WAV Comment – I stumbled across this today; it is from UK press back in April 2020, and is by Juliet – founder of Viva!

Regards Mark

If more of us were vegan, there would be less chance of a pandemic in the future

As our excessive demand for meat and animal products grows, we destroy ever more wildernesses for animal fodder and grazing, bringing wildlife into closer contact with people. And we put ourselves at greater risk

Juliet Gellatley

30 April 2020

Animals transmit infections. Who knew? We did, a long time ago.

In the mid-19th century German pathologist Rudolf Virchow was the first to discover that infectious diseases can be transmitted between animals and humans – coining the term “zoonoses” in 1855.

A century later, in August 1958, the World Health Organisation Expert Committee on Zoonoses met at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. The outcome of the meeting was a stark warning: the prevention, control and eradication of these diseases were “responsibilities of considerable magnitude in every country”.

Fast forward to today and the world is in the grips of the worst global pandemic for generations. Covid-19 – like SARS, bird flu, swine flu and Ebola – originated in animals.

Three in four of the world’s new or emerging infectious diseases are zoonotic. These diseases are responsible for some 2.7 million deaths per year and are largely transmitted through the wildlife trade and factory farming. Despite knowing the dangers for over 150 years, we continue to put ourselves at risk of devastating outbreaks.

Cramming animals together in markets and subjecting them to intensive farming practices creates a breeding ground for disease. Today some two thirds of all farm animals are kept in factory farms where infections can spread with ease between animals, mutate and become infectious to humans.

As our excessive demand for meat and animal products grows, we destroy ever more wildernesses for animal fodder and grazing, bringing wildlife into closer contact with people. And we put ourselves at greater risk. This is no longer just a matter of animal welfare, it’s a global public health crisis too.

The coronavirus pandemic has inspired thousands to speak up against the unregulated movement of wild animals, ignited calls for stricter controls at airports and brought global attention to the barbaric cruelty of wet markets, all in a bid to prevent future outbreaks. But the most impactful solution is to stop the spread of these diseases at their source by putting an end to our consumption of meat and dairy.

Cramming animals together in markets and subjecting them to intensive farming practices creates a breeding ground for disease. Today some two thirds of all farm animals are kept in factory farms where infections can spread with ease between animals, mutate and become infectious to humans.

As our excessive demand for meat and animal products grows, we destroy ever more wildernesses for animal fodder and grazing, bringing wildlife into closer contact with people. And we put ourselves at greater risk. This is no longer just a matter of animal welfare, it’s a global public health crisis too.

The coronavirus pandemic has inspired thousands to speak up against the unregulated movement of wild animals, ignited calls for stricter controls at airports and brought global attention to the barbaric cruelty of wet markets, all in a bid to prevent future outbreaks. But the most impactful solution is to stop the spread of these diseases at their source by putting an end to our consumption of meat and dairy.

But the most important lesson doesn’t stem from this outbreak alone. It’s the culmination of our history, which has been blighted by preventable outbreaks of lethal diseases spread from animals to humans, and our collective decision not to act.

We’ve known the risks for almost two centuries. Too many lives have been lost. The solution is at our fingertips: it’s time to go vegan now.

Juliet Gellatley is director of Viva! a charity campaigning for a vegan world

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-vegan-animal-rights-risk-grazing-wet-markets-a9492236.html

Old WAV posts:

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/08/13/justice-for-regan-russell-the-lie-industry-of-the-animal-transport-mafia/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/09/14/new-music-video-by-vegan-band-scarlet-rescue-debuting-september-17th-honors-slain-animal-rights-activist-regan-russell/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/07/25/obituary-regan-russell/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/07/08/usa-canada-2-us-pigs-saved-from-factory-farm-in-the-name-of-canadian-activist-regan-russell/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/06/23/the-murder-of-regan-russell/

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/06/20/the-longtime-activist-reagan-russel-was-killed-while-protesting/

NEW DOC SHINES A LIGHT ON THE KILLING OF ANIMAL ACTIVIST REGAN RUSSELL

New Doc Shines a Light on the Killing of Animal Activist Regan Russell

Award-winning vegan filmmaker Shaun Monson’s new film, There Was A Killing, tells the story of Canadian animal rights activist Regan Russell, who was struck and killed by a pig transport truck while attending a Toronto Pig Save vigil in June. But the documentary is about more than just this tragedy; it’s about starting a conversation.

