I tend to agree in the abstract that animal issues are not directly
environmental issues, though food issues, insofar as our food comes from our
environment and its production involves our relationship to our environment,
must certainly be considered environmental. Animal rights, on the other
hand, is an ethical issue that concerns our relations with other members of
the land community. There is certainly room for both debate and disagreement
on the extent to which animal treatment implicates our environmental
relations. One position could be like that of rhetoric: everything we do
concerns our environment just as everything beyond mathematical proofs is
inherently rhetorical. Yet there remains room for a more strictly
constructionist viewpoint.

-Tc

Anthony R.S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
Department of English
University of Houston-Downtown
One Main Street
Houston, TX 77009
713.221.8520/713.868.3979
"Question Reality"

> ----------
> From: 	Steven Bissell[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 	Tuesday, November 21, 2000 8:13 AM
> To: 	[log in to unmask]
> Subject: 	RE: GE 2 - chickens run amok
> 
> Not really. You've outlined the problems as an animal rights issue,
> although
> I do know that pig farming is a heavy polluter, but what has that to do
> with
> GM? And, I don't believe that all animal rights issues, actually most
> animal
> right issues, are environmental issues.
> 
> Steven
> 
> http://www.du.edu/~sbissell
>  What we lost with that wild, primal existence
> was a way of being for which the era of
> agriculture and civilization lacks counterpoise.
> Human life is the poorer for it.
>                              Paul Shepard
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Chiaviello,
> Anthony
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 4:17 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: GE 2 - chickens run amok
> 
> 
> About those chickens -
> 
> 	Yer crazy if ya eat 'em!
> 
> 	A student of mine wrote a technical report last Spring that
> described the chicken "production" process in the U.S., complete with
> color
> photos - clipped beaks, speed and hormones force feeding, 12 in a 2-cu-ft
> cage, automated plucking, etc. etc. Stacked in open piles, shot
> everywhere.
> Egg to slaughter in 9 weeks!
> 
> The really sickening truth:
> 
> 	That package you see in stores labeled "chicken parts?"  They are
> parts from chickens too deformed or sick to be sold whole! So they cut up
> the sick chicks and sell 'em piecemeal. I haven't had store or restaurant
> chicken since, and I've bought only "range free," hoping the process is
> different under that labeling.
> 
> I don't eat pork either,  the word on those 100,000-pig factory farms in
> NC
> and elsewhere being that they grow pigs like chickens, runoff so heavy
> that
> it is polluting the groundwater!
> 
> As for beef . . .
> 
> Well, you must be getting the picture by now.
> 
> -Tc
> 
> Anthony R.S. Chiaviello, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor, Professional Writing
> Department of English
> University of Houston-Downtown
> One Main Street
> Houston, TX 77009
> 713.221.8520/713.868.3979
> "Question Reality"
> 
> > ----------
> > From: 	Steven Bissell[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 	Monday, November 20, 2000 9:42 AM
> > To: 	enviroethics
> > Subject: 	FW: GE 2 - chickens run amok
> >
> > Well here is an entire GM article, from the anti-gm side, don't want to
> be
> > guilty of bias. One quote is most telling to me.
> >
> > Greenpeace Campaigner Emma Gibson explained:
> > "Most people don't know that GM is still being sneaked into our food
> chain
> > by being dumped into the feed of animals like chickens. By continuing
> > these
> > GM imports, Cargill is ignoring valid public concerns about the effects
> of
> > feeding GM crops to animals and the environmental risks involved in 
> > growing
> > them".
> >
> > Although I do have concern with GM, this approach leaves me a bit cold.
> Ms
> > Gibson speaks of "food chain" in a very concrete sense. This indicates,
> to
> > me, a fairly low level of understanding about what food chains are. Also
> > the
> > so call "valid public concern" is a bit of a red herring. So far the
> > public
> > concern seems to be a reaction to largely unproven effects. So, I guess
> > there is public concern, but "valid"? Not really.
> >
> > We had a brief spat about the mode of social protest over environmental
> > issues last week. This seem connected IMO in that we now have elevated
> GM
> > to
> > a major environmental issue in the mostly absence of any meaningful
> > evidence
> > of harm. The reason I'm concerned about this is because policy makers
> who
> > don't want to take any real action on environmental issues can point to
> > this
> > and roll out the "Chicken Little" argument. This has been the successful
> > policy approach for over a decade in keeping the US from adopting any
> sort
> > of global warming policy.
> >
> > As most of the people on this list know by now, I feel that animal
> rights
> > is
> > an issue which has been put into the environmental camp without good
> > cause.
> > I now see that GM is an issue for some people who are concerned with
> > something to do with human health, or agricultural economics, or the
> like,
> > and they have successfully made GM into an environmental concern.
> >
> > Makes me wonder if the day will ever come when the environmental
> movement
> > will achieve meaningful political goals. Gore should have been elected
> on
> > his environmental record alone. Never mind that he is a wimp and
> probably
> > not the most truthful person to ever run for office, on the environment
> > he's
> > a saint compared to Bush. However, the environment did not, as near as I
> > can
> > see, play any role in this election, except for the votes it took away
> > from
> > Gore. The US is going to get a President who thinks that global warming
> > "needs more study" and will appoint cabinet officers who will make sure
