Coping with fast-food and relying on the “Slow Life” concept, the international association Slow Food has, since 1986, been advocating the “green gastronomy way of life”. So far more than 100,000 people around the world have joined this movement.

Large-scale food production and the fast food restaurant industry has distanced us from our gastronomic folklore; this is a well-known fact. We are facing a growing lack of interest in nutrition and flavour, which has meant the decline of local farmers.

According to Slow Food, “Food must be good, clean and wholesome. It must have taste, be produced without harming the environment, animal species or our health, and the producers must be rewarded properly”. Green gastronomy was founded upon these principles and with the following goals:

1 – Respect for food biodiversity

Food and recipes are part of the cultural lore of each country, and we need to protect this diversity. Slow Food acts through campaigns and projects to save natural food diversity and inherited food production techniques.

2 – Educate about taste

Slow Food has set up numerous programs to educate or re-educate people about the pleasures of the palate, starting activities and workgroups at schools and during public events, market days, etc.

3 – Connect producers and co-producers

Slow Food helps enhance alternative supply networks and sets up public events and market places worldwide to enable local producers to exhibit their food.

All these initiatives together form the network Terra Madre. This movement has thousands of participants who work to promote sustainable food production.

Related posts :

• 7 tips to protect environment as you make love (3)
• Insane practices for more farms profit : this is the Meatrix ! (5)
• Grocery store wars (3)

On July 24, Brindi was seized and put on death row… And we have 13 days to act.

DAY ONE.

“Canada eliminated the death penalty on July 14, 1976.The last execution in Canada took place on December 11, 1962 at Toronto’s Don Jail.”

Canada is, by all measurable standards, one of the most advanced countries in the world. The Economist ranks Vancouver as the world’s most liveable city, ahead of Vienna and Melbourne. Toronto is number 4.

Canada is the country where the cream of the crop wants to emigrate. A haven of sorts where individual freedoms are respected and communities care for their members.

A model society.

This is what makes Brindi’s story so puzzling and this is the reason why the eyes of the international animal welfare community are now fixed on Canada as a whole and on the city of Halifax in particular.

Brindi is an adopted mutt. She is smart, gentle, affectionate and has passed obedience classes.

On July 24, Brindi was seized and put on death row.

A minor incident, completely distorted by some of the people involved, would lead into a most incredible ordeal for Brindi and her family :

What went wrong? Brindi’s owner Francesca tells us what happened :

” While I generally am able to keep Brindi under my control, on certain occasions, resulting from unfortunate coincidences, she suddenly went after other dogs. She grabbed them by the scruff of the neck and just held. I was able to separate them quickly, and none of the dogs required extensive medical treatments. The first was apparently reported not because of the other dog’s condition – the owner declined my offer to pay for a vet – but out of concern that “it might have been a child”. The police issued me a warning and a further one for not having a municipal licence, which I made sure to obtain immediately. The second incident, reported last April, resulted in a minor injury and would have normally resulted in a fine, possibly an order to build a fence . Instead, they issued Brindi, who rarely ever licks anybody, let alone threatens them, with a permanent muzzle order, requiring strict compliance, even on my own property.“

Francesca, an American recently emigrated to Canada, found herself tangled in the worst possible plot any animal owner could ever envisage: her beloved dog, her child, put on death row by the City of Halifax.

There was never an offence charged; Brindi was assessed by an expert and found highly trainable. Thousands of dollars were paid to get the execution order quashed in court. But the city ignored the Law and kept Brindi. Instead of holding a fair hearing to decide whether Brindi presents a true danger (she obviously does not), the city charged Brindi’s owner with 3 by-law violations in a last minute attempt to push for a new kill order.

On the 23rd of February Brindi’s owner was found guilty on all counts.

Sentence hearing will take place on March 9. It is feared the judge will order the Killing of the animal.

We have 13 days to Save Brindi.

History is full of miscarriages of justice. Brindi’s case is one of those. It was never about the dog.

