German Supermarket Chain Ups Ante On Animal Welfare

German Supermarket Chain Ups Ante On Animal Welfare

One German supermarket chain introduced a broad supply-chain policy for animal welfare. It may be the most innovative in the world. Despite their positive effects on public health, Australia’s supermarket chains have been slow to adopt such measures.

Aldi Sud, one of two Aldi supermarket chains own by the Aldi family in Germany, announce a new purchasing policy that is tie to animal welfare. Aldi Sud customers will no longer find foie grass, rabbit meat, lobster or force-feeding ducks or geese in their stores.

Suppliers were ask to stop trimming the beaks of hens. The country of origin and the place where the meat was raised will be clearly indicated on labels for meat products.

Forward Looking Policies Chain

This policy applies to all non-food items such as textiles (no wool products involving muleing are allowed), clothing, shoes (leather alternative are preferred), cosmetics, and cleaning products. Aldi Sud will no longer sell fur and products made from protected species such as crocodiles or snakes.

This is also true for processed foods. For example, pasta and noodles can only contain organic, free-range, or barn-laid eggs. The same applies to baked goods.

It is preferable to use seafood products that are free from by-catch and protected animals. Aldi Sud prefers farmed fish to be raised in humane conditions.

The policy also encourages suppliers and other stakeholders to be more proactive in animal welfare. It encourages suppliers to be involve along with other stakeholders in the development and implementation of animal welfare standards, contribute towards non-animal research methods, and avoid animal experimentation.

Aldi Sud wrote in its new policy document (author’s translation of the original German). We are a responsible company and we must balance ecology, economic development, and preservation of natural resources.

Supermarkets In Australia Chain

Aldi Australia and other supermarket chains in Australia don’t exceed industry and regulatory standards and have a limited collection of animal welfare requirements.

The egg-laying chickens as well as marine animals are perhaps the most important aspects of major Australian supermarkets’ animal welfare programs. Coles brand eggs have been produce from cage-free chickens since January 2013. Woolworths plans to use non-cage eggs for its brand products and sell non-cage eggs only by December 2018.

Major Australian supermarket chains, Aldi Australia, Coles and Metcash (the major supplier to IGA supermarkets) have policies regarding seafood traceability or labelling. They all pledge to sustainable fishing.

Coles announced in January 2013 that it would no longer produce pork from sow stalls. Woolworths only sources fresh pork meat from farms where the stalls use for less than 10% during sows gestation periods.

Sow stalls, which use in factory farming, small barren crates that female pigs kept in during pregnancy. These cages are so small, the pig cannot move or turn around.

Aldi Australia, Woolworths, and Metcash reject animal testing when it is not legally require. However Coles and Metcash have no policies regarding animal testing.

Public Health Is A Concern

The most popular method of producing meat, eggs and milk is intensive animal farming. Lack of sunlight, cramped living areas, and food that is not traditional are all factors that can cause stress to the animals. This can affect their immune system.

Stressed animals are more susceptible to infection and are treat with antibiotics to treat illness as well as prevent future ones. Antibiotics can also be use to accelerate animal growth.

The widespread use of antibiotics in food-producing livestock has a negative effect on human health. This can also lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that can cause infection in humans. This has resulted in antibiotics being less effective in treating human disease.

Although antibiotics may be a cost-saving measure for food-producing animals, they are not ideal for animal welfare and human health. Many consumers consider animal welfare and environmental sustainability important ethical issues.

Aldi Sud deserves to be commend for creating a supply-chain policy in animal welfare. That is more comprehensive than similar Australian policies. Although consumer pressure may have contributed to its growth. It is in everyone’s best interest to preserve the natural resources of life.

Great Migrations Are Failing Solution Can Eat It Too

Great Migrations Are Failing Solution Can Eat It Too

Before I travel to southern Africa last summer, I could not imagine an African savanna that didn’t feature its amazing migrations. However, Africa’s plains seem to be becoming increasingly devoid of wildlife. My investigation revealed that instead, fences were marching across the Savannas.

A review of 24 large mammal species that used to migrate frequently revealed that many migrations have become extinct. The fences kept animals from moving, sometimes within reach of the food and water they needed. These fences were able to stop massive historical migrations. Since the 1950s, millions of wild animals, including wildebeests, hartebeests, springbok, and others, have died from thirst or hunger.

This is a serious problem that has not been address. The threat of the total collapse of the Greater-Mara ecosystem is being pose by Kenya’s fences, which form groups and act as virtual battle lines. Recent global studies of 57 species moving mammals have shown that the planet’s most extraordinary natural events are in danger.

Divided Land Migrations

Botswana is home to some of the most beautiful free-range wildlife on Earth. To protect European beef producers against foot-and-mouth disease, (FMD), fences built to divide the country into 17 islands.

Fencing can be expensive, especially fencing that is strong enough to stop migrating animals. It also favors a small percentage of cattle owners. This keeps local livestock farmers from the export market. This is because wildlife-based tourism has overtaken livestock as a percentage of GDP in countries such as Botswana.

The colonial-era subsidies for the fencing system have been remove, leaving behind a system that is losing and that can hinder local farmers, tourism, and sustainability. Many savanna landscapes have become conflict areas between wildlife and local people.

A rare positive story emerged against this grim backdrop. It driven by patient advocacy and myth-busting science. Except for the African buffalo, wildlife is not a major factor in transmission of foot-and-mouth disease. Ironically, it is more likely that cattle will spread it. Many areas, such as the Kalahari desert, don’t have cattle or buffalo so fences there are not use for disease control.

It has proven that these fences can cause migrations to restart after careful scientific research. After a small portion of the fence was removed, the longest recorded animal migration, among zebras in Botswana, began again a few years back.

