You’ll Eat It and Like It: Rehabbing Vegans in Texas Prisons

David Cassuto

First the bad news then some good news then some middling, reality check observations.

It seems that a prisoner in Texas wishes to eat a vegan diet but the prison system will not let him.  Texas currently offers only a “meatless option,” which includes dairy and eggs.  The prisoner has sued under RLUIPA, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (more about the statute here), to force the prison to respect his dietary wishes.

Prior to the lawsuit, the state based its refusal to provide a vegan diet on the expense involved (once again raising the bizarre reality that eating animals that eat vegetables is less expensive than eating the vegetables themselves).  However, in responding to the lawsuit, Texas now intends to present expert testimony from a prison dietitian who “will opine that a long-term, strict vegan diet is likely to lead to the development of nutritional deficiencies and significant health problems for most people.”  Yes, that’s right, sports fans: vegan prisoners are starving themselves and need meat and/or dairy to survive.  

Fearing and spearing animals in Montana

Kathleen Stachowski

The Montana legislature meets every other year for 90 days. There’s always talk of how this isn’t long enough to get the people’s business done, but some years (like this one) would be better skipped altogether. The legislature–ever filled with pillars of anti-government, anti-regulation conservatism–is awash in a bath of tea-fueled fervor this year. To let you know how bad it is for animals, let me first tell you how bad it is in general.

Here are just two examples. One House representative pleaded for keeping the death penalty based on the “fact” that inmates now kill their guards with AIDS-infected paper airplanes. (OK, she called ’em blow darts.)  Another sponsored a bill making it public policy to acknowledge that global warming is beneficial to Montana’s welfare and business climate. (Mercifully, this one was just tabled.)

In a whacked-out atmosphere like this, what chance do animals stand? To wit, a few items from the little shop of horrors Republicans are busy creating for native wildlife.

In Poor Taste

Seth Victor

I’ve been meaning to comment about an article I read earlier this month. As NPR’s Robert Krulwich reports, a couple of innovators from the UK have created carnivorous machines. I think the article sufficiently captures the mix of awe and  horror at the development of furniture that derives its energy from consuming animals. Sci-Fi disasters aside, the idea of inanimate objects not just killing as a pest-removal system, but actually needing to “eat” to “survive” raises questions, namely, why?

I’m all for alternative fuel sources, but this is too much. First, as I understand the process from the video link, microbial fuel cells aren’t terribly efficient. Eight flies powering a clock for twelve days may sound impressive, but we are talking about

clocks, which don’t require a tremendous amount of energy. Stealing electrons from bacteria isn’t going to power a car anytime soon. Yes, animals (and some plants) can convert bio-mass into energy, but this is the only way they (we) have evolved to create energy. Ultimately most terrestrial life relies on solar energy, so why not just go to the source. Oh wait, we already do that.

Don’t Mail Dogs; Just Don’t Do It

David Cassuto

From the Wouldn’t Make This Stuff Up Even if We Could Desk:

Here’s a newsflash for all those who think humanity’s superior intellect is what separates us from “lower” animals…

Amidst a Windy Congress, Some Protections for Birds

David Cassuto (also up in GreenLaw)

I’ve blogged before about the dangers to wildlife from wind turbines.   Well, this just in: yesterday, the Department of the Interior released draft guidelines to protect wildlife from wind turbines  while calling on all involved in the industry to rigorously monitor, assess, and incorporate best practices into their designs.

The guidelines look to promote compliance with the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as well as other relevant statutes.  They advocate a tiered approach, including preliminary evaluation or screening, site characterization, pre-construction monitoring and assessments, post construction monitoring and assessments, and research.

Do You Know What It Means for a Vegan to Miss New Orleans?

Douglas Doneson

No matter how many cups of Yerba Mate I drink or how many lamps I turn on (or off) to get the right lighting, I can’t focus on my law school work. After living in New Orleans for close to six years my body knows Mardi Gras is approaching. It knows I should be there. Anyone who has been to the New Orleans Mardi Gras knows that once the thought of Mardi Gras comes to mind, so many good memories are recalled and flow throughout the brain.

One memory that always comes to mind is the amazing food New Orleans has to offer.  This is a funny thought for me because I am vegan. I actually stopped eating meat, while working at the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans in 2007. But for some reason when I think about New Orleans, food is always the first thought that come to mind. Not surprisingly, New Orleans has a pretty small selection of vegan restaurants.  One of my favorite qualities of New Orleans, its stagnancy, is also its worst enemy. 

Cat Talk, Kitty Litter, and Inglorious, Litigious Homo Sapiens

David Cassuto

From the Where Litigation Should Go To Die Desk:

I’d like to think that Arm & Hammer dropped its lawsuit against Clorox Co., the maker of Fresh Step kitty litter because it (Arm & Hammer) was embarrassed.  Apparently, the gravamen of the suit lay with Clorox’s contention that “cats prefer Fresh Step.”  “Cats can’t talk,” sniffed Arm & Hammer in its complaint. 

“Petrie-Pork”: The Future for Meatatarians?

Rosana Escobar Brown

Test tube tacos, in-vitro veal parm, and beaker burgers—sounds like something more from a Jetson’s episode than from a leading science journal, but could it be for real?

Scientists have been developing lab-created meat for over a decade and now it seems as though this man-made meat might just become reality…someday.  PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) seems to think so also.  In 2008, PETA announced a “contest” on their website offering 1 million dollars in grant funds to the scientist who can create chicken meat that would be competitively cost effective on a grand scale and ready to market by 2012.  The funds have yet to be claimed and reader opinions regarding the PETA “contest” range from accepting, to skeptical, to belligerent.  Certain blogs on the topic fear the worst including unsafe food, and the source where cells are derived from.  One blog post even cries out that stem cells come from humans making the consumption of in-vitro meat akin to cannibalism.

Don’t fret just yet; the cells used to develop this man-made meat actually come from animals, not humans.  According to a recent article from Nature.com, a small biopsy is taken from the animal which is left unharmed; alternatively, embryonic stem cells would provide limitless supplies of meat but attempts at development have not been successful.

A research laboratory in Holland has shown the most successful progress in the field of meat-making and that is also where it is said that the only petrie-pork has been tasted on record.