DOCSLIB.ORG

Troubled Waters a Review of the Welfare Implications of Modern Whaling Activities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Troubled Waters a Review of the Welfare Implications of Modern Whaling Activities TROUBLED WATERS A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATIONS OF MODERN WHALING ACTIVITIES Foreword by Sir David Attenborough Edited by Philippa Brakes, Andrew Butterworth, Mark Simmonds & Philip Lymbery TROUBLED WATERS A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATIONS OF MODERN WHALING ACTIVITIES A report produced on behalf of a global coalition of animal welfare societies led by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA). www.whalewatch.org Foreword by Sir David Attenborough Edited by Philippa Brakes, Andrew Butterworth, Mark Simmonds & Philip Lymbery Contributors: Philippa Brakes, Craig Bamber, Kitty Block, Andrew Butterworth, Sue Fisher, Dr D.W. van Liere, Jennifer Lonsdale, Philip Lymbery, Barbara Maas, Andy Ottaway, E.C.M. Parsons, N.A. Rose, Laila Sadler and Mark Simmonds. Project management by WDCS, the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society www.wdcs.org Production Editors: Sheena Bose and Jonathan Owen Cover photo: © Jean Gaumy/Magnum I Published by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) © 2004 WSPA ISBN Number: ISBN 0-9547065-0-1 Designed by Lawrence & Beavan Printed by Creasy Flood This book has been sponsored and promoted by the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) and other animal welfare non-governmental organisations to stimulate and promote public debate on cruelty issues which may arise within whaling operations, to ensure that any unnecessary suffering or cruelty is prevented. WSPA is established as a charitable body in the UK to prevent and alleviate the suffering of animals and believes that current whaling practices often involve unnecessary suffering and cruelty which should be avoided. Hopefully, this work will assist in highlighting those issues so as to enable members of the public to have a more informed view on whaling operations and the potential cruelty to which those operations give rise. Further information, contact: World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) 14th Floor, 89 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TP, UK Tel: +44 (0)207 587 5000 Fax: +44 (0)207 793 0208 www.wspa-international.org List of contributors Craig Bamber, Ballistics Consultant to the Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. Kitty Block, Special Counsel to the UN & Treaties Dept., The Humane Society of the United States (the HSUS), Washington DC, US. Philippa Brakes, Marine Consultant, c/o WDCS (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society), Brookfield House, 38 St Paul Street, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1LY, UK. Andrew Butterworth, Research Fellow, Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol Veterinary School, Langford, N Somerset, BS40 5DU, UK. Sue Fisher, US Director, WDCS (Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society) USA, P.O. Box 820064, Portland 97282 – 1064, Oregon, US. Dr D.W. van Liere, CABWIM consultancy, Gansmesschen 33, 9403 XR Assen, Netherlands. Jennifer Lonsdale, Director, Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), 62-63 Upper Street, London, UK. Philip Lymbery, Director of Communications, World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA), II 89 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TP, UK. A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATIONS OF MODERN WHALING ACTIVITIES IMPLICATIONS A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE Barbara Maas, Chief Executive, Care for the Wild International, The Granary, Tickfold Farm, Kingsfold, West Sussex, UK. Andy Ottaway, Campaigns Director, Campaign Whale, PO Box 2673, Lewes, E Sussex, BN8 5BZ, UK. E.C.M. Parsons, Marine Mammal Biologist, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, US & The University Marine Biological Station Millport (University of London), Isle of Cumbrae, Scotland. N.A. Rose, Marine Mammal Scientist, The Humane Society of the United States, Washington DC, US. Laila Sadler, Scientific Officer, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), Southwater, Horsham, UK. Mark P. Simmonds, Director of Science, Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, Brookfield House, 38 St Paul Street, Chippenham, Wiltshire, SN15 1LY, UK. Contents List of contributors II Foreword IV ONE Introductory section 1 Chapter 1 Executive summary 2 Chapter 2 A background to whaling 6 Chapter 3 An introduction to animal welfare 13 Chapter 4 Whales – individuals, societies and cultures 15 Chapter 5 The IWC and whale welfare 30 TWO Whale killing 37 Chapter 6 Commercial and Aboriginal subsistence whaling 38 Chapter 7 The small