Author: ConsumerFreedom.com Headlines

California lawmakers are considering imposing a $1.5 billion “soda tax” on the economically beleaguered residents of that nearly bankrupt state. State Senator Dean Florez (D-Fresno) has proposed to tax sweetened drinks at the rate of a penny per teaspoon of sugar in an ill-guided attempt to control obesity rates. That would add an extra 9 to 10 cents to the average can of pop.

Florez claims his new tax would help address obesity-related health care problems that cost California $41 billion each year. Not surprisingly, “Twinkie Tax” activist Kelly Brownell lent his so-called expertise to this unfounded alarmism. At a November 2009 hearing attended by Florez, Brownell testified that science has established a definite link between obesity and sugar-sweetened beverages. Florez himself even bellowed that “I would like to end the Pepsi Generation.”

But as we’ve explained, there is no conclusive evidence supporting a link between soda consumption and obesity. In a statement yesterday denouncing the foolishness of the Florez soda tax that was picked up by several California newspapers, we noted, “It’s only the overconsumption of calories, whether from soda or other foods and drinks, that leads people to put on extra pounds.”

Politicians, though, are oblivious to the science. Their real motivation is to find another source of revenue to subsidize reckless government spending. What California needs isn’t “fat taxes,” but for its so-called leaders to go on a spending diet.

More and more companies are joining Starbucks in removing high fructose corn syrup from their ingredient lists. Thankfully, though, it’s not just us calling them out for embracing such a gimmicky marketing blitz. In its March issue, Consumer Reports takes this ploy to task, pointing out that high fructose corn syrup is nutritionally no different from cane or beet sugar:

[T]ossing high-fructose corn syrup off ingredient lists may well have more to do with marketing than science. A sweetener made from cornstarch processed with enzymes and acids, HFCS has roughly the same composition as cane sugar—about half glucose and half fructose—and the same number of calories. Concerns that it’s directly responsible for rising obesity rates or somehow intrinsically more fat-inducing than sugar are largely unfounded, though researchers continue to study whether the body handles HFCS differently.

We wouldn’t even say that concerns about high fructose corn syrup being responsible for obesity are “largely unfounded”—they’re totally unfounded. And the human body treats high fructose corn syrup in the same way as table sugar (sucrose).

We’re glad the word is getting around. Let’s hope marketing departments get the memo.

In case you missed it, we noted last week that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (an economic “stimulus” bill passed by Congress last year) includes hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to decrease the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages. New York (home of the self-anointed Big Apple food police) will receive $259,931 to “reduce consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages.” And $1,198,785 is earmarked for Colorado to, among other things, reduce soft drink consumption. In other words, the federal government is using taxpayer dollars to tell taxpayers what not to buy. (Clearly, this is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.)

It’s hard to see how this part of the “recovery” plan helps regular Americans get healthier. For one, sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is not associated with youth weight gain, according to a growing body of academic research. There are also serious doubts about the reliability of contradictory research supposedly proving a “link” between soft drink consumption and obesity. So reducing consumption isn’t likely to have positive health effects.

These “recovery” grants may simply be a new food-police approach to the familiar goals of unpopular soft drink taxes— the supposed “solution” to the soda “crisis.” Both Colorado and New York are considering similar taxes. (One plan just squeaked through the Centennial State’s legislature.) Both have drawn severe criticism—including a protest at an Empire State bottling plant—on the basis that the taxes will cost jobs by shrinking businesses. One estimate puts the job loss at up to 800 in Colorado alone.

Federal government grants could have the same effect on employment if they were to actually succeed in their goal to reduce soft drink consumption. It’s hard to see how job loss fits into the feds’ plan for economic “stimulus.” Maybe the grants are just a way to help diet dictators “recover” from bingeing on heavy-handed naysaying—and stay gainfully employed.

