Day: October 8, 2020

Germany: Slaughterhouse scandal turns into a political thriller!

Mr. H. is a farmer official, local mayor, and pig farmer in the district of Rottweil, in southern Germany.

In his “animal welfare” breeding stables horrific conditions prevail: Hundreds of injured animals, many with the most severe mutilations, as well as countless sick animals – expressly not isolated.

Weak animals are eaten alive by their stressed conspecifics, carcasses are torn to pieces and the dead bodies of the pigs are piled up in the barn.


In the area of ​​the breeding sows, animals were squeezed in cramped crates in a watery fecal broth.
In the barn, there were dying and very emaciated animals, such as piglets or a breeding sow covered in wounds, and seriously injured young pigs.


The farmer abused pigs he was captured by a hidden camera.
He carries them around on one foot, hits them, and throws the animals. The stable is filthy, full of flies and excrement.

The farmer’s lobbyist likes to appear in the media and especially to show up with prominent politicians like Agriculture Minister Hauk, Federal Agriculture Minister Klöckner, and also green politicians.

(In order to understand the extent of the animal suffering in this video, nobody needs the German language.
The horror pictures, the shameful grievances speak for themselves)

 

And here the political site!

The scenes of pigs awakening from the stupor and brutally abused in that slaughterhouse were almost unbearable and led to the slaughterhouse being closed at the beginning of September and massive criticism of the Böblingen district.
After the publication of the documents from the above-mentioned period, it was publicly proven that Minister Peter Hauk had stopped the measures ordered by the responsible veterinary office to remedy these abuses.

Minister Peter Hauk has thus been guilty of criminally relevant aid.
“He accepted animal cruelty in order to protect the slaughterhouse boss and party member Dengler,” said Mülln.

This view is also shared by the German Legal Society for Animal Welfare Law and announced in a press release on October 5th, 2020 that it had filed a criminal complaint against the Minister of Agriculture, Peter Hauk.

SOKO Animal Welfare is now also taking legal action against Minister Hauk in the Gärtringen case.
“Anyone who promotes animal torment, accepts it by failing to do so, or bends right, receives criminal charges – this also applies to ministers,” confirms the SOKO investigator.

https://www.swr.de/swraktuell/baden-wuerttemberg/suedbaden/schweinemastbetrieb-im-kreis-rottweil-muss-schliessen-102.html

 

And I mean..a stable out of control! from here, of course, not made in China!

The keeping of pigs under the worst cruel conditions is legal in Germany because our society regards it as absolutely necessary because the dead bodies of these tortured animals should end up on our plates.

In an interview, the affected farmer and animal abusers described the conditions in his barn as basically okay.
When asked how it came about that the animals look like this, he replied: “Because they fought, cannibalism.”!!

And all of this in a country that describes itself as exemplary democratic and animal welfare-oriented.

With one of the best animal welfare laws in Europe, which says … “Nobody may inflict pain, suffering or harm on an animal without a reasonable reason.”
And for this reason, the suffering of animals in factory farming remains enormous and endless.
The animal abusers of the meat industry do not even need a “reasonable” reason for this, a minister finds that for everyone.

As long as the agriculture minister is elected by the meat industry in Germany, nothing will change

My best regards to all, Venus

UK: The Guardian (UK National Press) View on Animal Welfare: Keep It Up !

WAV Comment: The Guardian – UK national press – great as always.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/17/the-guardian-view-on-animal-welfare-keep-it-up

The Guardian view on animal welfare: keep it up

Hard-won protections for both humans and livestock are under threat – and worth fighting for.

Hunting, scientific experimentation, entertainment, the keeping of pets, farming, fishing, habitat destruction: there is no one story about the way that humans use animals – and cause them to suffer. So far, the UN reported this week, our collective efforts to protect wildlife globally have not succeeded. All 20 of the Aichi biodiversity targets agreed in Japan a decade ago have been missed.

But a gloomy big picture must not blind us to smaller, positive changes. In January, wild animals in circuses became illegal in Britain. Last month, the use of glue traps to catch birds was stopped by President Macron in France.

