Author: Kristin Stone

Emily McIvor is Policy Director, Research and Toxicology Department.

McIvor has worked on animal welfare issues at European Union level for many years, specialising in those concerning the use of animals in research and testing. As one of the lead animal welfare lobbyists in political negotiations of the EU Cosmetics Directive 7th Amendment, the Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals (REACH) regulation, and most recently the revision of Europe’s legislation for the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, McIvor has extensive experience of regulatory test issues and the development and validation of alternative, non-animal methods.

McIvor represents HSI/Europe on the stakeholder “mirror group” of the European Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing, and on the management panel of the European Union-funded AXLR8 (pronounced “accelerate”) project.

On broader animal welfare issues, McIvor has contributed to discussions relating to the current and future Community Action Plans on the Protection and Welfare of Animals, and has addressed the European Parliament’s Animal Welfare Intergroup.

In August 2011, Emily was awarded the prestigious Henry Spira Award by the Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing in recognition of her outstanding contribution to the cause of animal welfare.

Humane Society International believes that compassion for animals is a natural human condition regardless of culture, economic circumstance, or political system. By recognizing and celebrating the bond between animals and people throughout the world, we can start to break down the barriers to animal protection and create a new global culture: a culture of compassion for all animals.

Our work

Our organization has a strong record of program achievements and serves a critical and expanding role in global efforts to reduce animal suffering. Through fieldwork, policy formation, humane education, direct care and services, and funding of in-country partners, HSI has helped advance the cause of animal welfare in dozens of nations worldwide by protecting street dogs, responding to disasters, saving wild animals from abuse, protecting marine mammals, fighting factory farming, and striving to end toxicity testing on animals.

Our reach

Active on nearly every continent, HSI is one of the few international animal protection organizations in the world working to protect all animals—including animals in laboratories, farm animals, companion animals, and wildlife. HSI works with partners to implement on-the-ground programs and empower local organizations. As the global arm of The Humane Society of the United States, we are deeply committed to extending our international reach and to expanding our service and support to local organizations.

You can help: Take action online and sign up to join our list.

Our expertise

HSI seeks out innovative and scientifically sound approaches to animal welfare and relies on a network of on-staff and external experts to make the case for policy change to improve the lives of animals and people. For example, HSI is promoting the use of a contraceptive vaccine to manage elephant populations. Our animal research experts are using scientific arguments to end animal testing globally. Our wildlife experts play a crucial role in efforts to address wildlife suffering in international trade. Our farm animal experts are challenging the expansion of investment in intensive animal agriculture. Our companion animal experts have pioneered a high-volume approach to the humane management of street dog populations and are helping to change human attitudes and behavior toward these animals.

With the continuing support of donors and advocates, HSI is working to create a humane and sustainable world for all animals, including people, through education, advocacy, and the promotion of respect and caring.

By Sarah Stewart

During the 1980s, U.S. consumers let their voice be heard in support of dolphins.  They would not buy tuna that was caught using a fishing method that intentionally chased and captured dolphins.  This intentional setting on dolphins was not deemed “dolphin safe,” and thus tuna companies began to voluntarily market their tuna products as “dolphin safe” when the tuna was not caught using this method.  In 1990, Congress passed the U.S. Dolphin Safe Labeling law (16 U.S.C. § 1385), which harmonized private policies and prohibited use of the U.S. Dolphin Safe Label when dolphins are intentionally targeted to catch tuna.  

Mexico’s challenge

In October of 2008, Mexico initiated a challenge to the U.S. Dolphin Safe labeling law at the World Trade Organization (WTO) by requesting consultations with the United States. 

The move followed a ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in April 2007 rejecting the U.S. Department of Commerce’s finding that intentional setting on dolphins is not having a significant adverse impact on dolphin populations in the Eastern Tropical Pacific (ETP).  If upheld, Commerce’s finding would have weakened the U.S. Dolphin Safe label, in use since the 90s, to allow its use on tuna products harvested from intentional setting on dolphins if there was no observed death or serious injury. The U.S. Government did not appeal this ruling to the Supreme Court, and the weaker label never went into effect. 