We’re full speed ahead with the official launch this morning of HumaneWatch, our collaborative watchdog project that aims to shine some much-needed sunlight on the deceptive “Humane Society” of the United States (HSUS). HumaneWatch will also serve as a public archive for information about HSUS, its staff, and the dozens of related organizations that make up its “humane” universe.

But don’t charities already have watchdogs? Sure—but as we’re telling TownHall.com readers today, other charity oversight groups don’t dig much past the financial statements. We’re offering a deeper analysis.

Feel free to look at HSUS’s tax returns back to 1995 (more are coming soon for other groups). Read why a local humane society is changing its name.  Take a walk down memory lane with the “early years” of HSUS higher-ups—like vegan activist Paul Shapiro’s 1999 protest on the roof of a fast food restaurant (Shapiro is now a senior staffer at HSUS).

This is a marathon, not a sprint. HumaneWatch will be around for a long time, but we need your help. You can help us build our HSUS-related library by sending us old documents—tax returns, magazines, fundraising letters—relating to HSUS or one of its many affiliates. And you can also be another pair of eyes; tell us if we miss anything. Together, we’ll be a team of gumshoes.

So don’t delay—head over to HumaneWatch and have a look. And drop us a line with tips, suggestions, or complaints. (Yes, Wayne. That means you.)

In a February 12 New York Times article, food writer Mark Bittman cites our Senior Research Analyst on the foolishness of soda taxes in America’s obesity battles. Predictably, “Twinkie Tax” proponent Kelly Brownell argues that “healthy food is too expensive and unhealthy food is too cheap.” A soda tax, claims Brownell, will discourage excessive consumption and help reduce obesity. Kudos to the Times for giving us a crack at busting Brownell’s mythology.

Calories are calories, we told Bittman, no matter where they come from:

Soda has calories, and food with calories causes people to put on weight when consumed in excess…But there is no unique link between soda and obesity.

Leaving aside the argument over governments’ right to dictate personal choices, taxing sodas is not likely to reduce obesity. The main driver of high obesity rates is a lack of physical activity. As long as people don’t get enough exercise, excess calories – no matter what the source – will keep Americans putting on extra pounds.

We’re at T-minus just a few hours before the official launch of the new HumaneWatch.org, a growing central hub for information—past, present, and future—about the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). It would be fun to be a fly on Wayne Pacelle’s wall during the coming weeks, since his recent over-the-top, ridiculous attacks on us indicate that he’s sweating a bit. If Pacelle is concerned that HumaneWatch will give the public (including countless HSUS donors) an accurate picture of just what HSUS is, and what it isn’t, we can’t argue with him.

We’re excited about this new project, and we hope you are too. As soon as we’ve officially launched, we’ll let you know.

With the announcement this week of First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-childhood obesity initiative, there are some noble intentions. But there’s also more to it, like the disturbing trend of the federal government and national politicians overreaching in pursuit of “preventive health” goals. President Obama said in September that a national tax on soda was an idea worth “exploring.”  The national “recovery” package passed by Congress includes hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to decrease the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages in Colorado and New York. (In other words, the government is using taxpayer dollars to tell taxpayers not to buy soft drinks.) And this week, The New York Times reports that upcoming administration-backed legislation will seek to ban candy and sugary drinks in schools.

While it seems like CSPI has set up camp at the White House, not everything is lost. Today at The Daily Caller, we explain the good, bad, and the ugly about the administration’s new obesity initiatives:

Banning candy and snacks on school grounds tends to create an atmosphere of “prohibition.” Kids understand forbidden fruit. There are U.S. schools today where black markets provide children with contraband yummies when they get tired of skim milk, carrots, and celery. Snack food “speak easies” have literally sprung up to serve brownies and chips. An Austin American-Statesman reporter toured the hallways of Austin High School following a snack food ban. The scene, he wrote, was “Willy-Wonka-meets-Casablanca.”…

To be fair, not everything in the first lady’s obesity campaign is stale and doomed to fail. She’s right to emphasize the need for kids to get physical activity (the other, less controversial half of the “obesity equation”). In its “Shape of the Nation Report,” the National Association for Sport and Physical Education finds that only eight percent of elementary schools and six percent of middle and high schools require daily phys-ed class. And the percentage of students participating daily dropped from 42 percent in 1991, to just 28 percent in 2003.

