The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to limit global warming pollution from big fossil fuel industries like power plants and petroleum refineries. These industries alone account for about 40% of the global warming pollution in the U.S. -- making them the two largest sources of emissions.
The EPA is charged with developing rules called New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) that will protect public health, reduce the pollution that causes climate change, and send a signal to polluters that they need to invest in clean energy technologies.
It's crucial the EPA sticks to its schedule and develops strong rules. Between now and March 18, the EPA is accepting comments on their plans. They will definitely be receiving comments from the coal, gas and oil industries. Make sure they hear from you, too.
http://acp.repoweramerica.org/contact-the-epa
These rules are common sense. The EPA was created to understand our impact on our environment and protect the health of our people. An overwhelming majority of scientists are united in their understanding of the effects of global warming pollution and the EPA is charged with developing rules based on that science. Yet strong special interest groups are working to derail that process.
The EPA needs to hear that you support their efforts to limit global warming pollution from these industries. Unfortunately, big polluters will make big profits if they mislead the American public about that fact. We need you to counteract and counterbalance their money and their voice by sending a comment to the EPA today.
Wednesday
Petition: Tell the New York Times to Apologize for Blaming a Child for Her Gang Rape
UPDATE - apologies. Here is the Original NYTimes story about the rape. You will also see some letters published, including this one:
Not surprisingly, I found the March 9 news article about the gang rape of a young girl, 'Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town,' disturbing.
Almost as disturbing were the characterizations of the victim and her mother. While the 18 boys and men charged with the attack were described in innocuous terms except that a few had criminal records, I was shocked to see the article report that town residents said the 11-year-old girl 'dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s.' The article continued, 'She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.'
How is this relevant except to subtly blame the victim?
A resident of the town was quoted as asking: 'Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?' — as if her mother were somehow to blame for this heinous crime.
I wonder why these particular quotes were included. The suspects are innocent until proved guilty, but shouldn’t the victim be afforded the same rights?
Jinnie Spiegler
Brooklyn, March 9, 2011
Petition: Tell the New York Times to Apologize for Blaming a Child for Her Gang Rape | Change.org
Targeting: Arthur S. Brisbane (Public Editor, The New York Times), Bill Keller (Executive Editor, The New York Times), and Arthur Sulzberger Jr (Publisher, The New York Times)
Not surprisingly, I found the March 9 news article about the gang rape of a young girl, 'Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town,' disturbing.
Almost as disturbing were the characterizations of the victim and her mother. While the 18 boys and men charged with the attack were described in innocuous terms except that a few had criminal records, I was shocked to see the article report that town residents said the 11-year-old girl 'dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s.' The article continued, 'She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.'
How is this relevant except to subtly blame the victim?
A resident of the town was quoted as asking: 'Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?' — as if her mother were somehow to blame for this heinous crime.
I wonder why these particular quotes were included. The suspects are innocent until proved guilty, but shouldn’t the victim be afforded the same rights?
Jinnie Spiegler
Brooklyn, March 9, 2011
Petition: Tell the New York Times to Apologize for Blaming a Child for Her Gang Rape | Change.org
Targeting: Arthur S. Brisbane (Public Editor, The New York Times), Bill Keller (Executive Editor, The New York Times), and Arthur Sulzberger Jr (Publisher, The New York Times)
Started by: Shelby Knox A Former Washington Post Reporter
On March 8th the New York Times published a story by James C. McKinley Jr. titled "Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town." The assault it described was, indeed, heinous: an 11-year-old was gang raped in an abandoned trailer house by as many as 18 men, with suspects ranging in age from middle school students to a 27-year-old. The attack came to light because several of the suspects took cell phone video of the assault.
Also appalling was the way in which New York Times reporter James C. McKinley reported the victim blaming sentiments of members of the Texas community in which the rape occurred as truth. McKinley insinuated the young woman had it coming, writing, "They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said."
Mr. McKinley also gave ink to community members who are more concerned about the impact raping a child will have on the suspects than being raped will have on the young victim. Mr. McKinley quoted Sheila Harrison as saying, "“These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.”
