At a recent event for the Loveland​ ​Sanctuary, Asher Brown, founder of the LA-based Pollution Studios, gave a heartfelt speech about why we need animal sanctuaries. Get the tissues ready!

Hi.​ ​Thank​ ​you​ ​for​ ​inviting​ ​me​ ​here​ ​tonight.​ ​My​ ​name​ ​is​ ​Asher​ ​Brown,​ ​and while​ ​you​ ​might​ ​not​ ​know​ ​my​ ​name,​ ​you’ve​ ​probably​ ​seen​ ​my​ ​work.​ ​Over the​ ​past​ ​few​ ​years​ ​I’ve​ ​directed​ ​and​ ​produced​ ​hundreds​ ​of​ ​commercials and​ ​videos​ ​for​ ​almost​ ​50​ ​plant​ ​based​ ​brands​ ​and​ ​animal​ ​rights​ ​non-profits, including​ ​content​ ​for​ ​three​ ​very​ ​wonderful​ ​Animal​ ​Rescue​ ​Sanctuaries.​ ​My job​ ​is​ ​to​ ​figure​ ​out​ ​how​ ​to​ ​use​ ​stories​ ​to​ ​bring​ ​about​ ​real​ ​and​ ​radical change.

I’m​ ​here​ ​tonight​ ​to​ ​talk​ ​about​ ​why​ ​animal​ ​​ ​sanctuaries​ ​matter,​ ​and​ ​why​ ​they are​ ​so​ ​absolutely​ ​vital​ ​to​ ​our​ ​cause.​ ​For​ ​me,​ ​that​ ​story​ ​starts​ ​with​ ​turkeys.

The​ ​first​ ​sanctuary​ ​I​ ​ever​ ​visited​ ​was​ ​Farm​ ​Sanctuary,​ ​up​ ​in​ ​Acton.​ ​I​ ​was there​ ​to​ ​direct​ ​a​ ​Thanksgiving​ ​video​ ​starring​ ​Moby,​ ​Kat​ ​Von​ ​D​ ​and​ ​a​ ​small flock​ ​of​ ​rescue​ ​turkeys.​ ​And​ ​to​ ​be​ ​honest,​ ​I​ ​was​ ​focused​ ​far​ ​more​ ​on​ ​the video​ ​than​ ​on​ ​my​ ​surroundings.

At​ ​first​ ​glance,​ ​​ ​the​ ​sanctuary​ ​seemed​ ​like​ ​such​ ​an​ ​ordinary​ ​place.​ ​It​ ​looked like​ ​how,​ ​as​ ​a​ ​kid​ ​I​ ​imagined​ ​farms​ ​should​ ​look.​ ​Happy​ ​animals​ ​running around,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​team​ ​of​ ​people​ ​looking​ ​after​ ​them.​ ​A​ ​lot​ ​of​ ​dirt,​ ​some​ ​exciting smells​ ​but​ ​nothing​ ​that​ ​would​ ​jump​ ​out​ ​as​ ​revolutionary.

The post Why​ Animal ​Sanctuaries​ ​Matter appeared first on EcoSalon.

Earlier this week, the animal welfare organization Mercy For Animals (MFA) filed a false advertising complaint against a Vermont slaughterhouse that promotes itself as producing “humane” meat. The company, Vermont Packinghouse, has been suspended from operating four times in six months because of allegations of animal cruelty.

In addition to the four suspensions, the USDA has “repeatedly cited this facility for botched stunning and other inhumane treatment of animals,” notes MFA. Over the past two years, Vermont Packinghouse was written up more than a dozen times for violating the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. “In one such instance, a sow was shot in the head but remained conscious—bleeding from her snout and screaming—until she was shot again. The USDA also cited the slaughterhouse several times for failing to provide something as basic as food or water to animals—sometimes for longer than 24 hours.”

Cruelty and “humane” make for strange bedfellows, but as far as raising animals for food goes, it’s much more common than you’d think. Whether it’s labels like “humane”, “cage-free”, “free-range,” or “grass-fed,” the messaging is consistent: these are animal products you can feel good about eating. Except, they’re not.

“How can I make sure the meat I eat is humane? People ask us this all the time,” writes Joe Loria for MFA. “The answer is really quite simple: If the meat you eat comes from animals, it isn’t humane. If it comes from plants, it is.”