Russell, a decades-long fighter for animal rights, spent her last moments giving compassion to baby pigs on their way to slaughter. Footage from that day shows her—full head of white hair, black shirt, and blue jeans—carrying a spray bottle, which she used to give water to the pigs.

More than a month after Russell’s death, the police cited the truck driver with a non-criminal charge of Careless Driving Causing Death. The charge drew outrage among the animal rights community. “I just felt there was this cover-up. Or they were brushing it aside or dismissing it. And that began to nag at me,” Monson tells LIVEKINDLY about his initial desire to make the film.

After watching the cell phone footage, taken by activists attending the vigil, Monson says he was left feeling even more confused. “I’m thinking, how do we only have four minutes from this event? There was very little footage from the day,” he explains. “And it just felt like this haunting mystery. There’s something off. And I felt a little bit like a detective and I had to explore.”

Making Impact-Driven Films

Monson’s no stranger to making these kinds of documentaries. He wrote, produced, and directed 2005’s Earthlings and 2015’s Unity, among others. The former goes in-depth into the day-to-day practices of industrial factory farms around the world. The latter analyzes the destructive relationships humans have with each other, animals, and the planet.

But, according to Monson, making an impact-driven film that resonates with the audience isn’t easy. And a chance meeting with Academy Award-winning director James Cameron fueled Monson to tell harrowing stories like Russell’s in a way that makes people want to see them.

“I met him a couple of years ago here in L.A. at Crossroads—a vegan restaurant. I had on a t-shirt that said “Eat What Elephants Eat,” Monson explains. The shirt caught the attention of Cameron, who’s been plant-based for nearly a decade. “He says, ‘Hey, I like your shirt.’ And so we start talking,” Monson says.

He was blown away when Cameron told him he had seen Earthlings. Monson jokingly asked: “You saw it all the way through?” (The footage shown in the film of how factory farmed animals are treated is gruesome, to say the least.)

“He kind of puts his arm around me. And for a moment I thought: ‘Wow, I’m about to get the secrets of Hollywood filmmaking.’ He says: ‘Let me tell you something. Whenever I make a movie, I do two things. One: I make a movie that people want to see. Two: I put a message in it,” Monson recalls. “And then he pays me this really high praise. He says ‘The message in your film is probably one of the best messages I’ve ever seen.’ And then he leans in close and he goes: ‘But nobody wants to see it.’”

Monson continues: “And he’s right because it’s not like people are running out to get a bucket of popcorn to watch this kind of stuff. They just aren’t, you know?”

After spending more than 20 years making documentaries, Monson says he started to consider how to reach a larger audience. “I just had one of the biggest filmmakers in the world lean over and spend 20 minutes talking about how to reach more people.”

Gaining An Audience

So, how do you make a film about a tough topic that people actually want to see? According to the filmmaker, you’ve got to make it in a way that will get viewers emotionally invested.

“A film is such a powerful medium. Why can’t a film change something?” Monson continues: “It’s a classic statement of a picture’s worth 1,000 words. If you look at what happened with George Floyd, unlike other unjust, corrupt deaths, they weren’t being documented. But when someone films for 8.5 minutes straight—just films the whole thing, it creates this visceral emotional reality. It’s almost like it’s not secondhand information.”

And There Was A Killing certainly provides a wealth of information: It interweaves video evidence along with eyewitness testimony. It provides interviews with attorneys Robert Monson, Lisa Bloom, and David Simon. And it features a former animal truck driver’s perspective on the day’s tragic events. For all intents and purposes, the film appears to accomplish its goal: It makes people think.

Monson hopes his new film will help bring Russell’s case to the court of public opinion. | Provided by Shaun Monson

Raising Awareness For Animals

Monson explains that he believes people are, overall, basically decent—even though there are exceptions to this rule. “They’re just not informed,” he says. “And so it’s almost like you have people that are asleep. And then you have people whose eyes are sort of fluttering open a little. And then you have people that are sort of sleepwalking. And then you have awake people. And the idea is for all of us to be awake—not to be sleepwalking, not to be eyes fluttering, and certainly not to be asleep.”

