割聲帶棄荒野 廿隻柴犬「默默」等死

「天啊!怎有人這麼『夭壽』!」嘉義縣知名鳥人陳建樺,廿日傍晚行經八掌溪,發現大群被割除聲帶、疑似繁殖業者棄養的柴犬,有三隻已經餓死,十七隻餓得排隊向他索食。他說,這些種犬無野外經驗,棄養不是製造麻煩,就是「放死」。

十七隻僥倖活存的啞巴狗在田邊、八掌溪畔到處流竄,渴了、餓了只能啃食一旁西瓜田邊已經腐爛發臭的西瓜,看到有人車經過就搖著尾巴衝上前,無辜眼神透露「帶我回家」、「給我東西吃」,讓愛狗人士看了相當不忍,忙著倒飼料、水,引起狗兒一陣搶食。

還有一黑、一白兩隻柴犬被困在深達一公尺深,乾枯的溝圳內,不斷發出沙啞哀鳴聲想要爬上岸,陳建樺推測,廿隻狗兒可能被狠心主人丟進水溝,體力好的爬上岸找東西吃,差一點就只能在水溝裡等死。

陳建樺他描述說:「眼見著許多外觀完全相同的柴犬,一隻隻地從草叢中鑽出來,還以為是誤闖『七小福』電影片場。

他說「這些狗狗大部分為純種柴犬,見我停下車,很主動的搖著尾巴走過來索食,還會排隊咧!可是全叫不出聲音,只能用很無辜的眼神凝視著我,令人感到悲哀與痛心!」

陳建樺痛批,不肖繁殖場剝奪狗吠權利,割除聲道已經慘無人道,現在又把失去繁殖力的狗兒隨意丟棄,是自私又殘忍,「先把狗兒當生財工具,利用完了把牠當成活體垃圾拋棄,有夠惡質!」另一位愛狗人士也痛罵,業者棄置無生存能力的家犬,等於是逼狗走上死路。

所幸在陳建樺透過網路宣傳告知下,陸續有愛狗人士把狗狗帶回家,到昨天下午現場只剩下柯基犬、柴犬滯留在現場,台南縣後壁鄉公所清潔隊接獲通報後,也趕來把三隻小狗先帶回防治所留置觀察,並將已經生蛆、瘸爛的屍體也一併運走。

有關種犬被割掉聲帶的說法,曾經營過犬隻繁殖業的南投縣水里鄉民趙明亮,證實確有其事。他說,部分業主擔心狗群吠叫惹鄰居反彈,全數讓牠們挨一刀。但牠們生出來的小狗還是健康的,不會成為啞巴狗。

來源: 中時電子報 http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/090422/4/1i8ml.html

捕狗隊枉顧狗命 愛狗人士發起一人一信給馬總統

19日嘉義縣水上鄉公所清潔隊遭民眾控訴,指責清潔隊擅闖民宅,不分青紅皂白就把家犬當野犬,甚至使用套索活活將狗勒斃!新聞曝光後,水上鄉官網留言版瞬間湧入大批網友,截至21日下午止,達700多則留言。由於不論留言、致電鄉公所均無合理回應,網友決定將在24日上午10點前往鄉公所抗議,並發起一人一信給馬總統。

最近,馬總統信箱收到大批網友的E-mail,內容除花蓮瑞穗國中霸凌案外,可能還有嘉義水上鄉虐狗事件。19日根據蘋果日報報導,嘉義水上鄉有黃姓小姐愛犬失蹤,調閱監視器畫面後赫然發現,當地清潔隊員擅自闖入她家,二話不說就企圖捕走在後院曬太陽的愛犬,而愛犬在受捕過程中,由於年事已高加上不斷掙扎,就這樣斷魂在捕狗套索下。看完監視器畫面的黃小姐為之氣結,第一時間向清潔隊詢問時,對方還誆稱,是有狗死在馬路上才派人處理。

這則新聞震驚不少愛狗人士,認為這些清潔隊員手法熟練、動作慘忍,可能有不少流浪狗慘死在他們手下,紛紛上網撻伐鄉公所,官網留言瞬間增加700多則!也有人打電話至鄉公所詢問,得到一名楊姓秘書回應,表示目前兩名清潔隊員已記申誡,並送人評會討論,但結果不知何時才會出來。

不過,卻有自稱是水上鄉鄉公所員工爆料,表示其實兩名清潔隊員僅獲得口頭警告,並沒有人被記申誡,鄉公所內部更認為,這件事3天後就會淡掉。另有一名也是自稱鄉公所員工指出,其實清潔隊以前就會冬令吃狗進補,上面也都知道,卻置之不理。

↑ 上圖:網友自稱水上鄉公所員工,因為看不下去到鄉公所留言版上爆料,內容「這件殺狗事件真的對鄉公所有很大的教訓,也付出很大社會輿論的代價,但內部這些也只不過是冰山的一角而已,之前聽清潔隊員透露,還有冬天吃狗進補的事件,也就在清潔隊的某個角落內,我聽到真的覺得很誇張,上面的大人也知道但又沒人會管所以就放給他爛!但事情還是越搞越大條,聽說他們抓這隻狗也是有目地的,有很多不為人知的事情更誇張的事情都有,就請記者們想一些辦法去了解才會嚇阻囉?」

↑上圖:網友自稱水上鄉公所員工,因為看不下去到鄉公所留言版上爆料,內容「這兩位清潔員據了解根本就沒有被記過,只是口頭警告而已,連我在裡面上班都看不下去了!所以一定要發動動員前往抗議才有用!以上是鄉公所員工的留言,真的要發動動員去抗議才有用,所以拜託有人有甚麼方法集合大家嗎?請有能力者想一下辦法。」