It was obvious from the beginning that the issue had grown into a personal vendetta, as it is too often the case; a power play where Brindi and her owner Francesca had become mere pawns in the hands of “authorities” clearly more concerned about saving face than about truly pursuing justice.

Today we are launching a local and international campaign to drive public opinion and to prompt the world to take action.

We want each and every one of our readers and the entire international community to stop for a second and think.

Her life is all that Brindi has. We will not allow it to be taken away from her. Think how you would feel if it was YOUR child put in this position. Going through months of isolation while waiting for the moment to be administered a lethal injection and killed. What would you think of Canada every morning if you were in Francesca’s place?

Today the internet and social media have made a new kind of world and a new way to demand justice possible. There are millions of us ready to stand up and fight for what most would consider worthless.. a dog.

However, Brindi is not just a dog. Brindi is a living being, with feelings of sadness, anxiety, fear, longing. A living being that will be executed unless we all stand together and take action.

Starting from today, Brindi is no longer just a dog.

Brindi is now a symbol that represents our most essential values: Justice and the Right to live.

The Universal Declaration of Animal Rights was solemnly proclaimed in Paris on 15 October 1978 at the UNESCO headquarters. Article 7 states:Any act unnecessary involving the death of an animal, and any decision leading to such an act, constitutes a crime against life.

We need YOU to tell the government of Canada and the City of Halifax that to execute an innocent animal based on obscure by-laws is about the lowest a government can sink into. We will do our best to send a clear message to the Canadian Government and concretely to the City of Halifax; we will show them that doing this would be a terrible mistake, a miscarriage of justice.

We have 13 days to save Brindi and we are going to need YOUR help.

Get involved. We wont give you a model letter to copy and paste. We want YOU to speak your mind.

Contact:

Mayor Peter J. Kelly, Mayor of Halifax on ph: 902-490-4010. Email kellyp@halifax.ca and express your deepest inner feelings regarding this case.

We have 13 days… For the Animals… For Brindi…

Via Myletsadopt.

Related posts :

• No related posts.

Related posts :

• No related posts.

Three-year-old Antonio, who has the weight of a 6-month-old baby, is being attended at a health center for malnourished children (Patrick Farrell/Miami Herald)

An annual US$7 billion investment in agricultural productivity will be necessary to help farmers adapt and reduce the number of undernourished children to ‘no climate change’ levels, claims an International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) report.

Combining crop models and climate change with IFPRI’s economic model of world agriculture, it forecasts that calorie availability in 2050 will decrease relative to 2000 levels throughout the developing world.

To Gerald Nelson, a senior research member at IFPRI, climate change will definitely dismiss improvement in child nourishment levels.

The report adds that rice and wheat harvests will drop by 15 and 30 per cent respectively, from now to 2050. Moreover, prices are liable to boom, getting up to 121 per cent for rice, 194 per cent for wheat and 153 per cent for maize. Developing countries, especially those in South Asia and Africa, are supposed to experience the toughest times.

“Climate change places new and more challenging demands on agricultural productivity,” claims the report. Hence developing new ways out of the crisis : “crop and livestock productivity-enhancing research including biotechnology will be essential to help overcome stresses due to climate change.”

Actually, both new and pre-existing technologies must be put into effect to offset the effects of climate change.

The report advises farmers to focus on crops and livestock that do “reasonably well” in a set of environments rather than those that thrive extremely well with more drastic climatic conditions. It also highlights that investment should both further irrigation infrastructure and rural infrastructure — for instance, by creating better road networks to ease access to markets.

“Our results are that about 40 per cent of the total [investment] should be in Sub-Saharan Africa and much of that on rural roads,” said Gerald Nelson.

“Climate change makes the challenge [of meeting food demands] much harder. The good news is that policymakers around the world are now paying much more attention. But it is not only about financial resources. Policymakers everywhere need to work to provide farmers with a favourable environment, providing public goods like good road systems, better technologies and more transparent taxing and spending programmes.”

