Why isn’t the USDA declaring the invisible feces in our meat?

No, that wasn’t a typo. Today I came across this petition for rulemaking to FSIS from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.

First off: PCRM has some great programs that promote research, animal welfare, and better medicine. The overall merit of their organization cannot be judged by a single program or campaign they have in place.

Now let’s tear this petition apart, because I actually had to check their website to make sure it was real, and not an over-the-top satire from The Onion.

The concern the committee wishes to correct via this petition is thus:

“Inconsistent with its statutory mandate, USDA regularly passes at inspection meat and poultry that is  contaminated with feces. Although USDA implements a “zero tolerance” policy for fecal contamination, this policy applies to visible fecal contamination only. The result is that fecally contaminated meat and poultry products pass inspection as long as the feces on them are not “visible” to the naked eye.

This inspection policy conveys a misleading promise of “wholesomeness.” Feces may contain round worms, hair worms, tape worms, and leftover bits of whatever the animal excreting the feces may have eaten, not to mention the usual fecal components of digestive juices and various chemicals that the animal was in the process of excreting. Americans deserve fair notice that food products deemed “wholesome” by USDA would be deemed disgusting by the average consumer and adulterated under any reasonable reading of federal law.”

Not to quote without context, the petition goes on to list the ways in which non-obvious feces may be introduced to meat product, the most valid being shared scald/chill tanks in processing operations.

Ultimately, the corrections the committee is seeking are removal of the “wholesome” description from USDA inspected meats, begin treating feces as an adulterant, and:

“USDA should amend sections 317.2(l)(2) and 381.125(b)(2)(i) of the Code of Federal Regulations to exclude from the current mandatory label the sentence that reads, “This product was prepared from inspected and passed meat
and/or poultry.” USDA should amend sections 317.2(l)(2), 381.125(b)(2)(i), and 381.125(b)(2)(ii) of Title 9 to include in the mandatory label the following as the second-to-last sentence: “This product may be permeated with feces, which cooking does not remove.”

That’s some pretty heavy language, perfectly stated to play on the fears and squeamishness of your average consumer. However, I see nothing written there about food safety, so the intention of the change is obvious: prevent people from eating meat.

While the about page for PCRM mentions nothing about being proponents of animal rights, the amount of articles devoted to encouraging a purely vegan diet clearly shows that they have an anti-meat agenda. While they correctly advertize the health benefits of vegan foods, a quick search of their website saturates any visitor with the message “meat is bad, and animal agriculture is always cruel”.

The petition shines a light on a group that is ready to intentionally scare and mislead consumers into changing their lifestyle. As part of their justification that feces is everywhere, they cite one of their own studies, “Fecal Contamination in Retail Chicken Products“. In this study, the committee proved that invisible fecal contamination is everywhere by “testing for the presence of feces.”

No such test exists.

What they actually did was test for generic E. coli, which can act as an indicator organism for fecal contamination.  HACCP programs in slaughter facilities use on-line enumeration of E. coli and other coliforms to validate critical control points for just that purpose. But in this case, rather than setting limits and using a statistical rationale to make a conclusion about the level of contamination, it appears that any evidence of the presence of E. coli  led to the determination that the sample was contaminated with feces. Because there are no methods declared, this evidence could be as mundane as RNA fragments from a non-pathogenic strain recovered in an enriched sample.

The study is absolutely meaningless. There is no available data to review in terms of the levels of contamination, no methods listed for how the E. coli was enumerated, and finally no legitimate publication, suggesting that the construction of the study and its conclusions would not have passed peer review.

