Category: Farm Animals

Sweet Earth – An Article Provided By Stacey at ‘Our Compass’.

Stacey at ‘Our Compass’ is an animal rights campaigner and friend who regularly supplies us with articles, for which we thank her.

Stacey | Our Compass (our-compass.org)

Here below is the latest article which makes very interesting reading;

Thanks Stacey

Regards Mark

PS: McDonalds has always been a huge campaign issue here in the UK. Many years ago we had the ‘McLibel’ issue where some protestors were attempted to be silenced. I have covered this issue once before I think, but consider the video of the fight is worth showing again on another post which I will publish very soon.

Source Sweet Earth

Source Vox

By Matthew Hayek and Jan Dutkiewicz

Plant-based meat has gone mainstream. The Impossible Burger, which debuted at a single restaurant five years ago, is now on Burger King’s permanent menu. And McDonald’s is testing its McPlant burger, featuring a Beyond Meat patty, in select US locations. Both plant-based startups are now veterans in a product category that did $1.4 billion in sales and grew 27 percent in 2020.

Under the tagline “Eat Meat. Save the Planet,” Impossible Foods claims its soy-based burger uses 87 percent less water, takes 96 percent less land, and has 89 percent lower greenhouse gas emissions than a beef burger. Beyond Meat makes similar claims about its pea-based burgers.

This matters because animal agriculture contributes around 15 percent of global greenhouse emissions, and experts agree that without a major shift away from meat in our diets, we won’t be able to meet the global community’s climate targets. The promise of plant-based faux meats is that consumers will be able to keep enjoying the foods they love, but with a far lower climate footprint.

But an increasing number of researchersfood critics, and environmental groups are casting doubt on these types of claims, warning that faux meat production still relies on industrial farming practices. They claim that we don’t know enough about these relatively new products to say for certain if they’re better for the environment than the meat they are trying to replace.

One recent whitepaper from an environmental NGO states that the above claims from faux meat companies “are unproven, and some clearly untrue.” A sustainability analyst quoted in the New York Times goes further, claiming that the companies’ secrecy about their production methods means that “We don’t feel we have sufficient information to say Beyond Meat is fundamentally different from JBS.” (JBS is the world’s largest meat producer).

But years of research on the environmental impact of food make one thing clear: Plant proteins, even if processed into imitation burgers, have smaller climate, water, and land impacts than conventional meats. Apart from environmental impact, reducing meat production would also reduce animal suffering and the risk of both animal-borne disease and antibiotic resistance. The criticisms against the new wave of meatless meat appear to be more rooted in broad opposition to food technology rather than a true environmental accounting — and they muddy the waters in the search for climate solutions at a time when clarity is sorely needed.

Continued on the next page.

Italy: Historic turning point: Italy closer than ever to the ban on the killing of male chicks.

Historic turning point: Italy closer than ever to the ban on the killing of male chicks

3 December 2021

Animal Equality

Recent advocacy efforts by Eurogroup for Animals’ member Animal Equality Italy haved reached a historic turning point with an amendment presented in the Italian Parliament which would introduce, by the end of 2026, the ban on the selective culling of male chicks which are currently considered a production waste within the egg industry.

In the egg industry, male chicks are considered useless for production as they are not able to lay eggs. They can also not be used for meat as they are different from the more common broiler chickens used by the food industry. For this reason, between 25 and 40 million male chicks are killed every year in Italy. 

Shredded alive or suffocated, the chicks are killed immediately, within the first 24 hours of birth, and without the use of stunning techniques.

Eurogroup for Animal’s member Animal Equality Italy launched in 2020 a campaign signed by over 100 thousand people precisely to ask the government and industry to put an end to this terrible situation. Thanks to this work, already in 2020 the trade association of egg producers Assoavi declared itself in favor of the introduction of in-ovo sexing technologies capable of avoiding the culling of male chicks. 

The amendment presented today by MP Francesca Galizia, group leader of the 5-star Movement in the EU Policies Committee, calls for a ban on the selective culling of male chicks of hens by the end of 2026 hens, except in cases where killing is necessary under the current legislation governing animal diseases.

The amendment provides times to adapt to the legislation for updating the work procedures and the technological state of companies in the sector of laying hens. It also supports the introduction and development of technologies and tools for the sexing of in-ovo embryos capable of identifying the sex of the chick even before hatching, also through incentive policies for these technologies. 