Related posts :

• 20 striking pictures of children in third world countries (1)
• Not in our interest (13)

On an international level, disability issues have become prevalent on the agendas of NGOs and UN agencies. Theoretical models of disability provide a social reference for laws and policies designed for disabled people[1]. At present, two models are predominant in the international arena: the medical and the social model. While previous policies were rooted in a medical approach, current programs addressing disability issues use a community-focused perspective based on the social model of disability. These two approaches will be discussed more at large in this chapter.

The medical model (or ‘individual model’) stems from positivist science: it defines ‘normality’ as opposed to any form of pathology that limits an individual’s identity to that of an invalid. Some visible results of labeling are low self-esteem and underachievement of the disabled person and dependency and exclusion from the community life. Although the model reifies human beings as simple agents needing treatment, it justly takes into account the limiting effects of disability.

The social model has been devised by disabled people who perceived disability as a socially built identity. This model stresses the uniqueness of every individual and incorporates the disabled into society by valuing difference in diversity. Here, the needs of the person are stressed. Impairments are addressed in their social context, i.e. exploitation of labor or child abuse. The aim is to bring about positive social change by restructuring society: institutional discrimination, built into the structure of society through prejudices and stereotypes, can be eradicated by equalizing opportunities. It is important to note that this approach overlooks the disabling effect of impairments and the cultural variations that define community life and political activism throughout the world.[2]

Table 1. The Medical Model and the Social Model of Disability

Figure 1. The Medical and Social Model Thinking

Figure 1. Effects of medical model thinking.

Figure 2. Problems as perceived by ’social model’ thinking.

Source: British Film Institute. ‘Medical model’ vs. ’social model’.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/teaching/disability/thinking/medical.html

Following the social model of disability, the World Health Organization (WHO) defines disability as “the outcome of a complex relationship between an individual’s health condition and personal factors, and of the external factors that represent the circumstances in which the individual lives.”

According to the same institution, impairments represent “problems in body function or structure such as significant deviation or loss.”[3]

In the same vein, disablism represents the social effect of equating disability with disempowerment. Disablism could be seen as the process through which society ignores people with impairments. This produces a “false notion of normality”, which in turn creates pressure to conform to standards and segregates those labeled as abnormal.[4]

2. The Legal Framework of Disability

General standards and regulations also provide an important framework for the redefinition of disability policies. The United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons (1982-1992) had a broad impact on the implementation of new projects through the shift to a new social paradigm. Even if stereotypes, discrimination, and marginalization have not been completely eradicated in Jordan, they are becoming gradually less frequent than they were twenty years ago.

Current disability policies are shaped by the provisions stipulated in the following normative documents:

The UN Standard Rules on Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities, adopted in 1992 based on the World Program of Action, are a fundamental instrument for policy-making and international cooperation. The 22 rules contain provisions for equalizing participation, target areas for equal participation, implementation measures, and monitoring mechanisms. The act appoints a Special Rapporteur to monitor the implementation of the Rules.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability was ratified on May 3^rd 2008. One of the fastest treaties to be negotiated at the United Nations[5], this convention promotes equal rights and international cooperation, especially in developing countries. It further stipulates that the handicapped should be included in decision-making processes; special protection and assistance should be given to women, girls, children, and families with disabled members. States should facilitate accessibility to the physical and social environment, to information and communication, to health, education, and work experience on the open labor market.

http://www.open.ac.uk/inclusiveteaching/pages/understanding-and-awareness/models-of-disability.php

[2] Sources: British Film Institute. ‘Medical model’ vs. ’social model’.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/teaching/disability/thinking/medical.html

British Film Institute. Disability, diversity and Equal Opportunities.

http://www.bfi.org.uk/education/teaching/disability/thinking/diversity.html

Daniel Goldberg. Social Model of Disability. 09 November 2006. http://www.medhumanities.org/2006/11/social_model_of.html

[3] ICF definition of disability and impairment in “Disability and Rehabilitation WHO Action Plan 2006-2011.” Accessible from: http://www.who.int/disabilities/publications/dar_action_plan_2006to2011.pdf

[4] Thomas, Pam. “Disability and Charity.” Available from:

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies/archiveuk/thomas%20pam/Equalising%20charity1.pdf

[5] According to the internal document entitled “Taking Stock of Disability Related Interventions at UNRWA” provided by the Programs and Projects Support Unit at UNRWA JFO.