cetacean dimension 54 Chapter 8 Weather, sea condition and ship motions CONTENTS affecting accuracy in whaling 63 III Chapter 9 The potential stress effects of whaling and the welfare implications for hunted cetaceans 69 Chapter 10 Euthanasia of cetaceans 78 Chapter 11 Review of criteria for determining death and insensibility in cetacea 84 THREE Whaling in the twenty-first century 91 Chapter 12 A comparison between slaughterhouse standards and methods used during whaling 92 Chapter 13 Ethics and whaling under special permit 104 Chapter 14 Legal precedents for whale protection 111 FOUR Conclusions 123 Chapter 15 Whaling and welfare 124 Chapter 16 Summary of conclusions 134 Glossary 136 Appendix I Global coalition members 137 Appendix II Colour plates 140 Foreword Whales are highly evolved animals with all the sensitivities that that statement implies. They have a complex social life. They call to one another across the vast expanses of the oceans. They are the largest animals that have ever existed, far larger than any dinosaur. There is nothing in the body of a whale, which is of use to us, for which we cannot find equivalents elsewhere. The following pages contain hard scientific dispassionate evidence that there is no humane way to kill a whale at sea. Dr Harry Lillie, who worked as a ship’s physician on a whaling trip in the Antarctic half a century ago, wrote this: “If we can imagine a horse having two or three explosive spears stuck in its stomach and being made to pull a butcher’s truck through the streets of London while it pours blood into the gutter, we shall have an idea of the method of killing. The gunners themselves admit that if whales could scream, the industry would stop for nobody would be able to stand it.” The use of harpoons with explosive grenade heads is still the main technique used by whalers today. I hope you will read the following pages and decide for yourself whether the hunting of whales in this way should still be tolerated by a civilized society. IV A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATIONS OF MODERN WHALING ACTIVITIES IMPLICATIONS A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE Sir David Attenborough, November 2003. © BBC Section One Introductory Section 1 Executive summary 5002 2 A background to whaling 5006 3 An introduction to animal welfare 5013 4 Whales – individuals, societies and cultures 5015 5 The IWC and whale welfare 5030 WHALE WATCH.org 1 Executive Summary This review examines the welfare implications of the methods currently used to hunt cetaceans (whales, dolphins and porpoises) for commercial, special permit and Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling (ASW) purposes. The welfare implications are assessed and the question raised as to whether whaling could be conducted in a reliably humane manner. The report calls on the International Whaling Commission (IWC) to urgently address the severe welfare problems attendant in modern whaling activities. The welfare implications of modern whale killing methods • The physiological adaptations of cetaceans to the marine environment have significant implications for whale welfare during whaling operations. Adaptations for diving may make it difficult to determine when these animals are dead. Their sheer mass, complex vascular systems and specific anatomical features may also impede efforts to kill them swiftly and humanely. • In general, current killing methods are not adequately adapted for the species being killed. Morphological features such as size, blubber thickness, skeletal structure and location of vital organs significantly influence the efficacy of a particular killing method. These differences may effect the course of projectiles through the body, as they travel through different thicknesses of blubber and 2 A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE IMPLICATIONS OF MODERN WHALING ACTIVITIES IMPLICATIONS A REVIEW OF THE WELFARE muscle and encounter bone and vital organs at specific locations. Such factors may also vary between individuals of the same species, according to age, sex and season. During whaling operations, where accuracy is often poor, these specific characteristics may greatly increase the margin for error and influence the time to death (TTD) and associated suffering. • Lack of due consideration to species specific killing requirements may be a major contributory factor in protracted times to death and may be a particular cause for concern where larger species, such as fin and sperm whales, are killed using methods developed for the much smaller minke species. Commercial and special permit whaling • The main killing method used during commercial and special permit whaling is the penthrite grenade harpoon fired from a cannon mounted on the bow of a ship. The harpoon is intended to penetrate about 30 cm (12 inches) into