In countries such as France and Germany, the introduction of this legislation in order to avoid the killing of male chicks is expected as early as 2022, while the EU Commission has launched a public initiative to carry out an adequacy check of the current rules on the welfare of chicks.

The Italian Parliament will vote on the proposed ammendment in the coming weeks, potentially sparing the lives of millions of male chicks.

It is necessary for Italy to make a choice of responsibility and respect towards animals, sentient beings, which can no longer be considered only industrial waste. The selective killing of male chicks that occurs every year cannot be considered normal. The parliament has a great opportunity by choosing to support this proposal, which also goes towards the lines dictated by the European Union on animal welfare. It is time to encourage the introduction of these in-ovo sexing technologies also in Italy, as producers are already doing, and institutions must commit themselves to this fundamental path for the progress of our country and animals.

Alice Trombetta, Executive Director, Animal Equality Italia

Read more at source

Animal Equality Italy

Regards Mark

England: Is A Change In Campaigning Now Needed After the Massive EU (ANIT) Failures In Live Animal Transport This Week ? – By Mark (WAV).

Hi all; this is Mark at WAV;

 

I know that Venus has already produced a post on this issue, as live animal transport is a major hate of both of us.

Our recent posts which we (wrongfully) hoped were the forerunners of some very positive news are as follows.

EU: NGOs and MEPs protest against live animal transports in the EU. – World Animals Voice

EU: 2/12/21: Time When The EU Should Finally Step Up To The Plate and Introduce Major Reforms For Live Animals In Transport. – World Animals Voice

Despite our personal aims as an organisation for major changes to the better with animal transport in mainland EU; everyone in the form of anti transport campaigners were dealt a really bad hand with regard the EU ANIT meeting of 3/12/21.

Here following is the post meeting PR from the ‘Eurogroup for Animals’; who like us, had high hopes of major, positive changes and transport reforms:

Read the Eurogroup PR (post meeting) by clicking on the following:

ANIT Committee vote: a missed opportunity failing animals and citizens | Eurogroup for Animals

As echoed by us at WAV; the ANIT meeting of 3/12 was very much a missed opportunity which massively failed in the helping of live animals in transport big time, but additionally, which also blatantly ignored the wishes of so many EU citizens calling for drastic improvements for live animals undergoing transportation.

As we have said before, the EU does what it wants to do and to hell with everyone and everything else.  The ANIT catastrophe witnessed this week is a typical example; with the livestock industry and its lobbyists basically ensuring that they continue to get what they want; a status quo; effectively resulting in no real  ‘wow’ changes for animal welfare, whilst simply ignoring the wishes of a vast number of EU citizens calling for better legislation for animals; including a shout for a maximum one off journey time of no greater than 8 hours. 

Continued on next page

ANIT Committee vote: An ANTI – animal welfare work

ANIT Committee vote: a missed opportunity failing animals and citizens
3 December 2021
Press Release –Eurogroup for animals 

After eighteen months of work, yesterday the Committee of Inquiry on the Protection of Animals during Transport (ANIT) voted on a series of compromise amendments to its concluding draft report and recommendations.
Despite some positive calls for improvement, the final report’s text, as adopted, fails to address the bulk of the problems, calling for minor improvements rather than supporting a systemic change.

Indeed, despite acknowledging the poor implementation of the current Transport Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005) especially when animal consignments leave the Union, the Committee supports a continuation of live exports beyond the EU, calling for a meat and carcass trade only “when possible”.

Additionally, the text lacks clear language on the need to establish a maximum journey time of 8 hours, utterly disregarding EU citizens’ calls.

While it considers that the transport of unweaned animals should be avoided, unweaned lambs remain basically forgotten by the Committee, which only called for not allowing the transport of unweaned calves below 4 weeks of age.

Eurogroup for Animals was pleased to see that the Committee acknowledged the lack of comprehensive species– specific provisions, and called for ad-hoc provisions to guarantee the welfare of all the animals being transported, including fish, poultry, horses, as well as cats and dogs.

During the past year the Committee organised several hearings and workshops with experts, however the information retrieved seems to have only partially informed the final texts.