↑上圖:網友自稱水上鄉公所員工,因為看不下去到鄉公所留言版上爆料,內容「今天上班時,我聽到內部會議的內容,有人說事情最多3天就淡化掉了,你們的留言是沒有人會理會的,所以你們還是看著辦好了.......好心人士善意的透露。」

網友認為,清潔隊擅闖民宅不說,還把人家的愛犬活活勒斃,而且一開始還企圖以謊話掩飾,鄉公所卻至始至終沒有出面說明,而寄信、留言均無人回應,因此決定在本周五(24日)上午10點前往公所前抗議,並提出三點要求:公布兩名清潔隊員姓名、將其二人免職、相關人員在媒體前道歉。

另外,也有網友認為總統夫人周美青是愛狗人士,向她反應應該可以得到解決,所以發起一人一信寄給馬總統的活動。

新聞影片 捕狗隊闖民宅勒斃家犬: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8v3GVQtG3g
嘉義水上鄉公所留言版: http://shueishang.cyhg.gov.tw/talk.htm
來源: Nownews http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/090422/17/1i92r.html

422地球日: 6行動 愛地球


玻璃魚本透明 針注染劑難存活

華視新聞繼續追蹤發現,原產於東南亞的玻璃魚,本來就是透明的,是業者以針筒注射染料,才會變成彩色的,但人工染色魚體質不佳,很容易死亡。

到底魚的顏色是怎麼染上去的,答案就在針筒裡,原來業者為了增加賣相染色,用針筒把染料注射進魚身上。世上沒有彩色玻璃魚只有染色玻璃魚,這種魚種原產地是泰國印度和緬甸,只要在二十到三十度的水溫就能適應良好,吃水蚤就能存活,但注射染劑也讓魚的免疫力大大降低。這幾隻買回來時活跳跳的魚,隨著時間一天一天過去,竟然免疫力愈來愈差,魚身上甚至開始長出白色斑點,這是觀賞魚常見的白點病,到了第五天,這隻黃色玻魚已經因為生病奄奄一息,無法保持平衡開始翻轉。買的時候,如果不特別詢問,業者根本不會主動告知。

不但如此,國外之前也曾經把魚身上,染出I LOVE U的字體,或是用針筒注射血鸚鵡,改變魚的顏色,甚至像這條白色的魚,也被用針筒染出一個個紅色斑點,但動保法沒有特別規範,這麼做並不違法,但人工染色魚容易生病,不知情的民眾買回家,還以為是自己不會養魚,卻沒想到原來是因為人工染的色魚很難養活。

來源: 華視新聞 http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/090420/69/1i614.html

海龜誤食塑膠袋死亡日增 可能導致滅絕

加拿大一項研究發現,棱皮龜誤食塑膠袋的比例急劇增加,使這種世界上現存最大海龜的滅絕可能性增高。

多倫多大學等研究小組日前進行的一項調查發現,在棱皮龜的胃裡發現有塑膠袋等塑膠製品的比例,從20世紀60年代下半期以來就一直在急劇增加。將近40%被衝上世界各地海岸的棱皮龜屍體中發現塑膠製品,他們很可能是因為塑膠品堵塞住消化道導致死亡。

以水母為主食的棱皮龜,經常會把漂浮在海面的塑膠袋誤認為食物而吞入腹中。

這個研究小組查閱了1885年到2007年間死後被衝上岸的棱皮龜解剖記錄,加上他們自己的調查結果,一共調查了408隻大海龜的胃中物品。

在海龜胃裡發現塑料製品的第一個案例報告是出現在1968年。以後每隔10年發現的比例逐次遞增,從1968年到2007年間,平均的比例是37%。

來源: 中廣新聞 http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/090420/1/1i4xk.html

向肉說不!學生呷菜愛地球

副刊專題記者/謝文瑄、樊德平、廖珮妤、龔逸

「蔬食時代」來臨,環保人士提倡「吃素環保救地球」,許多大學社團也一同響應,紛紛發起素食運動。

大學社團跟上吃素潮流,投入心力倡導蔬食。422世界地球日當天,台灣師範大學身心發展社將在師大藝術公園主辦「2009世界地球日-維根新生活系列運動」,宣導素食環保救地球。

除了白天有靜態展、影展、講座,還有「素食英雄簽名連署運動」,呼籲學生「用嘴巴救地球」。身發社社長施姵甫認為,地球暖化的元兇就是畜牧業,若要防止地球暖化,最重要且快速的方式就是吃素。

靜宜大學尊重生命社也加入倡導吃素的行列,副社長張欣怡表示,吃素能獲取和肉類相同的蛋白質。她說,當社團聚會時,也會一起訂購素食便當,或到有素食的餐廳。

肉食者平均一年產生的二氧化碳約一千五百公斤,約素食者的三倍。「如果全國一起吃素,只要一天,也會不得了!」中央研究院物理所研究員周家復表示,肉品生產造成高排碳量,環保署因此提出「節能減碳十大宣言」,建議民眾多吃蔬食。

「畜牧業排放的溫室氣體已超過交通工具的排放量。」台灣大學光音社社長戴榮身意識到環境危機,因而開始推廣每週或每日一餐素食,藉此增加隱性的素食人口。

台大電機工程系學生王章衡參加光音社舉辦的講座後,便改變飲食習慣。現在他每天都會吃一餐素食,甚至還在網路上發表文章,希望能吃素救地球。

輔仁大學日本語文系學生藍詩渝從高一起決定改變飲食習慣,向葷類食物說不!除了個人飲食改變,她甚至決定創立「和我們一起環保社」社團。未來她將舉辦一系列素食環保講座,讓大家更了解食物對環境的影響,進而試著改變。