the minke whale before detonating. The aim is to kill the animal through neurotrauma induced by the blast-generated pressure waves of the explosion. However, if the first harpoon fails to kill the whale, then a second penthrite harpoon or a rifle (minimum calibre 9.3mm) is used as a secondary killing method. • Despite the similarity of the killing methods used, there are marked differences in reported killing efficiency between Japan and Norway. According to Norwegian data, in 2002, 80.7 per cent of minke whales were killed instantaneously. During the 2002/2003 Japanese minke whale hunt in Antarctica, only 40.2 per cent of whales were recorded as killed instantaneously. • Recent data show that, for commercial and scientific whale hunts, the average time to death is over two minutes. Secondary killing methods • The common use of secondary killing methods, such as the rifle, during whaling operations reflects the inefficiency of primary killing methods. The IWC has not established any formal criteria for determining when to apply secondary killing methods, and the decision, including which method to use, rests with the hunter.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Farm Animals
    Animal Welfare Issues 4. Farm Animals Introduction Intensive Farming Fur and skin farming Exotic/cruel foods Markets Live Transport Slaughter Genetic Engineering Mutilations Legislative Bans Alternatives Science Feeding the World Annex 1 - Scientific Quotations Further Resources Introduction In terms of numbers of animals affected, factory farming is the largest animal welfare concern in the world. FAO statistics show the global production of meat has risen from 136,219,000 tonnes for 1979-81 to 260,098,000 tonnes for 2004. The following statistics give an indication of the numbers of different species involved and the numbers exported. Farmed animal numbers (FAO 2003): Pigs 956 million Chickens 16,605 million Cattle 1,371 million Sheep 1,024 Numbers of farm animals exported alive (FAO 2002): Pigs 18 million Chickens 837 million Cattle 8 million Sheep 19 million Billions of farm animals throughout the world are reared behind the closed doors of the factory farm. Many farm animals suffer greatly in transport slaughter and in factory farms: where they are caged, crammed and confined, forced to grow super-fast, and pushed to their physical limits in the quest for ever-more meat, milk or eggs. However, animal protection activity often neglects farm animals, because their suffering is hidden. The rapid rise of factory farming systems in the USA and Europe took place in the latter half of the last century. Factory farming systems are characterised by large numbers of farm animals being caged or crated, and crammed into (typically) windowless sheds. 1 Animal Welfare Issues Three classic factory farm methods were clear examples of the suffering caused by such methods: veal crates for calves, stall and tether-cages for pregnant pigs, and battery cages for laying hens.
    [Show full text]
  • Meetings and Announcements
    3. the prohibition of painful sur­ b. inspect and report to the Board on gical procedures without the use of a the treatment of animals in commer­ properly administered anesthesia; cial farming; MEETINGS !!!!! and c. investigate all complaints and alle­ ANNOUNCEMENTS 4. provisions for a licensing system gations of unfair treatment of for all farms. Such system shall in­ animals; clude, but shall not be limited to, the d. issue in writing, without prior hear­ following requirements: ing, a cease and desist order to any i. all farms shall b'e inspected person if the Commission has reason prior to the issuance of a I icense. to believe that that person is causing, ii. farms shall thereafter be in­ engaging in, or maintaining any spected at least once a year. condition or activity which, in the iii. minimum requirements shall Director's judgment, will result in or be provided to insure a healthy is likely to result in irreversible or ir­ life for every farm animal. These reparable damage to an animal or its requirements shall include, but environment, and it appears prejudi­ not be limited to: cial to the interests of the [State] a. proper space allowances; {United States] to delay action until b. proper nutrition; an opportunity for a hearing can be c. proper care and treatment provided. The order shall direct such of animals; and person to discontinue, abate or allevi­ d. proper medical care. .ate such condition, activity, or viola­ f. The Board may enter into contract tion. A hearing shall be provided with with any person, firm, corporation or ____ days to allow the person to FORTHCOMING association to handle things neces­ show that each condition, activity or MEETINGS sary or convenient in carrying out the violation does not exist; and functions, powers and duties of the e.