As part of the rule change, PCRM would like feces to be declared as an adulterant. Generally, USDA inspectors cannot allow adulterated products to enter commerce, adding to the ludicrosity of this proposal. By the PCRM’s definition, all meat products are covered in invisible feces, and the presence of invisible feces should prevent any product from entering commerce. In one swift move, PCRM will ensure that only clean, wholesome meats will be sold, i.e. none.
But have things changed over the years to make eating meat less safe? The PCRM thinks so. I have no data to argue whether or not Americans are cooking less (PCRM also neglected to provide data), and eating more RTE products, but I did think it was funny that when I read this:
“Americans today consume far more meat and poultry than ever before, thereby increasing their potential exposure to fecal contamination in these products”
When the first link I read on their website contained this graph…
http://www.pcrm.org/media/blog/nov2013/youre-in-good-company-with-a-vegan-thanksgiving
http://www.pcrm.org/media/blog/nov2013/youre-in-good-company-with-a-vegan-thanksgiving
Which is it PCRM? Whichever is more convenient for the ad campaign at the time?
(side note: if people indeed are eating out more in restaurants, that would mean they are eating at inspected restaurants where county health inspectors ensure adequate cooking temperatures, rather than at home where people rarely if ever have proper process control)
Finally, the idea that the USDA needs to declare the presence of invisible feces on every product that passes inspection makes no logical sense,  and does nothing but mislead the consumer, not only by implying that the product isn’t safe in general, but that fully cooking the product makes no difference. If it wasn’t obvious by now that this proposed rule change isn’t solely to earn points with vegans, look closely the wording. In order to turn consumers off meat, PCRM would risk undoing years of public education and trust in proper cooking temperatures.
Clearly I took this proposal too literally, but because FSIS will actually have to review the proposal, and PCRM wants to brag about how these changes might occur, I offer one last piece of evidence to support my view that this proposal belongs on a tabloid.
Proposed legends
…one of their proposed inspection marks literally contains a DO NOT EAT symbol.

ResearchBlogging.org

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (2013). Re: Fecal Contamination of Poultry and Meat USDA Petition for Rulemaking

claimtoken-529d75f1bc9a5

“Organizational silos,” and how they prevent effective zoonotic disease tracking

It appears that the agencies that we rely on to track disease outbreaks need to start tracking disease, not just their own jurisdiction.

An article in Sociology of Health and Illness piqued my interest this last week that reveals the amount of segregation different government agencies have when dealing with zoonotic disease. The understanding of the goals and connections between livestock, wildlife, and human health among these agencies are often apathetic at best, and antagonistic at worst.

The author of the article took it upon himself to interview several government agencies with different species and regional jurisdictions, and was able to reveal what he calls “organizational silos” that develop when the values and cultures of these different agencies prevent them from working with outside groups. When attempting to monitor emerging infectious disease (EID), identification of cross-species movement is critical to predicting and preventing pandemics. Unfortunately, while they may be able to acknowledge the geographical movement of EID’s, many organizations are blinded by their specific oversight of humans or animals.

Copied from the article: Diagram showing the crossover between domestic animals, wildlife, and human EID. Important emergence factors for each circle are listed on the outside.

There are many telling comments contained in his interviews, and I encourage you to read the article to get the whole scope of the problem, but I’ve chosen to list a few of my favorites here:

From the Director of Animal Health Division at a state Department of Agriculture:

“‘We got a positive [flu result] on one of our routine surveillance tests’ of a poultry farm, Spencer complained, and ‘we were required to contact the USDA right away because of the pandemic Asian strain’. Spencer added, ‘It seems a little silly because there was no clinical illness on the property, and the strain came back something pretty common…’ In Spencer’s eyes, it was ‘hard to justify’ reporting the flu strain to the USDA… These days, Spencer said he passes on information about disease events to the state DOH and leaves it to them to tell local health boards. ‘If somebody screws up’, he shrugged, ‘at least we can blame the [Department of Health]’.”

Not an uncommon perspective for many organizations, or even coworkers! Let’s hear from another director at the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS):

 “Clinton argued that the ‘single biggest threat for disease’ comes from ‘wildlife intermingling with domestic livestock’. He told me, ‘You can’t control the birds’ and he rightly pointed out that ducks are flu incubators. If the bird flu – which Clinton called the top priority of his agency – becomes pandemic in humans, he told me, it will come from waterfowl.”

Interesting, I might argue that we have much more interaction with domestic fowl (can’t remember the last time I handled a wild duck), but let’s see what others had to say about this viewpoint.

“Nina Marano, a zoonotic disease expert at the CDC, told me that ‘most of the outbreaks have occurred through interaction with domestic poultry’. Another example: though poultry farmers singled out wild birds called cattle egrets as the source of a 2004 flu outbreak in California, the egrets tested negative – it turned out that contaminated egg containers circulating between farms were the culprit (McNeil 2004).”

