Why I Left Greenpeace

Wall Street Journal
By PATRICK MOORE
April 22, 2008

In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.

But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.

At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.

The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.

My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.

Read more...

Animal Activists Can’t Handle The Truth About Veal

Consumer Freedom
April 11, 2008

If you subscribe to Newsweek and you enjoy reading creative fiction, check out page 71 in this week’s issue (dated April 14th). It’s a full-page ad from the Humane Farming Association. This group really doesn’t like veal, and it’s not above lying to make a point (and raise money). Yesterday our Director of Research FedExed a letter to Newsweek’s top brass, demanding to know how such a clearly false and misleading advocacy ad made it past the due diligence of the magazine’s lawyers. We documented a half-dozen glaring falsehoods—and that was just the “low hanging fruit.”

I would be keenly interested in learning whether Newsweek ever asked the Humane Farming Association to substantiate [its] claims—and if so, what sort of evidence the group provided that could have satisfied the attorneys performing due diligence prior to publication. The only explanation I can imagine is that perhaps someone on your central advertising staff is so blindly sympathetic to the cause of animal “rights” that he or she was willfully blind to an obviously false and deceptive ad.

In the many years I have been studying the animal protection movement, I have never encountered a more baseless, dishonest, and disingenuous advertisement than the one you published this week. Newsweek owes a sincere apology (or at least a proper explanation) to veal farmers, to members of the public who choose to eat veal, and to its readers in general.

Click here to read the rest of our letter to Newsweek with all the details.

Read more...

Foodborne disease rates changed little in 2007

Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy
April 10, 2008

Apr 10, 2008 (CIDRAP News) – The rates of the most common foodborne illnesses in the United States have remained about the same since 2004, pointing to a need for increased efforts to ensure food safety, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported today.

In 2007, rates of infection with Campylobacter, Listeria, Salmonella, Shigella, E coli O157, and Yersinia did not decline significantly compared with the previous 3 years, according to data from the CDC's 10-state FoodNet surveillance system, the agency said.

The one exception to the static picture was the parasite Cryptosporidium, for which the estimated incidence of infections was up 44% compared with the 2004-06 period, the CDC said. Officials said the reason may be that a new treatment for the infection is spurring more testing for it.

Although some foodborne infections have declined significantly since surveillance began in 1996, the declines all occurred before 2004, the CDC said in a news release.

"The results show that prevention efforts have been partly successful, but there has been little further progress in the most recent years," Dr. Robert Tauxe, deputy director of the CDC's Division of Foodborne, Bacterial and Mycotic Diseases, said in the release.

"That indicates that further measures are needed to keep prevention on a downward track," Tauxe said at a news teleconference today. "The incidence of Salmonella actually has changed very little since those early years."

The FoodNet system compiles data on laboratory-confirmed foodborne illness cases from Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oregon, and Tennessee, plus parts of California, Colorado, and New York. The system's coverage area includes 45 million people, or about 15% of the US population.

Read more...

What’s the beef

Boston Herald
April 7, 2008

Have you ever heard that McDonald’s vanilla shakes have plastic in them, or that their hamburgers contain worm meat?

McDonald’s has heard those stories and others, and it’s launched a new advertising and marketing campaign to dispel misconceptions and myths about its menu items and their ingredients.

“We want to get the facts out about our food quality story so that we can bust some of those myths,” said Molly Starmann, McDonald’s director of U.S. marketing.

In an age where food recalls appear more prevalent, more consumers are asking questions about what they’re eating, and more books are launching assaults on the fast-food industry, McDonald’s is inviting customers and critics to “See What We’re Made Of.”

The fast-food giant’s campaign, which doesn’t focus on the oft-criticized nutritional value of its products, has launched new television commercials and created a new food-quality Web site to spread its message. Billboard advertising will begin soon. McDonald’s also has changed its food packaging, right down to its straw wrappers, to incorporate facts about its food.

All of the advertising components direct consumers to McDonald’s new site, where the company answers apparently commonly asked questions, such as “I’ve heard McDonald’s uses leftover parts of the cow in its beef. Is this true?” McDonald’s answer: “Absolutely not. McDonald’s uses well-known cuts of meat that you might buy at the grocery store, such as chuck and round.”

Read more...