Place Is More Important Than Process

One Health, a relatively new scientific approach, is perhaps the most significant breakthrough. One Health is a problem solving strategy that addresses issues at the intersection of wildlife, domestic animals and human health. It took a huge effort from veterinarians and other scientists to find a solution, in collaboration with animal health organizations and communities. Instead of focusing on the geographic origin of livestock, it examines the entire meat production process – from farm and fork – through an animal safety lens.

This method was originally developed to prevent illness from contaminated foods by astronauts in 1960s. This method is used in every aspect of the food industry: from vegetable growing to canning and meat processing. It means that even in foot and mouth zones, vaccinations, veterinary surveillance and standardised meat preparation can ensure wildlife-friendly beef.

It is one thing to know the solution and another to convince policymakers to implement it. Soon, the One Health team shifted its focus to advocacy and policy. After years of dialogue and research between sectors that seldom sat together at the same table for many years, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), in 2012, issued the Phakalane Declaration on the Adoption of Non-Geographic Approaches to Management of Foot and Mouth Disease. These non-geographic approaches aren’t dependent on fencing.

Put Policy Into Practice Migrations

This unanimous statement made by experts in southern African animal health. It heard around the globe. In 2015, a real policy breakthrough made in Paris when the World Animal Health Organisation, OIE, rewrote Terrestrial Animal Health Cod to allow international trade in fresh meat from countries and zones affected by foot-and-mouth disease.

Ngamiland, which is home to world-renowned wildlife, and the Okavango Delta, recently list as a World Heritage Site. Ngamiland committed to revising its fencing with wildlife-friendly beef in late last year.

Botswana also lies at the center of the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier conservation area. This area spans Angola Botswana Namibia Zambia Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe and is home the largest remaining elephant population in the world. Cornell University’s Animal and Human Health for the Environment and Development (AHEAD), has been working with local partners in the resolution of FMD-related conflicts at the largest peace park Africa. Non-fence solutions were also at the forefront of a multi-country summit that took place in late 2016.

Banning Pit Bulls Won’t Work Breed Blame-Game

Banning Pit Bulls Won’t Work Breed Blame-Game

Ayen Chol, a four-year-old girl who was kill by a pit bulls attack, has prompt renew calls for the ban of this breed. Instead of focusing on one breed or reacting to individual events, or reacting emotionally, we must examine all aspects of dog bite incidents. We need better data, better reporting, and better education for dog owners, parents, and the general public about how to prevent a dog bit incident.

How Many Bulls Dog Attacks Have There Been?

It is impossible to determine the extent of dog bite injuries in Australia because there are no reporting requirements. Data are available about deaths. Data on hospital-treat dog bite injuries can found in the emergency department data and the hospital admissions data. However, comprehensive data are not available on both medically treat and non-medically diagnose injuries.

A pit bull cross or pit bull pit bull mix dog has not been link to any dog-bite deaths in Victoria, except for the tragic death of Ayen Chol. My research shows that dog bites have been responsible for over 33 deaths in Australia since 1979. 11 of these were in Victoria. Only one other Australian dog has been involve in a dog bite-relate death. This dog was previously describe as a pitbull cross dog.

Pit Bulls Confusion

The term pitbull is use loosely in Australia to refer to pure breed American Pit Bull Terriers and crosses. It is use in other parts of the globe to describe a dog type, as the term gundog or spaniel.

The term American Pit Bull Terrier is use in the United States to refer to the American Staffordshire Terrier and English Bull Terrier, English Staffordshire Bull Terrier, English Bull Terrier, English Staffordshire Bull Terrier and Bulldogs. It also covers crosses of these breeds as well as any dog that looks like any of them. Staffordshire Bull Terrier owners in Australia might be shock to learn that the breed is prohibit in many countries.

Additional Information Is Require Bulls

There are no reliable statistics in Australia on the breed of dogs involve with attacks. This is due to the fact that breed identification base upon the appearance of a dog can inaccurate even when experts are involve. A pit bull-type dog can look a lot like a dog. Although breed identification is reliable, it is not possible to estimate the breed-specific incidence of bite injuries. There is no evidence that target breeds are disproportionally represent in statistics on dog bite injuries.

Bans Would Be Difficult Due To Breed Confusion

Even if you believe the original reason for targeting breeds is valid, it will not work if you can’t identify a dog’s breed history. Reliance on media reports to identify breeds can make the issue of dog attack breed identification even more complicated.

Media sensationalism and selective reporting may misrepresent the role breed plays in dog bite injuries. It could also encourage irresponsible owner behaviour. The media often portrays the issue as a problem of breed, when it’s actually a problem of human behaviour

There is also the possibility of case detection bias, where bite victims from certain breeds are more likely to report incidents. This could lead to a false association between biting dogs and certain breeds. Because they bite, some biting dogs may be misidentify as belonging to a specific breed.

Protection Of Children

Governments that react with knee jerkness are not likely to make good public policy. We don’t need more restrictions or laws that are likely to fail. A strategy must be based on the best available research evidence. Breed bans do not address other patterns that are associate with dog attacks, such as irresponsible and uneducated dog ownership.

Human ownership is a problem and measures must taken to reduce dog attacks by dogs of all breeds. Dog attacks in Australia are not cause by a single breed or group of breeds. Children should be protected from injury by adopting a holistic approach to all issues.

This strategy should be targeted at dog owners, dog parents, and dogs. Education and awareness, as well as enforcement of existing control and leash laws, will be helpful. Children should be supervised when they are playing with dogs. These important steps will increase responsible ownership of any cross-breed or breed.