Finally, one last example of how a zoonotic disease often isn’t treated as such by human health agencies. From a Director of the Infectious Disease Bureau of a city Public Health Commission:

“When I asked Sanders to describe a zoonose that she responded to, she mentioned a recent outbreak of salmonella…and she believed that the pathogen came from two live poultry markets in Chinatown. What I found telling was that, in Sanders’ lengthy discussion of this outbreak, she did not mention any communication with veterinary medicine agencies.While the Disease Bureau’s response to salmonella followed protocol, it did not turn to the Department of Agriculture, the USDA, or any other agencies involved in animal health for help or information. Nor did it share information with them.”

Clearly here the city health board considered this a food safety issue, but payed no attention to the implications of getting meat from an approved source (a domain which definitely belongs to the USDA), or the fact that other agriculture agencies may be interested in a salmonella outbreak. There are many other telling quotes within these interviews, and I again encourage you to check out the article.

The author of the study concludes that the only examples we get of harmonious collaboration are for those diseases which are in the public eye such as rabies and influenza (H5N1 and H1N1), though we still have lines drawn even when the public is asking for action (“‘we have enough H1N1 to worry about without worrying about turkeys’. He
concluded that turkey infection is ‘a Department of Agriculture issue’”). The most shining example of the failure to communicate by these institutions in the article is the discovery of Bird Flu in the US.

The first human cases of H5N1 in the US were wrongly diagnosed with St. Louis encephalitis, resulting in the deaths of 3 patients. A veterinary pathologist at the Bronx zoo observed neurological symptoms in some of the zoo’s birds and suspected a link, however encephalitis would not have killed her birds. Both the CDC and local DOH would not accept new information from her, instead keeping the encephalitis diagnosis. She then sent specimens to a friend at an Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, who revealed the etiology of the disease and I’m sure had a hilarious conversation with the CDC and DOH (could you please explain to us why this veterinarian is doing your job casually on the side, and doing it better?). By the time the CDC received/accepted this information, H5N1 was endemic in the area.

Nothing against the CDC, it’s a fantastic organization, but this highlights the closed lines of communication that exist between human and animal agencies the author discusses. In order to prevent the next EID crisis, rigorous epidemiology is critical. Refusing to acknowledge the importance of cross-species movement to the virulence and emergence of a disease that falls under your agency does not only prevent you from identifying the next source of infection, but leaves you with nothing but reactive measures catered to a epidemic that you refuse to fully appreciate.

ResearchBlogging.org

Jerolmack, C. (2012). Who’s worried about turkeys? How ‘organisational silos’ impede zoonotic disease surveillance Sociology of Health & Illness DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01501.x

New Research: Do organic animal operations encourage management decisions that negatively impact animal welfare? Part 1

For my senior ethics class, I chose to write about an issue everyone has an opinion on, from granola folks at the co-op telling me to watch Food Inc. to farmers complaining about the outbreak of upper respiratory disease from those untreated organic herds sneezing over the fence. I actually ended up changing my own views quite a bit following the extensive research I did, and I really enjoyed writing the paper. I wanted to evaluate the claims often made to me by professors in my land grant school (Oregon State) about the misleading advertizing and hidden evils of organic production, and I wanted to see if there was anything to back up the fanaticism and devotion sometimes projected by organic devotees. This paper is by NO MEANS an exhaustive review of the literature, and I am not qualified to make any official judgement, and is simply meant to be a personal commentary from a recent graduate.

So rather than sit here blathering, the first portion is below, and you can read the full paper here.

_____________________________________________________________

Few agricultural debates come close to generating the same passionate and heated responses that organic farming seems to elicit. The discussion surpasses the interests of producers with conflicting ideologies to be hotly debated by assertive consumers as well; people who highlight the paradox created by their interest in the safe and responsible production of their food, while avoiding all involvement in its creation. The originally proposed Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 received nearly 300,000 comments on the proposed requirements, more than any other piece of legislation in history (Vos, 2000). Clearly this indicated that the role organic farming played in food production was extremely important to U.S. citizens then, and continues to be a relevant topic as organic operations have grown by 40-50% every five years since 1992 (USDA, 2010).

