Whole Foods

introduces

multi-tiered

animal welfare

certification

AUSTIN, WASHINGTON D.C.––

The 300-store Whole Foods Markets chain

and the Animal Compassion Foundation,

begun by Whole Foods founder John Mackey,

on November 15, 2010 introduced a new sys-

tem of identifying how animals slaughtered

for meat were raised. The first standards are

for pigs, cattle, and chickens raised for meat.

After a trial interval the system is to be

extended to laying hens and dairy animals.

Managed by Global Animal Par-

tnership, an operating name used by the

Animal Compassion Foundation, the tiered

certification system began with more member

producers than all other U.S. farm animal

welfare certification programs combined, just

by including all Whole Foods suppliers. The

program is designed, however, to draw other

producers and retailers into participation.

Global Animal Partnership uses an

acronym, GAP, which already has a high

recognition factor from generic use by agri-

cultural media to designate all programs

Civet at the Wildlife SOS sanctuary in Agra, India. (Kim Bartlett)

Coffee fad revives civet farming

Pigs at pen gate. (Kim Bartlett)

which identify Good Agricultural Practices.

GAP allows consumers to choose

among color-coded steps that indicate pro-

gressively higher levels of animal welfare

achieved by the producers. The color codes

are to be explained by signage displayed with

the labeled products in stores. Products not

reaching Step 1 are not sold by Whole Foods.

The intended entry-level steps 1-3 are identi-

fied by orange strips; steps 4-5 and 5+ are

identified by green strips. Step 1 certification

is to mean “No cages, no crowding”; Step 2

is to mean “Enriched environment”; Step 3 is

to mean “Enhanced outdoor access”; Step 4

requires a “pasture centered” husbandry regi-

men; Step 5 is to mean “Animal centered;

bred for outdoors”; and Step 5+ is to mean

“Animal centered; entire life on same farm.”

The stated goals of the Step 1

requirement parallels the goals of the 2008

California ballot initiative that introduced a

phased-in ban of pig gestation stalls and veal

crating (and battery caging of laying hens,

not yet covered by GAP), but are spelled out

in more detail, with further requirements and

recommendations for producers that point

toward eventually qualifying for more

advanced certification. GAP steps 4-5 and 5+

(continued on page 13)

Cat takes cover. (Eileen Crossman)

DENPASAR, HANOI––Just seven

years after China banned civet farming because

of the association of civet consumption with

more than 800 human deaths from Sudden

Acute Respiratory Syndrome, a vogue for

pricy civet coffee has brought the industry

back perhaps bigger than ever––and certainly

in many more places.

Sold to coffee snobs as kopi luwak,

the Indonesian word for it, civet coffee is

brewed from the beans that civets excrete after

eating coffee berries, one of their favorite

foods. Civet coffee is by reputation stronger

and usually more aromatic than most coffees.

Collecting and salvaging the excret-

ed beans from wild civets is so laborious that

civet coffee, known for centuries, has histori-

cally been so costly to produce as to be con-

sumed only in small amounts by the very rich

and jaded. But civet farming in coffee-grow-

ing country has brought civet coffee within

(continued on page 8)

ANIMAL

PEOPLE

News For People Who Care

About Animals

November/December 2010

Volume 19, #9

Indiana to allow chase pens

I N D I A N A P O L I S––The Indiana

blood sport. We are going to lobby hard

Natural Resources Commission on November

against this,” Central Indiana Kennel Club leg-

16, 2010 voted 9-2 to issue an operating per-

islative liaison Jessie Burkhart told McFeely.

mit to the only coyote and fox chase pen cur-

“This has evolved to take the place

rently in the state, and to prohibit others from

of dogfighting, to satisfy these people who like

starting after January 1, 2012––which leaves

blood sport,” charged Indiana Coyote Rescue

other would-be Indiana chase pen proprietors a

Center founder CeAnn Lambert.

year to begin.

Indiana Veterinary Medical Associ-

The ruling “was technically a prelim-

ation past president Janet Houghton, DVM,

inary approval that sets in motion an extensive

and 11 other Indiana veterinarians co-signed an

public comment period,” explained Dan

open letter to media opposing the Natural

McFeely of the Indianapolis Star. “The final

Resources Commission ruling.

decision is expected within the next year. State

The existing chase pen, at Linton in

Representative Linda Lawson (D-Hammond)

southern Indiana, is reportedly owned by

has already heard from opponents and is plan-

Indiana Beaglers Alliance president Jack

ning to co-author a bill with Representative

Hyden. The Indiana Beaglers Alliance claims

David Cheatham (D-North Vernon) to outlaw

about 200 members.

the enclosures.”