    [Show full text]
  • Fishery Oceanographic Study on the Baleen Whaling Grounds
    FISHERY OCEANOGRAPHIC STUDY ON THE BALEEN WHALING GROUNDS KEIJI NASU INTRODUCTION A Fishery oceanographic study of the whaling grounds seeks to find the factors control­ ling the abundance of whales in the waters and in general has been a subject of interest to whalers. In the previous paper (Nasu 1963), the author discussed the oceanography and baleen whaling grounds in the subarctic Pacific Ocean. In this paper, the oceanographic environment of the baleen whaling grounds in the coastal region ofJapan, subarctic Pacific Ocean, and Antarctic Ocean are discussed. J apa­ nese oceanographic observations in the whaling grounds mainly have been carried on by the whaling factory ships and whale making research boats using bathyther­ mographs and reversing thermomenters. Most observations were made at surface. From the results of the biological studies on the whaling grounds by Marr ( 1956, 1962) and Nemoto (1959) the author presumed that the feeding depth is less than about 50 m. Therefore, this study was made mainly on the oceanographic environ­ ment of the surface layer of the whaling grounds. In the coastal region of Japan Uda (1953, 1954) plotted the maps of annual whaling grounds for each 10 days and analyzed the relation between the whaling grounds and the hydrographic condition based on data of the daily whaling reports during 1910-1951. A study of the subarctic Pacific Ocean whaling grounds in relation to meteorological and oceanographic conditions was made by U da and Nasu (1956) and Nasu (1957, 1960, 1963). Nemoto (1957, 1959) also had reported in detail on the subject from the point of the food of baleen whales and the ecology of plankton.
    [Show full text]
  • Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling in Greenland: the Case of Qeqertarsuaq Municipality in West Greenland RICHARD A
    ARCTIC VOL, NO. 2 (JUNE 1993) P. 144-1558 Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling in Greenland: The Case of Qeqertarsuaq Municipality in West Greenland RICHARD A. CAULFIELD’ (Received 10 December 1991; accepted in revised form 3 November 1992) ABSTRACT. Policy debates in the International Whaling Commission (IWC) about aboriginal subsistence whalingon focus the changing significance of whaling in the mixed economies of contemporaryInuit communities. In Greenland, Inuit hunters have taken whales for over 4OOO years as part of a multispecies pattern of marine harvesting. However, ecological dynamics, Euroamerican exploitation of the North Atlantic bowhead whale (Buhem mysticem),Danish colonial policies, and growing linkages to the world economy have drastically altered whaling practices. Instead of using the umiuq and hand-thrown harpoons, Greenlandic hunters today use harpoon cannons mountedon fishing vessels and fiberglass skiffs with powerful outboard motors. Products from minke whales (Bahenopteru ucutorostrutu)and fin whales (Bulaenopteru physulus) provide both food for local consumption and limited amountsof cash, obtained throughthe sale of whale products for food to others. Greenlanders view this practice as a form of sustainable development, where local renewable resources are used to support livelihoods that would otherwise be dependent upon imported goods. Export of whale products from Greenland is prohibited by law. However, limited trade in whale products within the country is consistent with longstandmg Inuit practices of distribution and exchange. Nevertheless, within thecritics IWC argue that evenlimited commoditization of whale products could lead to overexploitation should hunters seek to pursue profit-maximization strategies. Debates continue about the appro- priateness of cash and commoditization in subsistence whaling and about the ability of indigenous management regimes to ensure the protection of whalestocks.
