Vegan News Archive, 2nd quarter 1999

As reported by the Chicago Tribune on June 18, the beef industry, desperate to stabilize a red meat consumption that has declined every year since 1977, has assembled a research-and-development team to create new products for their lagging market. The team, formed by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), is comprised of scientists, marketers and product developers who have been sequestered to a ranch in rural Pennsylvania, trying to recapture the market it has lost, largely to the chicken industry. So far, some of the team's innovations include fried steak "fingers", rotisserie beef, a Swiss steak with holes in it like a White Castle burger, and coffee-flavored hamburger patties.

Most insiders believe that the dwindling popularity of red meat has occurred because the chicken industry has been successful in making the public perceive that its product is healthier than beef. The NCBA has taken note of this movement away from beef and veal, and has launched a $25 million advertising campaign to maintain its slipping control of the market share, which has fallen from 59 percent in 1980 to 46 percent in 1997. Carl D. Blackwell, executive director of product development for the NCBA said, "The beef industry has been on the defensive for the past few years. We decided to get aggressive and go on the offensive." Brian Sikes, vice president of product management for Excel Corp.’s specialty products division, was quoted as saying about the NCBA's redoubled effort to reclaim some of its plummeting market share, "This is about survival."

The unfortunate result of people moving away from beef is, as the NCBA is aware, that consumers are eating greater and greater quantities of chicken. The chicken industry has done a remarkable job of marketing chicken as a "health" food when a 3.5-ounce serving of skinless chicken has the same cholesterol as a same-size serving of beef: 85 milligrams. More than 90 percent of chickens come from factory farms, which, with their over-crowding, poor sanitary conditions, and questionable feeding practices, (chickens' own fecal matter is considered an acceptable component of their feed), have become notorious breeding grounds for pathogens. E.coli, salmonella, and campylobacter are just some of the common bacterium found in that plucked, refrigerated broiler chicken carcass at the grocery store. It seems as though the industry is speeding full ahead on a collision course with so many publicized incidents of sicknesses related to chicken consumption. Pathogen poisoning by meat continues to occur at a predictable but nonetheless alarming rate. As Vegan Street has predicted in the past, a lot of this industry's undoing is likely going to occur from within the industry itself: it is utterly unsustainable, and that is becoming abundantly clear. There is almost nothing left for it to do but to implode.

As a side note, the July issue of Vegetarian Times contains a blurb about the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association. Apparently, they set up a hotline on which those in the industry can report any criticisms they hear any members of the media make about beef; a task force is then dispatched to "re-educate" the rabble rouser in question. Would a powerful, confident industry really resort to such ridiculously paranoid tactics? I don't recall the tofu manufacturers ever banding together to sue or threaten those who disparage its oft-ridiculed product.

In another stunning example of what can go wrong when animals are kept in brutal captivity, on the morning of June 20, a Brahma bull bolted from the ramp where he was being loaded onto a rodeo's cattle truck and stampeded through the streets of Queens, NY. After being chased and shot at by police through Queen's crowded streets, he was finally killed in a hail of bullets in the parking lot of a housing project, with as more than 100 spectators looking on, including many children. Witnesses reported that the bull, obviously terrified, anguished, and stunned, had blood spilling from out of as many as 40 bullet wounds. After police had lassoed and tethered the bull to a tree, he swayed for a bit and then his legs gave out, finally collapsing in a pool of blood. His body was dumped in a landfill in Staten Island; police contend that they did not have enough tranquilizer on hand to use in subduing the bull, named Narco.

Narco had bolted from an Mexican-style rodeo that was being held without a permit in a parking lot. Shortly after 10 a.m., when police began to break up the illegal rodeo, handlers were ordered to put the eight bulls back on the truck, but Narco bolted. Some who observed the fleeing bull being shot at by police expressed confusion; others were outraged that the police would shoot in such close proximity to people on the street. In addition to holding a rodeo without a permit, the ASPCA and Animal Care and Control issued organizer Fernando Navarro summonses for possessing prohibited wildlife. The police also noted that the cattle car was overcrowded.