Laura Nirenberg, executive director

“It’s barbaric, and nothing but a

of Wildlife Orphanage in LaPorte, Indiana,

told ANIMAL PEOPLE that she

believes the year-long opening for

additional chase pens to start will

attract operators from other states

where they are now banned or

restricted.

Nirenberg sent A N I M A L

P E O P L E a stack of documents

she obtained through open records

requests to the Indiana Department

(continued on page 11)

Birders push shooting feral cats

Schroeder stating, “The report validates

everything American Bird Conservancy has

been saying about the feral cat issue for many

years.”

Nothing in the release distanced

ABC from the recommendation of report

authors Aaron M. Hildreth, Stephen M.

Vantassel, and Scott E. Hygnstrom that

“Lethal methods, such as trapping with

(continued on page 10)

WASHINGTON

D.C.– – T h e

American Bird Conservancy did not come

right out and say on December 1, 2010 that it

favors shooting and lethally trapping feral

cats. But ABC did issue a media release

steering reporters to a newly published

University of Nebraska at Lincoln extension

service report that made those suggestions.

The release quoted ABC vice pre-

sent for conservation advocacy Darin

Dogs Deserve Better founder Tamira Thayne

from August 2 until October 14, 2010 spent 10 hours

each working day, 52 days in all, chained to the steps

of the Pennsylvania state capitol in Harrisburg to pro -

mote an anti-chaining bill, which died when the leg -

islative session ended.

California, Connecticut, Nevada, and

Texas already limit the length of time that dogs can be

left chained, along with hundreds of municipalities.

Prolonged chaining is believed to make dogs more ter -

ritorial and therefore more dangerous.

About a third of fatal dog attacks on children

are by chained dogs. Brianna Nicole Shanor, 8,

whose photo is on Thayne’s doghouse, was killed by a

chained Rottweiler in Hanover, Pennsylvania, on

January 19, 2009.

A pit bull terrier who broke a chain on

November 10, 2010 killed Kaden Muckleroy, age 2,

of Henderson, Texas. This and other recent pit bull

fatalities in the same area have built support for efforts

by a retired judge to ban pit bulls in Texas.

(Page 16)

2 - ANIMAL PEOPLE, November/December 2010

Editorial feature

The renewed

ANIMAL PEOPLE, November/December 2010 - 3

potential of online petitions

ANIMAL PEOPLE has never circulated a petition, online or otherwise. Yet one of

our frequent functions in recent years is helping to inform and inspire online petition

drives––and, sometimes, to point out that a petition may do more harm than good.

The popularity of petitions as a protest tactic perhaps began with the success of

English nobility in obliging King John to assent to the Magna Carta at Runnymede in June

1215. The Declaration of Independence, addressed by American colonists to King George III,

reinforced the lesson on July 4, 1776. Subsequent petitioners have often lost sight of the two

elements that made these petitions memorably effective. The first was that in either case the

signers were influential constituents of the king whom they sought to persuade. The second

was that their actions had consequence. When John Hancock stepped forward to become first

to sign the Declaration of Independence, his action had moral force because he put more than

just his name on the line. This is what inspired others to add their signatures to his and then

tax themselves heavily to back their words with the effort to introduce a new regime.

Petitions to this day tend to be most effective when the petitioners are people whom

the petition recipient has reason to take seriously, for instance because they might vote the

recipient out of office, and when signing in some manner signifies enduring concern, suffi-

cient to influence a vote or a major economic decision even several years later.

In 1968 the privatization of the U.S. Postal Service changed the nature of petitioning

somewhat by introducing bulk mail discounts––and direct mail fundraising, as we have known

it ever since. Established charities already had mailing lists, but the upstarts who initiated the

animal rights movement did not. As few lists of animal advocates were available for rent and

trade before the early 1980s, the new organizations used petitioning to build mailing

lists––and to this day make heavy use of petitions in donor acquisition mailings.

Whatever a mass-mailed petition achieves toward changing public policy came to be

secondary in import to developing a support base. Petitions evolved to much less often men-

tion specific current legislation, and came to be worded more to attract names and addresses

than to actually influence the petition recipients.