    [Show full text]
  • SOLUTION: Gathering and Sonic Blasts for Oil Exploration Because These Practices Can Harm and Kill Whales
    ENDANGEREDWHALES © Nolan/Greenpeace WE HAVE A PROBLEM: WHAT YOU CAN DO: • Many whale species still face extinction. • Tell the Bush administration to strongly support whale protection so whaling countries get the • Blue whales, the largest animals ever, may now number as message. few as 400.1 • Ask elected officials to press Iceland, Japan • Rogue nations Japan, Norway and Iceland flout the and Norway to respect the commercial whaling international ban on commercial whaling. moratorium. • Other threats facing whales include global warming, toxic • Demand that the U.S. curb global warming pollution dumping, noise pollution and lethal “bycatch” from fishing. and sign the Stockholm Convention, which bans the most harmful chemicals on the planet. • Tell Congress that you oppose sonar intelligence SOLUTION: gathering and sonic blasts for oil exploration because these practices can harm and kill whales. • Japan, Norway and Iceland must join the rest of the world and respect the moratorium on commercial whaling. • The loophole Japan exploits to carry out whaling for “Tomostpeople,whalingisallnineteenth- “scientific” research should be closed. centurystuff.Theyhavenoideaabout • Fishing operations causing large numbers of whale hugefloatingslaughterhouses,steel-hulled bycatch deaths must be cleaned up or stopped. chaserboatswithsonartostalkwhales, • Concerted international action must be taken to stop andharpoonsfiredfromcannons.” other threats to whales including global warming, noise Bob Hunter, pollution, ship strikes and toxic contamination.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecosystem Effects of Fishing and Whaling in the North Pacific And
    TWENTY-SIX Ecosystem Effects of Fishing and Whaling in the North Pacific and Atlantic Oceans BORIS WORM, HEIKE K. LOTZE, RANSOM A. MYERS Human alterations of marine ecosystems have occurred about the role of whales in the food web and (2) what has throughout history, but only over the last century have these been observed in other species playing a similar role. Then we reached global proportions. Three major types of changes may explore whether the available evidence supports these have been described: (1) the changing of nutrient cycles and hypotheses. Experiments and detailed observations in lakes, climate, which may affect ecosystem structure from the bot- streams, and coastal and shelf ecosystems have shown that tom up, (2) fishing, which may affect ecosystems from the the removal of large predatory fishes or marine mammals top down, and (3) habitat alteration and pollution, which almost always causes release of prey populations, which often affect all trophic levels and therefore were recently termed set off ecological chain reactions such as trophic cascades side-in impacts (Lotze and Milewski 2004). Although the (Estes and Duggins 1995; Micheli 1999; Pace et al. 1999; large-scale consequences of these changes for marine food Shurin et al. 2002; Worm and Myers 2003). Another impor- webs and ecosystems are only beginning to be understood tant interaction is competitive release, in which formerly (Pauly et al. 1998; Micheli 1999; Jackson et al. 2001; suppressed species replace formerly dominant ones that were Beaugrand et al. 2002; Worm et al. 2002; Worm and Myers reduced by fishing (Fogarty and Murawski 1998; Myers and 2003; Lotze and Milewski 2004), the implications for man- Worm 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • American Perceptions of Marine Mammals and Their Management, by Stephen R
    American Perceptions of Marine Mammals and Their Management Stephen R. Kellert Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies May 1999 CHAPTER ONE: Introduction and Research Methodology Most Americans associate marine mammals with two orders of animals-the ceteceans, including the whales and dolphins, and the pinnipeds, consisting of the seals, sea lions, and walrus. The more informed recognize another marine mammal order, the sirenians, represented in the United States by one species, the manatee, mainly found along the Florida peninsula. Less widely recognized as marine mammals, but still officially classified as marine mammals, include one ursine species, the polar bear, and a mustelid, the sea otter. This report will examine American views of all marine mammals and their management, although mostly focusing on, for reasons of greater significance and familiarity, the cetaceans and pinnipeds. Marine mammals are among the most privileged yet beleaguered of creatures in America today. Many marine mammals enjoy unusually strong public interest and support, their popularity having expanded enormously during the past half-century. Marine mammals are also relatively unique among wildlife in America in having been the recipients of legislation dedicated exclusively to their protection, management, and conservation. This law - the Marine Mammal Protection Act - is one of the most ambitious, comprehensive, and progressive environmental laws ever enacted. More problematically, various marine mammal species have been the source of considerable policy conflict and management controversy, both domestically and internationally, and an associated array of challenges to their well-being and, in some cases, future survival. Over-exploitation (e.g., commercial whaling) was the most prominent cause of marine mammal decline historically, although this threat has greatly diminished.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Bycatch' Whaling a Growing Threat to Coastal Whales 23 June 2009