“Cows, pigs, chickens, and other farmed animals are just as sensitive and intelligent as the dogs and cats we love at home,” writes Loria. “Sadly, the meat industry is allowed to legally abuse billions of them in ways that would warrant felony animal cruelty charges if the victim were just one dog or cat.”

While claims that animal products are “humanely” raised and produced are rampant in our food supply these days, neither the USDA nor any government agency currently regulates use of that term. Any humane or welfare certification you see on an animal product is done solely by third-party organizations the USDA doesn’t regulate. “Humane” is the “natural” label of the animal products world. Companies can and do define what they consider to be humane treatment, leaving the burden of proof on consumers.

The USDA’s certified organic label does come with some stipulations to animal welfare, but even those guidelines have been abused by the nation’s largest dairy producer to a shocking degree, as the Cornucopia Institute discovered in a months-long investigation.

“Because the requirements for the ‘organic’ label prohibit the use of many medicines, producers frequently allow cows to languish with ailments that otherwise could easily be treated,” explains the nonprofit rescue and education organization, Farm Sanctuary.

And as demand for organic and clean products continues to rise, there are likely more offenders making humane claims that don’t live up to reality. To call the imprisonment and eventual slaughter of an animal who doesn’t need to die so you can enjoy a burger or a nugget “humane” is a bit like applauding a thief who says “please” and “thank you” while robbing you at gunpoint.

While some farmers do let the animals graze on grasses, insects, and other natural diets, they can keep those same animals confined as often as they’re given outdoor access (or longer). And “humane-certified” farms often employ many of the same egregious standard industry practices as conventional farms: tail docking, castration, and beak searing are routine procedures done without aestheticizing the animals, many of whom are babies recently torn away from their mothers.

And then, there’s the inevitable slaughter, which even dairy cows and egg-laying hens experience when they’re no longer viable. Numerous investigations have shown the undeniably inhumane practices standard in the slaughter process. Animals can be trucked for hours without food or water. Animals that may have been free to roam as they please are now crammed into hot transport trucks. In a victory for the animal rights community, a Canadian activist was recently acquitted of criminal mischief charges for attempting to offer water to pigs stuck in a hot transport truck. Pigs have been compared to dogs in terms of intelligence, personality, and ability to show affection.

Animals waiting for their turn on the slaughter line can become visibly disturbed by the sounds and sights of their friends being murdered (and no surprise that cases of animals escaping slaughterhouses make the news with some frequency). Any number of issues can and often do happen in the slaughtering process. Whether it’s botched stunning, which is to render the animals unconscious before slitting their throats, or animals being dragged and beaten in the terrifying moments before their death.

“Regardless of the welfare standards followed at any farm, all animals raised for food are slaughtered at young ages – broiler chickens at around 42 days when they could live four years or more, pigs at 6 months when they could live 9 years or more, beef cattle at less than two years when they could live 20 years or more, dairy cows at 4 to 6 years when they could live 25 years, and veal calves at only five months,” notes Farm Sanctuary. “No matter how well they are treated, these animals’ lives are cut drastically short.”

Then, there’s the cruelty bestowed on you, the customer. If you’re buying a product because you think it comes from an animal who enjoyed a natural and stress-free bucolic lifestyle, you’re not only being misled, but often being asked to pay considerably more for the product than its conventional counterpart. And while encouraging animal producers to become more humane and ethical is important, the reality, says Loria, “is that the meat industry slaps on labels like ‘humane’ to give consumers peace of mind,” writes Loria. It has less to do with the animals, and more to do with earning your loyalty. “Don’t buy their lies,” says Loria, or their products.

Find Jill on Twitter and Instagram

Related on EcoSalon

These Danish Politicians ‘Walk the Talk’ by Going Vegan
Amazon’s Whole Foods Market Acquisition Means Big Business for Plant-Based Foods
The Plant-Based Diet Heads to Primetime

The post Here’s the Huge Problem With All That ‘Humane’ Meat appeared first on EcoSalon.

The term “animal welfare” has watered down animal rights.