But the strategic approaches of the Magna Carta and Declaration of Independence

were not altogether forgotten. Usually seeking to build national mailing lists, direct mail peti-

tioners almost exclusively address federal issues, so that the same text can be used in every

state. In addition, combining petition-based list-building with appealing for donations tends to

get respondents to make a monetary gesture of commitment. This is a matter of interest to

politicians. A mere list of names of people who mostly do not vote in a politician’s district

may not impress a politican, but a list of donors whose money might be pooled to make or

break the politician’s re-election bid requires consideration.

The introduction of the Internet and the World Wide Web expanded the focus of peti-

tioners to collecting e-mail addresses, but for a decade or more online petitioning was mostly

done much like direct mail petitioning. The speed and reach of electronic media enabled peti-

tioners to increase exponentially the numbers of endorsements they attracted. Yet, because

“signing” an electronic petition requires only a mouse-click, and until recently was relatively

seldom accompanied by financial commitment, petitioning came to be devalued as a campaign

tactic. Indeed, petition targets can quickly use a “merge/purge” program to compare the

names on an electronic petition with their customer and constitutent lists to see whether the

signers have any real leverage––and usually most do not. Electronic petitions would not have

fazed Kings John and George III.

Then came the Care2 Petition Site and Facebook petitions, enabling almost anyone

to collect tens of thousands of signatures from around the world almost overnight. The Care2

Petition Site and Facebook have democratized electronic petitioning, and brought it back to

the local level, too. Suddenly there is an inexpensive, practical way for petitioners to address

state and local concerns in a very specific manner.

Even more recently, Facebook pages linked to the Network for Good donation pro-

cessing site often help to fund the local campaigns that the petitions support.

Years after spam filters threatened to kill online petitioning, there are more online

petitions from more organizations and individual activists than ever––and online petitioning is

more effective than ever, when used to rally actual constituents of power-holders in a manner

SEARCHABLE ARCHIVES: www.animalpeoplenews.org

ANIMAL PEOPLE

News for People Who Care About Animals

Published by Animal People, Inc.

President & Administrator:

Kim Bartlett – anpeople@whidbey.com

Editor: Merritt Clifton – anmlpepl@whidbey.com

Web producer: Patrice Greanville

Newswire monitor: Cathy Young Czapla

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236-0960

ISSN 1071-0035. Federal I.D: 14-1752216

Telephone: 360-579-2505. Fax: 360-579-2575.

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

Copyright © 2010 for the authors, artists, and photographers.

Reprint inquiries are welcome.

ANIMAL PEOPLE: News for People Who Care About Animals is published

nine times annually by Animal People, Inc., a nonprofit, charitable corporation dedicated

to exposing the existence of cruelty to animals and to informing and educating the public of

the need to prevent and eliminate such cruelty. Donations to Animal People, Inc. are tax-

deductible. Financial information on Animal People, Inc. and other charities can be

accessed at <www.guidestar.org>

Subscriptions are $24.00 per year; $38.00/two years; $50/three years.

Executive subscriptions, mailed 1st class, are $40.00 per year or $70/two years.

The ANIMAL PEOPLE Watchdog Report on Animal Protection Charities,

updated midyear, is $25.

ANIMAL PEOPLE never sells names and addresses of subscribers and donors

to other charities or to businesses. Very infrequently we do give other animal welfare orga-

nizations permission to use our mailing list on a one-time basis to send information about

their programs. If you are an ANIMAL PEOPLE subscriber or donor and do not wish to

receive material from other animal charities, you may so indicate by writing to us at the

postal address or emailing <anpeople@whidbey.com>.

ANIMAL PEOPLE is mailed under Bulk Rate Permit #2 from Clinton,

Washington, and Bulk Rate Permit #408 from Everett, Washington.

The base rate for display advertising is $9.50 per square inch of page space.

Please inquire about our substantial multiple insertion discounts.

The editor prefers to receive queries in advance of article submissions; unsolicit-

ed manuscripts will be considered for use, but will not be returned unless accompanied by

a stamped, self-addressed envelope of suitable size. We do not publish fiction or poetry.

that shows authentic understanding of the issues and signifies continuing commitment.

