Media Watchering, and Bill Clinton, or: something reasonable

Hello chickens,

The last two months have been up and down, up and down, and I shan’t say more.

Here’s a lil’ sumthin’ sumthin’ from today’s Age online healthy blog section – not to shabby and not outrageously hysterical (at this stage. Wait until the charred-chops and salty-sausage eaters consider this article a threat to their way of life, all they hold dear and the Great Aussie Dream).

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/blogs/chew-on-this/going-vegan-for-your-hearts-sake/20101220-192c2.html

Also, did anyone see the recent M Magazine (also The Age) which highlighted people who are social oddities – the asexual fellow, the childless woman, the nudist – and a vegan. I was all fine and dandy with this until the vegan bloke wrote that he is happy to each ‘happy eggs’. I don’t want to be the Vegan Police but if you’re going to put your mug in a national magazine as an example of a lifestyle choice that most people are unfamiliar with or think is a little on the beardy-weirdy side, don’t confuse the matter by saying that you’re not actually very strict and can eat whatever you want really. It makes us all look flaky. If you need to do it then just do it, but please don’t make a great big public song and dance about being vegan if in fact A) you are not, and B) you probably know darn well how often the rest us have to explain that we can’t make just one little exception on this one little special occasion for the butter milked from your delightful cows and churned by your rosy-cheeked milkmaids, and your yolky eggs collected lovingly from your feathery chickens by crooning farmhands.

Argument not over yet, buster, or: babies in the crockpot

With more from the "never ever read the comments" file:

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/from-cradle-to-crock-pot-20101013-16imh.html

I quite liked this article. It doesn't resolve anything, but it does try to pinpoint why killing and eating baby animals can be more confronting for omnis than eating adults. Speaking about the discomfort is identifying it, which is small as it is, is a step towards questioning. 

My favourite new form of omni-spam is this kind of comment: "All you sooks who cry about eating baby animals, you are such hypocrites in your leather shoes and belts!". Yes you would be. But I'm not. Argument not over yet, buster.

Forcing it down your throat, or: Don't read the comments.

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/making-a-case-for-veganism-20101004-163m6.html

I don't want to comment on the slightly bizarre and pointless article. 

However I will say this: why is it that any article about veg*ism is responded to immediately by a number of comments demanding that  veg*ns just shut up and stop telling the author of the comment to eat meat ... and why do these comments appear before a single pro-veg comment has appeared? 

It is an imaginary blast against an imaginary veg*n? Is it wishful thinking, in the way that one often has verbally violent arguments with people in one's head, coming up with a number of cutting and pithy remarks that utterly fail to spring to mind in real life? Or have the authors actually met some haranguing veg*n at some time? They do exist, but thankfully I have only ever seen them online and certainly not amonst my own friends. 

My experience is the opposite: I have had it demanded of me over the dinner table to explain myself. I recently had a chef tell me I had a mental illness, in a faux-but-not-really joking way. I have had friends introduce me - regularly - as "the vegan". I have had a million questions, all designed to find the tiniest flaw in logic as though the possibility that I would agree that if alone on a desert island having been shipwrecked without communciations devices with a newborn to feed and the absolute certainty that I will never escape then I might drink the milk of the cow stranded with me means that the entire agri-business structure is ethical. I've had countless "I could never ... I love cheese ...." and "Tasty tasty murder", usually while I'm eating. I've had "Well sorry, we're going to order pork anyway", without me having said a word. I've had "plants have feelings hahaha". 

And this in response to what I said, which was ... nothing. 

In my experience omnivores confronted with veganism are often aggressive, defensive, abusive and loud. Some aren't. A surprisingly sad number are. I will only discuss veganism with people who I think want to have a reasonable discussion with me. Otherwise I am silent. 

Who is forcing what down whose throat?

Eating Wilbur and Patting Rex, or: re-establising the Farm to Fork Continuum in the public mind

I suspect a zeitgeist. 

On Sunday, perusing as is my pretentious wont, the Weekend Australian Magazine (actually I never read the Australian; it was a one-off), I read a column that I can't locate online in my lunch hour, but which I assure you exists, about the break in the farm-to-fork continuum that allows self-proclaimed animal lovers to chow down on Daisy, Wilbur or Lambert whilst simultaneously petting Fido and stroking Fluffy. 

Today's Age contains this column, slightly more academic and pointed, but in the same vein. I hope that the 'conscious forgetting' of Jonathan Safran Foer that the author refers to is getting more and more forgotten itself, but it does at least seem that this issue is getting more media airtime. I hope that someone, reading the weekend paper with a cup of coffee on the couch (or beer if you're like me), glanced down at faithful Ralph or Rex or King or Duke or Bailey or Sam, and then reconsidered their plan for a pig sandwich for lunch and a baby sheep roast for dinner.

'The Animal Cruelty Syndrome', or: The NY Times follows up

**TRIGGER WARNING**: The article discussed here contains some graphic and heartbreaking descriptions of animal abuse. I found it hard to read. If you think this will trigger you, I advise you not to link to it. The extracts below do not contain these descriptions. 

In March the NY Times reported that an increasing number of US States were passing legislation to bar convicted animal abusers from owning or coming into contact with pets, and to mandate child or spousal abuse officers and animal control officers to share information and report to each other when they find something wrong.

Today the NY Times has published an extended piece titled 'The Animal Cruelty Syndrome', which discusses the growing recognition that animal cruelty is part of a constellation of behaviours endemic to abusive households, gang activity and the psychologically disturbed. 