Through his films, Monson wants to awaken people to the impact they have on animals and the planet.

And Monson hopes There Was A Killing will help bring Russell’s case to the court of public opinion. He also wants the film to raise awareness for ag-gag laws—which seek to silence whistleblowers from exposing the horrors of the animal agriculture industry.

On the day of her death, Russell had been protesting Canadian ag-gag Bill 156—which the government enacted into law just one day before she was killed. Monson says he thinks her case will be a case of first impression—one that has never been decided by a governing jurisdiction.

“It’ll be the first time that law is now being put to trial to see if it’s eventually constitutional. And so attorneys later study case laws. That’s why in the States we have Roe v. Wade,” he explains. “Roe v. Wade is a case study. It isn’t a statute. It’s a case study. Both are very important. So that’s the power of a documentary is that it might challenge a law statute. And then a case can come out of that. And then a case law may change the law.”

Monson also hopes the film will inspire others to be more compassionate.

“And that’s my hope: That more people will maybe see these kinds of messages. And they can have a positive effect. Because I don’t know how to write books. I don’t start organizations. I don’t have a sanctuary. I don’t know what else I have to offer except films,” Monson continues. “Ultimately, all you can do is provide the information to people, hope that they watch it, hope that they actually press play and look at it. And then it’s really up to them.”

“I always say we’re like gardeners, and we’re just casting seeds,” Monson says. “And sometimes those seeds fall in rich soil. And sometimes it’s stony ground. But we keep casting seeds out just to have a positive effect in this world.”

There Was A Killing is now available to stream here. To learn more about Regan Russell visit www.JusticeForReganRussell.org.

WAV Comment: 

Wow! – that’s breaking news – the wonderful EU struggles to hold member states to account for animal transport breaches.  What with all the evidence we have presented to them; the very them; regarding breaches of transport rules over the last 25+ years; what is changing ?

As we have always said, they are utterly useless’ and as Claire Bury says; they (EU) are not able to ban the trade.  Why not we ask ? – could it be the big money made from live exports into EU coffers ? – ie putting finance before animal welfare ? – certainly seems that way.

And now we hear MEPs ‘voice concern’ about the injury and suffering caused to animals during transport across Europe.

We say; put them all into one livestock transporter and haul them from Scotland to Southern Italy.  We bet the rules would be changed pretty quickly after that.  As the EU can do nothing; probably better to shut it (the EU) all down and go back to individual member states and regulations. 

Anything would be better than this ‘we can do nothing’ yukspeak put out by EU ‘importants’ (or so they think they are !).

EU struggles to hold Member States to account over animal transport breaches

30 October 2020

MEPs voice concern about the injury and suffering caused to animals during transport across Europe.

A senior commission official has admitted it is currently “impossible” to ban the controversial trade in live animals.

Speaking to parliament’s newly created special animal welfare committee, Claire Bury, Deputy Director-General of Health and Food Safety at the Commission, sympathised with MEPs who voiced concern about the injury and suffering caused to animals during transport across Europe.

She said everything was being done to ensure hauliers comply with current regulations but conceded, “We are not able to ban this at present.”

But, in response to growing calls for a ban on exports of live animals, she revealed that the Commission plans to revise existing legislation on animal transportation.

Read more at source

The Parliament Magazine

New analysis of live export ships shows there is still a high risk to animals – SAFE

29 October 2020

New analysis from The Guardian has found that live export ships are twice as likely to be lost at sea as cargo vessels.

SAFE Campaigns Manager Bianka Atlas said the growing evidence supports what SAFE has been saying for years.

“It is clear that the live export trade places the lives of animals and humans at an unacceptable risk,” said Atlas

Livestock carrier Yangtze Fortune is expected to arrive at Napier Port on Wednesday 4 November. This is will be the first export of live animals since the sinking of Gulf Livestock 1 in September.

The Yangtze Fortune’s arrival next week is estimated and subject to change, but the animal rights organisation SAFE will be protesting regardless.

“It’s only been two months since we lost 5,867 cows and 2 of our own people in the Gulf Livestock 1 tragedy and now we have another ship leaving from that same Port,” said Atlas.

“The reality is, all of these animals, who are exported for breeding purposes, will eventually be slaughtered in their destination country, potentially by methods outlawed in New Zealand.”

