Fwd: AnimalRights.Net Newsletter: Week of January 21, 2002

[Guest guest]

Hi Folks:

See items 6 and 10, below.

SCB

>From: Carnell <brian@...>

>Reply-<ar-newsletter@...>

><ar-newsletter@...>

>Subject: AnimalRights.Net Newsletter: Week of January 21, 2002

>Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 14:15:53 -0500

>

>>6. The Real Misinformation Campaign is PCRM's - Physicians Committee

>for Responsible Medicine says the dairy industry is spreading

>misinformation, but a Harvard professor says it is PCRM that is distorting

>his research.

>

>>10. Joan Dunayer Attacks Singer, Says Chickens Live Worthier

>Lives than Humans - After Singer criticized her book, Animal Equality:

>Language and Liberation, Joan Dunayer returns the favor and argues that the

>people murdered on 9/11 led morally inferior lives compared to chickens.

>

>----------

>

>6. The Real Misinformation Campaign is PCRM's

>

>Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine has been waging an all out

>attack on the dairy industry which PCRM claims is " conducting a massive

>misinformation campaign. " But Harvard professor Cramer complains

>that PCRM has been misusing his research studies into dairy products.

>

>Over the past three years, PCRM has repeatedly cited Cramer's research as

>evidence that consumption o dairy products contributes to cancer. Cramer,

>however, told CNSNews.Com that this is a misrepresentation of his research.

>According to Cramer,

>

>*** QUOTE ***

>

>We don't have the scientific proof to say that it [milk] has definitely

>been linked to cancer. I think that particular group has their own sort of

>agenda, of not wanting milk production around, and cows to be utilized.

>Their agenda is that [they] don't want . . . cows exploited or they want

>everybody to be vegetarians.

>

>*** END QUOTE ***

>

>CNSNews reports that Cramer did concede there are some links connecting

>lactose consumption with cancer in mice, but that that does not prove the

>sort of definite link between milk and cancer that PCRM claims. Besides

>which, of course, PCRM's position is that research with animals is

>inherently invalid, so they would certainly dismiss even this thread of

>evidence.

>

>When CNSNews tried to get PCRM's reaction to Cramer's comments, it reports

>they were told by PCRM communications director Simon Chaitowitz that, " We

>have nothing to say about this. " (PCRM with nothing to say? Who would have

>thought that day would ever arrive?)

>

>CNSNews also notes that a researcher that PCRM cited back in October as

>providing evidence against milk also disputes PCRM's use of her research.

>

>In that case, Dr. June Chan published a study in the American Journal of

>Clinical Nutrition that hypothesized a causal connection between milk and

>prostate cancer. PCRM issued a press release with Neal Barnard chiming in

>that " there is every reason for men to avoid cow's milk altogether. "

>

>But when contacted by CNSNews, Chan had a different take on her research.

> " We do not recommend that people change their diets or stop drinking milk, "

>Chan told te news organization.

>

>Kudos to CNSNews.Com for pursuing this story and getting the real story

>rather than just the smoke and mirrors that PCRM would like people to see.

>

>Source:

>

>Harvard Prof Claims Misuse of Data To Push Anti-Milk Agenda.

>Rossomando, CNSNews.Com, January 23, 2002.

>

>Permanent URL: http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000033.html

>

>10. Joan Dunayer Attacks Singer, Says Chickens Live Worthier Lives

>than Humans

>

>At the beginning of January I wrote about attacking

>Singer over a review that Singer wrote of Joan Dunayer's book, Animal

>Equality: Language and Liberation. Now, Dunayer herself has written a very

>strong response to Singer accusing him of being " speciesist " in his review.

>

>In her book, as Dunayer writes in a letter to Vegan Voice , Dunayer argues

>that " Truthful, nonspeciesist language -- especially nonspeciesist legal

>language -- would end nonhuman oppression. "

>

>Singer dismissed that argument, writing that, " It is not speciesist to

>think that this event [the 9/11 terrorist attacks] was a greater tragedy

>than the killing of several million chickens, which no doubt also occurred

>on September 11, as it occurs on every working day in the United States. "

>Singer argued that it was appropriate to use different language to describe

>the deaths of animals than that used to describe the deaths of human

>beings.

>

>Dunayer completely disagrees. She writes,

>

>*** QUOTE ***

>

> " It is not speciesist " to consider the murder of several thousand humans " a

>greater tragedy than the killing of several million chickens, " Singer

>contends. It certainly is. . . . Also, Singer's disrespect for chickens is

>inconsistent with his espoused philosophy, which values benign individuals

>more than those who, on balance, cause harm. By that measure, chickens are

>worthier than most humans, who needlessly cause much suffering and death

>(for example, by eating or wearing animal-derived products).

>

>*** END QUOTE ***

>

>The people who died on 9/11 led lives that were morally inferior to

>chickens. What a lovely philosophy.

>

>Dunayer criticizes Singer for limiting protection for animals to those

>species who are self-aware. As Dunayer notes, it is impossible to determine

>the extent to which non-human species are self-aware. So, she concludes, we

>should consider them all self-aware. She contends, for example, that

>jellyfish should be consider creatures possessing rights. After complaining

>that Singer unjustly refers to animals with the third person pronoun, 'it,'

>Dunayer writes,

>

>*** QUOTE ***

>

>Similarly, although he has advocated moral consideration for all sentient

>beings, he excludes some nonhuman animals from who, thereby dismissing them

>from consideration. " Am I just showing prejudice if I confess that I find

>it difficult to think of a jellyfish as a 'who'? " he asks. Yes, he is. . .

>. " Let's wage the winnable battles first, before we go to the barricades

>for dust mites, " Singer mocks. Language that shows respect for dust mites

>and jellyfishes doesn't impede efforts to liberate monkeys or pigs. The

>main obstacle to such efforts is a human-centered, hierarchical view of

>animals. By requiring that nonhumans demonstrate human-like traits, and by

>ranking nonhumans accordingly, Singer perpetuates speciesism and endlessly

>postpones nonhuman emancipation.

>

>*** END QUOTE ***

>

>Got that? In Dunayer's schema, animals are not to be granted rights because

>they may be sentient or self-aware, but simply because they are alive.

>Anything that is classified as an animal is a creature possessing rights,

>all the way down to jellyfish and similar creatures.

>

>Source:

>

>Letter to the editor of Vegan Voice. Joan Dynayer, January 2002.

>

>

>Permanent URL: http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000037.html

>

>----------

>

>To subscribe to this list, send an e-mail message to

>requests@... with the following text in the Subject:

>subscribe ar-newsletter.

>

>To be removed from this list, send an e-mail message to

>requests@... with the following text in Subject: unsubscribe

>ar-newsletter. If you experience difficulties unsubscribing, please email

>the list administrator at brian@.... Thank you.

>© Copyright 2001 by Carnell. All rights reserved. For guidlines about

>reproducing this content in your web site or newsletter, please visit

>http://www.animalrights.net/documentation/about/reproduction_guidelines.html

>

>

All the best,

Byrnes, PhD, RNCP

http://www.PowerHealth.net

_________________________________________________________________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com