The article is by Charles Siebert, a contributing writer, who is the author of “The Wauchula Woods Accord: Toward a New Understanding of Animals.” The article is well-written, empathetic and unflinching - I think I'd like to read this book. 

I'll try to do a more in-depth discussion when I'm not, say, at work, but for now here are some extracts. 

Back in the early 1980s, Lockwood was asked to work on behalf of New Jersey’s Division of Youth and Family Services with a team of investigators looking into the treatment of animals in middle-class American households that had been identified as having issues of child abuse. They interviewed all the members of each family as well as the social workers who were assigned to them. The researchers’ expectation going in was that such families would have relatively few pets given their unstable and volatile environments. They found, however, not only that these families owned far more pets than other households in the same community but also that few of the animals were older than 2.

“There was a very high turnover of pets in these families,” Lockwood told me. “Pets dying or being discarded or running away. We discovered that in homes where there was domestic violence or physical abuse of children, the incidence of animal cruelty was close to 90 percent. The most common pattern was that the abusive parent had used animal cruelty as a way of controlling the behaviors of others in the home. I’ve spent a lot of time looking at what links things like animal cruelty and child abuse and domestic violence. And one of the things is the need for power and control. Animal abuse is basically a power-and-control crime.”

...

In a separate study, a quarter of battered women reported that they had delayed leaving abusive relationships for the shelter out of fear for the well-being of the family pet. In response, a number of shelters across the country have developed “safe haven” programs that offer refuges for abused pets as well as people, in order that both can be freed from the cycle of intimidation and violence. 

...

What cannot be so easily monitored or ameliorated, however, is the corrosive effect that witnessing such acts has on children and their development. More than 70 percent of U.S. households with young children have pets. In a study from the 1980s, 7-to-10-year-old children named on average two pets when listing the 10 most important individuals in their lives. When asked to “whom do you turn to when you are feeling sad, angry, happy or wanting to share a secret,” nearly half of 5-year-old children in another study mentioned their pets. One way to think of what animal abuse does to a child might simply be to consider all the positive associations and life lessons that come from a child’s closeness to a pet — right down to eventually receiving their first and perhaps most gentle experiences of death as a natural part of life — and then flipping them so that all those lessons and associations turn negative. 

...

To date, one of the most promising methods for healing those whose empathic pathways have been stunted by things like repeated exposure to animal cruelty is, poetically enough, having such victims work with animals. Kids who tend to be completely unresponsive to human counselors and who generally shun physical and emotional closeness with people often find themselves talking openly to, often crying in front of, a horse — a creature that can often be just as strong-willed and unpredictable as they are and yet in no way judgmental, except, of course, for a natural aversion to loud, aggressive human behaviors. 

Things that made me teary this morning, or: Blood sports even for the smallest of creatures

Under this article from today's Guardian, is this comment, which just makes my heart break.

6 Jun 2010, 2:17AM

The cruelty does not begin or end with bullfights in Spain. At 'ferias' I have been to you can pay a Euro to throw stones at a rabbit nailed to a plank; I have seen donkeys stabbed to death in the town square in Mijas on Easter parades (there is of course the infamous traddition of throwing a donkey or a horse from the bell tower as well), and in Malaga they regularily have bullfights for children where the 'matador', dressed a bit like Ronald McDonald, invites the children to join him in hacking a bull calf to death in the ring, to much merriment of the assembled parents. And if you are too lazy to participate in the stabbing, taunting and torturing yourself, you can always watch the children's bullfighting programme on Saturday morning: 'Toros para todos.'
What a lovely country. Let's all go there and pay our respects their ancient and noble traditions, shall we?

It's not right. It will never be right. Culture and tradition be damned.

Tasmania could lead the way, or: banning sow stalls

I received the following email from Animals Australia. My response is below, and I urge you to do the same. This is an ooprtunity for one state to forge ahead in making positive changes to the welfare of pigs - someone must be first. 

Dear Rachel,

I'm writing to you today to share with you some wonderfully hopeful news, and also to ask for a small favour on behalf of thousands of needy animals.

Your critical support of our campaign to end factory farming has helped create the groundswell that has made it possible for the first Australian state government to consider a legislative ban on the use of sow stalls.

As you may know, the 'sow stall' represents one of the cruellest practices ever inflicted on pigs in Australia. Already banned in the U.K. and in parts of Europe, these cruel concrete and metal crates imprison mother pigs so severely that they cannot even turn around. Here in Australia, laws currently permit pregnant sows to be left in this debilitating state for months at a time.

In an incredibly positive move, Tasmania’s Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) recently recommended that Tasmania become the first state to ban the use of sow stalls on the basis of unacceptable cruelty. The decision to accept the recommendation now rests with one man: Primary Industries Minister Bryan Green.

The pig industry is hard at work lobbying Minister Green to ignore science that clearly reveals how pigs suffer physically and emotionally inside stalls. They would rather continue the practice of confining pigs in stalls indefinitely. So who will speak up for the pigs?

Animals Australia in collaboration with Tasmanian-based member society Brightside Farm Sanctuary have responded in force by placing a series of 18 high-impact ads across three state-wide newspapers that will bring the Tasmanian Primary Industries Minister face to face with the very animals he has the opportunity to help. You can view the ads here.

Right now it is critical that Minister Green be reminded that all caring Australians are appalled by animal cruelty and will enthusiastically support a ban on cruel sow stalls — which brings me to that favour I wanted to ask you...