“Ending live export should be at the top of Jacinda Ardern’s agenda when she forms her new cabinet.”

Click on this link for the Guardian article:

https://worldanimalsvoice.com/2020/10/29/live-animal-exports-exclusive-livestock-ships-twice-as-likely-to-be-lost-as-cargo-vessels/

Above – Carcasses line a beach after a livestock carrier loaded with 5,000 cows capsized at Vila do Conde port in northern Brazil in 2015. Photograph: Reuters

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/28/exclusive-livestock-ships-twice-as-likely-to-be-lost-as-cargo-vessels

Exclusive: livestock ships twice as likely to be lost as cargo vessels

Billion-dollar export trade puts lives of animals and crew at greater risk of ‘total loss’ through faulty design and inexperience

Ships carrying live animals are at least twice as likely to suffer a “total loss” from sinking or grounding as standard cargo vessels, the Guardian has found.

In the past year alone there have been two disasters involving animals in transit. Last November, at least 14,000 sheep drowned after the Queen Hind capsized en route to Saudi Arabia from Romania. And last month, Gulf Livestock 1, a carrier transporting almost 6,000 cattle, sank off the Japanese coast en route to China from New Zealand. Forty crew members remain missing and are presumed dead.

“With the Guardian’s shocking findings … [it’s] time for an open and honest assessment of an industry that has caused one crisis after another,” said Prof Kristen Stilt, director of Harvard’s animal law & policy program, currently writing a book about the transport of live animals. “That assessment should recognise that the transport of chilled and frozen meat is the way that nearly all meat travels in commerce today. The idea of sending live animals is a holdover from a bygone era.”

The global live export trade is worth nearly £16bn. For decades, campaigners have been calling on the EU to provide better protections for animals in transit, and an inquiry into the regulatory system is under way.

According to Guardian analysis, between January 2010 and December 2019 five livestock vessels were recorded as lost to sinking or irrevocable grounding, killing crew and animals. The total equates to just over 3% of the estimated 150 livestock carriers above 100 gross tonnes (GT) known to operate worldwide. The 100 GT measurement is used by the shipping industry to separate smaller vessels, often owned for pleasure, from larger, more probably commercial, ones.

The same loss calculation for the global cargo fleet of about 61,000 ships over 100 GT, shows that 471 vessels within that tonnage (excluding tugs, dredgers, fishing and passenger vessels), were lost to sinking or grounding in the same period – or less than 1%.

The Guardian’s risk calculations are based on historical data from insurer Allianz Global Corporate and Specialty’s Safety and Shipping Review 2020, analyst IHS Markit and the International Maritime Organization.

If the loss figure for livestock vessels expands to include two more vessels, sunk in December 2009 and September 2020, just outside the 10 years covered by the Allianz shipping safety report, used as a basis for the calculation, then the figure rises to 4.7%.

Select Page 2 below to continue reading more.

The implementation of a new law that would have reduced the number of cattle permitted on live export ships sailing from Australia has been put on hold.

Key points:

• A change to animal welfare laws that would mean fewer livestock on vessels has been delayed
• Exporters and former Agriculture Minister Bridget McKenzie have questioned the science behind the new rules
• ·         The RSPCA has rejected those concerns, saying the “science is clear”

Days before new animal welfare laws were expected to come into effect, Agriculture Minister David Littleproud has changed the rules to allow exporters to continue to load cattle at existing stocking densities.

In a statement on Tuesday evening, the Department of Agriculture, Water and Environment said Mr Littleproud had decided to make last-minute amendments that would be in place until April 30 next year.

The decision comes after changes to the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (ASEL) were announced in April following a Federal review sparked by footage of the Awassi Express carrying dead and distressed Australian sheep to the Middle East in April, 2018.

The new ASEL stocking density rule was expected to come into effect on November 1 and would have required more space to be provided for each head of cattle exported.

The ABC understands the changes announced today only relate to cattle and do not include sheep.

The Australian Livestock Exporters Council said the changes amounted to a 17 per cent increase in the space allocated for cattle.

In the case of exports to Indonesia, for example, a vessel that would typically carry 5,000 cattle would be reduced to carrying 4,300.