Despite the obvious tragedy of the event, there are some positive results which could come of it. Every time something like this occurs, it can serve to weaken the business which exploits the animals in question, in this case, the atrocious animals in entertainment industry. The next time a circus or rodeo tries to come to your town, contact the local officials and let your voice be heard as a citizen: animals in captivity not only endure brutality and imprisonment, they also pose a real danger to your community. Let them know that Sears no longer sponsors Ringling Brothers Circuses because of the controversy...Let them know what happened to Narco.

Let's use this as an opportunity to make calls, write letters and picket these cruel events so that Narco's death wasn’t in vain.

There's a noteworthy little international rumble brewing between the European Union (EU) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture that promises to be very entertaining for vegan spectators. The crux of it is this: the EU, which is a 15-nation trading bloc, has had a decade-old ban on imports of hormone-treated beef, which is a very prevalent farming practice in the U.S., and on May 15, the German Agriculture Minister Karl-Heinz Funke announced that the ban would continue until the year-end at the earliest. The U.S. has threatened to impose $202 million in punitive duties against European products, but Funke wrote in a newspaper commentary that despite the harsh reprisals, maintaining a ban on beef treated with artificial growth hormones would be worth it for health reasons. Research by the EU has indicated that one of the hormones found in artificially-treated beef, estradiol, is potentially carcinogenic.

Meanwhile, on June 4, U.S. Agriculture Secretary and hog farm benefactor Dan Glickman announced a temporary block of imports of EU pork and poultry products, saying that this was a necessary step in order to protect American food safety. This move was obstenibly prompted by dioxin-laced animal products produced in Belgium (see related article), but Glickman has been criticized for his across-the-board banning of all EU pork and poultry, instead of just blocking Belgian products, as other countires have done. Secretary Glickman was on the defensive Friday, contending that his decision was not intended to be vindictive against the EU and their lack of enthusiasm for U.S. hormone-treated beef, but was a completely separate issue of food safety.

Perhaps Secretary Glickman, newly concerned with such matters, will start focusing his energies on some of the other common annoyances frequently related to meat consumption, such as salmonella, listeria, campylobachter, and e-coli poisonings, as well as surging rates of heart disease, cancer and obesity. Or...not.

One thing that is worth mentioning in this imbroglio is that U.S meat isn't going out, European meat isn't coming in, and that can only serve to weaken the global industry. The reason why meat isn't being imported or exported is that both sides contend that the meat is dangerous, and we Vegan Street heartly agree. While we're on the subject, may Vegan Street also propose as a solution to this hoopla that all existing animal products be destroyed at once, never to be replenished? Vegan Street has plenty of fresh, ground-breaking ideas like this available through arbitration, so, while running the risk of seeming presumptuous, we have tossed our hats into the ring as possible mediators during this crisis. So far, however, neither Senator Glickman nor an EU representative have returned our phone calls.

On Tuesday, June 15, the European Union (EU) announced that they were phasing out common battery hen cages by 2012. Germany's Farm Minister Karl-Heinz Funke, while acknowledging that this will increase the cost of domestically produced eggs, told a news conference that "Battery cages as we know them will be banned entirely."

Funke said that despite the increased cost, which some have estimated could be as much as ten percent higher, he was confident that consumers would still purchase the eggs because of increasing animal welfare concerns. European Farm Commissioner Franz Fischler said that the EU would also take up the issue of animal welfare with the World Trade Organization, stating that "...It must be taken into account on the international stage." The EU eggs will face fierce competition from eastern European countries and the United States, where intensive battery farming has driven down the cost of products.

The new accord will increase the amount of space in cages, essentially reducing the amount of chickens per cage from five to four, which is certainly not radical. After 2003, it will be forbidden to introduce new cages that are not of the "enriched" variety, which is larger and equipped with better ventilation. By 2012, all cages must conform with this new standard.

Evans continues its spiral into bankruptcy
As Vegan Street reported earlier this year, Evans Inc., furrier supreme, has fallen on some hard times of late. Robert Meltzer, Evans' chief executive, likes to blame the unseasonably mild past winter. He likes to blame bad "demographics". One gets the sense that he would blame his grandmother if he could, but there's no getting around the fact that fur has simply and ineluctably fallen out of fashion.

Evans, announcing a $6.1 million loss for the first nine months of fiscal 1999, is closing three suburban Chicago stores, because, according to Meltzer, they "did not fall within our demographic core customer base" of urban, ethnic women. Could the sudden closings have anything to do with the upcoming announcement of their abysmal fiscal fourth-quarter and year-end results? Hmm...