The Transport Regulation will soon be revised and for the final vote in January Eurogroup for Animals calls on the European Parliament to step up the ANIT report’s ambition level and reflect citizens views by banning any long-distance transport, refining, replacing and reducing intra-EU transport, and shifting to meat, carcasses and genetic materials for export.

“Despite some good wording on meat and carcasses trade, the committee did not make any call to ban live export.

This is very disappointing, given the evidence the same committee collected thorough hearings, field missions and workshops with experts in the field, and to the severe crisis at sea which happened during its mandate.

Indeed the Committee witnessed the Karim Allah and Elbeik vessels spending three months around the Mediterranean in a bureaucratic limbo which ended with the killing of 2,600 cows.”
(Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals)

With this Inquiry the Members of the European Parliament had the chance to set the basis for a revised Transport Regulation that both meets animal needs and contributes to building a sustainable Europe, in line with the EU Farm to Fork Strategy.

“This cannot happen if long-distance transports are improved rather than banned, and if we continue to allow for the transport of young and pregnant animals over 40% of the pregnancy stage.

We will continue pushing for key changes to ameliorate the worst elements at the time of the vote in Plenary, expected in January 2022. However, as it stands now, this Report is testament to a political divide in the ANIT committee and seriously failing to address the cruelty and tragedies we have been facing for decades.”
(Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals)

https://www.eurogroupforanimals.org/news/anit-committee-vote-missed-opportunity-failing-animals-and-citizens

And I mean..This group has given a statement on their functions and guidelines – which clearly favored the “farm animal model” – with which the group had actually said goodbye to all important requirements of the NGOs in advance.

https://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/committees/committee-inquiry-protection-animals-during-transport

Quote from the statement- “Farmers need to know that the animals they raise will be treated appropriately throughout their lives, so everyone involved in the food chain have to work towards achieving this goal. Any incident has a negative impact, first of all on the animals affected, secondly on those involved in farming and animal care, and finally, on consumers”.

As the ANIT- report makes clear, the abolition of live animal transport is not an issue for the 30 committee members, and we are a long way from limiting animal transport to 8 hours.
As it stands, none of this is fair work for the animals, even if those responsible have tried very hard to justify a hypocritical report as a verified testimony to the welfare of the animals.

It is no wonder that the committee remains loyal to the line and in bondage to its employers.
From the beginning it was a mirage to entrust the committee the welfare of the animals, because a function in the EU apparatus makes a critical look impossible

It’s just about getting the political “priorities” right.
The items are important – what else are the needs of the animals of interest?

My best regards to all, Venus

EU: NGOs and MEPs protest against live animal transports in the EU.

WAV Comment 1345hrs 02/12/21. No further news yet; but we are monitoring this very important issue and will bring you further news when we have it. Regards Mark

Photo: Jane J – Kent, England

NGOs and MEPs protest against live animal transports in the EU

Wednesday, 1 December 2021

A protest action took place on Tuesday in front of the European Parliament ahead of a crucial vote in the European Parliament against live animal transport over long distances and live export.

The action was organised by animal welfare NGOs in Brussels and accompanied by speeches from a a number of MEPs across party lines.

For the past year the Parliamentary Committee of Inquiry on the Protection of Animals during Transport (ANIT) has analysed the implementation of EU rules by member states and the correct enforcement by the European Commission.

The draft Report and relevant recommendations are going to be voted in the Committee on Thursday (2 December) and put forward for adoption by the plenary in January 2022. In the pipeline is also a revision of the Transport Regulation, for which a new legislative proposal is expected in 2023.

Animal welfare NGO Eurogroup for Animals told The Brussels Times that it has been campaigning for decades to stop live transport and has issued a white paper how it should be done in line with recommendations made by the European Food Safety Authority, the World Animal Health Organisation and the Federation of the Veterinarians of Europe.

For the time being, every year over one billion animals are transported in the EU and from the EU to third countries without effective protection. EU has become the world’s biggest live animal exporter, according to the NGOs.

“Over the years we witnessed endless and avoidable suffering: animals crammed on overcrowded and unsuitable trucks and vessels, and animals unfit for transport, such as pregnant, young or injured ones. The tragedies at sea and on the road have given the ANIT Committee plenty of evidence to stop live transport”, commented Reineke Hameleers, CEO, Eurogroup for Animals.