You can help us bring about this important outcome by sending a personal e-mail to Minister Green to urge him to accept AWAC's recommendation to ban sow stalls in Tasmania. Your message need only be a few short lines. His address is: bryan.green@parliament.tas.gov.au

Thank you dearly for your ongoing support. A few minutes of your time today could help end a lifetime of suffering for animals.

For the pigs, 

Lyn White

Dear Minister,

I write to urge you to accept the recommendation of Tasmania's Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (AWAC) that Tasmania ban the use of sow stalls on the basis of unacceptable cruelty.

The United Kingdom and Europe have also recognised that the confinement of pregnant sows in a conrete and metal crate for months at a time without room to turn around constitutes severe cruelty.

It is scientifically well established that pigs are animals with significant levels of intelligence and emotion, much the same as that of a dog. Their technical classification as farm animals is insufficient justification to allow treatment of them that we would not accept if applied to domestic animals and our pets. 

The pig industry will attempt to reduce the severity of suffering experienced by sows, and present economic arguments to continue current practices. I strongly urge you to consider instead the moral imperative that each of us bears to uphold acceptable standards of welfare for animals under our care. 

I hope very much that Tasmania will lead the nation in banning this unecessary, cruel and inhumane practice.

Yours faithfully,

Miss T

Victoria Votes, or: political machinations and the Animal Justice Party of Australia

The Melbourne Magazine - something I usually find oddly entrancing despite the intense navel-gazing - has run an article in which Ted Baillieu and John Brumby answer questions posed by Victorians. 

The answers range from the straight-talkin' (here's Brumby on whether the government will raise the drinking age to 21: "I don't support that because to be honest I don't believe realistically it could be achieved or implemented") to the infuriating (how about this corker by Baillieu in answer to a question about street violence in the CBD: "We have set out a very cleat strategy to deal with it, and that's, in part, police numbers ... We've also said that we need zero-tolerance enforcement. We will get rid of suspended sentences, we'll get rid of home detention and we'll put an end to what is talked about in police circles as the notion of a free hit.").

One question posed that is very important to me is this one from Peter Singer:

"Will you empower inspectors to make routine, unannounced visits to Victorian factory farms so that the public does not have to rey on the occasional whistleblower with courage enough to report when animals are kept in cruel conditions that violate the law and the government's own codes of practice?"

Victoria goes to the polls on 27 November. The answers to this question will help me decide on my vote (I'd also love to see an answer from the Greens, whose animal policy is here - it's welfarist  in position but with some excellent points) and although I am not trying to sway your vote, I hope these answers will help inform your own considerations and decision-making process (which as a responsible citizen of a democratic nation you will of course undertake before casting your vote). 

John Brumby: 

"We're not looking at any changes in this area at this point in time, but let me say that animal welfare is a very important issue to our state. How you ensure appropriate welfare for animals is the sign, I think, of any civilised society, and so it is fundamental that businesses that operate in our state should and must operate within the laws that are set in place".

Ted Baillieu:

"There will be, from time to time, occasions where the wrong thing is being done but I have great faith in our farming sector, and I think the system is working reasonably well, at present, to identify any inappropriate practices".

In the federal sphere (federal system of government ... three tiers of government... ) is the newly forming Animal Justice Party of Australia. Niki has already written about this new political party here. I'm really pleased that the issues I am most interested in are garnering enough support to warrant a political movement. I'm under no illusions that the AJP will sweep into office and declare the new state Veganstralia, but a political voice reflects community concern. It will be hard to present serious animal-related issues in a way that gathers general community support without coming across as craaaazy-vegans or making people think that their Saturday BBQ snags will be subject to armed raids (I want omnis' support. I would like to confiscate their snags too but it's no way to ensure our issues get a sympathetic hearing outside of Veganville), but I'm glad they're tackling it. I think I'll join .

Testing, testing, or: The Age is discussing animal testing and makeup

Today's 'Beauty Beat' blog at The Age website has a post on animal testing. I've responded and urge you to do the same. It's astonishing how often people assume that products are no longer tested on animals (because they rightly think that it's barbaric, abhorrent and ineffective) but it's just that the issue has slipped off the radar - I know this was the case for me when I started veganising my makeup and bathroom products. It's great that this important but often forgotten issue is getting an airing.

http://blogs.theage.com.au/lifestyle/beautybeat/archives/2010/05/cruel_reality.html

Skinning, or: Just Stop It.

From today's Age. 

Oh no no no no no bleeding hell no. 

Fur is not back. Unless you like hearing rabbits scream as they are anally electrocuted. Do you?

Farmers do not shoot foxes and rabbits and sell their pelts. Most fur comes from China where animals are raised in cages for their skins and then killed. It's simple. It's not environmental.

Leather, suede, wool, angora and cashmere aren't better, but as one sensible girl pointed out to me, whereas most shoes are leather and coats are wool (as anyone who has tried to find good quality synthetics knows), there is no reason at all to wear fur and that's why it should be abhorrent even to skin-wearers. 

Just stop it.

Furry fashion back in style

DAILE PEPPER

May 12, 2010 - 1:40PM

Comments 27

A fur vest by Harmony & Lawson. Photo: Luke Thompson

Fur is back in fashion.
The number of luxury labels across the world using faux and real fur to create their autumn/winter collections is huge and now a Perth fashion label’s real fur creations are flying off the racks.
Chanel sent models wearing full fur body suits down the catwalk, evoking images of woolly mammoths in ancient times, during their recent fall/winter show. Though the luxe label chose to use fake fur rather than the real thing.