Related posts :

• No related posts.

From aluminum soda cans and glass jars to old newspapers and rolled-up magazines, the most commonly recycled materials are household products and everyday items no longer of any use. Recycling not only transforms waste into valuable resources, but also benefits the environment on both a local and global level.

The effort saves energy, prevents pollution, decreases greenhouse gases and conserves natural resources.

1. Aluminum Cans

In the United States, used aluminum beverage cans are the most recycled item, but other types of aluminum are just as worthy. Siding, gutters, car components, storm window frames and lawn furniture are often overlooked recyclable items. Recycling one aluminum can saves the equivalent of a ½ gallon of gasoline or enough energy to watch television for 3 hours. Recycling one aluminum can saves enough energy to run a TV for three hours! 350,000 aluminum cans are produced every minute! More aluminum goes into beverage cans than any other product. Once an aluminum can is recycled, it can be part of a new can within six weeks. During the time it takes you to read this sentence, 50,000 12-ounce aluminum cans are made. There is no limit to the amount of times aluminum cans can be recycled. We use over 80,000,000,000 aluminum pop cans every year. At one time, aluminum was more valuable than gold !

2. Paper

According to the EPA, recycle 1 ton of paper and save 7,000 gallons of water, 3 cubic yards of landfill space, 2 barrels of oil, 4,100 kilowatt-hours of electricity and 17 full-grown trees. Overall, recycling paper instead of using new materials produces 74 percent less air pollution and uses 50 percent less water. During World War II when raw materials were scarce, 33% of all paper was recycled. After the war, this number decreased sharply. Americans use 85,000,000 tons of paper a year: about 680 pounds per person. In 1993, U.S. paper recovery saved more than 90,000,000 cubic yards of landfill space. In 1993, nearly 36,000,000 tons of paper in the U.S.-twice as much in 1980. 27% of the newspapers produced in America are recycled.

3. Newspapers

Recycling a single run of the Sunday newspaper in a major metropolitan city saves an average of 75,000 trees. If every city in the United States recycled newspapers, the country saves about 250,000,000 trees on a yearly basis.

4. Glass Bottles

Americans toss out enough glass bottles and jars each month to fill up a towering skyscraper. Recycling one glass bottle not only saves the same amount of energy to power a 100-watt light bulb for 4 hours, but also creates 20 percent less air pollution and 50 percent less water pollution compared to producing a new bottle comprised of raw materials.

5. Trash

The United States generates the most trash in the world with an estimated 1,609 pounds per person every year. Each American is responsible for throwing out around 1,200 pounds of compostable organic garbage on a yearly basis.

6. Packaging

For every $10 spent on purchased goods, packaging makes up 10 percent (or $1). Representing around 65 percent of household trash, packaging racks up heavy disposal costs. For every ton of trash, it costs $30 to recycle, $50 to transport it to a landfill and around $70 to incinerate.

7. Hershey’s Kisses

The amount of aluminum foil (all of which is completely recyclable) used to wrap the estimated 80,000,000 Hershey’s Kisses produced each day is enough to blanket more than 50 acres of space–the equivalent of nearly 40 football fields.

8. Motor Oil

Despite getting dirty, motor oil never loses its purpose or wears out. Americans can reduce their dependence on imported oil by reusing old motor oil after it undergoes a recycling and re-refining process.

9. Typical Families

The average American family consumes 182 gallons of soda, 29 gallons of juice, 104 gallons of milk and 26 gallons of bottled water per year. All of these items are recyclable.

10. Styrofoam Cups

A common misconception of Polystyrene (#6) Styrofoam cups is that it is recyclable. Every year, Americans toss out 25,000,000,000 Styrofoam cups–enough to circle the Earth a total of 436 times.

