BusinessWire: Eggology Becomes First Egg Products Brand “Certified Humane” By Animal Welfare Auditor, Humane Farm Animal Care

According to Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC), and their partners at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Eggology egg products are humane. There you have it. No reason to go vegan, you crazy animal huggers. Animals like to be killed for trivial reasons, such as the taste of scrambled eggs.

How is anyone supposed to explain that veganism is a moral obligation when HSUS, the ASPCA and HFAC are all saying that eggs can be produced humanely? You certainly can't do it by stating that eggs are inherently inhumane. Why? Because that "radical animal rights organization," HSUS, and other animal lovers say they can be produced humanely; you just gotta follow some simple guidelines...

With certified humane egg products on the market, you'll be hard-pressed to convince the average Joe that an omelette made with Eggology, Hope Acres cheese and Prather Ranch ham is bad for animals. Heck, if you subscribe to the utilitarian point of view, you may be morally obligated to eat this breakfast, since those animal exploiters brought much happiness into the world by breeding, raising and killing those animals so that Average Joe could enjoy his tasty, "humane" breakfast. 

Labels: abolition, activism, animal agriculture, animal ethics, animal welfare, battery cages, eggs, factory farming, happy meat, HSUS, humane meat, Peter Singer, regulation, veg*nism, veganism

I know I haven't posted since Friday. I had a nice dinner at Native Foods, as planned. But, since then, I have been stretched very thin, and some computer issues that have plagued me over the past 30 hours only made matters worse. But you don't visit AAFL for the excuses! You want content! So, without further ado, here's what's been crashing my Safari browser lately (thank goodness for Saft):

World Week for Animals in Labs began Sunday the 22nd. The purpose of this annual event is "to expose the plight of animals used for testing and research. WWAIL seeks to arouse concern for animals in laboratories as well as educate the public about the scientific, moral, and economic objections to animal experimentation, also known as vivisection." To learn what's happening in your area this week, visit the WWAIL website set up by In Defense of Animals.

Perhaps it's a coincidence, but I found it striking that, on the same day that WWAIL began, The Los Angeles Times | West Magazine published a fairly lengthy piece written by J.R. Moehringer from the point of view of Cheeta, a former chimpanzee "actor" who, in all his 75 years, was fortunate to avoid becoming a research subject (yes, 75 years is a very long time for a chimp).

Cheeta Speaks is kind of a fluff piece, but it doesn't shy away from describing the cruelties involved with exploiting animals for entertainment and that's a good thing, especially because many people will no doubt be reading this story with fascination.

On Monday, SignOnSanDiego's Animals get Legislature's attention took a look at the considerable amount of animal legislation being voted on by lawmakers in Sacramento this year. Read the article for analysis and quotes. Below is a sidebar from the article highlighting the bills:

• Spaying and neutering: Requires all dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered at 4 months. Breeders are exempt.


• Farm animals: Requires ranchers to provide space for animals to stand, turn around and spread wings.


• Elephants: Bans the use of bullhooks and chaining. Requires more space and exercise for those in zoos or performing in circuses.


• Condors: Prohibits the use by hunters of lead shot in condor ranges.


• Rodeos: Changes definition of rodeos to require small Mexican-style charreadas to provide an on-call veterinarian during events.


• Restraining orders: Allows judges to add pets to restraining orders issued as part of domestic abuse cases.


• Kangaroos: Authorizes imported kangaroo products, except those made of kangaroo species that are endangered.


• Trapped animals: Requires trappers to inform property owners of nonlethal ways to remove pesky mammals, such as raccoons.

It's a pretty weak lot of welfare-oriented bills, if you ask me, but we can't afford to let pro-animal legislation lose and animal-hostile legislation succeed simply because we'd like to see animal exploitation end altogether. A couple of these measures could offer tangible improvements in the lives of animals while we're working to secure their freedom. If you live in California, you may want to contact your representatives to ensure your views are considered. Do I even need to suggest opposition to authorizing kangaroo product imports?

Earlier this year, The New York Times covered vegan chic. TV is now picking up on the idea that vegan-friendly accessories could be the next wave: Lucky Magazine, with props to Stella McCartney, has introduced The Today Show's viewers to such fashionable brands as Matt & Nat, and stores like Bourgeois Boheme and the West Village's NY Artificial, replacing "the weird-vegan-granola-hippie thing" with the cute-trendy-hip thing.

Let's hope this is not some flash in the pan, but a sign of a long and lasting trend toward compassionate fashion. For more animal-friendly shopping options, please explore the "Links" menu above.

It's not common to hear the deliberate killing of an animal "murder" in print, but here we have it:

"Leopard murder can only be provoked by cowardice or stupidity, in this case most likely by both," Pavel Fomenko, WWF's biodiversity coordinator in Russia's Far East, said in a statement.

The quote can be found in MSNBC.com's One of last members of leopard species killed:

Hunters in Russia's Far East have shot and killed one of the last seven surviving female Amur leopards living in the wild, WWF said on Monday, driving the species even closer to extinction.

Last week environmentalists said there were only between 25 and 34 Amur leopards — described as one of the most graceful cats in the world — still living in the wild.

When people poo-poo you for suggesting there are powerful interests at work to prevent animal cruelty from being exposed, show them this story:

Wyeth was known for strongly defending its drugs from claims of harm. It had rallied for its estrogen replacement and for its half of the fen-phen diet combo. Its veterinary subsidiary, Fort Dodge Animal Health, had sold 18 million doses of Proheart 6, worth tens of millions of dollars. It surely wouldn’t give up without a fight.

Many vets also liked replacing pills with the twice-a-year shot, which put heartworm prevention back into their hands. One vet with ties to Wyeth lectured colleagues about seizing on Proheart 6 as a “hook” to pull in healthy pets for profitable regular exams.

As the FDA meeting unfolded, the company said [Victoria] Hampshire was inflating her side-effect numbers. Things turned nastier when Hampshire said Fort Dodge had previously expressed its own concerns over tumors. Fort Dodge said it hadn’t.

“Either you’re lying, or I’m imagining it,” Hampshire erupted.

Dr. Stephen Sundlof, FDA’s veterinary chief, grabbed her hand under the table, silencing her, Hampshire says. (He didn’t answer messages seeking comment for this story.)

“Tory did not have experience dealing with animal pharmaceutical community people, who are not different than the human pharmaceutical people. They make a lot of money on this stuff. They will never ever admit there’s something wrong,” says Tollefson, who is now FDA’s assistant commissioner for science.

On Sept. 4, 2004, in the face of Hampshire’s damning data, Wyeth ordered all Proheart 6 back from vets — without conceding it was dangerous.

It was perhaps the largest recall ever of a pet drug.

MSNBC.com: Watchdog risked career over pet-drug warning
(It's four pages long, but worth your while)

(Cheeta photograph by Jill Greenberg)

Labels: animal cruelty, animal testing, animal welfare, animals in entertainment, fashion, kangaroos, primates, regulation, wildlife trade

Now this is awesome.

Based on data that determined cheese to be a junk food, UK television regulator Ofcom is introducing rules this month that would ban ads for cheese during children's TV shows, or programs with "a large proportion of child viewers":

The Food Standards Agency used a nutrient profiling model to distinguish junk food from healthy food. The model labelled cheese as more unhealthy than sugary cereals, full fat crisps and cheeseburgers.

The dairy industry is, of course, crying foul, but if they want to market their products properly, they ought be advertising them to calves, the intended recipient of a cow's milk.

Labels: advertising, animal agriculture, cheese, dairy, regulation