Whatever the reason, weather, demographics or just plain voodoo, with the closing of three more pelt distributers, vegans and furry creatures all around have something to celebrate. Let's all keep the heat on this cold-hearted, dinosaurian industry until it finally returns to the annals of prehistory, its rightful home from which it never should have emerged.

Safety Crisis in Belgian Meat
Would you like an extra serving of dioxin to go with your chicken sandwich?

It's carcinogenic. It's potentially deadly. It's lunch! It's also the biggest food crisis in Europe since mad-cow disease made its smashing public debut on the other side of the pond, leaving many Britons avowed vegetarians. This time, the uproar concerns potentially fatal doses of dioxin, which is a cancer-causing chemical, discovered first in Belgian chicken, but now found in beef and pork.

Health officials believe that the dioxin, which was discovered to be at as much as 1,500 times higher than the "acceptable" level, was spread through contaminated motor oils that were added to chicken feed at a Belgian processor, and subsequently fed to chickens on as many as 400 poultry farms in Belgium and northeast France. On June 2, the European Union ordered that products made with potentially dioxin-laced eggs, which were used in everything from pastries to pasta, be destroyed. Germany, Italy, Holland, Poland, and Russia have issued temporary bans on Belgian poultry imports.

On June 4, as was expected, the Belgian government banned the export of pork and beef, due to dioxin poisoning. The financial repercussions of the broad banning of Belgian meat and animal products isn't confined to just that country, though: the fifteen nations that comprise the European Union are increasingly interdependent, and a food crisis in one country usually throws the entire continent into turmoil.

Adding fuel to public outrage is the disclosure that Belgian health and agriculture authorities had been investigating the dioxin contamination for more than a month when, threatened by possible media exposure, they finally issued a public announcement. As a result of the scandal, the Belgian health and agriculture ministers have resigned.

Piece by piece, bit by bit, the meat industry is destroying itself. It's happening before our eyes. We see listeria-related deaths here, salmonella poisonings there, and we will continue on this deadly path until consumers change their ideas about what is edible and what is not. With crises like these, the organic and vegetarian markets surge. Perhaps in our lifetime there will come a day when industry flacks, having been drained of their arsenal of half-truths and outright lies, will only be able to shrug and say, "Eat meat at your own risk."

Despite Defeat, Food Disparagement Laws Are Still Silencing Debate on Safety
"Just smile and eat your hamburger". As reported in the New York Times on May 30, this is pretty much the message that the lawyers for farmers and the food industry have given anyone who would dare to criticize the product that their client sells. Most of us remember the highly publicized Oprah trial, for which Ms. Winfrey reportedly spent upwards of $1 million defending her right to publicly proclaim her intention to quit eating hamburgers after learning of the hazards from her guest, cattle rancher turned vegetarian activist Howard Lyman. The verdict was a loss for the Texas cattle ranchers who tried to sue Oprah, but it has nonetheless had a chilling effect on free speech issues across our country.

Currently there are thirteen states with some form of a food disparagement law on the books (Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas), but the effect of the law isn't restricted to just those states. As a point of example, the article cited the difficulties that several authors have faced in trying to get their books published. One, J. Robert Hatherill, a research scientist at the University of California at Santa Barbara, recently wrote a book titled "Eat to Beat Cancer," which was published last year by Renaissance Books. Among other passages that disappeared from his original text was information on growth hormones administered to cattle. Mr. Hatherill considers the book to be "...a very watered-down version" of what he intended it to be.

Another book, "Against the Grain: Biotechnology and the Corporate Takeover of Your Food," was dropped by its original publisher, Vital Health Publishing, after they received an intimidating letter from a lawyer at Monsanto Corporation, the St. Louis-based bioengineering giant. Monsanto's lawyer, who had not read the manuscript, believed that it was critical of an herbicide Monsanto manufactures called Roundup, and his letter made the Vital Health publisher fearful that despite the fact that the book would be published in Illinois, which doesn't have a food libel law, another state could sue him. Ultimately the book was published by Common Courage Press.