Roberto Cavalli’s line of pelts, vests, scarves and dresses featuring fur have sent animal rights activisits aflutter, Gucci, Fendi and plenty more have favoured fur as both embellishment and the foundation of a range of pieces.
Now a Perth label Harmony & Lawson is creating garments made only of real fur, and finding the furry designs are much more popular than ever expected.
Designer Harmony Douglas said her rabbit and raccoon fur creations have proved extremely popular since she launched the label in December.

A creation by Chanel, part of the fall/winter 2011 collection.

“The market is crying out for it,” she said.
“We are just being inundated with sales.”
No longer are Anna Wintour and J.Lo amongst a tiny minority of fashion followers who wear the real thing. 
Singer Kelly Rowland purchased a fur vest from the label during her recent visit to Perth, and models including Skye Stracke had purchased the product too. Douglas said she had customers from all over the world.
But the controversy surrounding the use of fur continues. Even those designers that do use fur, refuse to comment on their use of it.
Lisa Ho’s latest winter collection features what has been said to be rabbit fur. But ask her PR team for a comment on her use of the material and you get a quick “Lisa Ho doesn’t comment on fur” response.
But Douglas says very few people voiced concerns to her about the possibility of cruelty, though she realised that for some people fur would always remain taboo.
She sourced her furs overseas, and said government regulations meant the product was farmed like other meat products. All parts of the animals were used. The fur was certified cruelty free.
It was the luxury feel of garments made from fur that was making them popular once again, Douglas said.
“It’s the luxury of it, it's so soft, and my garments are light weight,” she said.
But not everyone in the fashion industry believes the use of real fur can be justified.
While people presume Australian luxe label Aurelio Costarella uses the material to create some of the couture looks they send down the catwalk, the designer has signed the PETA agreement against the use of fur and will never use the real thing.
“We believe you don’t need to use fur as there are so many other great materials and fabrications to utilise," Costarella brand manager Paul O’Connor said.
At the end of the day it’s about using your creativity to make a luxury product and one that is desirable to all.”

Lambkin, or: who looks at this and thinks "I'll kill it and eat it"?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/lamb-meat-prices-surge-9-per-cent/story-e6frea83-1225864742689

Some choice words from Phil Lally and Michele Prince, sheep farmers in Clare SA about how they are handrearing 50 'orphan' lambs:

"We're keeping all the lambs we can because the market is so strong we can't justify leaving them in the paddock to get picked out by crows and foxes.We want to make sure nothing is left out to die as was done in the past - we have to make sure every single unit counts".

Please note the following:

• We can't justify leaving newborn, weak lambs out to die because the market is strong. But it's not wrong to abandon defenceless babies to slowly starve to death or be mutilated by crows and foxes.
• Units. Not lambs or sheep but units.

Here they are, happily hand feeding small and happy lambs. Lambs can learn their own names and love to play.

 

It's beyond me how anyone can look at those lambs and think they are nothing more than units who deserve to die.

Today's Guardian: Why I Must Not Teach My Children What I Think Is Ethical Behaviour But Omnis Can

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/apr/20/veganism-safe-children  - "Is veganism safe for children?"

I really don't have time to read the comments, but here's one that always sticks in my craw: "Why do you force your beliefs on to your children?".

For the same reason I will teach them to be kind to others, not to hit, to tell the truth and to share. Because ALL parents teach their kids the things they think are right. The assumption in the question is that the default - meat-eating etc - is a morally neutral default and that my wacky, crazy beliefs are intrinsically damaging. 

I wonder if we might term this 'omni privilege'. 

I find it interesting that when vegan parents write about their own experiences here, the response is "And here are the vegan zealots coming out of the woodwork". The question is about veganism and kids; these people have experience with it and choose to write about it, but suddenly they're proselytising weirdos. Each of them has said their kids are healthy but apparently their direct evidence is suspect because they don't take their kids to the local fried chicken shop.

 

Haigh's is back in my good books, or: I receive a phone call

I should have written this post a couple of weeks ago when Haigh's contacted me again in response to my complaints. 

Upfront, I'll be clear: I still disagree with the conclusion that Haigh's has come to. I think they've fallen on the wrong side of conservative. But ... I now have a lot of respect for their methods. 

After my letters to Haigh's (here and here) I received an email asking if I would speak to a member of the executive management team. Thinking this could go either way, I agreed, and after playing a bit of phone tag I received a call from Susan. 

I liked her. She was nice. She was genuine. She was really concerned to explain to me their thinking at every step, and I respected the lengths she had gone to. 

My biggest gripe with the labelling chocolate/allergen issue was that it wasn't a legal requirement. Using my super-sleuth skills, I tracked through legislation and guidelines to try to find out exactly what was required, and as far as I could see, my dark chocolate frogs were being unfairly labelled and taken away from me. 

Susan gave me the background to Haigh's' (how do I apostrophise that one eh?) decision. In early 2009 Susan attended a training session which used the VITAL risk assessment tool (Voluntary Incidental Trace Allegen Label), which is recommended by the Australian Food and Grocery Council. (If you're more interested than I am, you can read about it here).  On testing Haigh's products they realised that if they applied the VITAL tool then they should be labelling milk as an ingredient in their dark chocolate. 