1 in 4 American women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. A culture that blames victims for being raped - for what they were wearing, where they were, and who they were with - rather than blaming the rapist is a culture that tacitly condones rape. A society that is more concerned with how being held accountable for rape will impact the perpetrator than for the well being of the victim is a society that doesn't take rape seriously.
The New York Times contributed to this dangerous culture by publishing this article by Mr. McKinley without asking him to edit out his and community members' editorial victim blaming.
Tell the New York Times to issue a published apology for their coverage of this incident and publish an editorial from a victim's rights expert on how victim blaming in the media contributes to the prevalance of sexual assault. No one ever deserves to be raped and no victim should ever be told it was their fault. New York Times, we demand better.
On March 8th the New York Times published a story by James C. McKinley Jr. titled "Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town." The assault it described was, indeed, heinous: an 11-year-old was gang raped in an abandoned trailer house by as many as 18 men, with suspects ranging in age from middle school students to a 27-year-old. The attack came to light because several of the suspects took cell phone video of the assault.
Also appalling was the way in which New York Times reporter James C. McKinley reported the victim blaming sentiments of members of the Texas community in which the rape occurred as truth. McKinley insinuated the young woman had it coming, writing, "They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said."
Mr. McKinley also gave ink to community members who are more concerned about the impact raping a child will have on the suspects than being raped will have on the young victim. Mr. McKinley quoted Sheila Harrison as saying, "“These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.”
1 in 4 American women will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. A culture that blames victims for being raped - for what they were wearing, where they were, and who they were with - rather than blaming the rapist is a culture that tacitly condones rape. A society that is more concerned with how being held accountable for rape will impact the perpetrator than for the well being of the victim is a society that doesn't take rape seriously.
The New York Times contributed to this dangerous culture by publishing this article by Mr. McKinley without asking him to edit out his and community members' editorial victim blaming.
Tell the New York Times to issue a published apology for their coverage of this incident and publish an editorial from a victim's rights expert on how victim blaming in the media contributes to the prevalance of sexual assault. No one ever deserves to be raped and no victim should ever be told it was their fault. New York Times, we demand better.
Bill 393 passes! Speeds flow of medication to developing nations
Bill to speed flow of medication to developing nations passes Commons
OTTAWA — The House of Commons passed a bill Wednesday its supporters say will help get inexpensive and badly needed medication to underdeveloped countries. Two Liberal MPs voted against the NDP bill, and several others abstained. But with the help of some Conservative MPs, Bill C-393 passed with 172 votes for, and 111 against.
The bill would amend Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, which, despite being on the books for more than half a decade, has only been used by one company to send one HIV/AIDS shipment to another country. Critics say that paltry statistic is a testament to a system overwhelmed by red tape.
As it stands, the regime allows for a generic pharmaceutical company to apply for a permit to produce a patented medicine only after it has received an order. The key change in C-393 is a "one-licence agreement" which allows a generic pharmaceutical company to produce and distribute as much of a given drug as it pleases without having to re-apply and sift through piles of red tape each time a developing country expresses interest.
NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis introduced Bill C-393, but it became an orphan last year when she left federal politics for an unsuccessful bid to become mayor of Winnipeg. Her colleague, Brian Masse, shepherded the bill through committee but parliamentary regulations wouldn't allow for him to officially sponsor the bill.
But in a rare demonstration of co-operation in the House of Commons, the parties offered unanimous support for NDP MP Paul Dewar to sponsor the bill
Read more: http://www.canada.com/business
OTTAWA — The House of Commons passed a bill Wednesday its supporters say will help get inexpensive and badly needed medication to underdeveloped countries. Two Liberal MPs voted against the NDP bill, and several others abstained. But with the help of some Conservative MPs, Bill C-393 passed with 172 votes for, and 111 against.
The bill would amend Canada's Access to Medicines Regime, which, despite being on the books for more than half a decade, has only been used by one company to send one HIV/AIDS shipment to another country. Critics say that paltry statistic is a testament to a system overwhelmed by red tape.