Checking a box on an electronic petition e-mailed to a politician that requests

updates about whatever the petition recipient does to redress a grievance may not impress most

politicians as much as receiving a campaign donation, but does give the politicians a coveted

addition to their electronic mailing lists and puts them on notice that action is expected.

The requirements of successful electronic petitioning are really much the same as the

requirements of successful activism using any other tactic, and have not changed since

Runnymede. An effective petition must address the people who have the authority to make the

requested change. The requested change must be feasible. The requested change must be

thought through, so that introducing it does not create a more serious problem than it rectifies.

The petition must be both timely and factually accurate. Most important, the recipient must

perceive both positive and negative consequences that might result from either acting upon the

advice of a petition or dismissing it. Though King John had his kingdom to lose at

Runnymede, he also had the possibility of winning back the political support of the English

nobility: he was not in the position of having everything to lose, nothing to gain, and there-

fore no reason to refrain from ordering that the petition-bearers be beheaded.

A quick check of current Care2 or Facebook petitions on any given day will discover

examples of petitions that mean well, yet waste the time required to click a “signature.”

For example, on the day this is written one petition seeks “to have a law imposed

whereby companies are not allowed to put false or ambiguous statements on their products. A

law where companies can only use ‘not tested on animals’ statements if both the ingredients

and the final product are not tested on animals. A law where companies, as a whole, can only

say they do not conduct animal testing if they themselves do not conduct animal testing and

do not fund testing of their products via other companies and organizations.”

Superficially reasonable, this petition is directed to officials in a European Union

nation––which already has a much stronger policy in place for sellers of cosmetic products,

the major category in which products are promoted as “not tested on animals.”

Explains the EU information service Europa, “The Cosmetics Directive puts an end

to animal testing by imposing bans on testing finished cosmetic products and ingredients on

animals, and marketing finished cosmetic products which have been tested on animals, or

which contain ingredients that have been tested on animals. The testing ban on finished cos-

metic products has applied since September 2004.”

The testing ban on ingredients or combinations of ingredients was applied progres-

sively as alternative methods were validated and adopted, until March 2009, when it took full

force, with exceptions for testing to determine “repeated-dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity,

and toxicokinetics. For these specific health effects,” says Europa, “the deadline is March

2013,” to ensure that the Cosmetics Directive remains consistent with REACH, the consoli-

dated chemical safety regulation that the EU adopted in 2006. REACH requires that all chemi-

cal substances be tested to establish uniform safety standards. In the short run it was expected

to increase animal testing by about 3%. In the long run it is expected to reduce animal testing

by as much as half, by creating a unified European system for registration, evaluation, autho-

rization and restriction of chemicals, replacing more than 40 separate national standards.

Consider the process of justice

A petition of a rather different sort demanded the dismissal of the Pinal County,

Arizona, Animal Care & Control employee who on November 15, 2010 accidentally eutha-

nized Target, a former Afghanistan street dog who with two other street dogs attacked a sui-

cide bomber at the entrance of a U.S. Army barracks, saving many American lives. The Pinal

County employee had not followed the correct shelter procedures, and was fired within the

week. But the petition objected that before being fired, the unidentified employee was placed

on paid leave, pending internal investigation to determine who actually made the mistake, and

if the safeguards to prevent accidental killings were adequate.

In effect, the petition objected that the employee received fair treatment, in accord

with standard union contracts and civil service procedures. The petitioners overlooked that the

very provisions that kept this employee on the Pinal County payroll for an extra couple of days

are those that protect workers from retaliatory firings if they point out problems––for instance,

that errors are being made in euthanasia procedures, or that animals are being neglected.

Yet another online petition circulating on this day targeted the American

SPCA––which is almost a no-kill organization––for the use of standardized temperament tests

by shelters all over the U.S. to determine which dogs are to be euthanized as dangerous.

The advent of standardized temperament testing in place of staff judgement calls

about dog behavior has coincided with a drop of about 20% in the numbers of pit bull terriers

who are killed at shelters each year, from about a million to about 800,000. But the introduc-

tion of standardized temperament testing has also coincided with a steep rise in the numbers of

people who are killed or disfigured by shelter dogs––more in both 2009 and 2010 than in the

entire span from 1980 through 1999. The ASPCA may share both the credit and the blame, as

a pioneer in the development of standardized temperament testing, but is scarcely responsible,

as the petition asserted, for thousands of euthanasias of dogs who fail the tests.