Floyd Abrams, a lawyer who is also an expert on First Amendment issues, said that media companies that cannot afford staggering legal fees feel threatened enough by these laws to not rock the boat.

"A lot of smaller publishers do not want to be sued," Abrams said. "They do not want to be part of some test case".

One very possible outcome of this silencing of the media is that the mainstream giants in the press, which often shy away from hard-hitting journalism for fear of alienating potential advertisers, will continue ignoring important questions that should be raised about food safety. Important investigative journalism, once a mainstay of the smaller media outlets, will continue to decline for fear of litigation.

The food disparagement laws, despite their probable unconstitutionality, have had a silencing effect on critical debate. As the author of the New York Times article pointed out, if these laws had been in place in the 1960s, Rachel Carson's seminal book about the dangers of pesticides, "Silent Spring," would have likely had difficulty finding a willing publisher.

Vegan Street will remain on top of this issue, as it is of utmost importance to us in the pure food movement. Please check back periodically for any new information.

There was a rather interesting article that appeared in the Chicago Tribune on May 22, regarding the gradual phasing out of many breeds of domesticated farm animals, as agribusiness giants concentrate only on those who produce the most product, whether in terms of meat, milk, or eggs. Since the 1940s, when American agricultural scientists began tinkering with nature in order to increase the bottom line, individual breeds began disappearing as "über" farm animals were refined or developed. At the end of the 20th century, we have only a small fraction of the diversity of cows, chickens, pigs and turkeys that we did 100 years ago.

What makes this an interesting topic is the question of whether we should try to strengthen these diminishing populations, when if they truly thrived they could ultimately face the same conditions as common "hot house" breeds do today. Certainly for those of us concerned with the welfare of animals and the environment, there is some resistance to want to build up the population of, say, Black Java chickens, so as to impose the same fate on them as we have their faster growing cousins. Better they never be born than live only to face the misery of a factory farm existence. How ironic that in this context, a person who loves animals could also be arguing for the extinction of them.

This is a sad realization for those of us who love animals, that one day many species and breeds may no longer exist, and that this could be the most humane end result since the our race has not shown a great capacity for living in harmony with other animals. At the same time, what a disappointing and shameful state of affairs it is that it would be preferable from a compassionate perspective for entire animal populations to die off than to have to share the planet with humans. How sad...

If you agree with this side of the argument, though, there is a possible bright spot in the big picture: letting the genetic diversity of the breeds die off with the individual animals themselves, if there is ever a new disease pathogen that invades the surviving breeds, there would be no others to replace them. It could possibly ring the death knell for our fast food society. It could mean no more factory farms. It could mean no more farm animals.

Is the scientific community finally catching on to veganism? For years and years, activists have been condemning the meat industry for a litany of frighteningly apparent reasons, and some of our grievances have grudgingly gained mainstream acceptance. For example, fifteen years ago there was barely any awareness of the health benefits of a meatless lifestyle, whereas now it is widely acknowledged as preferable to the conventional Western diet. As an adolescent vegetarian fifteen years ago, people would invariably ask where I was getting my protein when they learned of my diet; today, almost as invariably, people will volunteer, "Yeah, you know, it's really the best way," "I'm trying to cut back on meat myself," or "I've started drinking soy milk instead of cow's milk." Fifteen years is really a short time to have experienced this kind of shift in public awareness.

There is also a growing awareness of how "food" animals are treated on their journey to the plate or the fast food bag, although it's not been as quick a transformation as with health issues. It has been happening, though. Compared with my childhood, when McDonald's massive propaganda machine spun stories about cheerful hamburgers growing on trees, today, despite the best efforts of the fast food giants, there is a lot more information the mainstream public is exposed to regarding the horrific treatment of animals. There are a myriad of factors that have contributed to this heightened awareness, from the tireless activism of animal rights groups to the well-publicized trials of Oprah in Amarillo and the McLibel Two in Great Britain. The deluge of factory farms in this country has spurred media attention, and with it most Americans who previously hadn't had any exposure have now seen images of the endless rows of battery cages or sad-eyed veal calves in their oppressively small crates. Many who believed twenty years ago that most farm animals lived out their lives on rolling green pastures with a quaint red barn in the background have long since had that illusion shattered.