Historically, the UK has played an important part in the development of laws protecting animals. Along with Sweden, it led the way on welfare rules in Europe with an influential report, setting out “five freedoms” to which farm animals should be entitled, published in 1965. The freedoms were the space to turn around, lie down, stand up, stretch, and groom. Having been made law in the UK in 1990, a ban on rearing veal calves in crates became EU-wide in 2006. It was followed by a ban on crates for pregnant sows.

Yet this record, of which many British people are rightly proud, is now in danger. Despite committing in their 2019 manifesto to uphold the UK’s environmental, animal and food standards, Conservative ministers are now refusing to rule out allowing imports from countries, including the US, that have no federal animal welfare standards at all. Instead of a ban on meat or dairy produced under conditions that would be illegal here, the government proposes a dual-tariff system, under which goods that don’t meet domestic standards would be charged more on entry.

So far, chlorine-washed chicken has been the main bone of contention in the debate over the place of US agribusiness in the post-Brexit food system. The safety concerns surrounding the use of chlorine, as well as the antibiotics and hormones routinely fed to US farm animals to promote growth, and GM ingredients, are all serious issues. Dilution of hard-won protections against food poisoning and other health effects, and an increased risk of environmental damage, is not what the majority of Brexit supporters thought (or were told) that they were voting for when they chose to leave the EU.

But animal welfare is also an important factor. So is the regulatory framework governing the treatment of workers. While it must not be assumed that the giant animal factories in which US meat production is concentrated necessarily have lower hygiene and other standards than smaller or European farms, many experts believe that huge numbers of animals kept in close proximity represent a health hazard to humans, as well as causing suffering to both animals and workers.

There is no call for starry eyes. Current standards leave much to be desired. An EU inquiry into the flouting of livestock transport laws was announced in June. The shocking extent of poverty in the UK, after 10 years of austerity and in the middle of a pandemic, means that food price rises are a serious worry. But while this might make the prospect of cheaper food tempting, deregulation is not the answer.

Instead, we must keep fighting for a food system that balances human needs and tastes with values.

For wonderful John – a guy that always did more than his share:

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2019/04/25/england-another-terrible-loss-john-callaghan/

Regards Mark

Doing my bit at Dover harbour in the past – fighting live animal exports and the veal calf trade. We won eventually !!

Are they not worth fighting for ? – YES – every day of all those years in my opinion. They are mere babies.

EU: Veggie Burger Out ? – European Parliament to vote on terminology for plant-based meat and dairy substitutes.

WAV Comment: This is the kind of thing they consider important; live transport and intensive farming system legislation can go to hell. Typical useless EU.

Here below are some animal abuse issues we have covered in just the last week or so.  Yes all EU  issues that need addressing real fast. 

But the MEP’s don’t take action about any of this do they ? – they sit on their self opinionated fat backsides deciding paltry issues like if a veggie burger can be called a veggie burger.  How sad is this; but oh so very EU.  Why do people still want to be in this pathetic ‘club’ ? – get out and be nations again.

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/05/italy-essere-animali-reveal-terrible-violence-on-a-pig-farm-supplying-beretta-cured-meats/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/05/portugal-unpublished-and-shocking-images-inside-the-ships-transporting-live-animals-from-portugal-to-israel/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/02/1-4-million-signatures-call-the-eu-to-act-on-farmed-animal-welfare/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/02/call-to-stena-line-stop-illegal-calf-transports/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/07/germany-mass-murder-on-the-march/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/06/eu-animal-farming-in-eu-worse-for-climate-than-all-cars/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/06/bulgaria-inbred-lion-cubs-victims-of-neglect-rife-in-bulgarias-decaying-zoos/

No more veggie burgers?

European Parliament to vote on terminology for plant-based meat and dairy substitutes

8 October 2020

Today, Eurogroup for Animals and 12 other NGOs sent a letter to the Members of the European Parliament urging them to vote against a ban on the use of ‘meatish’ and ‘dairyish’ names for plant-based products on 20 October. This ban would contradict the ambitions of the Green Deal, which promotes the uptake of more sustainable food and would further also interfere with consumers’ demand for plant-based products.