The general public also has a strong interest in the way animals are managed, especially when management techniques play a role in the health or well-being of the animals prior to their use for meat, milk, or eggs. Humane management is often brought up when discussing the merits or flaws of organic operations, and is extremely important to producers due to the important role animal welfare plays when consumers make purchasing decisions. Prickett et al. (2010) found through the use of a telephone survey that 49% of consumers consider the well-being of farm animals when purchasing meat, and 83% of consumers disagree that lower prices are more important than the well-being of the animals used. These numbers become critical when organic producers need to justify the increased cost of their products and conventional producers are forced to avoid the alternate impression that their animals are treated poorly.
Marketing pressure placed on both groups leads to a vicious back and forth of both valid questions and vague accusations, among which is the suggestion that organic farms can act as reservoirs of disease (Kijlstra and Eijck, 2006). One mechanism for this accusation could be the avoidance of chemical or synthetic intervention for pest control and treatment of disease. This paper seeks to evaluate organic farming ideologies and legal constraints that create ethical dilemmas surrounding animal welfare, and determine whether organic management encourages decisions that are detrimental to the animals involved.

Animal Welfare and the Organic Movement
Early organic movements were created with the goal that a more sustainable and environmentally friendly farming system could be created that would benefit not only farmers and consumers of organic products, but also the animals within this system (Lund, 2006). These ideals have persevered and are a common talking point in promotional materials that market organically raised animals as drug and chemical free, and much closer to a “natural” condition (Riddle, 2005). This concept of “natural” is commonly used to differentiate organically produced animal products from conventional ones.

Utilizing the word “natural” creates an issue of perception; while the public widely accepts “natural” as a product descriptor, the word itself has no legal definition when used in food advertizing or packaging in the U.S. However, consumers have been shown to associate descriptions of “naturalness” not only with animal welfare but sustainability and care for the environment (Verhoog et al., 2003). While this may imply a scheme to sway consumer loyalty, the word is widely accepted by organic producers as an accurate descriptor to differentiate organic methods from conventional. While “natural” can have broad definitions like including the entire universe or everything untouched by man (thus either removing agriculture or providing no distinctions in practice), Verhoog et al. (2004) were able to show that organic producers feel organic can be classified as more natural than conventional agriculture as its aim is to be harmoniously integrated into nature. In this way nature is seen as a teacher or model for sustainable and humane agriculture. This ethos pushes organic farmers into an ecocentric approach when making management decisions. From this perspective, we begin to see how organic farmers may view welfare differently than conventional farmers or veterinarians.

Read the rest of the paper here.

 

ResearchBlogging.org
Vonne Lund, & Bo Algers (2003). Research on animal health and welfare in organic farming—a literature review Livestock Production Science, 80 (1-2), 55-68 : 10.1016/S0301-6226(02)00321-4

Badger culling in the U.K. – step one: cull badgers, step two: …?, step three: profit!

Image from BBC News

A friend of mine thought this would interest me when I last visited him, and I had him send me the links discussing badger culling in the UK to control the spread of bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis).  In addition to having an economic impact,  bovine TB also carries a zoonotic concern. I thought I would learn more about the issue, and see what the literature says about the success of the program.

Badger culling has been a part of TB control in the United Kingdom since 1973. Despite this and other programs in place, incidence of TB has only increased during that time. In the thousands of biological and environmental risk factors that have been associated with TB infection risk, Badgers have been identified as an important reservoir and potential vectors for the disease.

The politics surrounding the issue are interesting, and provides a great case example of how public perception can be skewed for certain species. The regular players are all there: the economically invested (in this case, cattle farmers and associated industries), the scientific community, outspoken animal interest groups, a generalized public perception, and the federal government trying to cater to the majority of voters (or campaign contributors, depending on the official and your own opinion). Lets break down these players.

The Economically Invested

On this issue, everyone seems to be on board that bovine TB is a problem in the UK. The ones who really care though are cattle producers, meat and dairy processing companies, and the retail ends associated with those products. When oppositional parties want to discredit this group, we see them described as “big corporations” only concerned about the bottom line. These claims are many times true, as even the small farmer has to maintain a decent profit margin to provide for him or herself. This group tends to be less publicly oppositional, preferring to exercise their strength through advertizing, lobbying, and funding research that can help support their position. Within this issue, I wasn’t able to find any ads produced by organizations in the UK, however, I did find some farmer concerns over the issue. One was the difficulty in getting approved for a badger cull in your area, and the other was the fear of response from activist groups if they did choose to participate in the program. The position of the farm interest groups is that the spread of bovine TB is an animal welfare and economic concern, and that badger culling will be critical in suppression of the disease. Local wildlife can often aid transmission of disease; however, we have also seen blame placed incorrectly on wildlife in other situations.