So I get this. As a company Haigh's chose to use a particular analytical tool which gave them this answer. It had nothing to do with their legal obligations and everything to do with their corporate  risk assessment decisions. In my view these are the actions of a company acting sensibly and responsibly. Apparently testing also showed that the level of trace milk in the dark chocolate varied so wildly that one batch to another would record ingredient-level or trace-level amounts. In Haigh's view it was not safe to label this variation as simply 'may contain'.

Susan also told me that she contacted the SA Department of Health for advice, as well as holding discussions with Anaphylaxis Australia (can you believe that parents with dairy-allergic kids will still give them foods that 'may contain traces of'? Crazy and reckless).

On the bright side, Haigh's is moving towards having a dedicated dairy-free facility. Not being a player on the scale of Cadbury this is a costly and time-consuming process, but I like that Haigh's recognises a need for it and is working towards it.

I still disagree about the ultimate outcome - I maintain that 'may contain traces of' should be a sufficient warning and is an accurate reflection of the product - but I accept that the VITAL tool renders a different result and that Haigh's has chosen, as a responsible producer, to use this industry standard. I stil want dark chocolate frogs. But I respect the process and the decision, even if I disagree with it. 

So there you have it - Haigh's have gained my respect for not only their risk assessment processes but also for the way in which they handled my complaint (I even got a follow up email to check I was happy with the outcome of the conversation). I am confident that Haigh's did what they thought was best for their business and customers, following consultation and due process. I don't like the lack of frogs in my life, but I can live with it.

An abuser is an abuser, or: the US starts seeing animal abuse for what it is (and isn't)

From today's NY Times Online. 

I'm pleased that more and more US States are passing legislation that bar convicted animal abusers from owning or coming into contact with pets. I think it's great that further attention is being paid by authorities to animal hoarders, even though I think that the level of abuse usually perpetrated by hoarders - chronic neglect, lack of health care, inadequate care and shelter, leaving dead animals' bodies where they fall - would seem to stem from a place of more benign intentions than animal torture does. Nonetheless, animal hoarders do need to be identified and helped (or prosecuted) and the animals they hoard need to be removed. An abuser is an abuser.

I am especially pleased that eight states now require child or spousal abuse officers and animal control officers to share information and report to each other when they find something wrong. This acknowledges the chilling statistic (reported in the article) that in 88% of homes where children were abused, animals were abused too, and that women who have been abused by their intimate partner were 10 times more likely to report that their partner had also hurt or killed a pet. It helps place animal abuse in the same sphere as child or intimate partner violence and it reflects the seriousness of any abuse of the defenceless. An abuser is an abuser.

Although I see that these changes place animal abuse firmly in the real of abuse-response services, which is appropriate, and that it is widely acknowledged that the abuse of animals is a leading indicator of the abuse of humans, I still feel a little sad that the article implies that some of these laws are only here to identify and prosecute animal abusers as a means to identify and prosecute human abusers. It's an important link and one which has been instrumental in raising the profile of animal abuse as something to be acted upon, but we must also recognise that abusing animals is wrong because it is ... abusing animals. An abuser is an abuser.

This bit doesn't please me either: "Some states are bucking the trend. In Idaho, which is one of the states without a felony cruelty penalty, farmers and ranchers are pushing a bill that would more clearly distinguish livestock from pets and would exempt livestock from the protections afforded pets". Because the standard treatment of livestock amounts to abuse? Or because no one cares about a nameless faceless cow as long as Fluffy the Cat and Rex the Dog are safe at home? An abuser is an abuser. 

Many people will see animal abuse as sitting much much lower on the scale of wrongness than the abuse of humans. I'm not going to address that; it's a huge issue. But to me it is clear - people who like to hurt defenceless beings will do it to anyone they can. Abusers are abusers.

Haigh's responds, or: I just can't explain

But here's a lil' sumthin' sumthin' - I got a reply from Haigh's, but didn't notice it for a while because it landed in my Trash. Here was my original moment of glory.

I really can barely reply. The logic is so, so twisty-roundy circular. But it's nice to know that my email was discussed in a management meeting; God I feel special (actually, one time I wrote a letter of complaint to a company because I had been misinformed by staff about the vegan status of their products and was quite huffy, and they forwarded my email to all stores to let them know that there had been a problem - not in a bad way, just to inform in case they had any other queries - but they left my full name on the bottom of the email. And how do I know this? A friend of mine who is a manager in that chain rang me!)

Dear Rachel,

Thank you for your email. We understand what you are saying, however due to new standards of labeling we now have to list milk as an ingredient. We have not added milk, but as we produce both the milk and dark product on the same machinery, we have to list it as an ingredient.

To declare on labels “may contain traces of milk” the product must contain a specific amount of milk. Unfortunately our dark chocolate products contain above this particular level, therefore due to the new standards we need to include milk on the ingredients list.

Dark chocolate was never intended to be a pure vegan product, or dairy-free, as there are trace amounts of milk in all of our dark chocolate products.

The listing of milk as an ingredient in our Dark chocolate is at the bottom of the ingredients list, as it would only be trace amount, and it varies from batch to batch.

When the labeling changes came into effect we did place notifications in all of our stores for quite a few months.

Your email was discussed at the recent Management Meeting and this issue is constantly under review, but at this stage we are following the guidelines as provided by a government department.

We will advise you if there are any changes in the year ahead.

Best regards,

Olivia

A little bit about the current state of food law in Victoria, or: I just don't geddit.

Clearly the lack of readily available dairy-free chocolate at the Paris end of Collins Street has made me a leeeedle bit cuh-raaaaayzy. 

