The Horse Slaugher Debate: Is Anyone Debating?

My family and I are horse lovers, we view horses as workers and friends just like ourselves.  I volunteer at a horse theater in Chicago, IL; my husband's cousins own thoroughbreds in Louisville, KY; and my mother's cousins run a horse farm that retires thoroughbreds and working horses in New York state. There's a great deal of care that goes into our horses and their welfare, so when a ban on the slaughter of horse is lifted in the United States we have reason to pause.  The following article as posted on The Atlantic, shows one view of many.

 

The Empathy Test: Why Nobody Cares About Horse Slaughter

By James McWilliams Dec 7 2011, as posted on The Atlantic

Early last week Congress voted to lift the ban on horse slaughter in the United States. The act has surely sent legions of horse lovers into deep depression. But the message I'm hearing from many advocates in the animal welfare world is that this decision will benefit domestic horses.

As it turns out, the most common destination for U.S. horses deemed ready for slaughter was Mexico, where slaughterhouse regulation is weak. Horses killed in the United States, I'm told, will assuredly be better off than if they'd been killed in Mexico. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), partially in deference to this logic, agrees. And as the matter is now framed, so do I.

But what I find especially disturbing is the frame. As a culture that's becoming increasingly serious about the ethics of eating, why are we more concerned with discussing where an animal should be slaughtered than whether it should be slaughtered at all? Such an ethical bypass is a stark reminder of how impoverished our thinking about the place of animals in our diet remains. The goal of this essay is thus not so much to elaborate on Congress' decision per se, but to expand the framework in which it was made and, in turn, see how the picture changes.

To do so, we might consider ducks. A significant number of ethically concerned consumers deem foie gras nothing short of a diabolical slice of suffering. Famous chefs have sworn off the stuff, and I wish I had a dime for every omnivore I know who opposes foie gras on ethical grounds. This opinion prevails despite humanity's remote relationship with the duck -- we've never worked or lived closely with these creatures, nor do we care for them as companion animals. Nonetheless, we're somehow vehement about protecting one of their internal organs.

This position stands in obvious contrast to the collective yawn we just let out upon hearing the big news that the domestically-slaughtered horse -- an animal with whom we've plowed fields, colonized continents, waged war, rode to victory, and (with thankful rarity) buggered --may be coming to a meat counter near you.

So, the question: Why do so many people consider duck liver bad but horse meat OK? The most common response to this disparity will likely be that it's the the way an animal is raised that matters when it comes to the ethical consumption of animal products. Ducks suffer when tubes are shoved down their throats to swell their livers, but horses can lead a good life and die peacefully in an abattoir. This argument is flawed.

To continue reading, visit The Atlantic here: http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/12/the-empathy-test-why-nobody-cares-about-horse-slaughter/249559/

Spotlight: Let's Move and Creating Healthy Communities

Let's Move is an initiative of First Lady Michelle Obama to lower the obesity rate in America's children.  The following is an excerpt from their website about their Healthy Communities program.

"Lack of access to proper nutrition is one reason why many children are not eating the recommended levels of fruits, vegetables and whole grains.

More than 23 million Americans, including 6.5 million children, live in low-income urban and rural neighborhoods that are more than a mile away from a supermarket. These communities, where access to affordable, quality, and nutritious foods is limited, are known as "food deserts."

Hunger among our children is even more widespread. A recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report showed that in 2008, an estimated 49.1 million people, including 16.7 million children, lived in households that experienced food insecurity multiple times throughout the year. Too often, these same school age children are not eating the recommended level of fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products. Let’s Move! is committed to helping ensure that all families have access to healthy, affordable food in their communities.

Get started by initiating a conversation about childhood obesity in your community. Bring together everyone who has a role –parents, city offices, faith-based and community-based organizations, schools, parks and recreation departments, businesses, childcare facilities and hospitals. Then, work together to make neighborhoods healthier by creating opportunities for physical activity and access to healthy, affordable food.