Related posts :

• Green energy (1)

Related posts :

• Amnesty International campaign against destitution (0)
• Climate change and undernourishment : 25 million more children might be hit (2)

45 million of animals are killed in fur farms each year

5 million are captured or killed in the nature (seals, wolves, tigers, etc) each year

In many cases, individuals who wear fur try to justify their actions by claiming their coat was made from animals killed on a ranch, as opposed to animals that suffered for days in a steel jaw leghold trap (leghold trap). There is a misconception that ranch raised fur is “humane”. Unfortunately, there is nothing humane about depriving these animals from their behavioral and physiological needs.

Fur farming is nothing more than institutionalized torture.

So why is fur farming so wrong?

• It is important to know which species are raised and killed on fur farms

Of the 45 million animals killed on fur ranches each year, about twenty-six million are mink and 4.5 million are fox. In addition, 250,000 chinchillas, 150,000 sable, 100,000 fitch, 100,000 raccoon dogs (a separate species from the American raccoon), and a small number of lynx, bobcat, and nutria are fur farmed.

It’s hard to determine how many rabbits are killed for fur because some of them come from the food industry.

___________________________________

The mink is a semi-aquatic predator native to North America. Mink are very solitary creatures who spend a substantial portion of their day swimming in the water. Mink are very inquisitive and active and does not adapt well to life in a cage.

The mink raised on fur farms are genetically wild.

This sort of intensive confinement has severe psychological implications. Ranch mink engage in neurotic behavior. Many will move back and forth in the same repetitive motion for extended periods of time.

Because mink are kept in such cramped conditions causing an increase in stress, many ranch mink develop stomach ulcers and enlarged adrenal glands. This is a sign of chronic stress. The fur industry conducted their own tests in hopes to prove that ranch mink are not stressed. In their studies, young mink are used before they can develop stomach ulcers. The results of these inaccurate tests are used to “prove” that intensive confinement does not affect the mink. It is understood how the public is misinformed about the truth on fur farms with the release of such deceptive tests.

Tail biting is a form of self-mutilation that is common in captive mink populations. Self-mutilation is a hardship for fur farmers because it devalues the animal’s fur pelt. Mink are killed after their winter coat reaches prime to cover many of the flaws in the fur. This is recognized as an unfortunate cost of conducting business. Large pens would reduce the amount of self-mutilation, but the additional space would increase overhead costs. It is more cost-effective for the industry to cram more animals into a smaller space, and deal with the occasional stress related death or self-mutilation

This semi-aquatic animal does not get a chance to swim in water if born on a fur farm. The lack of exposure to swimming in water is believed to increase behavioral problems in ranch mink. In the summer time, a wild mink might take a dip in a pond to cool off. Denied that option, many ranch mink die from heat related diseases in the hot summer months. Some years, as many as 10% of a fur farms stock may die from heat related conditions.

In average, 50 minks are needed to make one short single coat!!

• As fashion trends change, so does fur farming.

Fur farmers utilize selective inbreeding to encourage the development of mutant color phases to meet the whims of fashion.

This process led to the development of white, gray, mahogany, and shades of blue mink. This style of genetic manipulation does not only change the mink’s hair color, but it creates physiological problems as well.

Life for ranch-raised fox is not any more promising. Fox farms have very serious problem with cannibalism. Fox in cramped living conditions often resort to cannibalism as a result of a stressed induced environment. It is estimated that fox farmers will lose 20 % of their animals prematurely. Half of those deaths result from cannibalism.

• Animals on fur farms are not able to engage in their natural behavior.

These animals are treated like machines and commodities rather than living creatures with emotions. The suffering and death stems for the simple purpose of creating a luxury garment that serves no practical purpose.

Fox farming is now banned in Holland and all of the fox farms must close by 2004. As of January 1st, 2000 fox farming will be illegal in Sweden. Austria does not have any fox farms as a result of animal friendly legislation, and the United Kingdom banned fur farming in December 2000 as well.

This clearly indicates that there is a very serious concern for the welfare of animals in intensive confinement.

• Killing methods

Death for these animals is a horror story.