The Northern Territory Livestock Exporters Association (NTLEA) told ABC Rural the reduced stocking density rules had been “tweaked” and would not apply during a trial period.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-27/live-exporters-win-reprieve-on-new-stocking-densities/12817910

 

‘Audition period’

NTLEA chief executive Will Evans said the reprieve would allow exporters to prove that current stocking densities were delivering good animal welfare outcomes.

Mr Evans said the industry had been told by the Government that the new stocking rate would not be imposed for at least six months, and exporters that maintained low mortality rates would be allowed to continue to export at a higher stocking density.

“It’s essentially an audition period,” Mr Evans said.

“Those exporters who have a rolling average of 0.1 per cent mortality rate or lower will be able to maintain the [current] stocking density.

“But those who don’t will need to go to the new ASEL 3.0 stocking densities.

“So for the next six months, you’ll be able to maintain access to current stocking densities.”It gives us a period to prove what we’re saying is true.”

ASEL 3.0 changes coming to live export industryDownload 4 MB

 

Bulk of recommendations to be adopted

Despite the last-minute change to stocking densities, Mr Evans said other significant changes to the way live animals were shipped under ASEL would commence as planned on November 1.

“Out of the 49 recommendations, one of those was about stocking densities,” he said.”The other 48 recommendations are coming into effect next week. “So there will be changes to how many stockmen are on vessels, changes to bedding, changes to the time we have cattle in registered premises.

“It’s an enormous regulatory change that’s coming in next week, it’s the biggest regulatory change to the industry since [the Exporter Supply Chain Assurance System] in 2011.”

Cattle exporters had previously suggested introducing the changes would cost the industry as much as $40 million a year.

Former minister questions science

At a Senate Estimates hearing last week, former Agriculture Minister Bridget McKenzie said the new ASEL stocking density was based on “loose science”.

Speaking to officials from the Department of Agriculture Water and Environment, Ms McKenzie said the change would mean as many as 130,000 fewer Australian cattle were sold into South East Asia.

“There isn’t a robust body of science available to us right now to be making these decisions,” she said.”[The standards are] not fit for purpose, for our industry, our place in the world, our markets.” The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which has lobbied for an end to the live export trade, described Ms McKenzie’s appearance at Estimates as disappointing and feared a potential policy shift.

“The science is clear around stocking density reduction for cattle on these voyages,” RSPCA spokesman Jed Goodfellow said.

“This is simply about giving animals a little bit more space so they can lie down during the voyages, which sometimes take over two weeks, to give them further space to access food and water troughs.

“I hope Minister Littleproud will stand strong on these reforms that he himself has overseen and introduced.”

Mr Littleproud’s office has been contacted for comment.

 

New investigation reveals the systematic disguise of routes for live transport of German calves to the Middle East

28 October 2020

Animals International

An investigation carried out by Animals International and Animal Welfare Foundation (AWF) and broadcasted by SWR reveals that despite the current ban in place, German animals end up in Third Countries’ abattoirs. Eurogroup for Animals urges the EU to stop the export of animals to non-EU countries and to prepare a strategy to shift to meat/ carcasses only trade.

New footage from Eurogroup for Animals’ member Animals International filmed the brutal slaughter of German cattle in a Lebanese slaughterhouse. The two cattles identified in the footage were just three weeks old when they left their farms of origin in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden-Württemberg.

The export of cattle to third countries has been largely debated in Germany for many years and the majority of federal countries suspended the long-distance transport to a number of nineteen third countries. However, the transport of live animals from Germany to third countries continue taking place: Indeed, to overcome the restrictions mentioned above the transport routes are very often disguised: the new footage by AWF shows calves being transported on short journeys from Germany to Belgium via a collection point in North Rhine-Westphalia, and then transported via France to Spain, where they were fattened and later shipped to Beirut.

This new investigation also shows that, despite the fact Germany claims of not exporting animals for slaughter to third countries, its animals do end up in third countries abattoirs. In 2019 Animal International entered a slaughterhouse in Lebanon, showing how animals coming from the EU were brutally handled and killed.

Eurogroup for Animals and its members urge the EU to stop the export of animals to non-EU countries, and to prepare a strategy to shift to a meat and carcasses and genetic material only trade.

Read more at source

SWR