With the conversation started, take the next step and become a Let’s Move! City or Town. Every city and every town is different, and each requires a distinct approach to this issue. Let’s Move Cities and Towns emphasizes the unique ability of communities to solve the challenge locally, aided by the crucial leadership of mayors and elected officials to provoke action."

For more information on Let's Move visit: http://www.letsmove.gov/healthy-communities#



Meatpackers VS. Small Ranchers, The Debate Continues

If one of the only industries left in the United States is our food are we paying a fair price for our local economies?  Are we paying a fair price for our meat? Some of these questions are addressed in Tom Laskawy's article below.

Killing the Competition: Meat Industry Reform Takes a Blow

by Tom Laskawy

published on Grist, November 9, 2011

"One of the least-discussed but most promising attempts at food system reform was dealt a serious blow the other day. The USDA itself eviscerated its proposed reform to a set of rules which would have given a government division with a wonky name–the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA)–authority to crack down on the way large corporate meatpackers wield power over small and mid-sized ranchers.
To say this was a lost opportunity is a vast understatement. After all, the top four companies control 90 percent of all beef processing. In the case of pork, four companies control 70 percent of the processing, while for poultry it’s nearly 60 percent. When you get that kind of market power,* abuse becomes rampant. Indeed, ranchers all around the country now agree that it’s impossible for them to get a fair price for livestock.

And it’s not just the ranchers who hold that opinion. As hard as it is to believe, back in 2008, a group of farm-state senators inserted language into that year’s Farm Bill that forced the USDA to address the unfairness in livestock markets.

The existing livestock laws date back to 1921–when the government first identified the need to level the playing field for smaller ranchers–but since then it has been observed almost entirely in the breach (i.e. not so much at all). But in 2009, USDA Chief Tom Vilsack called in reform-minded lawyer Dudley Butler to head the division in charge of livestock markets. Butler declared that he was coming to Washington ”to enforce the Packers and Stockyards Act.” Not fix, mind you, enforce. And some would say for the first time.

All of this effort is to halt what has been called the “chickenization” of the rest of the livestock industry. As reporter Stephanie Ogburn explained in an in-depth report for the High Country News, that we ran here at Grist, the poultry industry is run in such a way that allows single companies to own every step of the process (also known as “vertical integration”), while farmers get locked into lose-lose contracts. As Ogburn wrote:

90 percent of all poultry in the U.S. is now raised by growers who don’t own the birds or negotiate basic terms like price per pound …
Many chicken farmers these days are forced, contractually, to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in chicken houses that meet ever-changing packer specifications.

If anything goes wrong, as it often does, it’s the farmer who’s left holding the bag chickens with no recourse from the meatpackers. If things remain as they are, that kind of indentured servitude represents the future for most beef and pork growers. All the power will remain with a handful of massive corporate behemoths, and ranchers will be glorified hired help taking on all the risk and getting little or no reward.

Believe it or not, the USDA’s Vilsack and Butler came through last year with strong new proposed rules to protect smaller producers that would have changed all that. The draft rule garnered support from many quarters — including the typically Big Ag-friendly American Farm Bureau–and prompted the moderate ag lobbying group the National Farmers Union to refer to it approvingly as “the Ranchers Bill of Rights.”

Of course, the rule soon came under withering assault from the meatpacking industry, which commissioned a study designed to prove that the new rule would cost a ludicrous $14 billion and 104,000 jobs. Meanwhile, no mention was made of how many jobs might be saved by the rule–cattle ranching alone has shed 650,000 jobs over the last 30 years, while the number of hog farms dropped by 170,000 between 1992 and 2004, which can only have cost jobs.

The meatpackers also convinced Congress to hold a series of hearings packed with pro-Big Ag witnesses while House Republicans attempted to defund USDA work on the rule entirely (just recently foiled by the Senate). In short, the industry was hell-bent to kill this reform. That alone should tell you how important it was."