In the book, “The Animals’ Agenda,” co-writers Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce discuss the not-so-radical idea that humans are lazy when it comes to real-deal animal rights. Humans often think that some animals must die for human good. However, that doesn’t have to be the case.

We recently interviewed Bekoff and Pierce and asked the writers to tell us about their book and true animal well-being.

EcoSalon: What inspired you both write “The Animals’ Agenda?”

Marc Bekoff: We’ve always been concerned with the plight of nonhuman animals (animals) in a human-dominated world. And, likewise, for many people working in animal advocacy, the failure of science to produce better ethical results has been a bitter disappointment.

We’re living in the Anthropocene. It’s an epoch many call “the age of humanity.” But in reality, the Anthropocene should be called “the age of inhumanity.” And we’re not listening to “the science.” For us (a scientist and an ethicist), an early feeling of optimism has given way to frustration, even alarm, about what is happening to animals globally. Numerous animals are, by many measures, objectively worse off than ever before.

Despite the extensive database on the cognitive and emotional capacities of cows and pigs, burgers and bacon continue to be popular foods. And millions of sentient animals are used in invasive research every year. Animals of numerous different species also are kept in cages in zoos. Animals do not like this kind of treatment. And, we’re devastating numerous natural populations of a wide variety of animals and decimating their homes as if the Earth is ours to devour and to ruin. We clearly are the direct cause of incredible and unprecedented losses of biodiversity. The pain, suffering, and death for which we are responsible is regrettable and reprehensible. We are not the only show in town.

Jessica Pierce: I was motivated by frustration. The growing awareness of animal intelligence and emotion hasn’t influenced the way we treat animals. We have this amazing body of scientific knowledge about who animals are. Why haven’t ethics caught up with science?

A motivating question behind the research is “what do animals really want and need?” There is a whole science built around understanding “animal preferences” and it is interesting research. What we found, though, is that many of the questions that are asked about animals are narrow and serve human interests more than animal interests. For example, rather than asking chickens what they think of battery cages (the answer to which is pretty obvious), the preference studies ask “would you (if you are a chicken) prefer 62 square inches of space or 70 square inches?” Or, “would you prefer wire or plastic mesh under your feet?” Not much of a choice, really, if you are a chicken.

EcoSalon: Tell us about the new book.

Marc Bekoff: The book argues that even “good animal welfare” isn’t “good enough.” Animal welfare science is used to service human interests and doesn’t enhance animal freedom.

In “The Animals’ Agenda,” we offer a new paradigm called the science of animal well-being. This paradigm suggests that the life of every individual matters and commits to radically improved freedoms for animals, especially freedom from human captivity and exploitation. This means phasing animals and animal products out of meal plans. It means putting an end to captive breeding in land and water zoos. And it means halting the practice of shipping animals as breeding machines. It means phasing out the use of animals in biomedical and other invasive research. And it also means, on the part of potential consumers of “pets,” a broad-minded consideration of what captivity means for these animals.

Jessica Pierce: The point of the book is to suggest that what animals really want and need from us is the freedom to live their own lives, on their own terms. In addition to the above topics, we also included a chapter on some of the surprising ways humans restrict the freedoms of wild animals. We can work to increase the range of freedoms available to animals and phase out practices that cause suffering.

EcoSalon: Please explain the importance of the science of animal well-being and how science, people, and animals can win.

Marc Bekoff: By focusing on the life of every animal, each individual will benefit. All animals want a life absent of human caused pain, suffering, and death. By focusing on a wide range of species, people will realize who—not what—other animals are. This education will benefit them and the animals themselves as they learn about what other animals know, think, and feel. In this way, it’s a win-win for all.

Jessica Pierce: There are no downsides to increasing the amount of compassion and kindness in the world and decreasing the amount of suffering (not just in thought, but in action, too). In nearly every case, it will be win-win. Cruelty toward animals typically goes hand in hand with cruelty toward people. And if humans become more mindful of how we treat animals, we will become more mindful of each other, too.

And it will be enormously beneficial for science to get out from under the thumb of industry. Humans must ask questions and listen for answers. Humans must listen to what animals are “saying” through their behavior and not be influenced by what’s profitable or expedient. Science is never free from values. Our better nature should guide science. Not an old paradigm rooted in the belief that animals are for us to use and abuse.