Animal Interest Groups

There are many groups in the UK that advocate for Animal interests, and they’re pretty much unanimous in the opinion that culling badgers is not an effective or ethical way to combat bovine TB prevalence. However, they do have different techniques in approaching opposition. While many of them strictly condemn the practice and advertize to sway public opinion, one group (with the support of many others), Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, has been independently vaccinating wild badgers for bovine TB. At this time they haven’t investigated the effectiveness of the vaccine itself, but rather the economical viability of the process. Their results so far have shown that it would cost more than twice as much to vaccinate an entire hectare instead of culling. Typically these same groups in other controversial situations are very politically active.

The General Public

Generally the least informed and (arguably) the most powerful, the majority of public opinion represents the majority of voters and consumers. Regarding badger culling however, most of the general public has been shown in polls to oppose the practice. Agricultural controversies are often represented by government and industry actions that don’t necessarily mirror consumer or public preference, but instead are economically viable. Whether it’s often advocated for or not, above all else the majority of the public wants inexpensive food, and that benefit often outweighs other consumer preferences (though not always). An interesting examination of the public perception of badgers is discussed within this controversy, and this argument can also apply to other similar situations we have seen over the years. BBC explored the role of badgers in popular children’s stories, and related them to other species that receive special protection even if they are not endangered. An example from the states would be our attachment to wild horses as an icon of America, and some of the debates we’ve seen surrounding not only control of wild horses, but within discussions on using horses for food. Kevin Pierce from the article sums this feeling up well:

“It’s an image issue. A lot of farmers like badgers but we also want to control the disease. If your vector spreading TB was a rat, I’m sure that there’d be no problem for farmers in securing a license to take action.”

The Government

Tasked with the burden of trying to please everyone, the federal government often responds to the loudest collective voice along with their own advisers, analysts, and ethics. In this case, we do know that the government has moved forward with culling as they have in the past. Evaluating the motivation behind these decisions is an endless discussion, whether it’s a working system or corrupt is beyond the scope of this post. Feel free to express your opinions on the process in the comments below. The best I hope for is that while looking out for my interests, my officials attempt to remain objective, and speaking of objectivity…

The Scientific Community

I’ve left us for last. The example of objectivity and a lens of evidence to weigh a cost-benefit analysis of the issue not directed by personal interests, concepts of morality, or hidden goals. Or so we would hope. As a realistic scientist who has read a lot of peer-reviewed research, I know that we are never truly objective. All funding comes from somewhere, we interpret our own results, and while we try as hard as we can to be objective, there is no perfect experimental design immune to bias. However, as creator of this site, I obviously hold research in high esteem, so lets look at some of the literature regarding the effectiveness of badger culling in curbing the spread of bovine TB.

According to the sources I found, it appears that badger culling does have a positive effect on the rates of bovine tuberculosis, but strictly within the areas the culling occurs. There’s a beneficial cumulative effect after several years of a culling program (in the reduction of detrimental effects in surrounding areas), but it isn’t necessarily lasting, cost-effective, or repeatable in different situations. The consensus amongst several studies is that localized culling actually increases TB rates in the surrounding areas, due to the displacement of normally local badger populations, and additional factors that we don’t fully understand. Given these effects, there seems to be a general consensus in the literature I viewed that at best badger culling is not a cost effective way to reduce TB transmission, and at worst contributes to the spread of disease.

Culling programs always have fierce opposition from many sources, whether it be culling sea lions to protect Columbia river salmon, culling grey wolves to protect livestock, or culling tame geese that are causing damage to city parks. There are serious concerns from conservationists and animal activists about the effectiveness of such programs that can be well founded, and the controversy surrounding badger culling in the United Kingdom is a clear example  of why these decisions would be more effective if they are backed by empirical research and economic analysis before being presented as a moral dilemma.