I've done some digging, using the host of I-used-to-be-a-lawyer-and-I'm-very-nosy-and-pissed-off skills at my command, and here is my potted summary of the current state of food labelling laws in Victoria in relation to 'may contain traces of' (incidentally, the most recent changes to Victoria's Food Act have to do with the reclassificaiton of food selling outlets. I couldn't find any recent changes which mentioned trace elements. If there are, please feel free to direct me to them). 

And so, an act in ten parts:

1. The principal State Act that controls the sale of food in Victoria is the Food Act 1984 (the Act). Quite funnily, the Act is noted on the DHS website as being "the applicable legislation for ensuring the wholesomeness and purity and standards for food sold in Victoria." Oh giggling! 
   
2. The Act is also the means through which the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code is applied as the law in Victoria (the Code).
   
3. The Code's website contains the following statement in relation to 'may contain traces of':  
   

   "You’ll notice some labels say ‘may contain’ certain allergens, for example ‘may contain nuts. This is put on by the manufacturer who may be concerned that, while nuts aren’t added to the food, traces may be present due, for example, the product having been made on the same equipment as products containing nuts. Allergy consumer support groups are working with the food industry to make these labels more helpful to allergy sufferers."
   

   
   
4. Under Chapter 1 - General Food Standards, Part 1.2- Labelling and Other Information Requirements, the Code has a number of provisions relevant to us.  They are: Standards 1.2.3: Mandatory Warning and Advisory Statements and Declarations, and Standard 1.2.4: Labelling of Ingredients. What does each Standard say that is relevant to us?
   
5. Standard 1.2.3: Mandatory Warning and Advisory Statements and Declarations says that certain substances must be declared on labelling where the substance is present in food as an ingredient, an ingredient of a compound ingredient, a food additive or component of a food additive, or as a processing aid or component of a processing aid.  (In case you're wondering, wine doesn't declare the use of milk solids or isinglass used as a processing aid as it is not longer present in the food). 
6. So what is the definition of 'ingredient'? Standard 1.2.4: Labelling of Ingredients provides the definition used in the Code and therefore also in the Act. It is: "ingredient means any substance, including a food additive, used in the preparation, manufacture or handling of a food".
7. So at this point a person might, quite cleverly, conclude that this all hangs on the definition of ingredient, and that seeing as milk in the formerly dairy-free dark chocolate at Haigh's is not a food additive, or used in the preparation, manufacture or handling of the chocolate, it is therefore not an ingredient. 
8. But then! You may encoutner Standard 1.4.2: Maximum Residue Limits. You might open the attachments. And unless you are a biochemist familiar with residues named SUM OF AVERMECTIN B1A, AVERMECTIN B1B AND (Z)-8,9 AVERMECTIN B1A, AND (Z)-8,9 AVERMECTIN B1B and ACIBENZOLAR-S-METHYL AND ALL METABOLITES CONTAINING THE BENZO[1,2,3]THIADIAZOLE-7-CARBOXYL MOIETY HYDROLYSED TO BENZO[1,2,3]THIADIAZOLE-7-CARBOXYLIC ACID,
   EXPRESSED AS ACIBENZOLAR-S-METHYL and BOSCALID COMMODITIES OF PLANT ORIGIN:  BOSCALID COMMODITIES OF ANIMAL ORIGIN:  SUM OF BOSCALID, 2-CHLORO-N-(4’-CHLORO-5-HYDROXYBIPHENYL-2- YL) NICOTINAMIDE AND THE GLUCURONIDE CONJUGATE OF 2-CHLORO-N-(4’-CHLORO-5- HYDROXYBIPHENYL-2-YL) NICOTINAMIDE, EXPRESSED AS BOSCALID EQUIVALENTS  .... then you too will have no idea what these residues are, let alone whether they affect your beloved dark peppermint chocolate frogs. (Actually, Cindy?)
9. But it remains: subject to the caveat that some of those hoxy-poxy-di-deca-coagulate-thingummywhatsits might indicate a certain trace level of milkiness, milk is not an ingredient in the formerly dairy-free dark chocolate at Haigh's. It does not meet the definition. And what's more, there has been no recent change that I can see to Victoria's food safety laws. Indeed, the Act nominates the Code as being of binding force in Victoria, and the Code notes that allergy groups and manufacturers are currently working together to address the trace element issue. It does not say that too much residue is classed as an ingredient. It does not suggest that the way to address the possibility of too much residue in a product is to simply pop it in the ingredients list. It does not suggest that manufacturers urgently need to change their labelling.
10. 
    
    And if I'm wrong, which I might be; or if this is a contentious matter, which it is; or if I was just a little bit tired and woozy when I wrote this, which I am; or if this, like almost every legal matter, has more than one way of viewing both problem and solution - then why don't we know about it? Why is it so hard to figure this out? Perhaps a friendly biochemist, food technician or food safety lawyer might wish to swing by here to enlighten us. I'm sure we'd all welcome the opportunity to learn more, and I would certainly welcome the possibilty that I might get my dark peppermint frogs back.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

Haigh's chocolates - now with added (non-existent) milk, or: My Friday arvo chocolate fix is over.

Some time ago Pip alerted us all to a change in the ingredients of Green & Black's chocolate. G&B had begun to list whole milk powder as an actual ingredient in their previously-dairy free dark chocolate, because, according to them  

"A recent audit revealed that traces of milk residues can still be found on manufacturing equipment despite intensive cleaning"

but 

"... there is actually no change to the risk to allergy-sufferers as the recipes and ingredients that go into the making of the bars have not changed. What we are now clearly stating on pack is that we cannot guarantee the absence of milk. It is almost certainly going to be present – albeit at a low level". 