Purchase the book here.

This interview was edited for clarity and length.

Related on EcoSalon
A Safari Zoo? What If All Zoo Animals Were Cage-Free?
Animals See Humans as Super Predators (and We Don’t Blame Them)
Here’s How Your Clothes Can Help Animals in Need

The post Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce on ‘Radical’ Animal Well-Being [Q&A] appeared first on EcoSalon.

Although the American government no longer prioritizes the safety, health, and well-being of animals, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) does.

The USDA messed up

Early in the Trump presidency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) deleted all information pertaining to puppy mills, roadside zoos, traveling zoos, and other businesses that exploit animals from its website. This action greatly upset animal activists.

Luckily PETA was paying attention to the governmental organization and responded by releasing every USDA inspection report of captive animals exhibitors in its archives. A PETA press release reveals that the organization’s action includes about 21,000 records that date back to 1984.

Making real change

Releasing the USDA’s records was an admirable step, but PETA and other animal rights groups are taking that activism further. PETA, the Beagle Freedom Project, etc., are filing a lawsuit against the USDA to encourage it to release the records.

According to PETA, the lawsuit maintains the USDA’s document removal was illegal. The Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to post frequently requested records on its websites. The suit also aims to ensure that animal-welfare records go public when created.

Substance over flash

PETA’s latest move was less flashy than many of the other “stunts”—nude celebrities, etc.—it’s known for, and we’re grateful. This low-key approach is commonsense and could appeal to people who brush off the group’s work as trivial or flaky.

“It’s critical for animal advocates, law-enforcement officials, and members of the public to know how animal exhibitors have violated the law and whether dangerous wild animals are located nearby,” Brittany Peet, PETA Foundation Director of Captive Animal Law Enforcement, says.

“PETA will use every opportunity to push the USDA to put all these widely used documents back on its website, including all new records as they’re created.”

If you’d like to see the USDA’s records regarding animal welfare, click here to sign PETA’s action.

You also can view the released USDA inspection reports here.

Related on EcoSalon
Farewell, Ringling Brothers: I Was Once a (Very Sad) Circus Animal
Patagonia Drops Incredibly Cruel Wool Supplier (Thanks, PETA!)
Link Love: The PETA Ad You Need to See + Vegan Faces + Kim’s Arse

The post PETA Takes the USDA to Task Over Animal Welfare appeared first on EcoSalon.

Thanks to consumers, food industry trends like responsible sourcing have entered the mainstream.

As consumers favor those companies willing to tell them exactly what they’re eating and where it came from, ‘Big Food’ companies are taking steps to fix social and environmental problems cropping up in their supply chain – a.k.a. all the people and practices involved in getting food to your plate (or plastic wrapper). Recently, McDonald’s announced it will face out use of eggs from caged hens; General Mills set ambitious goals to cut greenhouse gas emissions; and Ben & Jerry’s wants to improve dairy farm worker conditions.

Think Fair Trade coffee and chocolate, said Alexis Bateman, director of the Responsible Supply Chain Lab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Such food industry trends are driven by consumers and activist groups – and right now those groups are prioritizing transparency.

Recent research by the Hartman Group backs her up. Researchers found that consumers are increasingly concerned about the “health and safety of America’s food supply chain,” the group reported in Forbes.

“What we’ve witnessed in the past decade in health and wellness and organic and natural circles has trickled out to the mainstream in somewhat diluted but certainly recognizable forms, without catalysts,” the Hartman Group explained. “Even prior to the influence of scares about melamine and pet food or E. coli contamination of various food and beverage products, mainstream consumers were already becoming much more inquisitive about how and where products are sourced and about the integrity of the company’s business practices and values.”

As consumers ask what’s in their food, companies start to look “upstream” in their supply chain to find the answer, Bateman said. Many companies respond for normal economic reasons, especially when they see competitors already doing it.

“They think there’s a buyer there, and if there’s a buyer, then they’re going to answer that buyer,” she said.