By now, you’ve probably heard about the new White House initiative to combat childhood obesity, spearheaded by First Lady Michelle Obama. It’s a noble goal. In anticipation of this announcement, Forbes columnist and American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Karlyn Bowman took a look on Monday at where the public stands regarding obesity, and found that Americans overwhelmingly support personal responsibility:

People see personal responsibility as key. In the CBS poll, 89% said obesity can mostly be controlled with diet and exercise, while 7% said it is out of our hands. This emphasis may be one reason Americans are not enthusiastic about new taxes on unhealthful behaviors.

In a Harris Interactive/Tax Foundation online poll from early 2009 on general tax attitudes, 36% favored a tax on sugary drinks, while 58% were opposed to it. Twenty-three percent favored a tax on foods with salt (71% were opposed), and 39% for junk food in general (56% opposed). On all three items, the opposition was strong: Of the 58% who were opposed to the tax on sugary drinks, for example, 41% were strongly opposed….

Other recent surveys have tied these taxes to health care reform costs, and this impacts the numbers. In an April 2009 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, 52% favored increasing taxes on unhealthy snack foods to "help pay for health care reform and provide coverage for more of the uninsured," but a strong 46% were opposed.

The ending serves as a warning that Americans are more willing to support taxes on “bad” foods if they’re couched as “helping” health care reform. And while the Los Angeles Times reported last week that soft drink taxes are dead federally, soft drink tax crusader Kelly Brownell brags that “We’re getting contacted by a new city or state almost every day who are seriously thinking about the idea of a tax.”

The political pendulum is certainly swinging. But with the vast majority of Americans believing in personal responsibility when it comes to weight control, the ploys of self-anointed “food police” who practice social engineering via the tax code face an uphill battle.

As Washington, DC deals with Phase II of the 2010 Snowpocalypse, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) president Wayne Pacelle has been showing his own icy, nasty side. And as some HSUS members get familiar with what we have to say, they’re telling us that Wayne’s shrill, desperate tone says volumes about him—more, in fact, than anything we could ever write.

Since HSUS claims to represent “millions” of Americans, we expected to get (at least) a few thousand angry e-mails. But of the roughly 200 people who shared their feelings with us, most of them were positive about our efforts to keep HSUS honest. Here’s a sampling.

Positive:

• Rob: “The humane society’s attacks make them look weaker. Regardless of where one stands on these issues, they are doing a disservice to their organization and the importance that these issues demand.”
• Andrew: “If what you say is true, you’re doing me a favor by causing HSUS to change course, or be replaced by an honest player.”
• Sharon: “Keep up the good work exposing HSUS for what it is, a political organization with an anti-pet agenda.”
• Nancy: “You guys are my heroes! Keep up the good work exposing HSUS for what they are. No friend of animals.”
• Mike: “Congratulations!  You made the naughty list.”
• Cherie: “I’ll do what I can to help animals and stop human abuse, but I think Wayne Pacelle is off his rocker.”
• Jeff: “Thank you for taking on the Humane Society of the US & PETA”
• Connie: “You hit a nerve. Good for you!”
• Cindy: “I really hope HSUS has helped the animals more than themselves. But I really don’t know. Thanks for explaining what you’re seeing.”

Negative:

• Maria: “You SUCK!!!!!"
• Staci: “I hope you all choke on a chicken bone!!!!”
• Jeff: “Someday everyone will be vegan and then U will be sorry!!!”

In addition, one reader forwarded us an e-mail she sent to Wayne Pacelle. It reads as follows:

Dear Wayne,  

In regards to your following request:

Will you make a special gift today and show CCF that those who care about animals won’t back down?  Also, as we allow from time to time, the donor who raises the most in this campaign gets naming rights to one of our animals at the Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch.

