The meat business is booming! Pig fattening: The animals give birth to more piglets than the sows have teats. They are much bigger, wider and heavier than they were 20 years ago. So, small and weak piglets are simply beaten to death on the stable wall. In the first few days almost all piglets are cut off the ring tails and the canines are abraded. After about six weeks they come in the mast. The huge sows have to live half their lives in crowded boxes, penned behind bars, which they often gnaw. Also the cutting off of the tails is tolerated by many authorities.
On average, every European eats almost 66 kilograms of meat per year. But do we actually know exactly where our flesh comes from and what it’s all about before it lands on our plate? What possibilities have the consumers to understand what attitude an animal comes from?
Goal: End the cruel practice of bear farming and bear paw soup
A delicacy in mainland China that sells for upwards of $200 USD per bowl requires chopping the paws off a living bear and cooking the animal alive. Bear paw soup has been a specialty dish in China since the early 600s AD. The diner allegedly imbibes the strength and virility of the bear by eating the soup. Although bear farms and bear paw soup are illegal in the country, no enforcement and the high price of the commodity keeps the horrific practice going.
Bear farms across China reportedly house 20,000 bears in captivity. These bears suffer in abysmal living conditions, caged for life in spaces too small to stand up in or turn around. Many of these bears have been illegally harvested from the wild. To offer some aspect of showmanship to the preparation of the meal, the bears are often maimed and cooked in front of the dining audience. First, the paws are chopped off. Then, the bears are allegedly beaten alive to tenderize the meat and flavor the meat with blood. After the beating, the bears are dropped into boiling water, or onto hot coals, and cooked alive.
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) was adopted in the late 1970s by 179 nations, including China, to combat illegal wildlife trade through global coordination. Bears are supposed to be protected under CITES. Unfortunately, CITES is not a legal entity. Participation is voluntary and each country must adopt its own laws that fall within the framework of CITES. Encourage China to crack down and enforce its own laws against this disgusting practice. Not only is this animal torture cruel, but it also likely contributes to the extinction of Asian bear species. Sign this petition to demand China put an end to bear farms and bear paw soup.
PETITION LETTER:
President Xi Jinping,
Your country has outlawed bear farms and bear paw soup, and yet a meal that involves chopping the paws off a living bear and boiling the animal alive is still considered a delicacy. The high price tag on the meal and the lack of legal enforcement have allowed this practice to thrive. An estimated 20,000 bears are being held at bear farms, made to suffer inhumane living conditions while they await this cruel death.
This torture must stop. Not only is it barbaric and incredibly cruel, but it may also be contributing to the extinction of species like the sun bear and Asiatic black bear. Live up to your CITES agreement and do something to end the black market trade, torture. and death of bears. We, the undersigned, demand an end to bear farms and bear paw soup.
Live exports exposed: “U.K. Calves” a film by the Animal Cruelty Investigation Group – ACIG
Published on 13 May 2013
This film shows what happened to calves exported to Europe through Brightlingsea, Essex. Calves are filmed being unloaded at Nieuport, Belgium on May 10th 1995. On June 7th 1995, a different consignment of British calves were followed some 200 miles through Belgium into Holland where they were filmed being pushed into veal crates. This investigation project was undertaken by Janet Taylor from the Farm Animal Sanctuary and by Lawrie Payne and Mike Huskisson from the Animal Cruelty Investigation Group (ACIG). For more information about the ACIG please go to: http://www.acigawis.org.uk
This is why the British people hate live animal exports and ‘veal’ meat which is produced from these young calves. They take to the streets to stop it – old footage from the Dover live exports campaigns.:
This is old footage; fortunately it does not happen this way now, or does it ??
The Wallace Collection and Skylon restaurant at the Royal Festival Hall have become the latest London landmarks to withdraw foie gras from their menus thanks to pressure from our #FoieGrasFreeGB campaign. They join the Tate Modernwho made the same compassionate choice just two weeks ago.
Our campaign continues, and we were encouraged to see that Kerry McCarthy MP and Neil Parish MP have recently proposed amendments to the government’s Agriculture Bill. These amendments would mean that animal products produced to lower standards than UK animal welfare law dictates could not be imported here, effectively banning foie grasfrom being sold in the UK.
We need your help to ensure this succeeds – please contact your MP and ask them to support these amendments to the Agriculture Bill. It only takes a few minutes to do this using the website www.writetothem.com and we’ve included a template message below to make things even easier for you!