Concerns from consumers come in various forms, from sustainability to labor to animal welfare. Here are a few examples of companies addressing those concerns:

• Say what you want about McDonald’s, but it provides a prime example of what we’re talking about. The fast-food chain announced it will phase out the use of eggs from caged chickens, according to the New York Times. Because McDonald’s uses so many eggs from producers in Canada and the U.S. (more than 4 percent of the eggs produced last year), this has major implications for egg production across the industry. Before that, McDonald’s and Tyson Foods cut ties with a Tennessee poultry farmer as a result of a video showing alleged mistreatment of the animals.
• General Mills will work to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent within 10 years. The goal extends to the company’s entire supply chain, from farmers to packagers, from cereal to ice cream. “In stating the new emissions goals extend through its supply chain, the company is also acknowledging that a food company’s direct operations are small compared to the far-flung network of farms and mills and processors that it depends on,” GreenBiz reported. “General Mills said more than two-thirds of its total greenhouse gas emissions occur upstream of its direct operations.”
• Ben & Jerry’s is known for its environmentally friendly practices but only recently did that extend to ensuring fair treatment of dairy farmworkers in its supply chain. The  company reached an agreement with Migrant Justice that addresses wage theft, overcrowded and unsanitary housing conditions, and low wages, according to FoodTank. Migrant Justice established a program, Milk with Dignity, to improve farmworker’s livelihoods. “The program recognizes that, with growing interest in ‘fair trade,’ ‘real food,’ ‘sustainable’ or ‘local food,’ there is an urgent need to ensure that workers have the power to directly define, monitor and enforce what is ‘fair,’” the group wrote on its website.
• Then there’s Nestlé, which announced that it’s taking cocoa sourcing for its KitKat bars a step farther by sourcing exclusively from the Nestlé Cocoa Plan beginning early next year. The move is meant to quell fears that the company overlooks the use of child labor. The Nestlé Cocoa Plan includes processes to monitor child labor and remedy any problems that arise. “This announcement will only strengthen consumer trust in KitKat as a responsible brand,” Sandra Martinez, head of Confectionary for Nestlé, told Confectionary News.

Most of these examples describe changes made after they were outed by advocacy groups. In a column that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Bateman suggested that it’s in a company’s best interest to address these issues ahead of new regulations or crises. Beyond “meeting demand for responsible practices,” companies can manage risk and find ways to save money, she wrote. And if they act first, they’re likely to salvage their reputation and instill trust in consumers.

Because these food industry trends aren’t going anywhere.

“Above all,” Bateman wrote, “businesses should understand that pressure to improve supply chain transparency will continue to increase.”

Related on EcoSalon

Angora Wool is Finally on the Decline: Fashion Brands Ditching Cruelty

Follow the ‘Cotton Road’: The Fashion Industry’s Unflattering Supply Chain

Whole Foods Market Whole Trade Guarantee: Behind the Label

Grocery shopping image from Shutterstock

The post Food Industry Trends Favor Transparency, and That Means Cleaner Food appeared first on EcoSalon.

Is ‘personhood’ the same as being human?

A New York state judge will soon decide whether chimpanzees have the right to “legal personhood.” If victorious, a 26-year-old chimp named Tommy could pave the way for more animals to have similar rights and protections.

In some parts of the world, dolphins are already considered “nonhuman persons.” What we know about such animals is that they are not only sentient, but also emotional and intelligent creatures with unique personalities, preferences and decision-making skills.

Representing Tommy is attorney Steven Wise of the Nonhuman Rights Project. He is arguing for Tommy to be moved from a solitary cage to a sanctuary in Florida that mirrors the animal’s natural habitat.

“He’s detained against his will,”  Steven M. Wise, the president of the rights group, who argued the case, told the New York Times, adding that no chimpanzee would choose to live “in the conditions in which he’s living.”

“He can understand the past, he can anticipate the future,” Mr. Wise said, “and he suffers as much in solitary confinement as a human being.”

Humans have long had confounding relationships with the animal kingdom. On one hand, we allow the torture and slaughter of billions of animals each year to serve as a source of food–much of which has gone from being simple commodity items like eggs or milk, into unnecessary processed junk foods like bacon-wrapped pizza crusts. These are animals, mind you (pigs, chickens and cows, shrimp and lobsters), which many people approach with a lack of respect—even find “disgusting” in their pre-sandwich, nugget or cured, smoked bacony form—yet have no problem eating once they’ve been rendered unidentifiable.