As it stands, the regime allows for a generic pharmaceutical company to apply for a permit to produce a patented medicine only after it has received an order. The key change in C-393 is a "one-licence agreement" which allows a generic pharmaceutical company to produce and distribute as much of a given drug as it pleases without having to re-apply and sift through piles of red tape each time a developing country expresses interest.
NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis introduced Bill C-393, but it became an orphan last year when she left federal politics for an unsuccessful bid to become mayor of Winnipeg. Her colleague, Brian Masse, shepherded the bill through committee but parliamentary regulations wouldn't allow for him to officially sponsor the bill.
But in a rare demonstration of co-operation in the House of Commons, the parties offered unanimous support for NDP MP Paul Dewar to sponsor the bill
Read more: http://www.canada.com/business
Illinois repeals death penalty
Illinois repeals the death penalty
UPDATE (3:05 p.m. EST): The Governor of Illinois has signed a bill repealing the death penalty and commuting the sentences of 15 men. Today, Illinois is expected to officially end the practice of state-sanctioned murder. It only took them 232 years.
Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, a supporter of capital punishment, was reportedly on track to sign a bill abolishing the death penalty. The bill has been on his desk since early January, after it cleared the state's Senate by a vote of 32-25. Confirmation that the governor would sign the bill came from Rep. Karen Yarbrough (D), who told The Chicago Tribune that the governor's people said it would happen Wednesday.
The move to end the state's long history of official murder was reportedly praised by President Barack Obama, who met with Gov. Quinn last week in the White House.
UPDATE (3:05 p.m. EST): The Governor of Illinois has signed a bill repealing the death penalty and commuting the sentences of 15 men. Today, Illinois is expected to officially end the practice of state-sanctioned murder. It only took them 232 years.
Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, a supporter of capital punishment, was reportedly on track to sign a bill abolishing the death penalty. The bill has been on his desk since early January, after it cleared the state's Senate by a vote of 32-25. Confirmation that the governor would sign the bill came from Rep. Karen Yarbrough (D), who told The Chicago Tribune that the governor's people said it would happen Wednesday.
The move to end the state's long history of official murder was reportedly praised by President Barack Obama, who met with Gov. Quinn last week in the White House.
Tuesday
Avaaz Action to UNSC - Libya: No-Fly Zone
AVAAZ ACTION: UNSC No-FLY ZONE, Libya
As Qaddafi's jets drop bombs on the Libyan people, the UN Security Council will decide in 48 hours whether to impose a no-fly zone to keep the government's warplanes on the ground.
Together, we've already flooded the Security Council with messages, "overwhelming" the President's office and helping to win serious targeted sanctions on the Libyan regime - now, to stop the bloodshed, we need a massive outcry of 1 million messages for a no-fly zone.
If Qaddafi can't dominate the air, he loses a key weapon in a war in which civilians are paying the heaviest price. But as long as his helicopter gunships and bombers are in the air, the death toll will rise. We have just 48 hours left to hit 1 million messages to stop Qaddafi's deadly attacks .
Letter: Dear United Nations Security Council delegates,
We call on you to take immediate steps to impose a no-fly zone under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to stop the aerial bombings of civilians in Libya and restore access for humanitarian flights to Libyan air space. Only through robust international action and oversight can the bloodshed in Libya be stopped.
As Qaddafi's jets drop bombs on the Libyan people, the UN Security Council will decide in 48 hours whether to impose a no-fly zone to keep the government's warplanes on the ground.
Together, we've already flooded the Security Council with messages, "overwhelming" the President's office and helping to win serious targeted sanctions on the Libyan regime - now, to stop the bloodshed, we need a massive outcry of 1 million messages for a no-fly zone.
If Qaddafi can't dominate the air, he loses a key weapon in a war in which civilians are paying the heaviest price. But as long as his helicopter gunships and bombers are in the air, the death toll will rise. We have just 48 hours left to hit 1 million messages to stop Qaddafi's deadly attacks .
Letter: Dear United Nations Security Council delegates,
We call on you to take immediate steps to impose a no-fly zone under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to stop the aerial bombings of civilians in Libya and restore access for humanitarian flights to Libyan air space. Only through robust international action and oversight can the bloodshed in Libya be stopped.