The third imprint that the corporate meat machine has stamped onto the American psyche, and one that may prove to galvanize even the least political of middle Americans, has been the violent environmental destruction that this grossly unsustainable industry has wreaked. Recently, a report was released by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) that puts meat consumption near the top of a list of activities and products that have an overtly negative effect on the environment. In fact, it appeared as number two, right behind automobiles, and as factory farms continue churning out disease and destruction, it is likely to rise in status.

To create the report, the UCS charted the impact that consumer spending tendencies have on four broad environmental concerns: global warming, air and water pollution and the alteration of natural habitats. The researchers of the UCS drew particular attention to the alarming rate of water pollution caused by manure run-off from the animal factory industry. Warren Leon, deputy director of the Massachusetts-based organization, said,

"The contamination to the nation's waterways from manure run-off is extremely serious. Twenty tons of manure are produced for every household in the country. We have strict laws governing the disposal of human waste, but the regulations are lax, or often nonexistent, for animal waste."

Also highlighted in the report is the disastrous effect that beef production has had on wildlife habitat, which is being stripped clear in order to develop huge cattle grazing ranges.

Additionally, since meat producers usually infiltrate rural, impoverished areas for their factories, most urban Americans don't have much exposure or daily contact with the air pollution that often plagues these towns, but anyone who has the misfortune of living near a large feedlot can attest to the highly noxious air quality. Through and through, this industry has cut a menacing swath through the American landscape, and in order to save our beautiful country, we must intensify our efforts toward exposing the hidden costs behind our fast food appetites. We must embrace, seek out and disseminate powerful information such as that which this report provides.

Before the UCS report was released, most vegan activists knew that this industry, in addition to its deplorable cruelty to animals and its deadly product, had a grim toll on the environment. As greedy corporate executives continue carving out their path of destruction, the rest of America is slowly beginning to get the message as well. We need be there to ask the vital questions, seek the unambiguous solutions and keep the momentum going.

We need to be there to keep the marauding clown and his cronies at bay. We need to be knowledgible, strong, defiant, passionate and committed.

We must never forget that we hold a fundamental solution to environmental ruin. We owe it to ourselves, each other, the animals and the earth to make our voices heard.

"...Our continuing goal is to provide consistent, high quality, branded products to an ever-expanding market of nutrition-conscious consumers."

--The first bit of disinformation one encounters on the Bil Mar Foods website, a division of Sara Lee.

In a disclosure that's certain not to send shockwaves through the vegan community, a USDA report confirms that the Bil Mar Foods processing plant was in "very poor sanitary condition" while parent company Sara Lee maintains that the metal slivers, plastic strips, and cockroaches found in and around meat products were just a normal part of the goings-on to be found at any food processor. The report, which was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, sheds some light on the nauseatingly routine offenses that took place at the Zeeland, MI plant. Bil Mar's Listeria-tainted meat products were responsible for 15 deaths, 6 miscarriages and about 100 non-lethal poisonings across the country.

In the 1,300 page report, inspectors made note of living and dead cockroaches in close proximity of Bil Mar ovens, old meat debris strewn across the floor, and the falsification of documents which were intended to indicate the areas which had been cleaned and inspected according to established guidelines. Though federal health investigators have not yet been able to locate the specific source of the Listeria outbreak within the plant, the documents, which were all recorded in 1998, describe a reckless, lackadaisical environment in which sanitation violations were occurring with a frightening frequency. Although USDA officials repeatedly castigated Bil Mar regarding the unsanitary conditions at the plant, they never shuttered the meat processing factory, and Sara Lee spokeswoman Theresa Herlevsen claimed that health inspectors commented at a public meeting that the plant was "clean and professionally run." The 15 million pounds of hot dogs and deli meat recalled in December of 1998, and the halted operations of Bil Mar Foods were voluntarily executed by Sara Lee.

One example of the consistent problems witnessed at Bil Mar was that of condensation dripping from pipes onto meat and equipment. Because this was a recurring problem that could lead to direct product contamination, USDA officials shut down the plant in November of 1997 until the dripping condensation was effectively addressed by the company. Despite a vow to "identify recurring sources and areas of condensation and take immediate corrective actions necessary to remedy the situation," last March inspectors once again observed condensation dripping from a refrigeration unit onto meat products rolling down a conveyor belt.