In the second plenary session in October, the European Parliament will vote on the regulation establishing a Common Organisation of the Markets (CMOs) in agricultural products (2018/0218 COD). This regulation is one of the three regulations composing the Common Agricultural Policy.

As it presently stands, this text proposed by the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) includes two alarming amendments: 

  • Amendment 165would effectively ban widely accepted and commonly used terms, such as ‘veggie burger,’ or ‘plant-based steak’. 
  • Amendment 171 would further restrict the naming of dairy alternatives by prohibiting terms, such as ‘yoghurt-style’, ‘alternative to cheese,’ or ‘butter substitute’ to describe plant-based dairy alternatives. 

In an open letter to the Members of the European Parliament, Eurogroup for Animals expressed its concern over these amendments, and urged Members to oppose these two amendments. In the letter, Eurogroup for Animals explains why the measures contained in these two amendments contradicting the EU’s objective, as laid out in the European Green Deal measures to create a more sustainable and healthy food system. Encouraging the broader uptake of plant-based diets is instrumental in achieving the European Commission’s climate neutrality objectives, and prevent a decline in global biodiversity.

Countless studies have evidenced that industrial animal agriculture is a major contributor to climate change, environmental degradation, public health risks, biodiversity loss, and poor animal welfare. In the Farm to Fork Strategy, the Commission explicitly acknowledges the need to shift dietary habits. The Commission further points to the necessity to increase the intake of plant-based foods and reduce red and processed meat consumption levels  to reduce the risk of life-threatening diseases and decrease the environmental footprint of the food system. In 2018, the Commission’s Plant Protein Report already noted that the market for meat and dairy alternatives was particularly promising in the EU, with annual growth rates of 14% and 11%, respectively.

This possible ban is also inconsistent with consumers’ purchasing habits and perceptions. For many years already, European consumers have been accustomed to seeing and buying plant-based products displaying terms such as ‘veggie burger’ or ‘plant-based steak’. Prohibiting the use of such well-recognised terms not only is unnecessary, but it would also lead to preventing them from making informed purchasing choices.

Indeed, a recent survey by the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) demonstrates that EU consumers are overwhelmingly favour of the use of meat-related terms for plant-based foods. The report shows that more than 68% of consumers support ‘meaty’ names for plant-based food products, as long as the products are clearly labelled as plant-based or vegetarian. Furthermore, petitions against the proposed restrictions have already garnered thousands of signatures.

It is now in the hands of the Members of the European Parliament to vote against such a  ban and to  improve information to consumers. For example, by requiring the use of qualifiers for non-meat products, such as “plant-based” or “vegetarian”, while reserving the terms with no qualifiers for meat products. This would mean that “sausages” would be made from meat, and  “plant-based sausages” would be made of plant-based ingredients. If high quality consumers information is the goal, the use of qualifiers along with meat and dairy denominations is the way to go. 

England: Tory MP denounces ‘absurd’ government rule exempting hunters and shooters from coronavirus rule of six. Do Votes Matter Above All Else ??

WAV Comment:  I (Mark) have worked with Sir Roger in the past re live animal transport in ‘our’ home county of Kent.  He is the MP (Member of Parliament) for North Thanet (Kent).  The other constituency of South Thanet, which includes Ramsgate port; through which all live animal exports currently take place by convicted criminal (in a UK court of law – animal welfare offences) Dutchman Onderwater – 

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/07/30/england-dutch-criminal-exports-british-sheep-for-eid-slaughter-the-conservatives-do-nothing-except-talk-the-talk-we-want-action/

South Thanet has an MP named Craig Mackinlay.

At the end of the day all animal issues are really about governments getting votes; nothing else.  I have been campaigning long enough against live exports; hunting, badger culling etc to have experience of that attitude.  For example; take New York in the USA; I did a very recent post re Covid, in New York and wet markets.  As it was Yom Kippur;  the general concerns about Covid and animal wet markets – the proven source of the virus – in New York, were thrown out of the window in favour of obtaining votes – please read more about this in the article: https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/09/22/usa-the-priority-reducing-covid-or-getting-votes-seems-getting-votes-win/

Here in England where I live; ‘protected’ Badgers – Under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, in England and Wales (the law is different in Scotland) it is an offence to: Wilfully kill, injure or take a badger (or attempt to do so). … Dig for a badger. Intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy a badger sett, or obstruct access to – that it unless you are the government, then you can  kill whatever badgers you wish ! – are being culled in vast numbers to present an ‘action face’ by the government to dairy farmers. 