Sitting On A Story

Center for Consumer Freedom
February 28, 2008

We’re not the only ones asking why the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sat on its explosive slaughterhouse video for several months, while possibly tainted beef made its way into school lunchrooms. (To be fair, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer started the ball rolling.) Tuesday on Capitol Hill, members of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations had some hard questions for HSUS’s top vegan doctor, Michael Greger. And yesterday The New York Times, usually very friendly to HSUS, took notice in a not-too-flattering way.

HSUS’s well-deserved Congressional grilling left us with the distinct impression that the group was less interested in protecting the public’s health (or with the welfare of actual animals) than in timing its hit-job on meat producers for maximum political effect. This is hardly surprising, coming from a PETA-style organization whose lead farm-animal campaigner, Paul Shapiro, is on record saying that “nothing is more important than promoting veganism.”

HSUS sued the Agriculture Department over the slaughter conditions depicted in its video. This is another outcome which wouldn’t have been as media-friendly had the animal rights group done the right thing and reported its findings on Day One.

To listen to Tuesday’s hearing, click here -- and cue up a few places (listed below) for the relevant bits.

Read more...

Humane Society Criticized in Meat Quality Scandal

New York Times
February 27, 2008

WASHINGTON — As the meat industry scrambles to recover from a public-relations disaster over an undercover video of abused cattle, the secretary of agriculture and at least one congressman have picked an unlikely target to share in the blame: the Humane Society of the United States.

The Humane Society shot the video of what appear to be sick or lame cattle being forced to their feet with forklifts, hoses and electric prods at the Westland/Hallmark Meat Company in Chino, Calif., in October and November.

Released publicly in late January, the video touched off criticism of the Department of Agriculture’s inspection of the meat supply and led to the biggest beef recall in history, 143 million pounds.

At a hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas, assailed the Humane Society for waiting to inform the federal government.

“Why wait until February to release the video?” Mr. Burgess demanded of a Humane Society representative. “Why wait until now to bring this to our attention?”

His criticism echoed a point made last week by Ed Schafer, the secretary of agriculture, who said he was “extremely disappointed” in the Humane Society. He complained that “for four months, theoretically, animals were not being properly treated, and the Humane Society stood by and allowed it to happen.”

Humane Society representatives said Tuesday that the criticism was misplaced. They said the primary concern of their organization is animal welfare, not food safety, and as soon as they had the tape they took it to local prosecutors in California.

Read more...

The Elephants In HSUS’s Living Room

Center for Consumer Freedom
February 19, 2008

As fallout from the nation’s largest beef recall continues to float through newsrooms and school districts, Americans have begun to ask hard questions about the safety of our beef supply and the character of the people who bring it to market. We have a few questions of our own.

First, why did the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sit on its shock-value video for several months? The group has claimed that it spent six weeks “investigating” a Chino, California slaughterhouse and two more weeks looking at the videotapes before giving authorities “extra time” to weigh their options. HSUS also insists that it “is the last entity that would ever want to sit on the results; we had no incentive to do so. We were methodical in how we handled the investigation, and how we publicized it, too.”

We’re not buying it. An organization interested in the welfare of cattle would have taken the very first example of animal abuse it found, the very day it was filmed, and showed it to the plant manager. “Clean up your act today and fire these few employees,” a responsible advocate would have said, “or the Sheriff will be our next stop.”

The drawback of this approach for HSUS, of course, is that no fundraising bonanza would result. (How’s that for an “incentive” for being “methodical” instead of acting with urgency?) And Californians wouldn’t have been politically sensitized to the issues wrapped up in a coming ballot initiative to ban farm-animal-handling practices HSUS doesn’t like. (HSUS has already put over $1.4 million into the effort).

Reacting immediately might not have helped HSUS, but the animals going through that slaughterhouse in the last few months would certainly have been much better off. Remember them, HSUS? The animals?

One other nagging question. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle told the Associated Press yesterday that he chose this particular slaughterhouse at random. What he hasn’t said, though, is how many facilities his workers had to infiltrate before they found one with a problem worth videotaping.

Could it be that HSUS has been planting employees inside California meatpackers since June 2003, when the group first floated the idea of an animal-rights ballot initiative in the Golden State? Inquiring minds want to know. Especially since it now looks like the current problem was the exception—not the rule.