On the other hand, we snuggle up in bed with dogs, cats, rabbits, lizards, even birds—animals often treated as legitimate family members when pigs, chickens or cows may be just as intelligent, curious and emotional as our pets, if not more so. Then there are the zoos, marine parks and circuses, where animals exist in unnaturally cruel conditions solely for our entertainment. There are animals we choose to wear, animals whose eyes we pour deodorant, perfume and shampoo into so that we can smell like our favorite celebrities without looking like the animals we torture to do so.

So it’s no surprise that the conversation over personhood for nonhumans is rife with controversy. Even as the vegan diet is earning more mainstream recognition both for health and ethical reasons, many people still hold a strong sense of entitlement and dominion over the animal kingdom. I’d argue that it’s our own fear and disquiet that calls us to seek distraction in exerting power over others. We’ve done this to humans we’ve seen as “lesser” countless times over. And it’s never amounted to a benefit to society. It has only led to war.

Arguing that nonhuman personhood would make human personhood difficult to maintain, Richard Cupp, a professor at Pepperdine Law School, told the Japan Times: “We could see over time some of our most vulnerable humans losing out in a rights struggle if they’re in direct competition with some particularly intelligent nonhuman animals,” he said. “We could have the personhood paradigm weakened by extending it to animals.”

But what if it had the opposite effect? After all, it’s not like recognizing nonhuman personhood means we have to suddenly provide clothing, Park Avenue apartments and salaried jobs to dolphins. We just have to stop capturing, torturing and slaughtering them is all.

Aside from all the rights we intentionally take away from animals, we are now also inadvertently, ignorantly, and irresponsibly disrupting animal species the world over. In the past half-century, wild animal populations have declined by 50 percent. There’s not a single black rhinoceros living in the wild anymore. If that isn’t just a little bit heartbreaking, look at what climate change is doing: altering the composition of sea ice so drastically that it recently displaced some 35,000 walruses in Alaska. Animals who live “in the wild” are now essentially homeless.

Do we really want to live in a world where there are no more walruses or Kodiak bears in Alaska? No more lions in the Serengeti, no more orangutans in Borneo, no more moose, wolves, elk in Colorado? Just billions of meaty livestock animals we find repulsive while alive suffering in dark, dank factory farms until we turn them into Spam?

The question isn’t whether or not a chimpanzee or a dolphin or a pig is a person, the question is whether we have the right to tell them they’re not; whether we get to decide who gets to experience life on their own terms.

Despite our transgressions and our egregious mistreatment of animals over the course of our existence, it is possible to will our own evolution and to embrace the fundamental rights of our fellow earthlings. For those of you who can’t imagine giving up meat, eggs, fish or dairy from your diet, that doesn’t mean you have to. But it might mean that your choices can no longer include cheap, processed factory farm animal products (which aren’t doing your personal health any favors either, by the way). It might mean that the only fur coats and clothing in circulation are vintage pieces—relics of our outgrown naiveté. It might mean that if you want to see a killer whale make a splash that you take a trip to Puget Sound. If you want to see an elephant standing on one leg or a tiger running in circles, you save up for a trip to Africa or Asia.

These aren’t sacrifices, or even sorry substitutions. These are adventures of a lifetime, one a zoo, a circus or SeaWorld can never come close to replicating, despite the marketing gimmicks they’ll use to tell you otherwise. Animal captivity—no matter for what purpose—all share one common denominator: that of making some human person(s) money. But it’s all coming at a cost our conscience can no longer afford. One we will never be able to explain to our grandchildren without the guilt and shame it deserves.

Compassion isn’t a weakness; it’s a strength that separates humans from many of the other nonhuman persons on earth. Personhood for all creatures inherently exists, it’s just a question of whether or not humans are finally willing to accept and acknowledge it. Once and for all.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

Movie Review: ‘Blackfish’—SeaWorld’s Six-Ton Killer Secret

WTF, SeaWorld? Orcas Given Valium to Forget They’re in Water Prisons?

Consciousness and Compassion in Our (Simulated) Universe

Image: timparkinson

The post The Case for Animal Personhood: Will ‘Nonhuman’ Persons Make Us Better Humans? appeared first on EcoSalon.

They don’t call Dame Vivienne Westwood the ‘grandmother of punk fashion’ for nothing.