Template email:
Dear [MP Name] MP,
I am writing to ask for your support for Amendments NC1 and NC4 to the Agriculture Bill. When the UK exits the EU, it is essential that we do not allow cruel products like foie gras or animal products that are produced using methods that would not be allowed under our animal welfare laws to be imported from other countries for sale here.
This would completely undermine the UK’s current legislation and us as a nation of animal lovers.
As my representative in Parliament I implore you to vote for NC1 and NC4 during the Report Stage of this Bill.
It is hard to call them victories, as the level of suffering is still so horrible, but had Eyes on Animals and West Africa Centre for the Protection of Animal Welfare(WACPAW) not been present, the animals would still be jumped on, have their legs tightly tethered and their neck cut all while fully conscious. We have successfully got the much more humane procedure of rapid stunning into 4 slaughterhouses in Ghana. Thousands of cattle and pigs will now be rendered unconscious and spared the worst part of the slaughter process. It is just the first step, but if we can achieve this after just one year of working with WACPAW in Ghana, imagine what we can achieve if we stick to it?
We have prepared 4 videos of different Ghanaian slaughterhouses to show you the difference between how it was and how it is now, thanks to your support. I know the conditions are still far from ideal, but within the context of today’s reality, I hope you will understand that this is a major step forward.
We want to also say a personal thank-you to Roy. Roy is a full-time employee of a slaughterhouse in The Netherlands. He is the stun man, responsible for rendering animals unconscious before slaughter. He is an example of how we can, and must, respect each other and all work together towards making this world a gentler place for animals. He took 10 days’ holiday from work in order to volunteer for Eyes on Animals in Ghana.
He did a fantastic job at teaching the local slaughtermen how to use the stunner and the importance of acting calmly and with respect to the animals. Thanks to him, stunning was able to be put into practice so quickly in Ghana. Here are a few words he wanted to include in this newsletter:
“The mission in Ghana to improve animal welfare was extremely necessary and successful. Eyes on Animals is doing excellent work there and I am very happy to be able to help them get concrete changes into place. I will definitely continue helping them on this project in the future, because no animal should have to suffer from fear, stress or pain. Via Eyes on Animals I can make a difference”- Roy.
My comment: Only for those who have never set themselves the goal of saving animals, or who do not know how difficult it is to improve the Dachau slaughterhouses of this world, only these would say that it is not a victory, what the activists of Eyes on Animals achieved.
Nothing that diminishes the pain, the suffering, the battle of animals is little.
In the name of the animals in Ghana, thank you very much Eyes on Animals and WACPAW!
Leading experts say latest badger culls will not stop TB
Two leading Scientists, Christl A. Donnelly Imperial College London, and Rosie Woodroffe, Institute of Zoology, London reveal in an article, published today for www.nature.com magazine that the latest badger culls unlikely to stop TB. Two months ago, the government advice body Natural England approved further licensed badger culls in parts of the United Kingdom in 2015. The aim is to reduce local badger densities by at least 70% to stop the spread of bovine tuberculosis (TB) to cattle. This figure is critical because reductions of less than 70% can, paradoxically, increase TB transmission rates (see H.C.J. Godfray et al. Proc. R. Soc. B 280, 20131634;2013).
On the basis of current badger population estimates, we calculate that these culls are unlikely to achieve the necessary reduction.
The latest minimum cull numbers derive from the lower 95% confidence bounds on population size estimates. For example, licensees in part of Dorset are required to kill at least 615 badgers in a population that are estimated to contain somewhere between 879 and 1,547 animals (95% confidence interval). Killing this number would give an estimated population reduction of between 39.8% and 70% (95% confidence interval).
Equivalent confidence intervals for the 2015 Somerset and Gloucestershire culls are, respectively, 50.8–70% and 54–70% relative to the baseline population estimates. It is, therefore, unlikely that a 70% or greater reduction can be attained by these minimum cull numbers, assuming that the population estimates are accurate.
In our view, populations that are either reduced by greatly more than 70% or left undisturbed (and potentially vaccinated) are likely to offer better prospects for the control of cattle TB. The choice depends on a range of epidemiological, economic, social and ecological factors.
Authors; Christl A. Donnelly Imperial College London, UK. Rosie Woodroffe Institute of Zoology, London
World Animals Voice 