I’ll be sending my special $5,000.00 gift to CCF today.  I’ll get to name an entire dozen of hatching eggs!  Isn’t that wonderful?

I’m more than happy to contribute and I thank you for bringing this very important issue and CCF’s vital work for animals to my attention!

Best regards,

Linda 

Thanks, Linda! Your contribution will go toward educating more Americans about the Humane Society of the United States.

If you’re on any of the many e-mail lists maintained by the Humane Society of the United States, you probably saw a desperate plea for money last night from HSUS president Wayne Pacelle. There’s nothing unusual about that — HSUS sits up and begs for dollars countless times each year. But what made this piece unusual was that it consisted almost entirely of ridiculous attacks on the Center for Consumer Freedom. Go ahead and look. We want you to read it. It’s one of the best examples we’ve seen of the kind of scorched-earth politics this so-called "humane society" practices.

But don’t feel bad for us. Frankly, we’re flattered that Wayne and his $100 million-per-year operation, with a $162 million balance sheet, nearly $38 million in annual salaries, and over $2.5 million in pension funds socked away (in one year alone), with 30 lawyers on its payroll — we could go on but you get the picture — are spending their time attacking us.

Our entire annual budget is less than what Wayne’s HSUS puts into pension funding! (Read that again.)

Make no mistake: This is a David -vs- Goliath story, and we’re the ones with a pocket full of pebbles.

Is HSUS’s leader getting nervous about our little research outfit? Is he concerned that we’ve figured out how (according to a national survey) Wayne has convinced Americans that HSUS uses most of their contributions to rescue and shelter stray and unwanted dogs and cats — while it actually gives less than one-half of one percent of its budget to hands-on pet shelters? (That’s according to documents HSUS itself files with the IRS.)

Is Wayne worried that we might tell HSUS donors how much of their "$19 a month" (from the group’s ubiquitous TV ads) never reaches pet shelters — the hard-working organizations that actually do the heavy lifting to protect the cats and dogs in those weepy commercials?

It could be that Wayne Pacelle is upset because we participated in an Atlanta ABC television news story last year, which exposed how much of his organization’s money is diverted away from pet sheltering. Or maybe it’s because we surfaced a story about how the Louisiana Attorney General investigated HSUS after it collected more than $34 million by using the Hurricane Katrina disaster as a fundraising gimmick

Perhaps — just perhaps — the fat cats at our nation’s sorry excuse for a national "humane society" are just upset because someone has realized that self-proclaimed watchdogs need to be watched themselves.

Stay tuned. Visit www.HumaneWatch.org throughout the week. And keep an open mind.

The food scolds at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) have long had bones to pick with — well, seemingly everything that tastes good, from movie theater popcorn to fettuccine alfredo. One of CSPI’s best-known ongoing campaigns, along with trying to replace “yummy” with “food porn," has been to demonize soft drinks, which the group calls “liquid candy” in the hope that governments will tax them. Today, Consumer Affairs reports that CSPI has taken its extreme self-righteousness to new levels, attacking a soft drink maker for reducing the portion sizes of its drinks, and thus “charging more money for less product.”

Putting aside the issue of marginal cost economics for beverages (the reason a 20 oz. coffee doesn’t cost twice as much as a 10 oz. coffee), it’s hard to see why CSPI is complaining. In fact, CSPI has often grumbled about large portion sizes. On its Nutrition Policy website, CSPI blames large portions as one reason why it’s “hard to eat well”:

[S]oft drink portion sizes have greatly increased.  In the 1950s, a bottle of Coke was 6 ½ ounces. Now, it’s most commonly 20 ounces…

CSPI, if anything, should be issuing a congratulatory press release to soda companies for actually listening to its complaints. But that praise, apparently, is only for companies that sell boiled kale, navy beans, and butternut squash. Even Kelly “Big Brother” Brownell, no fan of soft drink makers, wasn’t negative on this portion reduction: “In principle, it’s good to offer smaller servings.”

