linkie:
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/LeftyMom/65text:
First of all, there's already more than enough food out there to feed the world, so hunger charities that don't address underlying issues of dysfunction in distribution are band-aids on cancer.
Second, excluding the few areas (which outside of the industrial world tend to be sparsely populated) where a plant-based diet can't be supported by the local environment, encouraging further animal agriculture is not a responsible thing to do. Both human health and the health of the planet are negatively impacted by flesh-consuming diets. While Heifer does offer some seed and other more sustainable solutions, as their name suggests the focus is on animal agriculture, which is neither healthy nor sustainable.
Third, there is a certain racist and culturally imperialist element to this. First, in the selection of animals for food. One of Heifers gifts, as their name suggests, is that of a dairy cow. Now most of the world's people can not digest cow's milk- no surprise, no other animal consumes the milk of another so this behavior is an evolutionary oddity- and the ability to do so well is almost exclusively a mutation confined to Northern Europeans. However the attitude in the US and other places largely descended from people with that mutation is that this is a essential food for health of women and children. Science tells us that this is not the case, that it is in fact a potent allergen, and that the concentrated animal protein changes blood chemistry and leeches calcium deposits from the bones. Second, Heifer is a religious charity. Religious charities operating in the developing world aim to proselytize the poorest and least resistant populations, often with the implied (or outright stated in some cases, such as that of Mother Theresa's operation in Calcutta) suggestion that conversion is a requirement for aid or a way to get more help. As such, I'm extremely wary of religiously-motivated charities except in cases where their track record of respect for their beneficiaries is clearly established, as with Habitat for Humanity. Giving people a little food in exchange for changing a part of their culture seems like a poor trade.
I'd keep my money and time with more forward thinking organizations that have a greater focus on environmental responsibility and addressing the inequities in food distribution that cause hunger. Food Not Bombs is a good option, in my opinion. Here's a link to some other organizations addressing hunger without animal exploitation:
http://episcoveg.weblogger.com/2005/01/28?...PS As an aside, Heifer International is also a partner in junk science. They sponsored, together with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, a study intended to compare the healthfulness of animal and plant based diets in children. Their animal consuming population was first world children. The veg population? Third world children subsisting on very small quantities of rice and beans from hunger relief organizations. Needless to say, when you compare well fed children with access to health care to half-starved kids with none, the first world kids win out. NCBA and it's membership used this deeply and intentionally flawed study to promote an animal-based diet as the only healthy answer to child nutrition while Heifer uses it to promote the need for animal products in third world children's diets, and thus the need to donate to Heifer. I'm certainly not about to donate to an organization that colludes with industry in the creation of mutually advantageous junk science.
PPS Better analysis of problems with Heifer (and a few more examples of a disrespect for truth on their part) here:
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/heif... and here:
http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/heif...
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