Sunday
Coming in 2020: 50 Million Environmental Refugees
Coming in 2020: 50 Million Environmental Refugees
"In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees," declared of California, Los Angeles professor Cristina Tirado at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "When people are not living in sustainable conditions, they migrate," she continued.
In 2001 Norman Myers of Oxford University called environmental refugees as a "new phenomenon." Myers described them as "people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their homelands because of drought, soil erosion, desertification, deforestation and other environmental problems, together with the associated problems of population pressures and profound poverty." Myers added, "In their desperation, these people feel they have no alternative but to seek sanctuary elsewhere, however hazardous the attempt."
Given the projected amount of environmental refugees, the world does not have time to wait for a "bluer" U.S. congress to enact climate change legislation. However, there may be ways to combat climate change without the U.S. putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing black carbon (soot) and ozone levels "will slow the rate of climate change in the first half of the 21st century," according to a new report released in Nairobi Kenya by the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization. read more...
"In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees," declared of California, Los Angeles professor Cristina Tirado at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "When people are not living in sustainable conditions, they migrate," she continued.
In 2001 Norman Myers of Oxford University called environmental refugees as a "new phenomenon." Myers described them as "people who can no longer gain a secure livelihood in their homelands because of drought, soil erosion, desertification, deforestation and other environmental problems, together with the associated problems of population pressures and profound poverty." Myers added, "In their desperation, these people feel they have no alternative but to seek sanctuary elsewhere, however hazardous the attempt."
Given the projected amount of environmental refugees, the world does not have time to wait for a "bluer" U.S. congress to enact climate change legislation. However, there may be ways to combat climate change without the U.S. putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing black carbon (soot) and ozone levels "will slow the rate of climate change in the first half of the 21st century," according to a new report released in Nairobi Kenya by the UN Environment Program and the World Meteorological Organization. read more...
Cargill using Wind Kites in shipping.
[Cargill, usually shortsighted, seems to be trying new green technology]
Cargill, an international shipping company, recently partnered with Hamburg-based SkySails to use wind power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the industry. SkySails developed a patented technology that uses a giant kite which flies ahead of a vessel to augment the power of its engines.
Next December Cargill will install a 320m2 kite on a handysize vessel of between 25,000 and 30,000 deadweight tonnes. The kite will generate enough propulsion to reduce consumption of bunker fuel by up to 35 percent in ideal sailing conditions.
The kite will be connected to the ship by rope, and is computer-controlled by an automatic pod to maximize the wind benefit and minimize extra work for the crew.
"The shipping industry currently supports 90 percent of the world's international physical trade. In a world of finite resources, environmental stewardship makes good business sense," said G.J. van den Akker, head of Cargill's ocean transportation business. "As one of the world's largest charterers of dry bulk freight, we take this commitment extremely seriously. In addition to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the SkySails technology aims to significantly reduce fuel consumption and costs."
According to a United Nations study, up to 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) could be saved every year by the broad application of the SkySails' technology on the world merchant fleet. This figure would equate to 11 percent of the CO2 emissions of Germany.
Cargill, an international shipping company, recently partnered with Hamburg-based SkySails to use wind power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the industry. SkySails developed a patented technology that uses a giant kite which flies ahead of a vessel to augment the power of its engines.Next December Cargill will install a 320m2 kite on a handysize vessel of between 25,000 and 30,000 deadweight tonnes. The kite will generate enough propulsion to reduce consumption of bunker fuel by up to 35 percent in ideal sailing conditions.
The kite will be connected to the ship by rope, and is computer-controlled by an automatic pod to maximize the wind benefit and minimize extra work for the crew.
"The shipping industry currently supports 90 percent of the world's international physical trade. In a world of finite resources, environmental stewardship makes good business sense," said G.J. van den Akker, head of Cargill's ocean transportation business. "As one of the world's largest charterers of dry bulk freight, we take this commitment extremely seriously. In addition to lowering greenhouse gas emissions, the SkySails technology aims to significantly reduce fuel consumption and costs."
According to a United Nations study, up to 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) could be saved every year by the broad application of the SkySails' technology on the world merchant fleet. This figure would equate to 11 percent of the CO2 emissions of Germany.