「很多人聽到『吃素』就會想到宗教,但這兩者之間並不一定有必然的關係。」藍詩渝認為,一般人會覺得素食很難吃,但她用美味素食吸引朋友,改變他們對素食的既定印象。

來源: 大學報 http://www.uonline.nccu.edu.tw/index.asp?sec=8

洋芋比薩、中東豆餅 素料理吹異國風

(點右圖觀看影片)素食不是只有青菜、豆腐,素食者在比薩店和異國料理店也可大飽口福,新型態素食料理成為新選擇。

蔬食概念小店座落於台灣大學公館商圈巷弄內,自然清新的風格吸引不少年輕學子光顧。店內以不同口味的素食比薩為主食,如羅勒鮑菇、煙燻乳酪、香草洋芋等多種口味。許多素食者慕名而來,更多想吃好料的饕客們也來光顧。

許多人認為素食料理少變化,身為素食者的李老闆說:「食物對我來講只有好吃與不好吃,所以我想讓大家知道,不吃肉也可以很享受。」

才隔十步路,便有另一家異國美食店出現,店內提供諸多素膳食,讓素食者有另類選擇。異國料理店主打傳統中東美食—佛拉福,製作方法是在Q軟餅皮內加入胡椒、灑上香料的雞豌豆或蠶豆泥團,下鍋油炸後外酥內軟,一咬下去齒頰留香。

喜歡嚐鮮的人不妨將新型態素食納入選擇。

來源: 大學報 http://www.uonline.nccu.edu.tw/index.asp?sec=8

精選影片區

Anomosa的Youtube頻道觀看更多影片



Anomosa的Youtube頻道觀看更多影片

德國愛心司機停車救青蛙 誤點遭公司停職

(法新社柏林17日電)媒體今天報導,德國一名法籍公車司機,有天將公車停下,只為拯救一隻青蛙,不讓牠遭車輪輾斃,但也因此面臨革職命運。

46歲的克莉絲汀娜.龐梅瑞(Christina Pommerel)從駕駛座起身下車,救起青蛙,放入盒子,再走到路旁將青蛙放生。不過由於這輛雙層巴士原本就已誤點20分鐘,因此車上乘客都氣得跳腳。

龐梅瑞告訴德國日報「世界報」(Die Welt)說:「我就是無法把青蛙輾過去。」龐梅瑞在德國南部城市雷根斯堡(Regensburg)擔任公車司機已13年。

她表示:「我只是盡份責任,拯救一條生命。」

但憤怒的乘客不認同這項青蛙拯救任務,其中一人向公車公司投訴,公司因此對龐梅瑞祭出停職處分。

當地報紙「中巴伐利亞時報」(MittelbayerischeZeitung)引述公車公司代表左勃斯特(MaximilianJobst)表示:「如果公車遲到在先,造成乘客不滿,後來又發生救青蛙這檔事,如果是我,我會問問自己,是不是該轉行。」

但此事經過媒體披露及批評,各界也出現愈來愈多支持龐梅瑞的聲浪,公車公司的立場也開始軟化。

公司主管表示,這位愛青蛙的司機可以復職,條件是,她未來儘量避免做這類慈心不殺的事情。(譯者:蔣天清)

來源: http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/090418/19/1i1me.html

哪隻貓兒不沾腥? 英國有隻吃素貓

英國有隻兩歲大,叫但丁的公貓,只吃素,完全不碰葷腥。

但丁是隻棄貓,主人蓓姬今年二十一歲,兩年前在路上發現了在寒風裡瑟縮的但丁,發了善心,把但丁帶回家。蓓姬拿魚給牠吃,牠不吃,拿肉給牠,牠也不吃。給牠貓食罐頭,但丁更是嗤之以鼻。蓓姬拿牠一點辦法都沒有。

後來,蓓姬看到但丁在廚房垃圾桶旁邊,大吃牠準備扔掉的吃剩的青菜。蓓姬接著就用蔬菜和水果餵但丁,但丁每一餐都吃光光。現在,蓓姬餵牠吃香瓜、香蕉、花椰菜、蘆筍、茄子、小高麗菜。但丁都吃得津津有味。而且這些菜完全沒烹煮過,都是純生菜。

但丁吃素的故事難倒了動物專家,英國一名貓科動物專家說,牠完全不理解這是怎麼一回事。

來源: 中廣新聞網

莫斯科流浪狗 搭地鐵進城覓食

英國太陽報報導,俄羅斯首都莫斯科地鐵已淪為野狗天堂,這些野狗不但深諳乞食之道,還聰明到懂得利用地鐵通勤,往返市中心與郊區。

該報指出,這些野狗每天早上搭乘地鐵前往市區街頭覓食,忙完一天後又趕搭地鐵返回郊區過夜。研究這些利用地鐵通勤的野狗的專家說,這些野狗學會相互合作、根據搭車時間來判斷該在哪一站下車、會搭乘一列地鐵中最前面與最後面的安靜車廂,以及發展出迫使人類多給牠們一點食物的技巧。

科學家相信,野狗搭地鐵通勤的現象,始於前蘇聯在一九九○年代垮台、俄羅斯新資本主義將工業區從市區移往郊區之後。莫斯科生態與演化研究所波伊爾科夫博士指出,野狗一向以工業區為家,因此便隨工業區搬到郊區;而市中心是最佳覓食地點,這些野狗便學會如何搭地鐵——「早上搭地鐵到市中心,晚上再搭地鐵回家,就跟人類一樣,不是嗎?」波伊爾科夫還說,野狗搭地鐵時還會找樂子,如故意在列車門即將關閉前冒著尾巴被夾住的危險衝進車廂;甚至,狗狗還會在車上睡過頭以致下錯站。

到市區時,這些野狗懂得看紅綠燈過馬路,然後利用狡猾伎倆來乞討食物;遇到小孩子,狗狗就會裝可愛,把頭擱到小孩子膝蓋上,露出無辜眼神藉以乞食。這些野狗簡直把人類的心理給摸透了。

莫斯科野狗並非第一批懂得利用大眾運輸工具通勤的動物。二○○六年,英國北約克出現一隻每天搭巴士到酒吧討香腸吃的傑克羅素梗犬;○七年,英國白貓「麥凱維提」會搭公車前往一家魚薯餅店。

來源: 自由時報 http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/090412/78/1hp2b.html

為什麼要反對獵殺海豹?