MEP Anja Hazekamp (The LEFT) is Vice Chair of the ANIT Committee and President of the Intergroup on the Welfare and Conservation of Animals. “The way animals are transported in the EU is heart-breaking, devastating and unbelievably brutal and cruel,” she said.  “The investigation of the ANIT Committee confirmed that animals are currently not protected during transport and that changes are urgently needed.”

“I expect from my colleagues in the ANIT Committee that they give a strong message to the European Parliament: long-distance transport, live export and the transport of vulnerable animals, such as unweaned animals, so-called ‘end-of-career’ animals and pregnant animals, must be stopped,” she added.

Live animal transports are extremely important from an animal welfare viewpoint, Swedish MEP Emma Wiesner (Renew Europe) told The Brussels Times. “Our patience is running out. Transports take place in poor conditions where the temperature is not regulated, there is not enough space for the animals and they don’t get water during the transport. In addition, the transport distances are far too long.”

Which member states are most in breach of current regulations?

There are many member states that violate current regulations. Romania, Greece and Spain are some that occur relatively frequently. Member states that do not comply with the law must be sued. The European Commission has every legal opportunity to do this, but has repeatedly failed to use this tool.

“In our compromise proposal, we set a limit of eight hours in transport. That is the current limit that already exists in Sweden,” she added.

Is there a majority in the parliament for changes to the legislation and for better compliance with the regulations?

“In the committee of inquiry, there is now a majority behind the compromises and I hope that they will go through. Europe must become better at taking animal welfare seriously. It’s about countries complying with laws and regulations already in place and about the total time that live animals can be transported. We need also to ensure that we control transports that go outside the EU,” MEP Wiesner concludes.

Update: The article has been updated to include an interview with MEP Emma Wiesner.

M. Apelblat
The Brussels Times

Source:

NGOs and MEPs protest against live animal transports in the EU (brusselstimes.com)

WAV Comment:

EU: 2/12/21: Time When The EU Should Finally Step Up To The Plate and Introduce Major Reforms For Live Animals In Transport. – World Animals Voice

Regards Mark

EU: 2/12/21: Time When The EU Should Finally Step Up To The Plate and Introduce Major Reforms For Live Animals In Transport.

MEP’s Make Their Voices Heard Against the Live Animal Business.

WAV Comment – I (Mark) have been witnessing and fighting this vile, disgusting, abusive, cruel, abhorrent, insulting bloody business for over 30 years.  December 2nd sees the chance for the EU to start to put something into practice; ie legislation, regarding something it has avoided for so many (too many) years; to now finally make a real legislative issues on live animal transport.

Now, finally, we have so many MEP’s who support change; but it is the non-elected Commission which has the final say.  There will be opposition, we expect that, from the industry and the abusive animal transporters who haul innocents all over the EU, and beyond to third states such as Turkey.

Fingers crossed that 2nd December 21 will be a major turning point for live animal transport across the EU and beyond.

Would I give it another 30+ years of fighting if needed ? – you bet I would.  If the political leaders of the EU were herded into a 3 tier transporter; spent 48 hours crapping and urinating onto each other; without adequate food and water; then you see how quickly the legislation would change !

Now is their chance – lets hope for their benefit, they meet all the demands set out below.  If they don’t, then one has to ask what they are about; certainly not meeting what is required of them by EU citizens.

Regards Mark

On December 2nd the ANIT members can contribute to the building of a truly sustainable transport system by supporting key amendments to the ANIT Report and Recommendations. 

To make sure that human and animal health and welfare will be effectively addressed in the revised Transport Regulation, Eurogroup for Animals urges to:

  • Replace terrestrial farmed animals transport with the export of meat, carcasses and genetic materials to non-EU countries.
  • Introduce species- and category-specific maximum journey times with a maximum travel time of 8 hours for adult bovine, swine, and ovine, and 4 hours for poultry and rabbits.
  • Prohibit the transport of unweaned and pregnant animals (for which 40% of the pregnancy stage has already passed).
  • Introducespecies-specific requirements for the commercial movements of fish and invertebrate, laboratory animals, equidae, cats and dogs.
  • Introduce clear definitions and species-specific rules for the Intra-EU movement of animals, including stricter and centralised systems for the approval of livestock vessels used to move animals within the EU

Continued on next page.