Thursday
The Conservative's Extraordinary Priorities (Carbon Slim)
(from Carbon Slim). "The Conservative Party has such extraordinary values. It's budget time and they have to chip away at the deficit. Should they cut important environmental services, including climate change research, or should they end the billions in subsidies to fossil fuel companies? Guess what the Conservatives plan to do?
Forget that in 2009 during the G20 Summit in Pittsburg, Prime Minister Harper signed a statement with the other G20 countries committing to end fossil fuel subsidies. Canada gives $1.4 billion to oil countries every year through tax breaks, etc. (by the way: five of these companies are the largest in the world).
This past week, we learnedthe government plans to cut $1.6 billion in environmental services, including climate change research, but no cuts to subsidies as promised.
The Climate Action Network’s campaign urges the government to keep its international promise and cut fossil fuel subsidies. Please join us. Write to Harper and Flaherty asking them to keep the environmental services, but end fossil fuel subsidies. Mailed letters are better (it’s free!) as politicians tend to take them more seriously than emails."
Prime Minister Harper
Parliament of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A9
Calling is effective too - (866) 599-4999. Ask for the Prime Minister’s Office.
For more on the fossil fuel subsidies, check out the op-ed for rabble.ca, which was posted last week.
Prime Minister Harper
Parliament of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A9
Calling is effective too - (866) 599-4999. Ask for the Prime Minister’s Office.
For more on the fossil fuel subsidies, check out the op-ed for rabble.ca, which was posted last week.
Women's Rights - new site from TrustLaw
Women's Rights - TrustLaw: a global centre for free legal assistance and anti-corruption news, run by Thomson Reuters Foundation,
In common with all of the Foundation's programmes, TrustLaw aims to empower people in need by providing trusted information and leveraging professional expertise. We offer services to improve access to the rule of law and foster greater transparency.
Samples from the new Trustlaw for Women's Rights site:
Breaking the tabu around genital cutting: a midwife's tale
Aftershocks: Women Speak out against Sexual Violence in Haiti's Camps
Congo: Mass Rapes escalate in South Kivu
Women fearful to report or seek help at Barrick Gold mines, Papua New Guinea
100 Years of International Women's Day
In common with all of the Foundation's programmes, TrustLaw aims to empower people in need by providing trusted information and leveraging professional expertise. We offer services to improve access to the rule of law and foster greater transparency.
Samples from the new Trustlaw for Women's Rights site:
Breaking the tabu around genital cutting: a midwife's tale
Aftershocks: Women Speak out against Sexual Violence in Haiti's Camps
Congo: Mass Rapes escalate in South Kivu
Women fearful to report or seek help at Barrick Gold mines, Papua New Guinea
100 Years of International Women's Day
Glenn Greenwald on Shocking New Charges Against Bradley Manning
Glenn Greenwald on Shocking New Charges Against Bradley Manning
Does this remind you of the imprisonment of the Nobel Laureate in China? mary
"Although the charging document does not say who the 'enemy' is, there’s only two possibilities," Greenwald says. "Either they mean Wikileaks … or any kind of leak now of classified information to newspapers where your intent is not to aid the Taliban, but expose wrongdoing.
In the past, aiding the enemy has been reserved for acts where somebody in the US government, like CIA officials, actually transmit intelligence information intended to be received by the enemy... where the intention was really to put it into their hands and help them in terms of being able to use it. There's very few cases, if there are any, where aiding the enemy has been invoked in order to convict somebody who's clearly acting as a whistleblower, and not giving any information to the enemy but simply intending that it be publicly written about and talked about in order to achieve reforms".
from Jane Hamsher
Does this remind you of the imprisonment of the Nobel Laureate in China? mary
"Although the charging document does not say who the 'enemy' is, there’s only two possibilities," Greenwald says. "Either they mean Wikileaks … or any kind of leak now of classified information to newspapers where your intent is not to aid the Taliban, but expose wrongdoing.