最近的一份科學研究報告(Leaper and Matthews 2006)指出,加拿大政府對於獵殺海豹的態度,已經嚴重影響西北大西洋的格陵蘭海豹(harp seal)的生存數目。這種未經妥善管理的獵殺行為,將會使得海豹數目在未來15年內大幅減少50-70%

我們應該正視這種沒有必要性且嚴重危害野生動物生命的獵殺行為。最近這幾年,加拿大政府提高每年可獵殺的海豹數量上限,最近這三年獵殺的數目已高達近100萬隻,遠遠超過過去海豹獵殺數量的標準。2006年獵殺數量與加拿大政府的科學家預估的「可接受範圍」比較,甚至超出85,000隻。

根據野生動物保育的歷史資料顯示,當哺乳類動物(例如海豹等)的頭部或皮、毛有銷售價值的時候,人們對於牠們的獵殺往往遠遠超過可被接受的數量。為避免因為人們的肆意濫殺導致野生動物瀕臨絕種,我們必須要更謹慎地去管理這些獵殺行為。加拿大政府漁業及海洋管理單位(DFO,Fisheries and Oceans Canada/ federal department,負責管理海豹的獵殺行為)所做的努力,不論是在科學或環境方面都不夠完備且不足。

IFAW(國際動物福利基金會)最近一份科學報告顯示,過去11年裡面有9年的時間,地球上雪地的平均覆蓋面積已經遠低於過去37年的安全範圍。雪地的不足,嚴重影響小海豹的生育及生存機會,同時也嚴重影響整體海豹的存活數量。

加拿大政府將問題歸咎於全球暖化的影響所致。但是,在此同時,加拿大政府是否也應該去開始管理這些蓄意濫殺且不具必要性的海豹獵殺行為?

來源;Why Killing Seals is Unsustainable http://www.stopthesealhunt.ca/site/pp.aspx?c=jhKSIZPzEmE&b=2608001

動物實驗FAQ


Your Frequently Asked Questions Answered
1. What are animal experiments?
2. How many animals are used around the world?
3. What types of animals are used?
4. What do the animal experiments involve?
5. What are animal experiments for?
6. Do animals suffer in experiments?
7. What’s wrong with animal experiments?
8. Doesn’t the UK have the toughest ‘animal experiments’ law in the world?
9. What are the alternatives to animal experiments?
10. How can you replace the reactions of a whole animal in a test tube or a cell culture?
11. Can alternatives actually replace animal experiments or are they used alongside?
12. Are scientists required to use non-animal replacements?
13. If animal research is so unreliable, why do scientists continue to do it?
14. How is the Dr Hadwen Trust’s work different from other medical research charities?
15. How do scientists learn about the replacements your charity develops?
16. Is it hypocritical to oppose animal research but use animal-tested medicines?
17. How can the Dr Hadwen Trust replace animal tests, if the law requires them for new drugs?
18. Are animal experiments required by law?
19. Haven’t animal experiments resulted in medical advances?

1. What are animal experiments?Animal experiments (also known as vivisection) are defined in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 as any scientific procedures performed on a living animal likely to cause them “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.” At present, the Act defines an animal as any animal with a backbone; plus the octopus.
back to top…

2. How many animals are used around the world?An estimated 180 million animals are used in experiments every year across the globe. Not all countries keep accurate records of their animal use, and some official figures are likely to be underestimates. In the USA, for example, 80% of animals used (birds, rats and mice) are not included in official figures at all. Across Europe an estimated 13 million animals are used each year, with the UK (nearly 3 million animals) consistently the largest user of laboratory animals. In many cases (including the UK) there are other significant omissions in official statistics. For example, in the UK animals who are bred for research, but subsequently not used, will be killed as ‘surplus’ but not appear in the statistics. Also excluded are animals killed purely for biological products such as blood, or those involved in longer term experiments after the initial first year (any subsequent years of suffering simply disappear from the statistics). The public has a right to know the true number of animals being used each year by the animal research community, and the government should implement complete transparency. (See factsheets in right hand column for latest statistics).
back to top…

3. What types of animals are used?Many different animal species are used for animal experiments around the world including rats, mice, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, cats, dogs, mini-pigs, primates, goats, sheep, birds, fish etc.
back to top…

4. What do the animal experiments involve?The experiments animals are used in are wide-ranging but can involve poisoning; disease infection; wound infliction; application of skin/eye irritants; food/water/sleep deprivation; subjection to psychological stress; brain damage; paralysis; surgical mutilation; induced organ failure; genetic modification and associated physical deformity; burning; and electric shocks. Animals may die as part of the experiment or are killed afterwards for post mortem examination. The government say that most experiments are of mild to moderate severity, but we believe they underestimate suffering.
back to top…

5. What are animal experiments for?Broadly speaking and world-wide, animals are used in research into human and animal diseases, and in basic research to expand human knowledge. Animals will also be used to test (and develop) consumer and industry products: these can include cosmetics, household cleaners, food additives and colourings, food products, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, industrial and agro-chemicals.
back to top…

6. Do animals suffer in experiments?Yes, an experiment on a living animal only needs to be licensed by the UK government if it has the potential to cause “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.” (see the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986). Animals are capable of experiencing both physical pain and suffering as well as psychological harm like fear (including, for some species, anticipation of harm), boredom or depression. Suffering can be caused not only by the experimental procedure, but also due to the unnatural and often stark laboratory environment, handling or excessive noise or light.
back to top…

7. What’s wrong with animal experiments?The Dr Hadwen Trust is opposed to animal experiments for ethical and scientific reasons. As well as causing pain and suffering, animal experiments are unreliable because of differences between different animal species, including humans.