The most common form of inappropriate petition online demands that prosecutors or

judges immediately bring charges against a suspect who is accused of a heinous offense

against animals, convict the suspect, and deliver a stiff sentence for the crime.

These are all reasonable hopes, but petitioners should be aware that when charges

are not promptly filed against suspects in violent crimes, including crimes against animals,

the usual problem is evidentiary. For example, evidence may have been obtained without a

warrant, a witness cannot be located or is unreliable, forensic evidence takes time to process,

or in one recent case, the legal identity of the suspect required several weeks to establish.

Usually the suspect is held on bail for lesser charges, pending arraignment on the more serious

charges, which must be filed within a reasonable time. If there is reason to believe that a pros-

ecution is being neglected or a case is being covered up, petitioning for action may be in

order, but effort should be made first to ensure that the prosecutor is not merely trying to be

certain of winning a conviction when the case does go to court.

Petitioning a judge to convict a suspect is never appropriate––as several judges have

pointed out in recent years, dismissing cases or recusing themselves because they have been

subjected to electronic bombardment from activists who are in effect asking them to try the

suspects based on public opinion, rather than on the evidence.

Public opinion may be considered in the sentencing phase of a case, after a suspect

is convicted. Several states specifically provide for public opinion to be introduced in court

during sentencing for felonies. Since there is usually an interlude of several days or weeks

between conviction and sentencing, there is opportunity for appropriate online petitioning in

response to a cruelty case, but it is important to correctly word and direct this type of testimo-

ny, so that it can be considered by the court. Some courts offer guidelines for how to do this.

Inappropriate online petitioning usually just wastes everyone’s time, albeit in small

increments, but at worst can result in losing a case or an issue.

Conversely, online petitioning aimed at specific local issues, when done in an

accountable manner by authentic constituents of the

power holders, has huge potential for

helping to re-democratize politics,

amplify individual activist voices,

and build strong community animal

advocacy institutions.

4 - ANIMAL PEOPLE,

LETTERS

November/December 2010

CO2 isn’t humane

My letter is a response to

“Controlled atmosphere stunning moves

ahead,” October 2010.

I disagree with the view set forth in

this article by the proponents of carbon diox-

ide gassing that CO2 is a humane method of

killing chickens. It is most likely less cruel

than the conventional method of dragging

conscious birds through electrically-charged

saltwater to paralyze their muscles in order to

facilitate feather removal after they are dead,

and to immobilize the birds on the slaughter

line, but anything is likely to be better than

being riddled with electric shocks.

Evidence shows that birds, like

mammals, have chemical receptors in their

lungs that are acutely sensitive to CO2, with

the result that subjection to this toxic gas

induces pain, panic, suffocation and breath-

lessness (dyspnea) in those who inhale it.

By contrast, chickens and other

birds do not have the chemical receptors in

their lungs to detect inert gases such as argon

and nitrogen, which is why animal welfare

proponents, including scientists like Dr.

Mohan Raj, have fought for decades to get

poultry slaughter plants to switch from electri-

We invite readers to submit letters and

original unpublished commentary ––

please, nothing already posted to a

web site––via e-mail to

<anmlpepl@whidbey.com> or via

postal mail to: ANIMAL PEOPLE,

P.O. Box 960, Clinton, WA 98236 USA.

cal “stunning” to the stun/kill method of

inducing permanent unconsciousness in poul-

try by means of nitrogen/argon.

Behavioral evidence supports the

biological evidence. Whereas chickens sub-

jected to CO2 show clear signs of distress,

shaking their heads and stretching their necks

to breathe, chickens in the presence of argon

or nitrogen exhibit no comparable signs of

suffering.

Poultry companies sincerely wish-

ing to reduce the suffering of their birds to a

minimum should bypass CO2 and invest in

inert gas systems. Then their proposed

“humane” labels will have at least a sem-

blance of truth.

––Karen Davis, PhD.

President

United Poultry Concerns

12325 Seaside Road

P.O. Box 150

Machipongo, VA 23405

Phone: 757-678-7875

Using eggs to de-worm Bali street dogs

I would like to add a few thoughts to

treatment. Then I give them one teaspoon of

the commentary by Merritt Clifton,

Ivermectin each month. If you cannot get

“Deworming makes a real-life ‘slum dog mil-

Ivermectin, a good worm tablet will help a lot.

lionaire,’” published in the September 2009

Street dogs usually seem to get enough food