The 72-year-old fashion icon is raising a lot of eyebrows lately. Westwood has always been risqué, and if you thought age would have settled her down a bit, think again.

Westwood shaved her head recently to draw attention to climate change and the impact it’s having on the planet. “We face mass extinction,” she said. “It’s being hidden from us because our rulers still pursue their own vested interest, they’ve been trained to think that the people do not understand what’s good for them.”

Like her new hairdo, she’s downsizing her massive clothing empire. “I’ve got too much product,” she says. “I’m trying to completely reduce the scale of operation. I’m concentrating on quality, not quantity.”

And without all that hair it was easy to fashion on a shower cap for her latest appearance in a PETA video about the depletion of fresh water due to the meat industry.

“I am an eco-warrior, but I take long showers with a clean conscience because I’m vegetarian,” she says in the video. “By avoiding meat, you do more for the environment than recycling or driving a hybrid car, combined” she explains from underneath a shower head.

The video is being released in advance of the United Nation’s World Water Day on March 22^nd. According to PETA, rivers are being diverted for the livestock industry—both to hydrate the animals and grow grains that make up their feed.

The New York Times recently reported that 4 million gallons of fresh water are needed to produce just one ton of beef. In comparison, a ton of vegetables requires only 85,000 gallons of water.

“I don’t hate the older people now — I’m one of them,” says Westwood. “But I’ve been trying to do something to change things all my life.”

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

Vivienne Westwood Says Don’t Buy Clothes

Vivienne Westwood Designs T-Shirt to Stop Deforestation

Sustainable Skies: Vivienne Westwood Designs for Virgin Atlantic

Image:

The post Punk’s Not Dead: Vivienne Westwood Shaves Her Head and Gets Naked on Camera appeared first on EcoSalon.

Just when you thought fur coats were finally going out of fashion forever…

All it took was a brief coin toss on screen to undo years of animal rights organizations’ work to educate people about the fur industry.

According to The Detroit News, fur coat stores are booming with customers who want a replica of former New York Jets quarterback Joe Namath’s fur coat worn at Superbowl XLVIII.

“It has driven people to our showroom,” said Clay Campbell, who owns Wolverine Furs in Detroit and also reported a 20 percent increase in traffic to his website. “(Customers) are taking the time to find out more about what they saw on the screen, so it has been a positive for us.”

Other stores in the area have also reported a similar increase in sales and customer visits since the Seahawks and Broncos game aired on February 2nd nationwide despite backlash from activists as soon as Namath’s $3,000 coyote and white fox-trimmed coat appeared on screen.

“No matter what he spent on that eyesore, the animals who were trapped, bludgeoned, electrocuted, or skinned alive for their fur paid a lot more — the ultimate price, in fact — and viewers across the country agree that it was too high a price, as demonstrated by the outpouring of anti-fur messages that hit Twitter the second that Namath’s coat hit the screen,” said PETA, one of the most recognized anti-fur and animal rights groups in the world in a statement.

Actor and activist Ian Somerhalder responded to Namath’s wardrobe by tweeting his followers a link to remind people that due to its cruelty, furs are being dropped from stores’ inventory. QVC and Land’s End are some of the major retailers who have stopped selling any items with fur in them after watching PETA’s video on how the fur industry operates. Hopefully more people in the Detroit will take the time to watch it too. – Natalia Galbetti

This article appears courtesy of Ecorazzi

Ecorazzi covers news and gossip on celebrities and notables in support of the environment and humanitarian causes. You can follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Related on EcoSalon:

Daryl Hannah’s Top 5 Ways To Stop Global Warming

‘Gravity’ Director Alfonso Cuarón Is Yet Another Hollywood Vegetarian

Blue Whales & Earwax: What Can They Teach Us About Ocean Pollution?

image: The NY Post

The post Thanks, Joe: Fur Sales Rise After Football Legend Wears Fur to the Super Bowl appeared first on EcoSalon.

If ever there was a gateway product to the organic lifestyle, it’s Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps. And now, the company has taken a huge step for the animals.