UK law recognises that animals used in research are capable of experiencing “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm”. These sentient animals are unable to give their consent and do not personally benefit from the experiments. Beyond physical pain, animals can be harmed by confinement, frustration, fear, isolation, and loss of life – experiences unavoidable for animals confined in laboratories and used in experiments. The Dr Hadwen Trust does not believe that animal experiments are ethically supportable.

The scientific objections to animal experiments are based on the problem of species differences and the artificiality of the diseases induced in them, which make results from animal experiments of dubious value to humans. A major weakness of medical research on animals is the differences between species, which can make results from one type of animal inapplicable to another. Some of these variations are known and can perhaps be taken into account; but others, such as reactions to new drugs or the function of an area of the brain, are not yet discovered – in these cases, the results from animal experiments can be seriously misleading.(See factsheets in right hand column).
back to top…

8. Doesn’t the UK have the toughest ‘animal experiments’ law in the world?We often hear the UK government and research industry claim that the UK has the toughest legislation and tightest restrictions in the world when it comes to protecting laboratory animals. The Dr Hadwen Trust questions this claim for a number of reasons.

Firstly it would be misleading to give the impression that the legislation governing animal experiments, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, is a piece of animal welfare legislation. Its purpose is not only to limit what scientists can inflict on animals and thereby offer them protection, but also to afford legal protection to scientists who would otherwise fall foul of animal protection laws such as the Animal Welfare Act (2006). It is under the ‘1986’ Act that animal experiments are licensed and defined as procedures likely to cause an animal “pain, suffering, distress or lasting harm.”

Secondly, the claim that the UK has the strictest legislation in the world is based rather more on assumption than fact. It is undoubtedly true that some countries in the world have very little legislation in place governing animal experiments and consequently very few restrictions. However, whilst the UK and other EU member states do have comprehensive legislation, this still imposes relatively few restrictions compared with the animal suffering it permits. Simply having legislation in place doesn’t necessarily mean that it is for the benefit of laboratory animals, or that it is effectively implemented in laboratories.
Thirdly, the government’s claim to the strictest law on animal experiments is unsubstantiated. Germany, The Netherlands and Switzerland all have legislation at least as tough as the UK’s.
back to top…

9. What are the alternatives to animal experiments?There is a range of different methods that can be used to replace animal experiments. These include cell and tissue cultures, analytical technology, molecular research, post mortem studies, computer modelling, epidemiology (population studies), ethical clinical research with volunteer patients and healthy subjects, and the use of microbes such as bacteria. Please see what-are-non-animal-alternatives where there is more information.
back to top…

10. How can you replace the reactions of a whole animal in a test tube or a cell culture?Non-animal research rarely simply replaces like for like. Instead we use a different approach in order to replicate the whole body scenario, replacing each type of animal experiment with a whole range of non-animal techniques that are used in combination. When it comes to studying the “whole animal” it is wrong to assume that animals are the best choice, or that they are necessary to solve every medical problem. The ethical clinical study of the whole relevant organism — that is humans — is much more useful and relevant than an animal model.
back to top…

11. Can alternatives actually replace animal experiments or are they used alongside?Alternative methods are regularly replacing animal experiments and have already saved the lives of millions of animals worldwide. For example, cell cultures have replaced the use of monkeys in polio vaccine production; pregnancy tests are now conducted in test-tubes instead of in rabbits; batches of insulin are analysed chemically and not by tests in mice; and cell culture methods have replaced the use of thousands of live mice in the production of monoclonal antibodies. Alternative techniques have the potential to replace more animal experiments and offer more humane and better quality research, but sufficient political and scientific will is required to un-tap that potential quickly for the benefit of everyone.
back to top…

12. Are scientists required to use non-animal replacements?Every country has different legislation and not all countries impose a requirement to use alternative methods. For example, in the USA (the world’s largest laboratory animal user) although researchers must consider replacement techniques, there is no legal requirement forcing them to use them. This means that if a researcher experiments on animals even though there is an accepted total non-animal replacement, they will not be breaking the law. In countries like Japan and China, legislation is very weak or non-existent.

The situation is different in the UK and the rest of the EU, but by no means perfect. The law does say that if an ‘alternative’ method exists (which includes reduction and refinement as well as replacement), it must be used. However, the Dr Hadwen Trust is not convinced that this is robustly or effectively enforced or monitored.

Much is made of the requirement to demonstrate that non-animal approaches have been considered. Yet in practice, this amounts to little more than a few lines on an application form claiming that non-animal techniques are not available, without even any obligation to justify that conclusion. The credibility of this claim is assessed by the Home Office Inspectorate as part of the application process, but because there is no central database of all non-animal techniques, the assessment relies purely on the knowledge and memory of the individual Inspectorate, only one of whom has specialist knowledge of replacements.

At present, new animal experimenters undergo a training course which is only an introduction to important issues. The consideration and implementation of replacement methods is covered only very superficially. Many established researchers doing animal experiments have never even attended a training course.
There can be delays between the development of a non-animal technique and it being widely accepted and therefore used to replace animal use. For example, in regulatory toxicology a replacement method must go through a long process of formal validation to demonstrate that it works. This in itself can take years, but even after it has been declared an officially validated method, it doesn’t automatically replace animal experiments. In the EU, for example, member states can still resist replacing the animal test until it has achieved acceptance at the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development) which sets international test guidelines. Achieving OECD approval can take years.