 It was all very confusing, and I stand by what I wrote on Pip's blog at the time:

I think that G&B are confusing problem and solution here. If the problem is that very low level residue remains, this may need to be indicated on the packet. However, to include milk powder as an ingredient clearly indicates that the milk powder is used in significant quantities to actually produce the chocolate, rater than potentially being present due to cross-contamination.

Use in production is very very different to the presence of allergens remaining on the production line. A statement to the effect of there being a measurable residue in the region of x in the product would be more accurate and would probably allow people allergic to milk to make a more informed choice - and for vegans to happily buy the product. I now won't.

And now there's more. on a recent Friday afternoon expedition to buy some Haigh's chocolate frogs (ok, a whole bag of choclate liqorice balls, even though it sounds like a song the Chef would sing), I found out that Haigh's is now also listing milk products as an ingredient on all of its dark chocolate, even though previously some lines were dairy-free. A staff member told me this was purely for legal reasons and that there was no change at all to the actual ingredients. She also confirmed that this change occurred without even information being passed on to staff - she only realised because as a non-dairy-eater herself, she noticed the inclusion on the packet. 

  

This really annoys me. I understand the reasons for including allergen information on packets, as anyone who knows a peanut-allergic child will attest. But to include an allergen as an ingredient is schtoopid. A person who is so highly sensitive to a certain ingredient that they will react to a trace element would't be stupid enough to take a punt on a product that 'may contain traces of' despite the clear warning.

Here's what I wrote to Haigh's. I am so grr-arr about this. I have bolded the points that I think are particularly salient, although I didn't do shouty-boldness to Haigh's.

Dear Haighs, 

As a vegan I have long appreciated the range of dairy-free dark chocolates available in your stores. A small dark peppermint frog was often the highlight of my Friday. 

I was surprised and very disappointed to discover that you are now listing milk products as an ingredient in all your dark chocolate. A staff member told me that there had been no change to the ingredients used, but that concerns about food allergies had led you to make this change. 

I was surprised because there was no signage or information available to let customers know about this change. And I was disappointed because I consider this change to be illogical. 

My understanding of the term 'may contain traces of' is that even after commercial levels of cleaning of shared food manufacturing equipment, some residual chemical traces of an ingredient may remain. In some cases this will test above a specified detectable level.

It is of course important to place warnings on food labels so that people with food intolerances, sensitivities or allergies can take appropriate action. This is what the phrase 'may contain traces of' is intended to do. 

If a person is so highly allergic to any ingredient - dairy, gluten, soy, nuts or any thing else - that the mere presence of a residual chemical trace will adversely affect them, then the warning that a product may contain traces of that ingredient is more than sufficient to let them know not to consume it. It tells them that exactly the level of allergen that can affect them may be present in their food. It is completely accurate and clear. 

Anyone so highly sensitive as to be impacted by a trace amount would surely take the warning that trace amounts may be present as reason enough to avoid that food. It is illogical to assume that people who are sensitive to trace amounts need to be told that there is far, far more than just a trace amount in their food before they will respond to the warning.

For people with lower level sensitivities, who are not likely to be affected by residual chemical traces, the warning would be moot. But for people like me, who avoid dairy for ethical and health reasons, the presence of milk products in the ingredient list - even if the ingredient is in fact not used - entirely rules out that product.

As an ex-plaintiff lawyer practicing in injury law, I am fully aware of the need for food companies to disclose potential allergens not only for the safety of consumers but also for the protection of the company. Green & Black's have already done the same thing. However, what I find most disappointing is that although this change appears to be motivated by a desire to be extra cautious in food labelling, in fact, in pursuit of increased disclosure, you have misled customers as to the real ingredients of your products. 

I can no longer eat any Haigh's products.  I cannot choose to eat anything that lists dairy products as an ingredient, nor will I have any way of knowing if you ever actually do start using milk in the formerly dairy-free dark chocolates. I am concerned that no public notice was made available about your change of policy - which I confirmed with a staff member - and I am extremely disappointed that Haigh's has chosen to list a non-ingredient as an ingredient in many of its products when an accurate, precise and clear warning label was already present. 

Yours faithfully, 

Miss T

Lisa's Vegan Murphy's Law, or: But I ...

In response to Lisa's Vegan Murphy's Law:

But I only eat salad.
There is no protein in my diet.
I am anaemic. So wan.
I cannot lift the spoon to my mouth because I am so weak.
I have wasted muscles.
I only eat organic, biodynamic fruit that has fallen from a tree.
I sneer at Level 5 vegans.
I crave bloody flesh and secretly devour it at any opportunity.
I cannot truly envisage a life without chocolate and cheese.
I am mightily tempted by "but it's a just a little bit of ...".
I cannot cook.
I do not enjoy eating.
I do not understand the Circle of Life (although Simba has promised to explain it to me).
If only I got to raise a lamb as a child and then slaughter it for Sunday dinner I wouldn't be squeamish.
I cannot satisfactorily answer the question "But if we all stopped eating meat then what would happen to all the cows, huh?".
I am swayed by your arguments about our dominance in the food chain.
Because I care about animal rights I automatically do not care about human rights.
I am "just going too far".
I enjoy criticising my hosts and their food.
I love to preach and lecture.
I never encounter obnoxious omnis who bait me and wait for just one response, which qualifies as preaching and lecturing on my behalf.