In the past, aiding the enemy has been reserved for acts where somebody in the US government, like CIA officials, actually transmit intelligence information intended to be received by the enemy... where the intention was really to put it into their hands and help them in terms of being able to use it. There's very few cases, if there are any, where aiding the enemy has been invoked in order to convict somebody who's clearly acting as a whistleblower, and not giving any information to the enemy but simply intending that it be publicly written about and talked about in order to achieve reforms".
from Jane Hamsher
"So let me get this straight. The Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, says that the 'leaked cables created no substantive damage — only embarrassment.' So they’re going to charge Manning with 'aiding the enemy”=' because they claim he knew WikiLeaks would publish them on the internet, the 'enemy' can see the internet, and the cables 'bring discredit upon the armed forces.'
They want to lock a 23 year-old up for the rest of his life, using a charge designed for terrorists and spies, because he embarrassed them in front of the bad guys?" go to:
StandwithBrad.org
BradleyManning Defense Fund (Courage to Resist)
Tuesday
CRTC ditches bid to allow fake news - Globe and Mail
CRTC ditches bid to allow fake news - The Globe and Mail
(No "Fake Fox News" in Canada - so far)
Canada's broadcasting regulator has abandoned its attempt to change a regulation that prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading news.
The decision from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission followed a meeting last week of Parliament’s joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations, which ended its 10-year bid to get the regulation to comply with the law. More related to this story
The committee was concerned that the regulation violated a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, which found that the Charter of Rights provision protecting freedom of expression meant a person could not be charged for spreading false information.
After ignoring the committee's letters for years, CRTC finally relented and said in December it would consider changing the regulation to apply only in cases when broadcasters know the information they are sharing is untrue and when it “endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”
But the CRTC's call for public input on the proposal resulted in a tidal wave of angry responses from Canadians who said they feared such a move would open the door to Fox TV-style news and reduce their ability to determine what is true and what is false.
In the face of the outcry, the regulations committee, which is composed of both MPs and senators, met last Thursday and decided it would no longer pursue the matter with the CRTC. Some of the MPs on that committee, including Liberal chairman Andrew Kania, were not in politics when the issue was first discussed and said they did not agree with the decision of the committee 10 years ago to press the CRTC for the change.
(No "Fake Fox News" in Canada - so far)
Canada's broadcasting regulator has abandoned its attempt to change a regulation that prohibits the dissemination of false or misleading news.
The decision from the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission followed a meeting last week of Parliament’s joint committee for the scrutiny of regulations, which ended its 10-year bid to get the regulation to comply with the law. More related to this story
The committee was concerned that the regulation violated a 1992 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, which found that the Charter of Rights provision protecting freedom of expression meant a person could not be charged for spreading false information.
After ignoring the committee's letters for years, CRTC finally relented and said in December it would consider changing the regulation to apply only in cases when broadcasters know the information they are sharing is untrue and when it “endangers or is likely to endanger the lives, health or safety of the public.”
But the CRTC's call for public input on the proposal resulted in a tidal wave of angry responses from Canadians who said they feared such a move would open the door to Fox TV-style news and reduce their ability to determine what is true and what is false.
In the face of the outcry, the regulations committee, which is composed of both MPs and senators, met last Thursday and decided it would no longer pursue the matter with the CRTC. Some of the MPs on that committee, including Liberal chairman Andrew Kania, were not in politics when the issue was first discussed and said they did not agree with the decision of the committee 10 years ago to press the CRTC for the change.
Antibiotic-resistant flies on factory farms - a new threat
What sort of antibiotic-resistant pathogens are growing on factory farms, along with all the cheap pork chops and chicken wings? And what level of threat do they pose to our health? Well, we know that in total, factory-farm animals consume a jaw-dropping four times as many antibiotics as do people in the United States, thanks to diligent reporting by Maryn McKenna and Ralph Loglisci and work by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).
And we know that a kind of antibiotic-resistant staph infection called MRSA now kills more people than AIDS -- and infects people who never set foot in a hospital, which is the site where MRSA is thought to have originated. We also know, due to the stellar work of Iowa State University researcher Tara Smith, that pigs in confined animal feedlot operations, and the workers who tend them, routinely carry MRSA strains (her paper can be found here).