So whilst it sounds impressive to state that researchers are required to use non-animal techniques when they are available, in reality significant political and regulatory hurdles remain for replacing toxicity tests. However, basic and medical research (such as that funded by the Dr Hadwen Trust) is not carried out to meet regulatory requirements, and so non-animal methods developed in these research areas do not need to undergo a formal validation procedure. They can be used to replace animals much more quickly.
back to top…

13. If animal research is so unreliable, why do scientists continue to do it?Animal experiments continue for a number of reasons. These can include an unwillingness to change from a traditional and familiar research method; a lack of knowledge or expertise in non-animal techniques; a lack of suitable resources or funds to conduct humane research; as well as the resistance of those with vested interest in continuing animal research (such as animal suppliers and contract testers). In some instances, animal tests are effectively a legal requirement, for example in the marketing of a new drug. Sadly, animals continue to be seen as cheap, available and disposable ‘tools’ in the laboratory, and so may be used in preference to more sophisticated or technically demanding non-animal methods. Finally, more work is needed to develop additional replacement techniques.
back to top…

14. How is the Dr Hadwen Trust’s work different from other medical research charities?Unlike most other charities, the Dr Hadwen Trust is opposed to all animal experiments both on ethical and scientific grounds. We believe animal experiments are inadequate, and that faster medical progress will be made by developing and utilising advanced, non-animal research methods. The Dr Hadwen Trust is very unusual in that it works to exclusively promote and develop non-animal techniques to replace animals. We have one of the strictest ethical funding criteria in the world, and we will not fund research that is conducted on living animals, or animal cells and tissues. All the projects we fund aim to both replace animal experiments and further medical research, thus helping both people and animals.
back to top…

15. How do scientists learn about the replacements your charity develops?We encourage all our researchers to present their work at conferences and to publish their findings in scientific journals. To date, some 200 reports of our research have been published in scientific journals around the world.
We also organise scientific meetings and speak at international conferences ourselves, and we submit evidence to official enquiries on animal experiments and alternatives. The Dr Hadwen Trust distributes an annual Science Review to more than one thousand scientists and other key individuals, and hosts a technical website (http://www.scienceroom.org/) to educate and engage scientists in our work.
back to top…

16. Is it hypocritical to oppose animal research but use animal-tested medicines?No it would only be hypocritical if you had a ‘cruelty-free’ alternative, but chose to use the animal tested product. Unfortunately, all new medicines undergo extensive animal testing as a regulatory requirement before they are widely used in humans. Therefore, consumer choice has effectively been taken away from us. Almost everything has been tested on animals somewhere, at some time: even water, salt and olive oil!

If lack of consumer choice means we cannot avoid using medicines that have been tested on animals, it does not negate our right to oppose animal research per se.
Just because animals were used to test a medicine, does not mean that its discovery or development depended upon animal experiments or that animal experiments were a useful part of the process. Nor does it mean that it is impossible in the future for drug development to be free of animal use. Animal testing cannot ensure the safety or effectiveness of a new medicine, as this is only established after it has been widely used in patients. More than 90% of drugs that pass animal tests ultimately fail to be suitable for humans.

Some anti-vivisectionists do choose to reject the use of all orthodox drugs but this is a purely individual choice. It should not perpetuate the erroneous view that ending animal experiments means an end to modern medicine. It does not. We accept the need to use drugs now whilst working to make changes for the future, based on the firm belief that non-animal methods offer a safer and more reliable route to developing drugs and treatments.
back to top…

17. How can the Dr Hadwen Trust replace animal tests, if the law requires them for new drugs?The making and testing of new medicines is only one aspect of medical research (comprising 24% of all UK animal experiments in 2005), but it’s not what the Dr Hadwen Trust does. Most of our research is focused on understanding different human illnesses — their causes, how they develop, and the underlying features that might allow them to be prevented, diagnosed earlier, or treated more effectively. This is sometimes known as fundamental medical research. Much of this kind of medical research normally involves investigating how the body functions in health and disease, by artificially causing selected symptoms of human illnesses in other animals. We are finding new ways to investigate illnesses without resorting to animal experiments. Some of our research aims at developing advanced non-animal methods to replace the animal tests currently required by legislation or by regulatory agencies.
back to top…

18. Are animal experiments required by law?The law does not require any of the animal experiments conducted in efforts to discover the causes, diagnosis or development of human illnesses. The animal experiments carried out just to discover new knowledge are not required by law either. However, in the development and safety testing of products such as medicines, dangerous chemicals, disinfectants and pesticides, there are European laws which currently specify that companies should conduct a range of animal tests. As new, non-animal methods are developed, the testing requirements can be altered and animal tests replaced.

One example is the replacement of rabbit tests for skin corrosion by chemicals, with a test-tube method. However, there is considerable resistance to change. Pressure must be maintained on regulatory agencies and companies, so that the development and acceptance of alternative methods is prioritised and streamlined.
back to top…

19. Haven’t animal experiments resulted in medical advances?Animal experiments have been a part of medical research for centuries, and many millions are conducted every year. It would be absurd if some of those experiments had not led to some progress, especially in the 18th and 19th centuries when so little was known about how human and animal bodies function. However, due to species differences and other limitations of animal experiments for predicting what happens in humans, very many experiments on rats, mice, rabbits, primates and other animals have produced misleading information. The government’s advisory committee has admitted that the validity of animal experiments cannot be assumed and would need to be demonstrated on a case-by-case basis. Where the reliability of animal experiments for medical progress has been independently analysed, many were shown either to have been conducted badly or to have wrongly predicted human outcomes.

For some diseases where little progress has been made in spite of decades of animal experiments, the conclusion must be that the animal models are failing to elucidate the human condition, and may well have obscured our understanding of it. There are numerous examples of animal research delaying medical progress because results from animal studies have sent research in the wrong direction. For example, the recently revealed deficiencies of the mouse and rabbit ‘models’ of multiple sclerosis (MS) provide a reason why research into this disease has remained largely unproductive over many decades.