Consultations failed to resolve the dispute, and in March 2009, Mexico requested that a dispute settlement panel be established to consider whether the U.S. Dolphin Safe Label is inconsistent with U.S. obligations under Article 2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) and Articles I and III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). 

Mexico’s argument

In brief, Mexico is arguing that its inability to use the U.S. Dolphin Safe label because of its fishing methods creates unnecessary obstacles to trade and results in less favorable treatment of Mexican tuna products when compared to tuna products of its U.S. and international competitors.  Mexico goes further to argue that the U.S. is bound to follow the international “Dolphin Safe” criteria, which does allow for the intentional chase and capture of dolphins where an observer is present.

The U.S. label does not single out Mexico however, and applies equally to all countries fishing in the ETP.  A weaker version of the label that would allow for intentional setting on dolphins is not supported by science, and would not achieve the law’s goals of dolphin conservation and consumer protection.   Moreover, the label is voluntary – countries can choose to abide by the label’s criteria or not and still continue to freely export tuna and/or tuna products to the U.S.  Indeed, Mexico exports millions of dollars of tuna products to the U.S. each year.  For more discussion, see our comments to the United States Trade Representative. 

The beginning of the briefing process

In December 2009, a panel was established and the briefing process began.  A panel report is expected in late 2010 or early 2011.  This dispute is important because it will examine how voluntary product labeling is compatible with WTO free trade requirements, a particularly timely issue given the movement towards environmentally friendly, organic, and humane products.  It is most important to the dolphins of the ETP now.

 

“The collapse of the cod stocks was due to over-fishing. It had nothing to do with the environment and nothing to do with seals.”—Ransom Myers, former Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist

When European explorers first arrived off the east coast of Canada, they described an ocean teaming with fish—of cod stocks so plentiful they literally impeded the progress of boats. These images stand in sharp contrast to the grim realities of today: cod populations on the brink of extinction, and no prospects for recovery in sight.

“When you fish a species to commercial extinction, it may never recover.”—Brian Tobin, former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, April 2003

The collapse of northern cod stock has been called the greatest resource management disaster in history. Close to two decades after the moratorium was imposed on the cod fishery, there are no signs that the stock is rebuilding. And with northern cod at one percent of their historic population, scientists are beginning to grasp that the ecological damage caused by decades of overfishing just might be irreversible.

Back in the 1990s, as the public demanded answers, fisheries managers searched for scapegoats for their own misconduct. And despite a scientific consensus to the contrary, seal predation on cod was at the top of their list. Today, calls for an expanded seal hunt echo throughout Atlantic Canada, and myths about seal interactions with ground fish stocks abound. But a careful examination of the facts reveals that harp seals were not a factor in the collapse of the cod stocks, and there is no evidence that culling seals will bring fish stocks back.

The eradication of the cod

Until the 1950s, Newfoundland’s fishery was conducted in a relatively sustainable fashion with small, inshore boats. But over the next decade, the fishing industry developed new technologies. With huge nets, industrial fishing vessels could haul up as much as 200 tons of fish in one hour—twice the amount a typical 16th century boat would have caught in an entire season. Cod catches steadily increased over the 1950s and 60s, from an average of 250,000 tons to a peak of 800,000 tons in 1968.

At the time, foreign fishing fleets were taking the lion’s share of the fish caught off the east coast of Canada. And they not only took the cod—they also took the main food source for the cod. The northern cod stock was diminishing under the double threat of a decreasing food supply and overfishing.

By 1977, the decrease in ground fish stocks had become so evident that Canada imposed a 200-mile limit off its coasts as a means to stop the foreign fishing fleets. But rather than using the new protected zone to reduce fishing and allow fish stocks to rebuild, Canadian fishing companies saw a chance to increase their own take. In a senseless cash grab, Canadian fishing fleets dramatically increased the size of their catches, and in Newfoundland, the number of registered fishers increased by 41 percent. Fisheries biologist Richard Haedrich elaborated: “The idea was that the streets were paved with fish and that now that the Europeans were gone, it would come to the Canadians.”

