In a Pigs Eye....or maybe not.

Article is from the National Review Online Website.
February 19, 2003 11:40 a.m.
Animals Over Africans
European priorities.


It's a shame European functionaries don't care as much about Africans as they do about pigs.

British hog farmers are baffled by new regulations imposed by Eurocrats in Brussels. They require them to give toys to pigs to keep them smiling while they roll in the mud and otherwise fatten themselves up before slaughter.

As Valerie Elliott reported in the January 29 Times of London, the European Commission expects EU farmers to provide pigs with "environmental enrichment" and "manipulable material" on which they can chew, rather than nibble on each other. These guidelines will become British law this month. Violators will face up to three months in jail and maximum fines of 1,000 pounds (about $1,640).

"We mean footballs and basketballs," suggests one British official. "Different color ones will do...the important thing is to see pigs happy in their environment, and they like to forage with their noses."

These rules stem from the EC's Directive 2001/93 concerning, among other things, "Permanent access to materials for rooting and playing." This follows the EC's September 30, 1997 adoption of a scientific committee report called "The Welfare of Intensively Kept Pigs." The authors of this control-freak classic calculated the precise space requirements "for a pig to be able to lie down in lateral recumbency." They conclude that "continuous noise in pig houses should be kept low, and continuous noise levels as loud as 85 dBA should be avoided." They also assert that "maintaining an individual distance" among pigs reduces the "chance of rape."

"The EU gives new meaning to politicians having their snouts in the trough," says John Blundell, president of the free-market Institute of Economic Affairs in London.

While Eurocrats spend countless hours assuring that swine stay amused in tranquil, romantic settings, they are lazier than Frenchmen in August when it comes to letting Africans feed themselves. That's not fair. Their behavior actually has exacerbated hunger in Africa.

The EU bans imports of genetically modified grain, including American-grown GM corn. It fears such "Frankenfoods," even though you likely will consume GM products in your breakfast cereal, lunchtime sandwich or after-dinner cake — and live to talk about it.

African leaders have followed these European worrywarts. While their constituents become wafer-thin, they spurn American food donations. According to the United Nations, some 14.4 million southern Africans soon could succumb to drought-induced starvation. Nonetheless, Zambian president Levy Mwanawasa curled up his lip at gifts of GM grain. "We would rather starve than get something toxic," he declared. This year, some three million Zambians may grant his wish, even as Mwanawasa reportedly lets 16.5 million tons of foreign, possibly-GM grain contributions sit idle.

Others, such as Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe, (for whom French President Jacques Chirac plans to roll out the brie wheels at a February 21-22 Franco-African summit) have banned GM corn imports to prevent it from cross-pollinating with local crops. Their understandable concern is that some GM seeds could mix with theirs and prevent them from eventually exporting grain to increasingly skittish Europeans.

Ugandans, meanwhile, eat 500 pounds of bananas per-capita annually. However, an airborne fungus threatens this staple. While a bio-engineered solution is at hand, Ugandans must follow strict and costly scientific protocols to prove the safety of such GM bananas to potential European customs inspectors. "The Europeans have the luxury to delay," W. K. Tushemereirwe, Uganda's director of banana research, said in the Wall Street Journal last December 26. "They have enough to eat. But we Africans don't."

"The EU thinks pigs should be better cared for than those living in Europe's former colonies in the Third World," says Richard Miniter, senior fellow with the Centre for the New Europe, a leading Continental free-market think tank. "It could have been worse," he adds by phone, just yards from the Grand Place in Brussels. "Last year the EU passed rules on how to use a ladder."

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick gives the EU even less credit. "I see something extremely disturbing," he told reporters last month. "The European anti-scientific view spreading to other parts of the world — not letting Africans eat food you and I eat and instead letting people starve."

In a new low in this up-with-animals/down-with-humans ideology, consider Ingrid Newkirk's February 3 letter to Yasser Arafat. The president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals wrote the Palestinian strongman to complain about a January 26 bombing in which an explosives-bearing donkey blew up, killing only itself. Newkirk faxed Arafat to "request that you appeal to all those who listen to you to leave the animals out of this conflict." Asked if she would persuade Arafat to prevent his followers from detonating people, Newkirk told the Washington Post: "It's not my business to inject myself into human wars."