ResearchBlogging.org
Donnelly CA, Woodroffe R, Cox DR, Bourne J, Gettinby G, Le Fevre AM, McInerney JP, & Morrison WI (2003). Impact of localized badger culling on tuberculosis incidence in British cattle. Nature, 426 (6968), 834-7 PMID: 14634671
Donnelly CA, Wei G, Johnston WT, Cox DR, Woodroffe R, Bourne FJ, Cheeseman CL, Clifton-Hadley RS, Gettinby G, Gilks P, Jenkins HE, Le Fevre AM, McInerney JP, & Morrison WI (2007). Impacts of widespread badger culling on cattle tuberculosis: concluding analyses from a large-scale field trial. International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases, 11 (4), 300-8 PMID: 17566777
Donnelly CA, Woodroffe R, Cox DR, Bourne FJ, Cheeseman CL, Clifton-Hadley RS, Wei G, Gettinby G, Gilks P, Jenkins H, Johnston WT, Le Fevre AM, McInerney JP, & Morrison WI (2006). Positive and negative effects of widespread badger culling on tuberculosis in cattle. Nature, 439 (7078), 843-6 PMID: 16357869

Newsworthy: US Supreme Court Upholds 9th Circuit Decision in Brown Vs. Entertainment Merchants Association

I’m a couple days late on this one, you can blame physics homework for that. But this is a big deal.

I’ve followed the politics concerning video games for over 8 years, it originally stemmed from looking to protect my rights as a consumer, and now even more so as I’ve gotten older I recognize it as an important free speech issue. As a consumer of games and, to stereotype myself, a young person looking to protect my speech and fight for my generations media, its something important to me and something I feel like I can make a difference in by being informed.

So anyway, the Supreme court has ruled the California law, which would have fined retailers $1,000 if they sold a violent video game to anyone under the age of 18, to be unconstitutional under the first amendment.

I could rant and rant on the problems with the law: the sheer subjectivity of what constitutes enough violence to be affected by the law, the fact that it takes away the power of parents to choose what their children can and can’t play, the fact that contrary to popular opinion film restrictions for R rated movies etc. are not regulated by the government (it’s a voluntary system), that according to the FTC the ESRB “M” rated games are actually better enforced (not sold to anyone under 18) than film “R” ratings, and the fact that fictional violence in any other medium is not regulated.

It all really comes down to a simple premise, that goes beyond the obvious political maneuvers, and the “protect the children” mantra that is always used to restrict speech. But I’ll let Justice Scalia say it far better, and with the full authority of the United States Supreme Court.

“Like the protected books, plays and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas — and even social messages — through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world),” Justice Scalia wrote. “That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.”

Whatever new form of media or communication appears and becomes popular, the older generations will always fear that it will destroy society.  This isn’t me saying anything like “old people just don’t understand” or anything like that, but it’s how we’re programmed. When I’m older and the new form of media pops up that allows people to recreate violence in a new way, I’ll probably think it’s dangerous as well. But the world evolves. Just the other day my ballroom dance teacher was telling us how the Waltz was feared and condemned for being such a risque dance. Life moves on, those waltzers grew up, and they found something to condemn when their youth created something new. Rock and Roll, Rap, and any and all literature that ever went mainstream (ever, seriously, books scare people, and rightfully so considering their influence), its going to keep happening. All it takes is for us to remember that free speech is a one way street, either everything’s allowed, or nothing’s allowed. It sucks when we can’t silence people who want to promote the KKK, who want to support fictional rape productions, or who want to protest around military funerals. But I’ve been personally challenged on those very points, and as painful as it is to support their speech, someone out there is thinking “well if Austin believes that fictional rape promotes real rape, doesn’t fictional violence promote real violence?” And in order to truly protect free speech, the merit of such speech cannot be determined by anyone, even a majority. The supreme court once decided that segregation was unconstitutional (using interstate commerce law), and if the media and modes of communication during that time were governmentally regulated or silenced based on the public opinion at the time, who knows how long it would have taken to move those ideas forward.

Another 30 years from now the idea of regulating video games will be considered absurd, and the ESRB rating will be believed as law just like film ratings are due to voluntary retail enforcement. This landmark decision today just brought that day much closer, and we can find another stupid way for our elected officials to waste tax dollars fighting pointless battles just for voter points. I just hope I still remember what it was like when I was fighting on this side, and don’t find myself shaking my finger at whatever unfamiliar thing becomes popular with the next generation.