In another example that underscores the apparent lack of concern about public safety, on April 1 of 1998, a USDA inspector issued an internal memo that took Bil Mar managers to task after finding strips of clear plastic in meat products. In response, the managers claimed that the plastic was not a sanitary violation because it wasn't included in the USDA's specific definition of "adulterated" food. The USDA report also mentioned that inspectors had noticed stray bits of metal on conveyor belts several times, and had once discovered a meat core driller with jagged edges that were shedding slivers of metal into meat.

Despite the difficulty of narrowing in on one likely source when Bil Mar had racked up so many sanitation offenses, it has been widely reported that USDA health officials suspect that dust kicked up during the dismantling of a chronically leaky cooling unit carried and spread the Listeria contaminant. It may never be known whether or not this was the actual source.

All this is making us at Vegan Street realize that despite the good intentions of activists, the best vehicle for discouraging the consumption of animals comes from within the industry itself. Piece by piece, as more of this type of information leaks out into the mainstream by respected and conservative agencies such as the USDA, it builds a stronger case for the widespread adoption of a plant-based diet. Perhaps in our lifetime, the facts will be considered indisputable.

Meanwhile, enjoy a good chuckle the next time you overhear anyone saying that tofu is gross.

Helen Steel and Dave Morris in front of the flagship McDonald's store in downtown Chicago in September 1997

Another Partial Victory for the McLibel Two

In what would be the longest trial in English history, Dave Morris, 45, and Helen Steel, 33, challenged the suppressive and censorial effect libel laws have on individual citizens who criticize mammoth corporations. This landmark case, known as McLibel, brought worldwide attention to many surreptitious aspects of McDonald's Corp. business practices when these two impoverished London activists were sued under the aegis of libel laws for circulating a damning critique of the burger giant, titled "What’s Wrong With McDonald's". The judgment, handed down after the 314 day trial by Justice Bell on June 9, 1997, conceded that while McDonald's had been defamed by Morris and Steel, the leaflets they distributed were accurate on several key points, including misleading advertising, exploitation of children, animal cruelty and poor wages for British employees. Though this was embarrassing to McDonald's, especially after they spent an estimated $16 million on the case and the activists represented themselves against a phalanx of high-priced lawyers, they did not appeal the rulings that were unfavorable to them, stating that Justice Bell was, "Correct in his conclusions."

The McLibel Two, hoping to overturn the judgment, brought the case to the Court of Appeals on January 12, 1999, and the verdict was handed down on Wednesday, March 31. The three judges presiding over the case upheld much of the original ruling, but still chipped away at McDonald's credibility: they ruled that Morris and Steel were justified in claiming that frequent customers face a heightened risk of heart disease and that it was fair to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay and conditions". Also, the damages Morris and Steel were ordered to pay was reduced by a third, from about $92,700 to $61,300. Despite these victories, they upheld the original trial judge's ruling that the activists had defamed the company by their assertion that McDonald's products increase the risk of cancer, and the company contributes to deforestation and starvation in developing countries.

Undeterred and encouraged by the positive aspects of this most recent trial, the McLibel Two have vowed to bring their appeal to the House of Lords, Britain's highest court. They also said that they might take the British government to the European Court of Human Rights.

Steel said that the lack of a complete reversal of the verdict demonstrated that the British courts have failed to protect private individuals and public interest in favor of supporting corporations.

"There should be protection for the right to criticize rich and powerful organizations that have immense influence over people’s lives."

Morris added that although there was a vindication, "We've still got a job to do because the laws still remain in place that are effectively used as a form of censorship in this country."

For more on the McLibel campaign please check out their website, www.mclibel.org.

McDonald's Corp. Goes On Bloodthirsty Killing Spree With Introduction of New Burger

McDonald's Corp., already responsible for the torture and massacre of millions of cows, chickens and fish each year, is no longer able to content itself with factory farm casualties and is now setting its sites more aggressively on a different target: its legion of loyal customers. With the introduction of the new Mega Mac, McDonald's is making a bold, direct statement; finally and without mitigation, McDonald's is saying to its patrons: we want you dead.