There’s little doubt that CSPI, which sees endless value in heavy-handed regulations, feels threatened by proactive, self-regulatory approaches that don’t include their own brand of culinary handcuffs. Could this latest food tantrum indicate a Marion Nestle–inspired anti-capitalist streak at CSPI? Perhaps it’s just a reminder that you can’t spell “hypocrisy” without C-S-P-I.

It’s a new week, and the uproar over a new corporate “partner” of the deceptive Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) still hasn’t cooled off. If you missed the scandal last week, the company that produces Yellow Tail brand wines announced that it pledged $100,000 to HSUS. Big mistake.

The tumult over this news quickly turned into a social media firestorm. Twitter messages were coming in at lightning speed. Yellow Tail’s Facebook wall received thousands of complaints from farmers, hunters, and other consumers whose ways of life are threatened by HSUS’s animal rights activism—not to mention all the wine that was poured down the drain or on the ground.

The Facebook group “Yellow Fail” has quickly gathered more than 1,300 fans. (That’s roughly the same number of fans that one “official” Yellow Tail wine group had before the chardonnay hit the fan.) Here are some samples of what people are posting on Yellow Tail’s Facebook wall:

“I think the best course of action for all of us may be to contact your local grocery store and inform them of your decision to stop purchasing Yellow Tail wines.”

“My fiancé and I (both veterinarians) will no longer buy Yellow Tail due to your affiliation with HSUS. There are multiple organizations–especially local shelters–that use their money much more wisely and with much less greed and political agenda.”

“Add another lost customer to your list. My wife loves your wine but will never buy another bottle as long as you support HSUS.”

There are too many like this for us to list.

In the middle of this mini-revolt, the company wrote in a statement (see the “News” section), “we feel that The Humane Society of the U.S.’s initiative to help animals in danger through their noble Animal Rescue Team is an ideal mission to support.”

But it’s hard to see that there’s any guarantee that Yellow Tail’s $100,000 will actually be spent by HSUS on its Animal Rescue Team. It could easily go to bankroll the next lawsuit or ad campaign against honest Americans. Once the six-figure grant leaves Yellow Tail’s bank account, the vintner’s good intentions can’t control where the money goes. Consider that only half of one percent of HSUS’s 2008 budget consisted of grants to hands-on pet shelters. And HSUS’s international relief efforts are already tainted by scandal. (See also this Atlanta WSB-TV exposé for more details about where HSUS money goes.)

We certainly couldn’t fault Yellow Tail’s executives if they, like many other Americans, were fooled by HSUS’s deceptive marketing. But now that the facts are clear, we hope they will reconsider their association with HSUS and send the money to a real animal welfare group. Apparently, wine drinkers are not a subtle bunch. And they’re tired of being corked around.

This may be a tipping point; every other potential or current corporate sponsor of HSUS (and the group’ celebrity endorsers) should take note. There’s a large-scale “public education” campaign about HSUS forming.  And we’re adding to the mix with our launch this week of the new HumaneWatch project, which will grow into a robust central hub of information about HSUS. Hopefully the next “Yellow Fail” can be averted before it even happens. As for current mistakes, it’s never too late to make amends.

Another organization has caved to PETA pressure because of a mistaken belief that the radical group really cares about animals. The Neumann University Alumni Association says it will stop distributing discounted tickets to the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus in response to PETA’s latest protest. The alumni association was offering discounted admission to the February 27 show in Philadelphia.

In a February 1 letter, PETA said Neumann University (a Franciscan-affiliated school) would betray its Catholic values by continuing to support the event. (We wonder where PETA’s concern for values is when it mixes naked women and religious imagery.) As happens all too often, university officials cried “uncle” without looking carefully at PETA’s credibility. And the truth is out there: For puppies and kittens, PETA is the proverbial Grim Reaper.