For coverage on the decision you can check out the article in The New York Times and also look up the entire history of the law (signed in by the Governator, who of course didn’t build his entire career on violent media…*facepalm*) at the always useful Gamepolitics.com.

Newsworthy:PETA upset about Vick on Madden Cover

This one first came from Gamepolitics, my favorite blog (sponsored by the ECA) for free speech issues in today’s most attacked form of media. I then followed a couple links to find a couple new websites I’ll need to discuss later, namely “PETA Kills Animals” and “Humane Watch.” Which are so interesting that they warrant their own post, and I don’t have the time to address those broad issues at the moment.

I’ve got a lot of personal disagreements with PETA, mostly my thoughts on their animal rights stance (and the fact that they also violate those principals) as opposed to a welfare, and many other examples I may go into detail in another post. But on this one I find myself very conflicted on the issue. Regardless how PETA or internet commentators may want to paint it, this isn’t black and white if you allow yourself to consider the consequences from more than just one point of view.

Let me start by saying that I do have a personal hatred for dog fighting. I recognize that it stems from our attraction to violence, just like gladiatorial events in ancient Rome, to boxing and ultimate fighting today. It’s an active choice whether you care about these animals (or roman slaves) or not, and from my personal welfare perspective, I do not think that the torture and abuse these animals suffer is humane or justified in any way. So yes, my view of Michael Vick is biased and negative.

I’m also not a sports person. I can barely name all of the teams in the Pac 10 (or 12, whatever it is next year). I enjoy watching live football when I’m invested in one of the teams, but I don’t really follow the season or have any idea who’s good this year. Nonetheless, from what I’ve heard of Michael Vick is that he’s damn good at what he does, and that he must be talented enough to be welcomed back to the NFL after being such a public relations nightmare.

So here it is, it comes down to what I think the consequences may be if he does end up on the cover (ignoring the madden curse, which could swing the argument either way). Do I think that this will create a bunch of young athletes that think they can break the law or abuse animals and still be successful? Do I think it glamorizes dog fighting in any way? My gut tells me no. I agree that we should hold our role-model athletes to a higher standard, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t still people.

So then if I don’t think the award represents those negative values, what does it actually become? Here are the facts: there are 15 other top NFL athletes still in the bracket, Vick is a fantastic football player, he is talented enough that teams will draft him even though they will be attacked by organizations like PETA, ASPCA, and HSUS;  he pled guilty, and he served 21 months in prison.

Vick didn’t get to play football while he was in prison, and he served his house arrest. This honor from madden represents a football accomplishment, and he earned that. Maybe he should have served more time, maybe the punishment didn’t fit the crime, and maybe the abuse and destruction of those animals can never be fully forgiven, but that has nothing to do with his career or his personal success in life. To answer PETA’s question: “Is the Madden cover spot only about athletics and nothing about being a decent person?” I’m going to answer yes. The game is a pile of equations and mechanics related to football skills, and includes nothing about the personal lives or role-model rankings of the players within. To be featured on the cover is a testament to your skill and a statement to the player/purchaser that “this game character is really good at football.”

To be perfectly honest, if I cared enough to vote, I’d probably vote against him for the very same reason that PETA wants me to. My vote would reflect my opinion and make sense to me. PETA wants him removed from the bracket entirely, to deny him that chance to be considered rehabilitated or to win back his fans. With 16 players left and Vick’s history, I very much doubt that he will make it to the cover. But that’s a community decision, not PETA’s. The idea to remove him from the bracket implies that everyone is once a criminal, always a criminal. That not only do you serve the time and punishment for your crime, but your personal success in other endeavors is forfeit. They have no right to take away that persons life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, it’d be as if they opposed Vick getting married (don’t know if he is or not) because he doesn’t deserve to live his life.

“featuring a convicted dog fighter on the cover will send the dangerous message to them that they can commit the most heinous acts of cruelty to animals and still be celebrated and revered” -PETA

I imagine that there are some wealthy people representing PETA who received DUI’s or some other conviction. Should we censor their lives because any success they achieve shows that it’s okay to drive drunk? Or should we allow people to make their own conclusions? I don’t think Vick deserves the honor for my own reasons, but unlike PETA, I’m not going to restrict someone’s rights. Nor would I use censorship to try to prevent others from forgiving them.