Why else would McDonald's green light a burger with four patties,790 calories and 41 grams of fat? As executives at McDonald's have intensified their frontal attack on the fast food consuming public, the Big Mac, which was once McDonald's reigning cholesterol cocktail, looks positively emaciated and outdated in comparison, weighing in at a paltry 560 calories and 31 grams of fat. Never a corporation to let loyalty stand in the way of progress, McDonald's has steamrolled over the once-proud Big Mac to produce their latest and most devastating weapon, a culinary marvel of cholesterol, saturated fat and grease known as the Mega Mac.

Also introduced last week was the Junior Mac, a smaller version of the Big Mac designed to give kiddies something to chew on until their wastelines have stretched enough to tackle the real deal. Although the Junior Mac may sound puny at 320 calories and 15 grams of fat, when fries and a soda are factored in, it produces a meal well in excess of 500 calories. Plus, the Junior Mac helps kids make a smoother, quicker transition from regular hamburgers to Big Macs and beyond.

With everything shaping up for a collective, massive coronary, McDonald's executives are most certainly rubbing their hands together with villianous delight. Will Happy Meals become last suppers? Will people suddenly understand the motivation behind Ronald's murderous, blood-stained grin? Only time will tell...

In yet another remarkable example of offering unmitigated publicity in the place of unbiased journalism, a national furrier was given prime space in the Chicago Tribune to whine, rationalize and desperately deny the ruinous financial state facing pelt peddlers. It was a glorious sight to behold. Here's hoping that as more of these antediluvian enterprises crash and crumble to the ground, they will be allowed as unfettered an opportunity to publicly flounder and flail as Evans Inc. was in a March 20 article.

The piece appeared in the Tribune right on the heels of Andriana Furs going bankrupt at a second location in downtown Chicago. Evans Inc. CEO, Robert Meltzer, shown slump-shouldered and with a strained smile against a backdrop of fur coats, contends that Evans' financial woes, a crushing $6.1 million loss during the first nine months of their fiscal year, is due solely to Chicago's milder than normal winter. While most of December was warmer than usual, at the end of the month Chicagoans were hit with a massive blizzard and cold, blustery conditions that lasted through most of February, leaving potential customers plenty of incentive to purchase a coat. Somehow, despite the good fortune of disastrous weather, Evans, with stores in Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Texas, is still gasping for air in a sea of red. Meltzer, who maintains that Evans had a good spring, summer and fall, never explained how one unfavorable season could cost them over $6 million. Perhaps, a giddy but fiscally irresponsible executive decided to give every customer first-class, round-trip tickets to Marrakech along with $10,000 in spending money? I don't know. One would think that the success of the previous months would have helped Evans stem this current financial crisis, but somehow this isn't the case.

Predictably, an industry wonk was quoted, uttering the tired, empty platitude of: "The fur business has definitely come back" with nary an example or even rationale. One can just imagine his ashen skin and flat, cracking voice as he was forced to invoke yet another variation of those words while his boss was breathing down his neck. The fur industry is desperate: with merchandise tremendously discounted, they can still barely tread water. It's only a matter of time.

In a related story, Vegan Street joined other animal-rights activists to bid adieu to Andriana Furs as they closed their last remaining store on Chicago's tony Michigan Avenue. Though the event wasn't quite as festive as the last Andriana closing, it was still warm hearted and wonderful. We're looking forward to the bash we'll throw when the Magnificent Mile finally casts the rest of its fur stores on the dustheap of history.

An investigation of Bil Mar Foods, the meat-processing unit of Sara Lee Corp., has been initiated by a federal grand jury in Michigan following the recent listeria outbreak linked to the company that has killed 21 and sickened about 100 people nationwide. The investigation, revealed Friday, March 19, by a Sara Lee spokeswoman, is going on in addition to an intensified probe by the USDA. There is also a separate USDA inquiry into possible violations related to Bil Mar’s recall of meat products.

USDA spokeswoman Nancy Bartel said that although it was too early to draw conclusions, "Generally we open an investigation when it is perceived there is a violation of law." If the agency does find violations, investigators would most likely send a report to the U.S. Justice Department, which then determines whether to proceed with filing criminal charges and prosecution. Incidentally, Bil Mar is also being investigated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, though their findings won't be available for at least another two weeks. The suspicion so far is that the outbreak of listeriosis is linked to maintenance work done last summer on an air-conditioning unit that possibly spread dust onto meat-processing equipment.