Known in recent years for a staunch anti-GMO commitment, Dr. Bronner’s has poured more than a million dollars into the GMO labeling initiatives in California and Washington. The company has also been integral in bringing attention to Fair Trade, organic integrity, industrial hemp and drug policy reform. And now, the soap brand is going to bat for the animals. “[V]egetarian advocacy and animal welfare will become a core focus of the company’s activism efforts,” the company said on its website. Dr. Bronner’s has committed $100,000 in donations in 2014 to Compassion Over Killing, The Humane Society of the United States and other animal welfare organizations including The Humane League, Our Hen House, Farm Sanctuary shelters in Orland, and Los Angeles, CA, as well as Poplar Springs and Vine Sanctuary.  “As a dedicated vegan, I’m proud that my family has stepped up to commit resources over the long-term to take on the terrible plight of farm animals and to promote more compassionate and sustainable dietary choices,” David Bronner, President of Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps said in a statement.

The funding will be spread out over the course of 2014, going to the organizations’ efforts in reducing animal suffering, and the company says it intends to “substantially step up” support for animals in the future. If its commitment to GMO labeling is any indicator of how much it considers “substantial,” animal advocacy and welfare groups could be looking at hundreds of thousands–if not millions of dollars in donations from the soap company.

Dr. Bronner’s soaps are also now vegan certified by Vegan Action, and  are also registered with the Vegan Society in the UK. A”Vegan-Certified” logo will be added to the product labels (the products have always been vegan and cruelty-free, except for lip and body balms that contain Fair Trade beeswax).

The move signals an ever-increasing national concern over animal welfare. Whether it’s celebrities adopting the vegan diet or sourcing ethically-raised animal products, or millions of Americans demanding SeaWorld stop its capture and confinement of orcas, the trend towards compassion is showing no signs of slowing. And, says Bronner, “One doesn’t have to be vegan to want to reduce the incredible suffering of animals in factory farms and to lower overall meat consumption.”

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

Celebrate Fair Trade Month with Ethically Made Beauty Products: A to Z

Liquid Soap Is Learning to Love Your Hands

Vegan Fashion 101: Fur Is So Not Vegan (Take Note, Beyoncé)

Image via Dr. Bronner’s

The post Dr. Bronner’s Soaps Does a Little Magic for Animals appeared first on EcoSalon.

Animal testing on cosmetic products is so old school, cruel and dare we say, stupid? Especially if you live in India.

India made animal rights headlines recently after it declared dolphins “nonhuman persons” and banned all dolphin shows in the massive country. It was a major victory for marine mammals and animal rights advocates. But the largely vegetarian country wasn’t done with its support for animals yet, as it also recently announced a ban on the sale of any cosmetic products where animal testing was involved.

The decision came after an extensive campaign launched by PETA India (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). The campaign included appeals from some of the nation’s highest profile politicians and retailers including LUSH and the Body Shop.

“The end to cruel and unreliable cosmetics tests on animals in India is a victory for animals and science—and the ban’s compliance with international standards will improve trade avenues for our country,” says PETA India’s science policy adviser, Dr Chaitanya Koduri, who holds a seat on India’s Cosmetics Sectional Committee.

And the animal rights group isn’t stopping there, either. “PETA India looks forward to working with the government on the next step: a ban on testing household cleaners and similar products in India,” says Koduri.

The news comes just months after the European Union made a similar announcement, banning all personal care and cosmetic products that include any ingredients tested on animals in its 27 member countries.

Alokparna Sengupta, Humane Society International (HSI)/India’s Be Cruelty-Free campaign manager, said the campaign is a major victory “for countless animals who will no longer be made to suffer, and it is a proud moment for India as it becomes the first country in South Asia to end cosmetics cruelty.”

Per the ban, any cosmetics that includes animal testing anywhere along the production chain will face legal action according to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Animal Cruelty Act. “[A]ny person or corporate manager or owner is liable for punishment for a term which may extend from 3-10 years and shall also be liable to fine,” reports The Hindu.

PETA now lists more than 1,200 companies around the world—including LUSH and The Body Shop as well as Urban Decay, Paul Mitchell, and Tom’s of Maine—that use only non-animal tests to guarantee their products’ safety and efficacy.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Image: The Hindu

The post Animal Testing Banned in India’s Cosmetic Products, Household Cleaners Next appeared first on EcoSalon.