Cat meat in Asia

CAT MEAT – When Central Europeans’ favorite pet ends up on the plate in some countries

Many people around the world can no longer imagine life without the cat as a loyal companion.
In Central Europe, especially in Austria and Germany, the sweet velvet paws have even replaced the dog as the most popular pet.
They enrich our existence with their unmistakable nature, but their individual character and are pampered and looked after by us.

Not so in large parts of southern China, northern Vietnam, Korea and Peru.
There, cat meat is still seen as a natural food and remedy.
The cat has the same status there as dogs, which unfortunately are also consumed.
The keeping and the cruel slaughter of the animals look accordingly.

In southern China and northern Vietnam, cat meat is considered warming in winter.
The cat’s stomach and intestines are eaten, and the meat is often turned into meatballs while the head is thrown away.

According to a market analysis published in February 2020, 8% of the people living in Hanoi have consumed cat meat in their lifetime (!!!)

There are professional cat catchers in the Chinese city of Pukuo.
They regularly transport cats to the southern province of Guangdong, where they have become scarce since they were used as food.

In Korea, cat meat is sometimes cooked into a tonic for nerve pain and joint inflammation, but the meat itself is not very common as a food.

Cat cooking techniques will be demonstrated at the Peruvian Santa Efigenia Festival in a town in La Quebrada in September.

According to a report by “Four Pows” around 10,000,000 cats and dogs are slaughtered in Southeast Asia every year.

Four Pows published the market analysis “The Dog and Cat Meat Trade in Southeast Asia: A Threat to Animals and People” in February 2020 and, together with the “Change For Animals Foundation”, calls on the Vietnamese government to reinstate the previously applicable government laws that have specifically banned the trade in cat meat

In Germany, for example, the consumption of cat meat and its import and export is prohibited by the Food Ordinance, in Austria by the Animal Welfare Act.

In China, a nationwide dog and cat meat ban was enacted in May 2020, but this is hardly controlled, as can be seen from the fact that the largest annual dog massacre, the “Yulin” slaughter festival, took place unmolested despite the ban.

Dogs and cats are still being slaughtered and eaten, although many Chinese are against cats becoming increasingly popular pets and Chinese animal welfare organizations rioting.

Our position on this cruel issue is clear and precise: the slaughter of cats and dogs is globally prohibited and severe penalties are imposed if it is violated.

The same applies to the miserable attitude and lack of appreciation for living animals.
And we make one thing clear in advance: Before some people write that we should rather look at the slaughter of “farm animals” because they are also treated very cruelly, take a close look at our site !!!
We do that again and again because we don’t make any distinction between species.

For us, all animals are the same.
But this article is now devoted to the cat and the cruel ways it is treated in some places.
You can read about other animals in other articles.

We thank you for your understanding and ask you to sign the following petition on this topic:

https://help.four-paws.org/de-DE/stoppe-den-hunde-und-katzenfleischhandel-s%C3%BCdostasien

https://www.facebook.com/marschfuerdietiere/

And I mean…As soon as such articles (mostly accompanied by petitions) appear, the wave of outrage with comments in animal welfare groups immediately begins

They have dedicated themselves to the task of explaining to the Chinese and other Asians that instead of dogs they should finally eat the right animals: cattle, chickens, pigs … just like normal people.
And that’s because we Europeans are firmly convinced that our animal protection laws are way ahead and can therefore dictate to other countries which animals they are allowed to eat.

We often refer to our Animal Welfare Act. And that says:
“Nobody should inflict pain, suffering or harm on an animal without a reasonable cause”.

But the trick is that it is so cleverly worded that, in terms of animal welfare, it is not even worth the ink with which it was signed.
Otherwise, and if we should decide to take it seriously, it would really be forbidden in the end animals to torture and brutally murder in order to eat them.

We reserve the right to decide for ourselves who the “reasonable cause” is.

What does homo sapiens have that other animals don’t?
He has rights! And lots of it. The right of the fittest, for example.

So we use all rights and all kinds of ways to torture animals, to enslave them in order to eat them!
We can destroy any animal because we are stronger.