This so-called animal “rights” group killed 95 percent of the pets in its care in 2008, according to records PETA itself filed with the Virginia state government. Out of the 2,216 animals PETA took during 2008, it managed to find homes for a mere seven animals – despite an annual budget of $32 million.

What’s the reason for PETA’s hypocrisy? Money. It’s easier and cheaper to run media campaigns berating circuses than to actually roll up a sleeve or two and save cats and dogs. The last thing PETA wants to do is actually take care of animals. That’s expensive. (But it’s also “ethical.”)

PETA will, however, use advertising dollars to shamelessly exploit human tragedy. In Great Britain, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) just banned PETA from displaying an ad with a photograph of a baby killer. PETA was trying to link animal abuse with infanticide.

Thankfully, more and more people are catching on to PETA’s hypocrisy and rejecting its message. Just look at these 14-year-girls in Punxsutawney on Tuesday. For all the effort PETA spends targeting kids, it may be all for naught.

Trade wars? Catfish? Vietnam? These are all things we don’t normally talk about, but today they all meet. Trust us. It’s interesting. The domestic catfish industry (largely located along the Mississippi Delta) is trying to put up new obstacles to its Vietnamese competitors by lobbying the U.S. Department of Agriculture to classify a popular imported fish—called pangasius—as “catfish.” The catch? The same producers fought hard to keep this Vietnamese fish from being called “catfish” for many years.

So why the change of heart?

The history begins with the 2002 federal Farm Bill, when the U.S. catfish industry explicitly demanded a prohibition on the Vietnamese pangasius from being marketed in America as “catfish.” (Catfish and pangasius are taxonomically as closely related as humans and baboons, but that’s about it.) Consumers, the thinking went, would be less willing to buy something with an odd-sounding name from Vietnam. So the U.S. should be protectionist, and jealously guard the “catfish” label.

On top of that, as The Wall Street Journal notes, the industry successfully petitioned the feds to impose “antidumping” tariffs. But despite these barriers, Vietnamese pangasius has taken off like a rocket here at home, with imports growing from $10.7 million in 2000 to $77 million in 2008.

Recognizing this, the U.S. catfish industry now has another scheme. The 2008 Farm Bill shifted the regulatory inspection of catfish from the FDA to the USDA. (The USDA inspects beef and poultry but has no experience with seafood.) This is a seemingly odd move by the catfish industry—until you consider that they now want pangasius to be deemed “catfish” so that the Vietnamese exporters will have to abide by a whole new set of regulatory hurdles over at USDA.

Of course, there’s nothing wrong with FDA’s Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspection system that currently oversees pangasius imports. And there are no serious concerns about the safety of Vietnamese pangasius. It’s all good fish.

This bait-and-switch would make it harder for foreign fisheries to compete with American fish farmers. Requiring Vietnamese producers to submit to USDA inspections would effectively halt U.S. pangasius imports for several years—giving our domestic catfish industry a captive market. And prices? American consumers would get the short end of the stick, seeing a source of safe, inexpensive seafood disappear and finding fewer choices in the supermarket.

The name change would hurt production jobs in Vietnam, where pangasius now comprises 55 percent of fish production. It would also cost fish processing jobs here in the U.S. And the foreign-trade blowback would likely hurt American exporters in other industries as well. (Vietnam is a big importer of U.S. soy and beef, but that could change if the U.S. catfish industry successfully boxes out its foreign competition.)

A draft recommendation circulated at the USDA reportedly endorses the name switch. But a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators has sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack expressing their concern, and noting that the name change would be a “de facto ban on exports from key trading partners.” Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank has also barked his concerns to the USDA.

Will this fishy protectionism scheme stand? Or will it get filleted? Stay tuned. We’re watching.