    'Bycatch' whaling a growing threat to coastal whales 23 June 2009 Scientists are warning that a new form of Whales are occasionally killed in entanglements unregulated whaling has emerged along the with fishing nets and the deaths of large whales are coastlines of Japan and South Korea, where the reported by most member nations of the IWC. commercial sale of whales killed as fisheries Japan and South Korea are the only countries that "bycatch" is threatening coastal stocks of minke allow the commercial sale of products killed as whales and other protected species. "incidental bycatch." The sheer number of whales represented by whale-meat products on the market Scott Baker, associate director of the Marine suggests that both countries have an inordinate Mammal Institute at Oregon State University, says amount of bycatch, Baker said. DNA analysis of whale-meat products sold in Japanese markets suggests that the number of "The sale of bycatch alone supports a lucrative whales actually killed through this "bycatch trade in whale meat at markets in some Korean whaling" may be equal to that killed through coastal cities, where the wholesale price of an adult Japan's scientific whaling program - about 150 minke whale can reach as high as $100,000," annually from each source. Baker said. "Given these financial incentives, you have to wonder how many of these whales are, in Baker, a cetacean expert, and Vimoksalehi fact, killed intentionally." Lukoscheck of the University of California-Irvine presented their findings at the recent scientific In Japan, whale-meat products enter into the meeting of the International Whaling Commission commercial supply chain that supports the (IWC) in Portugal.
    [Show full text]
  • Centre for Animal Welfare News 2017
    2017 News and Events from the University of Winchester’s Centre for Animal Welfare CAW Acting Director speaks out on Brexit, sentience and animal welfare 12 December 2017 Dr Steven McCulloch, Acting Director of CAW, has published two articles on Brexit, sentience and animal welfare. Sentience and animal welfare has received substantial media attention after Parliament voted against an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill tabled by Caroline Lucas MP. Dr McCulloch's first article, Brexit, Animal Sentience and Democracy, describes the moral atrocities committed against animals when their sentience has been denied. In the article he argues that the historical denial of sentience and its consequences in itself means that government should formally recognise it in law. The second article The Greatness Of A Nation Can Be Judged By How It Treats Its Animals is critical of the Conservative government policy to reject incorporating Article 13 in the EU Withdrawal Bill. How clever are the animals we keep? World's first Professor of Animal Welfare, gives lecture at CAW event 28 November 2017 Donald Broom, Emeritus Professor at the University of Cambridge (pictured above centre with Dr Steve McCulloch and Professor Joy Carter), gave a CAW evening lecture on How clever are the animals we keep? on 27 Nov 2017. Donald Broom was the first person to be appointed Professor of Animal Welfare in the world. Professor Joy Carter, Vice Chancellor at Winchester, introduced the CAW event, which was a great success. Over one hundred staff, students and members of the public attended. Watch the video of the Centre for Animal Welfare lecture How clever are the animals we keep? by Professor Donald Broom.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ethics of Human-Chicken Relationships in Video Games: the Origins of the Digital Chicken B
    The ethics of human-chicken relationships in video games: the origins of the digital chicken B. Tyr Fothergill Catherine Flick School of Archaeology and Ancient De Montfort University History The Gateway University of Leicester, Leicester Leicester, United Kingdom LE1 7RH, United Kingdom LE1 9BH, United Kingdom +44 0116 223 1014 +44 116 207 8487 [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT depicted being. In this paper, we explore the many and varied In this paper, we look at the historical place that chickens have roles and uses of the chicken in video games and contextualize held in media depictions and as entertainment, analyse several these with archaeological and historical data. types of representations of chickens in video games, and draw out 2. THE DOMESTICATION AND SPREAD reflections on society in the light of these representations. We also look at real-life, modern historical, and archaeological evidence of OF Gallus gallus, THE CHICKEN chicken treatment and the evolution of social attitudes with regard Humans have conceptually and physically shaped and re-shaped to animal rights, and deconstruct the depiction of chickens in the other animal species with which we have interacted; few video games in this light. examples of this are more striking than the chicken. Domestication is often conceived of as an activity undertaken by Categories and Subject Descriptors humans which converts a wild plant or animal into something K.4.0 General else, a living thing entirely under the control of or dependent upon humans to survive. The complexities of such a transformation are General Terms immense, and are more accurately framed as “an ongoing co- Human Factors, Theory evolutionary process rather than an event or invention” [15].