And we take this right seriously. So serious that we even consider it the duty of the strong to eat the weak ones for a “reasonable reason” (pleasure) under all suffering and torture.
Except for dogs and cats, of course.

It is now a very common fact that the pigs killed here are more intelligent than dogs (not that intelligence has to be a mandatory criterion in order to be murdered or not).
That is why the argument among animal rights activists seems to be particularly widespread that it is not the killing that is criticized, but only the torture. It’s about torturing!
So the outrage gets a rationalization.

In the future, outrages and petitions would completely fall through if Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese … etc would refrain from eating dog meat.
That wouldn’t change the number of animals tortured and eaten, but it would at least be comforting to know that they are now eating the right animals, just like us.

My best regards to all, Venus

USA: Traditional Thanksgiving: Where the “Sacred” and the Profane Intersect.

This is a 3 page post.

WAV Comment:

Thanks as always to supporter friend Stacey at ‘Our Compass’ for sending this link across.

Regards Mark

 

Traditional Thanksgiving: Where the “Sacred” and the Profane Intersect | Our Compass (our-compass.org)

 

Traditional Thanksgiving: Where the “Sacred” and the Profane Intersect

NOVEMBER 29, 2021

“Two turkeys — named Peanut Butter and Jelly — were pardoned by President Biden on Friday during this year’s annual turkey pardoning ceremony.” “I want to take a moment to recognize the brave turkeys that weren’t so lucky, who didn’t get to ride the gravy train to freedom,” Obama said from the Rose Garden in November 2016. “Who met their fate with courage and sacrifice and proved that they weren’t chicken.” 

Continued on next page.
 

Australia: NSW laws criminalising secret recordings of animal cruelty ‘too great a burden on speech’, high court hears.

Source – Guardian, London.

NSW laws criminalising secret recordings of animal cruelty ‘too great a burden on speech’, high court hears | Animal welfare | The Guardian

NSW laws criminalising secret recordings of animal cruelty ‘too great a burden on speech’, high court hears

Animal rights group in legal fight against laws which provide no public-interest exemption for use of footage

Laws criminalising the use of secretly recorded vision of animal cruelty and abuse are posing “too great a burden on speech”, animal rights activists have told the high court.

The Farm Transparency Project, an Australian animal advocacy group, launched a case earlier this year arguing New South Wales laws restricting the use of covert footage were an unfair burden on freedom of political communication.

The state’s Surveillance Devices Act criminalises the use of footage or audio that was obtained using a listening device or hidden camera, but, unlike other states, gives no public-interest exemption.

The laws have been used to pursue activists on criminal charges and have prevented media outlets from using footage depicting cruelty or abuse in abattoirs and knackeries across the state.

Guardian Australia was recently prevented from showing secretly recorded footage of ex-racehorses being sent for slaughter at NSW pet food factories, a clear breach of industry rules.

In its written submissions to the high court, the Farm Transparency Project said the case was not about how activists were perceived by the general public.

“It is about the law that is challenged,” it said.

“Whether the plaintiffs are viewed as admirable activists, or vulgar vigilantes, or something in between, is irrelevant. If anything, the case is about the publishers whose freedom to publish is curtailed.”

The submissions point to similar laws in Victoria, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia, which contain carve-outs allowing the use of such footage that accommodates the implied right to freedom of political communication.

“That is essentially because the blanket prohibition is too great a burden on speech, having regard to the legitimate social interests in the publication of surveillance device material, especially to ‘blow the whistle’,” the transparency project argues.

“It is not to be overlooked that vigilantism cannot be condoned. But this is to highlight the importance of careful balancing – in each case – of where the public interest lies, which in turn, highlights the importance of a ‘public interest’ exemption.”

The submissions point to the greyhound live baiting scandal as an example of a public interest served by the publication of such footage. That video helped spark a public inquiry and a finding that the NSW industry had lost its social licence, prompting a proposed ban that was not implemented after a backlash.

‘Horrific scene’: more than 35 horses shot dead on outback Queensland property

Read more

The Farm Transparency Project executive director, Chris Delforce, has said previously the case has broader implications for so-called “ag-gag” laws across the country.

Delforce said challenging the validity of the law would help prevent other jurisdictions from enacting similar blanket bans.