> > nothing happens in the next four years on any environmental issue. I
> think
> > that we environmentalists are our own worst enemies.
> >
> > Steven
> >
> > In the final analysis one should think only
> > of one single science: the science of man,
> > or, more exactly expressed, social science,
> > of which our own existence constitutes at
> > once the principle and the purpose and in
> > which the rational study of the external
> > world naturally comes to merge, for this
> > double reason that the science of nature is
> > a necessary constituent of and a basic
> > preamble to social science.
> >
> >                                Auguste Comte
> >                             Discourses, 1884
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: GEN lists [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 5:23 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: GE 2 - chickens run amok
> >
> >
> >
> > For Immediate Release: 8.15am, Monday, 20 November, 2000.
> >
> > Eco-chickens Shut Down Importer of GM Soya
> >
> >
> > At 8.00 am this morning (Monday 20 November) sixty Greenpeace volunteers
> > dressed as pantomime chickens invaded and shut down the UK's only GM
> soya
> > mill. The invasion comes the day after fast food chain McDonalds
> announced
> > that it was to ban meat from animals fed on GM in its UK stores. 
> >
> > The plant at Gladstone Docks, Liverpool, is the main gateway for GM crop
> > imports into the UK and processes both GM and normal soya. Most of the
> > crop
> > is mixed into animal feed, while oil extracted from the beans is sold
> for
> > use in food such as crisps and biscuits. Neither GM animal feed or GM
> > derivatives in food are required to be labelled.
> >
> > Greenpeace accuses Cargill, the multinational company running the plant,
> > of
> > sneaking GM crops into the UK foodchain. The volunteers intend to
> continue
> > the occupation until the company agrees to stop GM imports into the UK
> and
> > makes the Liverpool facility GM free.
> >
> > The chickens were concealed in four trucks which were driven into the
> > plant
> > through the main gate. The trucks were immobilised, blocking the
> > weigh-stations used by grain trucks as they enter and leave the site.
> > Sixty
> > chickens then burst out of the back of the trucks and dispersed across
> the
> > facility. Many have now chained themselves to equipment in the plant.
> >
> > A team of Greenpeace climbers also scaled and shut down a 40-metre-high
> > conveyor belt, which transports soya from silos to the crushing plant.
> > After
> > attaching a 'GM INSIDE' banner to the  mechanism they set up camp in a
> > Portaledge (a small tent suspended over the side of the conveyor belt).
> > Cargill security workers are present at the scene and attempting to
> round
> > up
> > chickens.
> >
> > Greenpeace Campaigner Emma Gibson explained:
> > "Most people don't know that GM is still being sneaked into our food
> chain
> > by being dumped into the feed of animals like chickens. By continuing
> > these
> > GM imports, Cargill is ignoring valid public concerns about the effects
> of
> > feeding GM crops to animals and the environmental risks involved in 
> > growing
> > them".
> >
> > She continued:
> > "This one plant is responsible for importing almost all the GM soya that
> > enters the UK foodchain. If Cargill ends these imports and stops
> > contaminating our animal feed supply, they will be satisfying both the
> > public and the majority of food producers and retailers who want food
> that
> > is GM free". >>CONTS>>
> >
> > CONTACT:   0207 865 8255/6/7
> >
> > A recent opinion poll by NOP, commissioned by Greenpeace, found that 67%
> > of
> > consumers wanted an end to the practice of feeding GM crops to animals.
> > Ninety  percent thought that products from animals raised on GM crops
> > should
> > be labelled. Iceland, Tesco, Sainsbury, CWS, Asda and Marks and Spencer
> > have
> > all committed to the removal of GM from animal feed.
> >
> > For people wanting to avoid GM, Greenpeace have set up a guide on their
> > website advising which food producers avoid GM animal feed, including a
> > guide to GM free chickens.
> >
> > ENDS
> >
> > EDITOR'S NOTES
> >
> > [1] For up to date information on the progress of the action, or to
> > arrange
> > an interview with the climbers or a campaigner, please contact
> Greenpeace
> > Press Office on 07801 212993, 07801 212968 or 0207 865 8255/6/7.
> >
> > Due to the layout of the facility it is difficult to obtain images of
> the
> > protest from outside. However Greenpeace will be able to provide stills
> > and
> > video footage of events as they unfold.
> >
> > For additional background on the protest and the issue of GM ingredients
> > being used in animal feed go to the Greenpeace UK website -
> > <http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/>www.greenpeace.org.uk.
> >
> > [2] Three ships carrying GM soya from the United States are reported to
> > have
> > unloaded at Gladstone Docks this year. One of the ships, the Iolcos
> Grace,
> > carrying 75,000 tonnes of GM soya, was boarded by Greenpeace volunteers
> > off
> > Anglesey on February 26th , 2000, as part of Greenpeace UK's ongoing
> > campaign against GM imports.
> >
> > As a result of UK consumer rejection of GM food and the failure of the
> US
> > grain industry to segregate GM from non-GM crops, exports of soya from
> the
> > US to UK have tailed off dramatically in the past three years. The US
> > Department of Agriculture predicts that in 2000 their soya exports to
> the
> > UK
> > will be as low as 150,000 tonnes - down from 500,000 tonnes in 1998.
> >
> > Visit the Greenpeace UK website at
> > <http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/>http://www.greenpeace.org.uk
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > check out if there is GM in your shopping basket: 
> > <http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/gm>www.greenpeace.org.uk/gm
> >
> 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%