Over the next decade, the concerns of inshore fishermen who were noticing a serious decrease in their catches and the size of the individual northern cod were ignored. The DFO continued to set unsustainable quotas until it was absolutely clear the northern cod population could withstand no more. In 1992, a moratorium was placed on the commercial cod fishery. But by then, many believe it was already too late.

Suppression of science

In the wake of the 1992 moratorium, the public demanded to know how DFO scientists could have missed the obvious signs of a declining population when inshore fishermen had been predicting the collapse for decades. By the mid-1990s, the answer became clear.

In 1997, two former DFO scientists published an article entitled “Is Scientific Inquiry Incompatible with Government Information Control?” Their report cited a pattern of suppression of scientific info at DFO.

The authors cited numerous examples where DFO scientists had warned the Minister that ground fish stocks were in a dangerous decline, and these findings were either ignored or suppressed as high quotas continued to be allocated. In one of these instances, a DFO scientist named Ransom Myers was apparently threatened with termination of his job when he concluded that the true cause of the cod collapse was simply human over-fishing rather than predation by seals.

Scientific information was also selectively excluded in the 1995 Stock Status Report on Gulf of St Lawrence groundfish, according to the authors. The original draft of the document said that seal predation was unlikely to be responsible for cod mortality trends. But this statement was allegedly removed from the published version, contrary to scientific advice.

What the experts say

“…there is no evidence that increased seal predation of juvenile cod led to the recent decline and subsequent closures of several cod fisheries.”—A. Sinclair, R.Myers and J.Hutchings, 1995; also see R.Myers and N.Cadigan, 1995.

“The seal cull approach to ‘cod recovery,’ although strongly favoured by the fishing industry, is naïve, and is based on outdated myths about predators in general, and on misperceptions about the natural relationship between seals and cod. Twenty-first century science, including DFO Science, knows better.”—Debbie Mackenzie, www.fisherycrisis.com

“All scientific efforts to find an effect of seal predation on Canadian groundfish stocks have failed to show any impact. Overfishing remains the only scientifically demonstrated conservation problem related to fish stock collapse.”—From a petition signed by 97 scientists from 15 countries at the 11th Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals, Dec. 1995

“…interactions between seals and fisheries are complex and often misunderstood…The truth is, we do not know what the effects of a change in seal numbers would have on commercial fisheries.”—W.Bowen, 1992

“It is not yet possible to predict the effects of an increase or a decrease in the size of the harp of seal population on other ecosystem components, including commercially exploited fish populations, or on the yields obtained from them.”—Harp Seal-Fishery Interactions in the Northwest Atlantic: Toward Research and Management Actions. International Scientific Workshop, St-John’s, Nfld., Feb. 1997.

Whales face increasing threats:

• Low reproductive rates: Whales have naturally low reproductive rates, making many species extremely vulnerable to increasing pressure from whaling.
• Chemical pollution: Modern-day contaminants flowing into all our oceans are literally polluting whales’ tissues. Some whale die-offs and strandings are suspected to be caused by immune system failures that result from exposure to certain pollutants.
• Increasing shipping and fishing traffic: Threats include being struck by ships and accidental entanglements in fishing gear.
• Noise pollution: Marine mammals are highly sound-oriented creatures. Whales and dolphins can suffer not only hearing damage when exposed to loud noises, but also other physical and psychological harm. Activities such as oil and gas exploration, the raising and dismantling of oil rigs, active sonar and explosives testing by the military, the use of noisemakers to deter marine mammals from fishing nets and fish pens, marine experiments that involve the use of loud sounds, and the increasing level of engine noise from boat and ship traffic may have far-reaching and long-term debilitating effects on whales.

With these kinds of pressures threatening the long-term viability of our oceans and their inhabitants, it is irresponsible to add even greater pressure on whales by hunting them to supply the luxury food market.

