Archive for the ‘ Animal Rights ’ Category

As the eyes of the world turn towards Washington for the changing of the guard, the vegan community will very likely have high hopes for the new "regulatory czar," Cass Sunstein.  Sunstein will head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which regulates, among many other agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency.  Hmmm....

For those of you who don't pay too much attention to US politics, Sunstein is a Harvard University Law School professor and author of "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions."  (If you click on the link it will take you to Amazon, where you can read an excerpt.)  I haven't read the book yet, but I did order it...   Sunstein will have his hands full with many other issues, but he has stood up and argued for animal rights in the (recent) past.

It will be interesting to see what changes Sunstein will promote in the avenue of animal rights.

For further reading:

Leave your Comment

If you've been reading this blog for a bit, you've probably noticed that we don't focus much on animal rights/animal welfare.  For the most part, Jane and I came to veganism through a desire for better health.  And so our focus is health, food, and lifestyle.  As time has gone by, the health reasons that motivated us to become vegan in the first place have become less dominant; the thought of eating meat again has become abhorrent.  And so, we dip our toes into the issue of anti-vivisection.

Gary, over at Animal Writings has been authoring a difficult series of late.  It's all about the horrors of animal testing, from the abysmal treatment of the animals themselves to the inaccuracies of using animals to determine how drugs/procedures will impact humans.  One of the resources he's used is a book called Sacred Cows and Golden Geese: The Human Cost of Experiments on Animals.  My library had a copy, and so I borrowed it.  It's been sitting on the coffee table and every night or two I pick it up, only to put it down again.  That's no criticism of the book.  I'm just not sure I want to know more!

Coincidentally, when I picked up the book this evening, I opened to this quote:

There are, in fact, only two categories of doctors and scientists who are not opposed to vivisection: those who don't know enough about ti, and those who make money from it.

-- Dr. Werner Hartinger, MD 1989

The truth is it's a painful issue to think about. Most of us would rather not consider where our food comes from or how our medications are tested.   The scary thing is that this book professes (and documents) that animal testing is unnecessary and causes harm to both animals and humans.  So we're  perpetrating barbarism and cruelty for no reason.

In order to evolve as a species, we must treat all sentient beings with respect.  It's time.

For more information on anti-vivisection see:

Comments (2)

I was having a discussion with a co-worker today.  She's getting a puppy and she's so excited she's already picked out his name.  This sounds rather reasonable (fun even), until we get to the part where she mentions she doesn't know when she'll be picking him up; she's buying her dog from a breeder.  She wants a male dog and there are only females in this litter.  The best male puppy is already spoken for in the next litter, so it's possible she'll have to wait until spring.  I guess those are the joys of buying from a breeder.

Turns out she's not alone.  Our soon-to-be Vice President, Joe Biden, just got himself a German Shepherd puppy from a breeder.  He's got "the pick of the litter."  (Source: CNN.)

I don't understand.  With all the loving animals stranded in shelters, why do we need breeders at all?  Sure there are some breeds that are more "desirable" than others.  I understand that Labs are one of the most family friendly dogs you can get.   If you have to have a particular breed, why not consider a rescue rather than a puppy?  Tens of millions of "pets" are destroyed in the US annually.  Buying an animal seems like a waste to me.

Comments (15)

Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the US blogged about "Your Plate, Your Planet" (in other words, what you eat affects the environment) tonight.  It's something I ranted about a few times over the summer. Eating lower on the food chain is a very effective tool to reduce our individual carbon-footprints.  Apparently, this is still such an unpopular choice that we're looking for a high-tech solution, rather than go the easy route and reduce our meat consumption.

Meat consumption is expected to double, across the global, between 2000 and 2050.  Yikes!

Farm emissions, one of the major contributors to global warming, will be one of the main topics discussed in Poznan, Poland as 187 nations gather for talks on a new treaty to help combat global warming.

In releasing its latest figure on emissions last month, United Nations climate officials cited agriculture and transportation as the two sectors that remained most “problematic.”

“It’s an area that’s been largely overlooked,” said Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Nobel Prize-winning United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He says people should eat less meat to control their carbon footprints. “We haven’t come to grips with agricultural emissions.”  -- Source NY Times

Hopefully there will be some forward progress towards a reduction in the number of animals being produced for food.  Perhaps Mr. Pacelle and the HSUS will take on this challenge after their successful campaign to get Proposition 2 passed in California.  Or maybe the skyrocketing cost of food will drive more people to consider the cheaper alternative of vegetarian-based meals. Trust me people, it's not that hard to go vegan.  We've been at it for almost 1½ years, and we're not going back!

For more on this topic, see our posts "More Reasons Not To Eat Meat," "Vegan Eating Trumps Eating Locally," "Climate Change and Meat Consumption -- Eat Vegan."

Comments (3)