There is no ethical ice cream, or: Knock it off, Nat

Natalie, Natalie, Natalie.

I love you. I loved your vegan shoe range fo Te Casan - I bought two pairs in New York. I love that you went vegan after reading Jonathan Foer's book 'Eating Animals' (a copy of whoch sits pristinely on my bookshelf, awaiting my consumption) and I love that you wrote an accessible, sensible and intelligent piece for the Huff Post about how the book turned you into an activist. And you're pretty.

I thought it was great that in this (admittedly fairly insipid) interview by Australian Brad Blanks you directly credited what you learnt about factory farming from Eating Animals with turning you vegan. I like - a lot - that you said you were "horrified", because horrible and horrific it is.

It was also good that when you were asked "So no more ice cream?" you said there was rice cream, and soy ice cream, and having seen the incredible, knock-your-socks-off range available in Whole Foods, I know there is no shortage of vegan frozen desserty things available to you.

So why did you follow it up with this: "But if you can find dairy that's ethically produced, then that's ok and you can have some then".

It's not ok. It's not ok in my opinion at all, but it is especially not ok to say that you're vegan and then make exceptions for "ethical ice cream".

I doubt you would make an exception for "ethical meat'" (happy meat, schmappy meat), so I wonder if you have in fact grasped that it's not only huge factory farming operations that exploit, abuse and discard dairy cows and their offspring. An ethical cow in an ethical field eating ethical food milked with ethical hands producing ethical milk has still been kept in a state of perpetual and enforced pregnancy so that she will lactate; had her male calves taken away and killed as they are useless; her milk which is intended for her babies taken away for your ethical ice cream; and at the end of her milking life - which, like human women, is long before the end of her natural life - she will still be taken away to die. Not so sweet.

And in any case, on a purely pedantic level (because I know you are a bright person who is multilingual and went to university and is not a fool), you can't be vegan-except-for-when. You can be a vegan who makes mistakes. You can be a vegan who is learning. You can be an aspiring vegan. You can be a vegan who accidentally ate dairy and egg-filled cake at Vegie Bar when they got her order wrong and her poorly attuned palate didn't pick it up. But you can't be a vegan with permanent non-vegan exceptions.

Knock it off, Nat.

My first-born for a pair of shoes, or: Stella and Morrissey, Shoe Elves

I'm not sure what to make about the tone of this article, but if the Shoe Elf saints on high wish there to be another celebrity-led range of vegan footwear, then I promise them my first-born.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/03/stella-mccartney-morrissey-vegan-footwear

McCartney and Morrissey: a match made in heaven?

FASHION DILEMMA

Stella McCartney and Morrissey. Photograph: Ferdaus Shamim/Alex Sudea/WireImage.com/Rex Features

What's the best designer collaboration of all time?

We heard something amazing this week. And when we say amazing we're not talking vaguely interesting water-cooler conversation about X Factor Olly's tight, shiny trousers. We're talking earth-shattering, jaw dropping, 'I've found life on Mars'-type news. See if you can guess who it's about from the following quotes (although the picture and the title of this piece MIGHT have given you a clue):

I do maintain that if your hair is wrong, your entire life is wrong. (1984)

As I grew up I used to love stationery and pens and booklets and binders. I can get incredibly erotic about blotting paper. (Star Hits, 1985)

Yes I have had a tan, actually. I went to Los Angeles and got one there, but it didn't make it back to Britain. You're not allowed to come through customs with a tan. (i-D, 1987)

Oh, the wit! It could only be that super vegetarian and songster of high renown, Morrissey (or Mozza to those who adore him and are too lazy to say his full name). And the big news is that APPARENTLY he is teaming up with Stella McCartney to produce a range of vegan footwear.

We're finding the whole thing quite hard to believe. Especially as Stella was also said to be in talks with warbling vegetable - sorry, we mean vegetarian Leona Lewis (who we couldn't give two hoots about), but this turned out to be just a rumour. Now we're praying to all the gods on our radar - currently Zeus, Buddha, Shiva and the Almighty - that the same is not true of the McCartney-Mozza collaboration.

According to the blogosphere (I think that's the first time we've used that word in Fashion Statement), the footwear will be leather-free (nothing that died with a face, we assume) and they hope to launch it next year. Stella's known for refusing to use leather in her collections, but Mozza has not had quite such a clean track record, as we were helpfully informed by Grazia:

"Despite being a staunch supporter of animal rights, the singer was often spotted wearing leather and suede footwear, and once said of his favourite shoes, (a pair of suede moccasins that were a gift from Pete Burns) 'I find shoes difficult to be ethical about - one just can't seem to avoid leather. One is trapped, ultimately.'"

Trapped, like a wild bear, caught in the barbarous toothed grip of an iron clamp, perhaps. Unable to break free from the allure of a soft, foot-cushioning animal skin … the poor man.

Despite his shady past, Mozza was honoured at Peta's 25th anniversary celebrations in 2005, where he was awarded the Linda McCartney memorial award for acts of kindness towards animals (one of which including calling for a boycott of the entire country of Thailand because of its mistreated elephants).

Anyway, we're expecting great things from the man who came 45th in GQ magazine's best-dressed chart, and the woman who single-handedly brought us the boyfriend blazer.

We'll leave you with a verse from Mozza that we're sure Stella will appreciate as she slices into her nut roast Yule log this Christmas.

And the calf that you carve with a smile
Is murder
And the turkey you festively slice
Is murder
Do you know how animals die?

(From Meat is Murder)