    [Show full text]
  • VISION for FAIR FOOD and FARMING © Istockphoto Vision for Those Who Wish to Know More
    ciwf.org.uk/raffle VISION FOR FAIR FOOD AND FARMING © iStockphoto Vision for Fair Food and Farming Good health by ensuring universal access to sufficient and nutritious food We are facing a dilemma: the world’s population is growing, but the planet In 2019, around 690 million people in the world were estimated to be suffering from under-nutrition itself has little viable land left to farm, and water resources are under severe (FAO 2020). The COVID-19 pandemic may well have added over 100 million more to that figure. pressure. Many people are suffering from hunger, and the environment has Currently it is the poor who bear the brunt of this situation, and millions of children go to sleep hungry, night after night. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aim for No been damaged by inappropriate farming methods. New technologies may Poverty and Zero Hunger by 2030 (SDGs 2015). Without radical change to our food and farming increase productivity, but small-scale farmers may not have access to them. systems, it will be a challenge to achieve this worthy goal. We urgently need a new vision for the future of food and farming, one that enhances the health of humanity and the planet itself, including animals, The marketing of food and global trading in food A University of Minnesota paper concludes that both wild and domesticated. commodities must be reformed so that prices of for every 100 calories of grain fed to animals, we food staples are maintained at an affordable level get only about 40 new calories of milk, 22 calories for those on low incomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Europe Needs a Food Not Feed Policy
    Europe Needs a Food not Feed Policy Philip Lymbery, Peter Stevenson and Carol McKenna Compassion in World Farming, River Court, Mill Lane, Godalming, GU7 1EZ, UK [email protected] Paper prepared for presentation at the 148th seminar of the EAAE, ‘’Does Europe need a Food Policy?”, Brussels, Belgium, 30 November – 1 December, 2015 Copyright 2015 Philip Lymbery, Peter Stevenson and Carol McKenna. All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non- commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. EUROPE NEEDS A FOOD NOT FEED POLICY Abstract Current European agricultural policies serve to prop up industrial animal agriculture, which doesn’t produce food but wastes it. A sustainable food policy would focus on producing healthy food for people, and not feed for animals, whilst protecting the environment. When considering sustainability in value chains, a key fact commonly overlooked is that nearly two thirds of EU cereals are fed to farm animals, with enormous associated loss of ~70%: for every 100 food calories of edible crops fed to livestock just 30 calories are produced in the form of meat and milk. If this human-edible grain were fed to people, it could feed an extra 3 billion. Such losses are not restricted to grain: around a quarter of the world’s landed fish catch never reaches a human mouth, much of it is diverted to feed industrially reared fish, pigs or poultry. Animals’ inefficiency in converting human-edible crops into meat and milk brings other inefficiencies in its train: It is a wasteful use not just of the crops but also of the land, water and energy used to grow them.
    [Show full text]