenu sponsorisé




MessageSujet: Re: Meat    Aujourd'hui à 17:29

Revenir en haut Aller en bas
 
Meat
Voir le sujet précédent Voir le sujet suivant Revenir en haut 
Page 5 sur 9Aller à la page : Précédent  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Suivant
 Sujets similaires
-
» nouvelle recette
» oeil qui pleure
» besoin de conseils et de soutien je pête les plombs !!!
» Dog meat wars: 5 stories that shocked Vietnam
» CYBER ACTION URGENTE !!! Contre le festival de viande de chien à Yulin !

Permission de ce forum:Vous ne pouvez pas répondre aux sujets dans ce forum
 :: Divers :: Les infos de Végétalienne-
Sauter vers: