On Foods You Shouldn’t Eat and ALF Protests

There’s a lot going on today.

1.    I’m assuming everyone’s seen Rainforest Action Network’s site, The Problem With Palm Oil, with it’s snazzy 3-minute video, complete with The Clash’s "Lost in a Supermarket," and wherein they say "there is currently no palm oil in the world that can be proven to be sustainable." But in case you haven’t seen it . . .

2.    Kelly directed me to "100 Foods No Environmentalist Should Ever Eat," which makes you wonder what’s left to eat and why organic food is on the list (but you’ll note when you click on the link that the source is the Heartland Institute, which believes "climate change is not a crisis," and many of the scientists it features have received funding from ExxonMobil and other polluters.

3.    Back in March, I wrote about an Ideal Bite post about using a goat to eat your lawn rather than mowing it. The folks at TerraPass also don’t see just how offensive the idea is. Yesterday’s blog is a response to Julie’s query:

"I’m looking for a small grass eating animal with suitable grazing habits. A well manicured lawn is my primary goal and quality free range meat is my secondary goal."

To me, that sounds so unconscious. However, if you’ve been raised to believe that animals are resources for your use, and the more uses you can get out of them the better (as that makes you more efficient), it makes perfect sense that you might ask that question. It’s our job to offer an alternate solution, such as a Neuton battery-powered mower (which I have and recommend), and perhaps mention that breeding goats only to transport them all around the country so they may be enslaved and then slaughtered when their use is not necessary–is a scenario loaded with ethical implications that Julie might want to explore. Here’s my comment:

I’ve had a Neuton battery-powered mower for a couple of
years. It works great and was inexpensive. When I mow I get my Vitamin
D and some exercise. No one "needs" a grass-eating animal (that has to
be bred and transported and will need veterinary care), nor do they
need to eat one.

4.    Finally, you may have seen
the AOL photos of recent protests from around the world, including
hooded and non-hooded individuals protesting at the home of a Berkeley
toxicology professor (here’s the article).
There’s so much to say, but I have to get a tire patched and make it to
a client’s house within an hour (methinks I’ll be tardy).

• "Borrowing the kind of tactics used by anti-abortion
  demonstrators, animal rights activists are increasingly taking their
  rage straight to scientists’ front doors." What do you think about that
  comparison?
• "Scientists say the vandalism and intimidation threaten not just
  themselves and their families but the future of medical research." Of
  course they say that. What I want to know is why the part about the
  future of medical research (which should read "the future of
  vivisection") isn’t questioned.
• At least one researcher, Dario Ringach, stopped doing animal research as a direct result of the activist’s tactics.
• The FBI says, "We call it terrorism because it is a violent act
  violating federal criminal laws that has a political or social
  motivation to it." Now, I can see why you’d call it violent. But what
  federal criminal laws are we talking about?
• There are several gruesome descriptions of experiments on monkeys,
  and my hope is that readers of this AP article do some of their own
  research on vivisection and educate themselves about the ethical void
  that is vivisection, not to mention all of ways it’s not good science
  (of course, see Drs. Greek for the details—and note that www.curedisease.com is being updated and cannot be accessed).