Whale sanctuaries

While some nations look for a return to commercial whaling, pro-whale forces have redoubled their efforts to establish whale sanctuaries in as many oceans as possible. To date the IWC has created sanctuaries in the Indian Ocean and in the Southern Ocean (Antarctica). Efforts by member nations to create additional sanctuaries in the South Pacific and South Atlantic have been defeated due to pressure from Japan and its allies. They are also trying to abolish established sanctuaries, and Japan continues to undermine international law by killing whales in the Southern Ocean.

The new century

During its more than six decades of existence, the IWC has evolved from an international institution whose primary focus was the apportionment of whaling quotas to one that also recognizes its role in protecting and ensuring the existence of all whales for present and future generations.

However, the IWC may once again become a whalers’ club due to pressure from Japan, Iceland and Norway. It is in the process of debating a proposal that purports to regulate commercial whaling, with the assumption that whalers would harvest only what was sustainable—a feat never before accomplished and unlikely to happen.

In the 21st century, the race within the IWC is between whaling forces and people who demand that their governments go to the IWC with the resolve to end the barbaric practice. It is time for the IWC to become a whale protection organization once and for all.

What we can do

The Pelly Amendment to the Fishermen’s Protective Act provides the United States government with a legal mechanism to apply economic sanctions against countries like Japan that are undermining international fisheries and environmental treaties. HSI/HSUS has called on the U.S. to invoke the Pelly Amendment to enact sanctions against whaling nations. Though the United States claims to have a firm policy against all commercial and scientific whaling, the government has yet to take a strong stand against it.

Because of whale watching opportunities, whales are more valuable alive than dead. Whale watching is a large and growing industry in many countries, which can provide an educational and non-consumptive way for people to profit from living whales. An effective way to protect whales and coastal communities offering whale watching is to create sanctuaries—areas that provide safe refuge for whales during critical feeding, breeding and calving times. Sanctuaries not only keep whales safe from hunting but also provide a framework for protecting their habitat and ecosystems.

The ultimate solution to the current controversy over whaling is to ban the practice entirely. A complete and permanent ban would quell the constant battles over interpretation of International Whaling Commission rules and exceptions and eliminate the looming threat of a resumption of commercial whaling using an uncertain quota system and inadequate monitoring and enforcement. Substitutes for whale products are widely available, so there is no place for commercial whaling in today’s economy. Living whales are far more valuable.

Pre-industrial whaling, conducted from the 12th century through 1868, was a means of subsistence and local commerce for various cultures. The hunts were conducted using sailing ships, small boats, and hand-thrown weapons. Whale meat was used for nutrition in some cultures, while whale oil, bone, and baleen were used for lighting, heating oil, corsets, umbrellas, and a variety of other uses in others.

With the advent of steam ships and then diesel engines, however, whaling entered a new phase. By 1926, whaling was conducted with huge fleets of boats carrying explosive harpoons, and whales were killed by the tens of thousands each year. Modern whaling techniques led to the widespread decimation of many stocks of great whales throughout the world’s oceans. Commercial whaling was so successful that by the 1950s and 1960s, many companies were driven to bankruptcy because there were so few whales left.

The birth of the IWC

Recognizing that whale stocks had been severely reduced by overzealous killing, whaling nations eventually banded together to sign the International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, which created the International Whaling Commission in 1946. Initially, the IWC did not fulfill its mandate; it functionally oversaw the continuing destruction of whale stocks. Although kill quotas were set and trade was supposedly controlled, for 40 years whalers routinely exceeded their allowed take. The IWC had neither the political will nor the legal authority to override excessively high quotas or to police inaccurate reporting of the numbers of whales killed.

By the early 1960s, blue whale populations were so devastated that the 1962–1963 season reported killing what is now believed to have been 60 percent of the estimated Antarctic population. Armed with this knowledge, scientific advisors at the 1963 IWC meeting recommended an immediate, drastic reduction in the killing of all whales in the Antarctic. The advisors warned that the blue whale might already have been hunted beyond the point of recovery and that any level of continued killing would significantly increase the risk of extinction. Japan refused to accept the report and demanded that certain areas remain open to hunting. In the 1964–1965 season, Japan’s 15 floating-factory expeditions operating with 172 catcher-boats were able to find and kill a mere 20 blue whales. In 1965, the blue whale received complete protection throughout the Antarctic. The killing stopped, but only because the animal was commercially extinct.