Continue reading the full article article at Grist
http://www.grist.org/factory-farms/2011-11-09-killing-the-competition-meat-industry-reform-takes-a-blow

You and Your Bird

If you don't want to know how your Thanksgiving bird was raised, do not read the following. But, there are alternatives to tradition. Contemplate a buying a turkey from a local farmer for your meal either this or next year. A great site to start looking for Thanksgiving bird or Christmas ham is Local Harvest.

Heritage Turkeys For A New Breed of Eaters

by bmazurek

"“Heritage” has become a buzzword for discriminating home cooks wondering what bird should grace their Thanksgiving dinner table this season. But while conventional supermarket turkeys cost about $1.50 per pound, heritage turkeys can fetch up to $10 per pound, a considerable price difference that raises eyebrows for many shoppers. So, what’s all the fuss about?

Bill and Nicolette Hahn Niman of BN Ranch in Bolinas, California, have made a point of educating eaters about the value of heritage turkeys, as well as the hidden costs of commodity turkey farming. “I want people to understand the difference and why it costs more,” says Nicolette Hahn Niman, who is also an environmental lawyer and author of the book Righteous Porkchop. “Obviously, they can make their own choice, but it’s an informed choice.”

To understand why heritage birds command a higher price, you have to know that it’s not just a different breed you’re paying for. It’s the additional time and care they take to raise and the fact that heritage turkeys tend to be raised more humanely than conventional turkeys, with space to roam and access to pasture.

According to the USDA, Americans eat about 45 million turkeys for Thanksgiving each year, 99 percent of which are Broad Breasted Whites. These birds have been bred for a heavy breast and rapid growth. As a result, they experience a myriad of health and mobility issues as they mature, including the inability to fly and, in some cases, walk. They cannot mate naturally, so breeders must use artificial insemination for reproduction. In short, if left to nature, the modern turkey would not survive.

Your typical Thanksgiving turkey is raised in a high-density confinement facility, in which it endures overcrowding, poor sanitation, and lack of access to outdoor space. The waste from these industrial operations places a heavy environmental toll on the surrounding landscape. But a growing number of ranchers are raising birds in a more sustainable way."

To continue reading about Heritage Turkeys, follow this link to the Civil Eats blog.
http://civileats.com/2011/11/17/heritage-turkeys-for-a-new-breed-of-eaters/

If you would really love to learn more about the treatment of your bird.  Read this article from Civil Eats blog. http://civileats.com/2011/11/10/the-truth-about-turkey/ 

USDA: 'Locally Grown' Food A $4.8 Billion Business

We may have seen a downturn in our local economies but our local food economies are continuing to grow.  As posted by The Associated Press, locally grown food is a 4.8 billion dollar business.  We all know the value of keeping our dollar in our communities so go out and support your local farmers by buying at Farmers Markets, CSAs (Community Support Agriculture) and Co-ops. It may be winter in the States but  many farmers have adapted hoop houses and winter harvesting/ storage methods in order to keep their produce in your market. Do a quick internet search for indoor farmers markets in your area, try Local Harvest; and if that produces no results call your city/ town's chamber of commerce for help in finding local farmers and businesses who could use your patronage.

"A new U.S. Department of Agriculture report says sales of "local foods," whether sold direct to consumers at farmers markets or through intermediaries such as grocers or restaurants, amounted to $4.8 billion in 2008. That's a number several times greater than earlier estimates, and the department predicts locally grown foods will generate $7 billion in sales this year.

While there's plenty of evidence local food sales have been growing, it has been hard to say by how much because governments, companies, consumers and food markets disagree on what qualifies as local. The USDA report included sales to intermediaries, such as local grocers and restaurants, as well as directly to consumers through farmers markets, roadside stands and the like.

It found that farm sales to people like Anderson have just about doubled in the past two decades, from about $650 million, adjusted for inflation, in the early 1990s to about $1.2 billion these days. The much bigger, $4.8 billion figure came when sales to local restaurants, retailers and regional food distributors were added in."

For the full article, visit: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=142294661