All this, and it's only February.



[ 02-20-2003, 11:47 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Arvon]

The people in the EU countries deserve what they get....they voted for it....

Yeah but it is costing non-euro's their lives to starvation

[johnny]

Originally posted by MagiK: Yeah but it is costing non-euro's their lives to starvation

We didn't vote for anything dude. The EU was stuffed down our throats. I think IF they would have let us vote, there wouldn't be a EU as we speak.
Edit: sorry, i quoted the wrong post.

[ 02-19-2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: johnny ]

[Timber Loftis]

Straw men everywhere!

First off, when I was working at UNCTAD (UN Commission on Trade and Development) with a consulting firm, we ran a seminar for some underdeveloped nation's trade ministries, including African nations, regarding WTO trade issues. I applauded them for trying to work with what they have. I'll never forget the guy who said, "If organic is more preferred by European customers, that's fine. Everything we grow in Tunasia is organic, because we don't have the chemicals." There is absolutely nothing wrong and everything right with them marketing what they have.

Vermont used to be the nation's leading producer of sheep, then one of the leaders in milk cows. Not now - because sheep and cows are both cheaper to raise in air conditioned California barns (no kidding). So, VT pushes maply syrup, expensive cheese, and tourism. The things it has to offer that can't be offered elsewhere as easily. Same with the Tunasians. If they grew GMO crap, soon they'd be in a market with US growers - where they would get their butts kicked. It's a very sound economic decision.

The EU pig-rules are an ongoing story. These rules are actually a step back from their first rules put out over a year ago - which mandated pig farmers spend X minutes per day with each pig. The farmers really guffawed at that one, and it was an international joke. I will say that from my time in Europe I sense EU countries do have a fetish with filling out papers and forms for *everything.* Heck, I couldn't even buy a rail pass in London without forms and passport photos. Which may explain why you trip over 5 passport photo shops on every block in London.

And you know I support anyone who chooses not to buy or use GMO - and that I can take you to task with very good reasons for this.

But, comparing these regs to the African policies is quite simply - apples and oranges. It's useless US EU-hating twattle that is becoming more common as our news writers try to suck Bush's big fat toe. As well, note the quote from the bureauon at the USTR. The USTR sees itself as an advocate for US industry in foreign trade relations. That's why it's called the US Trade Representative. It sees Monsanto, Cargill, and ADM as its customers and supports their trade efforts without question. This isn't BS - it's written in their official guidance policies and I do know a few folks at the USTR. So, don't trust what they say about GMO food - as they are tantamount to lawyers and sock puppets for the US agri-business that grows and makes the shite.

Hey good point Johnny....I never really knew...how did the "EU" happen? If the people of the individual countries did not vote for it....who made the decision for them?

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Straw men everywhere! Can I call you Eisen Loftis now? More seriously, hey man, I eat GM's all the time and don't have any funky things growing on me....yet [img]smile.gif[/img] As for the article...I just posted it because I thought it interesting not because I have any real feelings one way or the other. If the food keeps me from starving to death, why waste it and not let starving people eat it? Edit: I mean, hey a slow painful death now??? or a slow painful death 40 years from now? I would choose the latter I do believe.

[ 02-19-2003, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[johnny]

Originally posted by MagiK: Hey good point Johnny....I never really knew...how did the "EU" happen? If the people of the individual countries did not vote for it....who made the decision for them?

I think that would be our leaders. Same thing with the Euro. They didn't ask us if we wanted it, cause i'm sure we would have voted to keep the guilder. They held a referendum in Denmark, and almost 75% of the Danish people said no to the Euro. So they held on to their own currency. Now that's REAL democracy. There are only a few who benefit from the EU, and large corperations and governments are among them, not the normal people.

Sorry to hear that Johnny, from the things I have heard some people say, the EU is just such a fantastic well beloved move that I just sort of thought everyone liked the idea...I was reading the wrong articles I guess.

[Rokenn]

Funny, in my reading of the article nowhere does it state the EU has told African nations they could not use GM foods. If the African nations choose to starve their people so they can still export food to the EU then the blame for this should be leveled at people like Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe. Since he seems more then willing to let his people suffer starvation rather then risk losing the ability to eventually export grain to the EU.