Once the blue whale was placed off limits, whaling nations more aggressively hunted the smaller species, such as fin, sei, and sperm whales. By the 1970s, Japan and the then-Soviet Union, two remaining high-seas whaling nations, turned to the minke whale, a species seldom hunted because of its relatively small size (approximately 35 feet). They needed to kill thousands upon thousands of these small whales to make up for the loss of their larger cousins.

Animal welfare concerns are at the cutting edge of the global food retail industry.

As a result of European consumers’ outrage about the conditions in which laying hens are kept, barren battery cages were be banned in the European Union beginning in 2012.

The U.S. is also increasingly moving away from battery cages for laying hens. A growing number of Americans are letting the industry know they won’t accept this inhumane treatment of farm animals. On college campuses, in institutional kitchens, in restaurants, and among rank-and-file grocery shoppers, cage-free eggs are coming into their own. Sales of cage-free eggs to grocery shoppers increased 150 percent in three years by the industry’s own calculations. Read more about the cage-free trend in the United States.

This momentum in favour of meaningful protection for food animals will continue to grow and promises to spread to India. India is home to thousands of animal protection groups and innumerable consumers who are deeply concerned about the welfare of animals.  HSI is actively educating Indian consumers about the realities of battery cage egg production in their country.

Egg-laying hens spend their lives confined in small, wire battery cages stacked several tiers high and extending down long rows. Each cage is so cramped that the birds are unable to stretch their wings, walk, or engage in many of their natural behaviors. More than 200 million laying hens in India are confined in this manner at any given time. These animals produce 80 percent of the eggs consumed within the country. Seventy-five percent of eggs are consumed by 25 percent of the country’s population, specifically those living in urban areas. Many of these urban consumers can afford to pay a higher price for food produced in a more natural, healthful, and ethical manner.

Learn more about HSI’s campaign to end battery cage use. Then join the hundreds of supermarkets, restaurants, and other food service providers around the world in taking a stand against battery cage cruelty. Sign the No-Battery-Egg Pledge. For more information, e-mail cmirle@hsi.org or call 9212487888.

Rapidly increasing egg and meat consumption in India has led to the expansion of industrial animal production facilities, or factory farms. A typical egg or chicken meat factory farm houses thousands of birds in a single shed. Several sheds may be located on a small piece of property. Thus, huge numbers of animals are packed into very small parcels of land to accommodate India’s growing consumption of animal products.

Nearly 200 million egg-laying hens on factory farms in India are confined to tiny battery cages so restrictive they can’t fully spread their wings. With no opportunity to walk, nest, dust bathe, perch, forage, or exhibit most other natural behaviors, these birds endure lives wrought with suffering. Billions of broiler chickens, though not confined in cages, also experience crowded confinement, poor air quality, and stressful handling and transportation.

Environmental destruction

Waste from factory farms pollutes the water, air, and soil. It harms wildlife habitat and contributes significantly to the climate crisis. The United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization and the American Public Health Association have identified factory farming as a serious threat to the environment and public health.

Public health threats

Factory farms jeopardize the health of farm workers and neighboring human communities. Their crowded, stressful, and unsanitary conditions foster the development of diseases that could affect humans, including bird flu. The animals become more susceptible to infections, which can be passed on to humans via eggs. Routine, non-therapeutic use of antibiotics [PDF] in industrial egg and chicken meat production has led to the emergence of resistant strains of Salmonella, Listeria, and E. coli. Furthermore, instead of feeding the rural poor, an increasing amount of factory farmed eggs and meat are being channeled into the fast-food and processed food industries. These very foods are contributing to a growing epidemic of obesity and other diet-related illnesses amongst India’s middle- and upper-class urban consumers.

You can help

Learn more about humane eating, and sign a pledge never to consume eggs from caged hens.