“We’ve had enough – these industries need more transparency, not less,” he said. “The animals suffering in our nation’s farms, slaughterhouses and knackeries deserve to have their stories told, and the Australian public deserves the opportunity to hear them.”

Not all animal rights groups support the use of hidden cameras. The RSPCA is opposed to using unlawful means to fight for animal welfare.

The high court is expected to receive submissions from the NSW government this week, and Farm Transparency Project will be given a chance to reply next month.

Regards Mark

South Korea: Said Last Week It Will Launch a Task Force To Consider Outlawing Dog Meat Consumption – But It Will Not Be Easy To Get There !

FILE - Dogs are seen in a cage at a dog meat farm in Siheung, South Korea, Feb. 23, 2018. South Korea said Thursday, Nov. 25, 2021, it'll launch a government-led task force to consider outlawing dog meat consumption, about two months after the country's president offered to look into ending the centuries-old eating practice. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon, File)
FILE – Dogs are seen in a cage at a dog meat farm in Siheung, South Korea, Feb. 23, 2018. South Korea said Thursday, Nov. 25, 2021, it’ll launch a government-led task force to consider outlawing dog meat consumption, about two months after the country’s president offered to look into ending the centuries-old eating practice. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon, File)

25/11/21

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea on Thursday said it will launch a task force to consider outlawing dog meat consumption after the country’s president offered to look into ending the centuries-old practice.

Restaurants that serve dog meat are dwindling in South Korea as younger people find dog meat a less appetizing dining option and pets are growing in popularity. Recent surveys indicate more people oppose banning dog meat even if many don’t eat it.

In a statement, seven government offices including the Agriculture Ministry said they decided to launch the group comprising officials, civilian experts and people from related organizations to deliver recommendations on possibly outlawing dog meat consumption. It said authorities will gather information on dog farms, restaurants and other facilities while examining public opinion.

“As the number of families with pet animals has risen rapidly and public interest in animal rights and welfare has grown in our country, there have been increasing voices saying that it’s difficult now to see dog meat consumption as just traditional food culture,” Prime Minister Kim Boo-kyum, the country’s No. 2 official, said ahead of the statement’s release.

The government says the initiative, the first of its kind, doesn’t necessarily guarantee the banning of dog meat. The joint statement noted that “public awareness of the basic right (to eat preferred foods) and animal rights issues are tangled in a complicated manner” when it comes to dog meat consumption.

The seemingly vague stance drew quick protests from both dog farmers and animal rights activists.

Farmers say the task force’s launch is nothing but a formality to shut down their farms and dog meat restaurants, while activists argue the government’s announcement lacks resolve to outlaw dog meat consumption.

Ju Yeongbong, general secretary of an association of dog farmers, accused the government of “trampling upon” the people’s right to eat what they want and farmers’ right to live.

Lee Won Bok, head of the Korea Association for Animal Protection, called the government’s announcement “very disappointing” because it didn’t include any concrete plans on how to ban dog meat consumption.

“We have deep doubt about whether the government has a resolve to put an end to dog meat consumption,” Lee said.

About 1 million to 1.5 million dogs are killed each year for food in South Korea, a decrease from several millions about 10-20 years ago. Thousands of farmers currently raise a total of about 1 million to 2 million dogs for meat in South Korea, according to Ju’s organization.

Ju said the farmers, mostly poor, elderly people, want the government to temporarily legalize dog meat consumption for about 20 years, with the expectation that demand will gradually taper off. Lee said animal rights organizations want a quicker end of the business.

“South Korea is the only developed country where people eat dogs, an act that is undermining our international image,” Lee said. “Even if the K-pop band BTS and the (Korean drama) Squid Game are ranked No. 1 in the world, foreigners are still associating South Korea with dog meat and the Korean War.”

Lee accused many farmers of animal cruelty and other illegal activities when they raise and slaughter their dogs. Ju said that activists “exaggerated” such information, and that it only applies to a small number of farms.

According to Lee, dogs are consumed as food in North Korea, China and Vietnam as well as in South Korea.

In September, President Moon Jae-in, a dog lover, asked during a meeting with the prime minister “if it’s time to carefully consider” a ban on dog meat consumption, sparking a new debate over the issue.

Dog meat is neither legal nor explicitly banned in South Korea.

South Korea to launch task force on banning dog meat | AP News

Regards Mark