Animal experiments are fraught with difficulties arising from species variations and the artificiality of animal ‘models’ of disease. There is little objective evidence so far of their reliability or their relevance to human outcomes. By contrast, at the start of the 21st century, non-animal techniques have become the cutting edge of medical research. Animal experiments are being replaced by a range of non-animal methods that as well as being more humane, frequently prove cheaper, quicker and more effective – as well as saving lives.
back to top…

來源: http://www.drhadwentrust.org/faqs

一餐改吃素 環保減碳愛地球

愛地球,其實透過飲食習慣,也能減少碳排放量,減緩地球暖化的速度。怎麼說呢?聯合國氣候變遷會議主席,曾經針對全球暖化,蒐集了上千位頂尖科學家的研究精華,呼籲大家「少吃肉、騎腳踏車、簡約消費」,其中少吃肉的部份,延伸出來就是「素食、低碳食物里程,還有不浪費食物等概念」。

根據國內醫學界估計,台灣素食人口至少有200萬人。有一個數據顯示,平均生產一公斤牛肉,會排放36.4公斤的二氧化碳,相當於開車三小時。養一頭牛一年所排放的二氧化碳,相當於跑車開七萬公里。如果每天三餐當中的其中一餐改吃蔬食,每個人的碳排放量,將可減少0.78公斤的二氧化碳。若是吃素一年,就相當於種了82棵樹

「低碳食物里程」和「地產地消」的觀念,在國外行之有年,但在台灣對民眾來說都還算是一個較陌生的字眼。所謂的食物里程,我們可以舉「漢堡」來當作例子。假設你今天吃的一個漢堡,夾在漢堡裡面的牛肉,是從美國坐飛機來的,而夾在漢堡麵包當中的生菜、洋蔥,是從屏東坐卡車來的,番茄醬是從日本坐船進口來的,當這些食材被蒐集並處理製作成一個漢堡之前,背後已經計算著這些食物在運送的過程當中,運輸的交通媒介已經產生了大量的碳排放。在國外有研究發現,一個漢堡的碳足跡約為3.1公斤的二氧化碳。有鑒於此,日本推行「地產地消」概念,就是提倡農產品應該以「當地生產、當地消費」,減少食物的運送,不但兼顧環保,又能確保新鮮和健康。

有另一個統計顯示,葷食者一年製造的二氧化碳1,500公斤,素食者一年430公斤,兩者差距1,070公斤。而且您可能不知道,畜牧業排放的二氧化碳,其實比所有汽車、機車排放的量還要多,平均生產一公斤的肉,牲畜必須吃下七公斤的穀物,如果吃肉人口太多,另一方面也會間接造成穀物的短缺,讓一些人沒東西吃。

為了即將到來的地球日,如果您也想響應愛地球,但又不知道怎麼做的話,Yahoo!奇摩綠生活建議您在未來的用餐習慣當中,能考慮「素食」這個選擇。

★響應422地球日,快來參加Yahoo!奇摩綠生活:6行動,愛地球響應活動



來源: 奇摩綠生活

人口將達90億 超出地球負荷 !

全球整體人口仍是逐漸攀升。聯合國更預測2050年全球將有90億人口。 美國知名學者警告:「這已超出地球負荷!」

發表此番言論的是於2007年擔任美國國務院科學與科技顧問的妮娜‧費德若夫。

她於BBC「One Planet」節目受訪時表示,目前地球上人口已經太多:
「我們必須想辦法減緩全球人口成長的速度,地球沒辦法再容納更多人了!」

費德若夫也認為基因改造食物是因應現代需求的產物,應一併納進考量。

現在人口逼近70億。我們會需要更多創新方案來解決水源、糧食供給等問題」,她強調,荒地保護與水源供給等也是刻不容緩的議題

針對全球暖化議題,費德若夫也認為美國必然會更實際地展開減碳行動。至於美國未來會不會簽訂減碳協議?她清楚回答:「到最後我們一定得朝這個方向走,越早展開行動越好。」

中國與印度是目前人口最多的國家,各為13億與11億;美國則是3億、印尼2億、巴西1億9千萬。"



來源: http://news.msn.com.tw/news1229642.aspx">http://news.msn.com.tw/news1229642.aspx

註: 養活一個素食者所需要的土地面積是肉食者的20倍,換言之肉食者會毀滅20倍於素食者的植物(農作物、森林、牧草等),動物養殖與加工相關產業製造的溫室氣體超過所有交通工具的總合,消耗1/3的石化燃料,汙染比所有工廠加總更多的水源,浪費世界30%的糧食與農田,並且是造成文明病的主要原兇。

漫畫 - 鼠的一生



































海豹獵殺季28萬遭撲殺 智利海域企鵝集體暴斃

國際中心/綜合報導
加拿大東海岸獵殺海豹的季節又開始了,即使許多國際保護動物團體譴責這項行為,不少國家也推動立法禁止進口海豹製品,但是才短短幾天,就傳出已有將近兩萬隻海豹遭到屠殺的噩耗。另外,智利海灘則是出現1500隻企鵝屍體,現場顯得非常怵目驚心。

兩名魁武男子穿著橡膠圍裙、手持鐵棒,這樣的打扮看在動物保育團體眼中,他們就是不折不扣的「海豹屠夫」。儘管反對聲浪不斷,加拿大東岸獵殺海豹的季節仍然在23日如期登場。

雖然在歐盟的壓力下,加拿大政府於去年底宣布,禁止以帶有尖釘的的棒子打死海豹,也不准捕殺一歲以下的海豹,並規定在剝除海豹皮及放血前,一定要先確定海豹已經斷氣。

不過保護動物團體卻表示,目前加拿大被捕殺的海豹,有九成七都在一歲以下,不但殘忍更影響生態。動物保育團體指出,「海豹是複雜的海洋生物多元化一部分,殺海豹剝皮是極不負責任的行為,這樣不但影響漁量,更會破壞食物鏈運作。」