We also know that, by the FDA's own reckoning, meat on grocery store shelves is routinely infected by pathogens resistant to multiple antibiotics (again, McKenna's work brought the FDA's perhaps intentionally obscure report to light).
And now we know of yet another means by which antibiotic-resistant nasties can make their way from meat factories into the broader community: through the cockroaches and flies drawn to the titanic amounts of manure produced on factory farms. For a paper published last month in the journal Microbiology, researchers from North Carolina State and Kansas State universities took one for the team -- i.e., the public. They did something few of us would want to do: rounded up common flies and roaches hanging around factory hog farms, and tested them to see what kinds of bacteria they were harboring.
Their finding? More than 90 percent of the insects sampled carried forms of the bacteria Enterococci that are resistant to at least one common antibiotic, and often more than one. Here's how the authors summed up their findings in the paper's abstract:
To answer the questions I posed in the opening paragraph, it seems we're brewing up some pretty nasty pathogens in our meat factories, along with all the pork chops and chicken wings. And they're coming our way, carried out on the meat itself, by factory-farm workers, and by common creepy-crawly and flying insects.
Seems like there should be a law banning the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics on farms. In 2009, Rep. Louise Slaughter introduced the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA). So far, the meat industry has managed to, well, slaughter it. But she plans to introduce PAMTA again this year.
And we know that a kind of antibiotic-resistant staph infection called MRSA now kills more people than AIDS -- and infects people who never set foot in a hospital, which is the site where MRSA is thought to have originated. We also know, due to the stellar work of Iowa State University researcher Tara Smith, that pigs in confined animal feedlot operations, and the workers who tend them, routinely carry MRSA strains (her paper can be found here).
We also know that, by the FDA's own reckoning, meat on grocery store shelves is routinely infected by pathogens resistant to multiple antibiotics (again, McKenna's work brought the FDA's perhaps intentionally obscure report to light).
And now we know of yet another means by which antibiotic-resistant nasties can make their way from meat factories into the broader community: through the cockroaches and flies drawn to the titanic amounts of manure produced on factory farms. For a paper published last month in the journal Microbiology, researchers from North Carolina State and Kansas State universities took one for the team -- i.e., the public. They did something few of us would want to do: rounded up common flies and roaches hanging around factory hog farms, and tested them to see what kinds of bacteria they were harboring.
Their finding? More than 90 percent of the insects sampled carried forms of the bacteria Enterococci that are resistant to at least one common antibiotic, and often more than one. Here's how the authors summed up their findings in the paper's abstract:
This study shows that house flies and German [common] cockroaches in the confined swine production environment likely serve as vectors and/or reservoirs of antibiotic resistant and potentially virulent enterococci and consequently may play an important role in animal and public health.In a press release, study coauthor Coby Schal, entomology professor at NC State, broke it down in simpler terms:
The big concern is not that humans will acquire drug-resistant bacteria from their properly cooked bacon or sausage, but rather that the bacteria will be transferred to humans from the common pests that live with pigs and then move in with us.Meanwhile, evidence is mounting that factory-scale animal farms exact a high toll from the people who live around them in other ways, too. A study by University of North Carolina professor Steve Wing and others shows that people with the bad luck to live near giant hog farms suffer demonstrably worse health when the factories are getting up to malodorous stuff like spraying untreated (and thus antibiotic-resistant-bacteria-laden) manure on fields. Among the many hidden costs of cheap pork is that people who live near factory farms are doomed either to be sick or shut in at certain times of the year. (McKenna has an excellent discussion of the Wing study on her Wired blog.)
To answer the questions I posed in the opening paragraph, it seems we're brewing up some pretty nasty pathogens in our meat factories, along with all the pork chops and chicken wings. And they're coming our way, carried out on the meat itself, by factory-farm workers, and by common creepy-crawly and flying insects.
Seems like there should be a law banning the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics on farms. In 2009, Rep. Louise Slaughter introduced the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act (PAMTA). So far, the meat industry has managed to, well, slaughter it. But she plans to introduce PAMTA again this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)