As a rule; those same farmers are also land owners; and thus are more Conservative in their votes than Labour Party supporters.  So the Conservative government has to be seen taking action for them, and this is done currently through the badger cull.  Badger killing = farmers votes = government power.

The Badgers, as a result of this action, are the ones who really pay the price with their lives.

Votes are the No. 1 issue; real issues such as animal welfare, come a very poor second.

So back to Roger Gale MP and the article below.  Under current Covid regulations (the rule of 6 persons maximum) introduced by the Conservative government; little children are prevented from visiting their grandparents in other households.  People are expected to comply with this ruling in order to reduce Covid transmission.  But; and it is a big but; if you are a hunter and you wish to go out on the moors killing wildlife; then you ARE allowed to go out in bigger parties of more than 6; you get a special ‘exemption’ which allows this.

How do I and Roger (Gale) read this ? – one rule for ‘normal’ people who cannot visit family in large numbers; but (government) ‘exemptions for larger groups’ if they want to go out together and blast away in a blood frenzy; killing as much wildlife as they can.  Oh yes; these people are often landowners who usually vote Conservative (like the badger killers); so as I have said; votes are the priority over protecting animal welfare; despite what the government says.

Please read the article below as it will probably make more sense than my blurb !

Regards Mark

————————————————————–

Coronavirus: Time to break the rules and visit grandparents? | News | The  Times
Shooting parties of more than six are still legal
This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is blood-1.png

Tory MP denounces ‘absurd’ government rule exempting hunters and shooters from coronavirus rule of six

Exclusive: ‘It is apparently in order to assemble in large groups to hunt and to shoot mostly hand-reared birds,’ says party grandee

A veteran Conservative MP has slated Boris Johnson’s exemption of hunting and shooting from the coronavirus “rule of six”.

Sir Roger Gale said: “I find it absurd that while restrictions are placed upon public gatherings including most sporting events, including horseracing, and that while gatherings of more than six people even within a family are prohibited, it is apparently in order to assemble in large groups to hunt and to go out to shoot mostly hand-reared ‘wild’ birds.  

“Do hunters and shooters not catch or transmit Covid 19?”

The UK population has been told it is illegal for people to meet in groups of more than six, in an effort to limit the spread of the virus.

But the government has exempted shooting and hunting from the restrictions, a move which has prompted uproar among many people.

The pheasant-shooting season began last week. Up to 20 million pheasants are shot a year of the roughly 50 million that are bred.

Hunters have regularly been seen in the countryside in groups of more than six since the rule was introduced last month, and in once case were filmed at an event mixing with police officers.

The government regulations forbid mixing in groups of more than six before or after sporting events.

Days after large gatherings were banned, about 130 people met for a stag hunt, almost all not wearing masks, in scenes that critics said “made a mockery of the social sacrifices” of others to limit the spread of coronavirus.

The government was accused of hypocrisy in creating exemptions for “friends” and other people deemed as being more inclined to vote Conservative while introducing fines for the rest of the population.

Sir Roger, a long-time animal-welfare supporter, voted against the internal market bill, which breaches international law, saying: “An Englishman’s word used to be his bond. Under Johnson that is not so.”

One animal lover wrote: “One cannot visit family members who may be physically or mentally ill or really struggling if it means there would be seven or more, and one cannot visit loved ones in hospital, but if one wants to go out in huge numbers and kill animals, it is allowed.”

A government spokesperson said: “We have exempted over 30 types of sport, exercise and physical activity such as football, rugby and other outdoor pursuits. Outdoor activity is safer from a transmission perspective, and it is often easier to social distance. Where such activities take place, safety measures must be taken including conducting a risk assessment and compliance with Covid-19 secure guidance.”

Source:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hunting-shooting-rule-six-exempt-tory-mp-roger-gale-covid-b835803.html