1) The most common method used for killing foxes is anal electrocution.

2) Mink are usually gassed or violently injected with poison, but also electrocuted.

3) Many just have their necks broken or are asphixiated.

4) An undercover investigation found that some minks are killed with weed killers, which can cause the animals to convulse for up to 10 minutes before death.

5) The chinchilla industry proudly admits that most chinchillas are killed by neck breaking or electrocution. Many chinchilla farmers hook one metal clamp to the ear, and another to her genitalia to implement the electrocution of this poor creature. The chinchilla is small, and it takes as many as 100 of them to die in order to make a single full-length fur coat.

The fur trade calls this “humane”.

The truth about the fur industry will prevail despite any attempts to minimize the suffering and pain that occurs to animals.

_________________________________________________________________________________

THE CASE OF CHINA

This country provides fur for clothes but also for any little toy you can find in any market. Those items are usually very cheap.

WHY?

Take a look inside the Chinese fur trade.

Watch the video

Watch the video 2

(this image gallery also shows cats and dogs killed for food but we will study this matter in a different post soon)

• Skinned alive

When undercover investigators made their way onto Chinese fur farms, they found that many animals are still alive and struggling desperately when workers flip them onto their backs or hang them up by their legs or tails to skin them. When workers on these farms begin to cut the skin and fur from an animal’s leg, the free limbs kick and writhe. Workers stomp on the necks and heads of animals who struggle too hard to allow a clean cut.

When the fur is finally peeled off over the animals’ heads, their naked, bloody bodies are thrown onto a pile of those who have gone before them. Some are still alive, breathing in ragged gasps and blinking slowly. Some of the animals’ hearts are still beating five to 10 minutes after they are skinned. One investigator recorded a skinned raccoon dog on the heap of carcasses who had enough strength to lift his bloodied head and stare into the camera.

Before they are skinned alive, animals are pulled from their cages and thrown to the ground; workers bludgeon them with metal rods or slam them on hard surfaces, causing broken bones and convulsions but not always immediate death. Animals watch helplessly as workers make their way down the row.

Undercover investigators from Swiss Animal Protection/EAST International toured fur farms in China’s Hebei Province, and it quickly became clear why outsiders are banned from visiting. There are no regulations governing fur farms in China.

The investigators found horrors beyond their worst imaginings and concluded, “Conditions on Chinese fur farms make a mockery of the most elementary animal welfare standards. In their lives and their unspeakable deaths, these animals have been denied even the simplest acts of kindness.”

On these farms, foxes, minks, rabbits, and other animals pace and shiver in outdoor wire cages, exposed to driving rain, freezing nights, and, at other times, scorching sun. Mother animals, who are driven crazy from rough handling and intense confinement and have nowhere to hide while giving birth, often kill their babies after delivering litters.

• Is there a skeleton in your closet?

The globalization of the fur trade has made it impossible to know where fur products come from. China supplies more than half of the finished fur garments imported for sale in the United States. Even if a fur garment’s label says it was made in a European country, the animals were likely raised and slaughtered elsewhere—possibly on an unregulated Chinese fur farm.

The only way to prevent such unimaginable cruelty is never to buy any fur.

Related posts :

• No related posts.

Related posts :

• India : some portraits from French photographer Céline Roux (0)
• A way to fix catastrophes ? High level pranks by the Yes men (0)
• I didn’t know Doubt was so ugly (1)
• Insane practices for more farms profit : this is the Meatrix ! (5)

Your first concern is always your inhabitants’ welfare.

Actually, this has been a great source of inspiration for Amnesty International…

For they made a pixel-art out of it :

Association : Amnesty International Belgium. Click on the picture to enlarge it.

The caption says : ” Destitution is a modern scourge. Destitution violates human rights. We demand dignity”.

By clicking on some parts of this picture, you will be given information about particular topics : refugees, discrimination, forced deportation, death penalty… (sorry it’s in French !)

Related posts :

• 20 most beautiful nature pictures from portuguese artist José Ramos (3)
• 20 striking pictures of children in third world countries (1)