事實上,歐盟就曾多次表示,目前獵捕海豹的方式十分不人道,甚至在三周前的歐洲議會上,一委員會便通過一項禁止歐盟27個成員國輸入海豹產品的議案。

另一方面,在南極圈以北1240英里的智利克雷塔奎樂海灘,29日則出現了1500多隻企鵝屍體,截至目前為止,沒人知道這些企鵝來自何處,連暴斃企鵝的年紀與種類也還無法得知。

但專家表示,一般來說部分品種的企鵝其實鮮少會遷徙到數千英里的遠方,因此在智利出現集體暴斃企鵝的事件,也引起生態專家的憂慮。

新聞來源:東森新聞)

為了女兒寵物豬 瑞絲薇絲朋禁吃豬肉

母愛真偉大!瑞絲薇絲朋(Reese Witherspoon)的女兒艾娃養了一隻寵物豬,為了配合女兒,竟然願意戒吃豬肉、培根。

瑞絲女兒養了一隻寵物豬,寵愛有佳。瑞絲自豪的表示,女兒熟讀美國歷史,還把小豬取名為解放黑奴的重要政治家「布克華盛頓」。為了配合女兒,瑞絲也開始禁吃豬肉,以及其他相關製品。

疼愛小孩的瑞絲首度替動畫《怪獸大戰外星人》(Monsters vs. Aliens)現聲,在劇中她化身為女超人,帶領怪獸對抗神秘外星人。瑞絲表示,「兩個小孩看我變成神力女超人開心死了。」

來源: 自由時報 http://iservice.libertytimes.com.tw/liveNews/news.php?no=193103&type=%E5%BD%B1%E5%8A%87

抗大腸癌 減肉減油「食」在必行、吃肉較易短命

酬酒吸菸嚼檳榔造成的癌症已不是最主流,肉食(動物蛋白質與油脂)才是!!
為什麼健保局總是虧損?? 因為富裕的社會太多人自己找病來生!!

抗大腸癌 減肉減油「食」在必行
預防大腸癌,減肉減油飲食革命啟動!衛生署最新統計,我國罹患大腸直腸癌人數已破萬,居十大癌症首位,醫界認為這是國人飲食習慣的「警訊」。高油脂西式食物和嗜吃紅肉及燒烤油炸的不當烹調,導致罹癌人數直線上升,醫界正醞釀從各醫學會推動「減肉減油」。
大腸直腸醫學會前理事長、台中榮總大腸直腸外科主任王輝明幾年前即預言,罹患大腸直腸癌的人數將竄升到第一,醫界也預估大腸直腸癌人數今年「破萬」。沒想到衛生署公布九十五年度數據,人數已達10248人,足足提早了兩年達成,醫界憂心忡忡。

大腸癌人數榮登十大癌症首位
台大腫瘤部謝銘鈞醫師指出,研究發現,越開發的國家,大腸癌、乳癌患者增加越快,因為這兩種癌症和飲食有極大相關。美國警覺到問題,這幾年不斷宣導健康飲食及早期篩檢,台灣民眾再不改變飲食,大腸直腸癌恐怕繼續上飆。

王輝明表示,吃太多紅肉及高油脂食物容易增加罹癌風險,尤其高蛋白食物經高溫燒烤、油炸、煙燻後,易產生異環胺致癌物質。他從十多年前受戒後開始吃素,也一概要求求診病患不准吃肉、盡量吃素。

王輝明分析,人體大腸的構造比較適合多吃植物性食物,高纖的蔬菜、水果、全榖類食物可幫助腸道正常蠕動,讓排便順暢,飲食「多蔬少油不炸」就能達到保養腸道的功效。他計畫在醫學會提案,推動國人飲食改造計畫,及早防範大腸癌。

六年前被診斷罹患第三期大腸直腸癌的腦神經外科醫師許達夫,形容自己曾是「無肉不歡」的肉食主義者,很少吃蔬菜水果,錯過吃飯時間隨便吃鹽酥雞,上館子也選燒烤、火鍋等高熱量、高蛋白食物。

醫師自身抗癌經驗,鼓吹方便素
罹癌前,他大便出血一直以為是痔瘡,拖了五個月後確診,癌細胞已轉移到淋巴。他選擇放射性治療,並以氣功、生機素食、營養調理等自然療法,目前體內已經沒有癌細胞。他以自身的例子大力鼓吹民眾吃方便素。謝銘鈞則建議民眾掌握「多運動、多喝水、多纖維」及「少鹽、少油、少吃」三多三少的生活原則,現代人普遍吃太多,會造成身體負荷,他個人每天步行萬步,還選訂每周一天進行「斷食清腸」,只喝水或吃青菜,類似回教每周一次齋戒日。


針對50萬人調查 每日吃紅肉易早死
更新日期:2009/03/25 03:07 國際新聞中心/綜合報導

一項針對五十萬名美國中老年人的大規模調查發現,如果每天吃四盎斯的紅肉(約一個小型漢堡的量),在未來十年內死亡的機率會增加30%,而且大部分是死於心臟疾病和癌症。香腸、燻肉等處理過的肉類同樣會增加死亡風險。之前已發現紅肉與心臟疾病、癌症的關連,但這項研究是第一個針對吃肉與死亡風險關連性的大型研究。但若經常吃魚、雞肉、火雞肉及其他家禽,反而會"略為"減少死亡風險。 < 如果你完全不是肉食動物,死亡風險不就更低了嗎 ?

來源: http://health.chinatimes.com/contents.aspx?cid=6,57&id=5489
http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/090325/4/1gn73.html