We almost missed this important opinion piece, coming from Down Under. Anaesthetist Michael Keene, adapting his American Journal of Bioethics article for The Australian, eviscerates the philosophy behind Kelly “Big Brother” Brownell and the other food cops:

In a recent article in The New England Journal of Medicine, a group of academics attempted to justify a public health-inspired tax on soft drinks. Within medical academe the ideological pendulum seems to be returning towards that of paternalism (the informed doctor taking responsibility for the uninformed citizen). Thus the authors argued that people couldn’t make a free choice to purchase a soft drink because most of the population doesn’t have the capacity to understand what it is doing. This necessitates the extraordinary premise that people have no realisation that consuming junk food in excess might be bad for their health …

But it is a bedrock legal and societal principle that we consider differently those who cause harm to others and those who make choices that harm themselves. Crucially, there is a real possibility that taking action against harmful consumption under a public health imperative may end up causing more overall harm.

The public health view tends to promulgate a culture of abrogation of personal responsibility. "I drove when I was drunk because of my alcohol disease; society failed me." Thus, even if increased regulation does not cause a major impediment to people’s freedom, failure to address the relevant complex societal, philosophical and ideological questions may prohibit a more effective resolution to the problem.

Think Groundhog Day is safe from the wingnut antics of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)? Think again. PETA has sent a letter to the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club, requesting that the beloved Phil be replaced with an animatronic robot groundhog. The club notes that Phil is the most pampered groundhog in the world, but PETA never lets reality get in the way of its ideology.

Today, we’re pushing back against PETA and its like-minded allies, such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). As we detail for readers of Pennsylvania’s Bucks County Courier Times, PETA’s theatrics often distract America’s attention from the more insidious, long-term threats of the faux “Humane Society” and other groups:

Like most activists looking to fundamentally change our societal values, animal rights agitators rely on an incremental approach, patiently moving the chains and racking up First Downs. It will take time. But not to worry: In 2008 HSUS took $2.5 million in public contributions, dollars donated to help care for cats and dogs, and socked them away in their executives’ pension plan.

This happens every year, but no one has ever seen a TV commercial raising money for lucrative HSUS pensions.

HSUS can take its time because its leaders are in no rush to leave their well-paid employment. So while PETA’s media stunts make headlines, it’s these quiet recruiters, ideological regulators, enterprising legal theorists, and overpaid figureheads who stand to do the most damage.

 Read the whole piece here, and share it with a friend.

There’s no denying it: The gargantuan Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is now the animal rights industry’s richest and most powerful player. HSUS is exercising its prohibition-minded influence in every corner of America, over everything from the pets in our homes to the eggs on our plates. HSUS pursues a PETA-like agenda with a budget and seriousness that PETA itself has never been able to match.

Ohio provides a timely example. Last November, Ohio voters voted overwhelmingly (with 63% “yes” votes) to amend the State Constitution by creating a Livestock Care Standards Board. All issues of “animal care and well-being” in the Buckeye State are now entrusted to this Board. But that presents a problem for HSUS, which would rather abolish livestock farming than see it responsibly regulated.

As we predicted back in September—before “Issue 2” even got a vote—HSUS is now moving to supersede the judgment of Ohio’s livestock authorities with its own ballot initiative. Today HSUS officially put the wheels in motion. If this counter-attack succeeds, the Livestock Care Standards Board will be required to adopt HSUS-recommended standards, whether or not they are in the best interests of animals.

Next week we will re-launch HumaneWatch.org, and you are cordially invited to lend a hand as it grows. HumaneWatch will be a blog, a document library, a rogues’ gallery, a historical resource, and more. Our Director of Research will be sharing what we know, and inviting you to do the same. No topic will be off-limits, and your comments will be welcome. (Yes, Mr. Pacelle. Even yours.)

So today we’re putting out the call: If you have anything in your files or on your computer that concerns the Humane Society of the United States (no matter how insignificant it may seem to you), we would like to see it. Most of what is known about HSUS is squirreled away in filing cabinets, or lost to history but for the memories of a few persistent Americans. But that’s about to change.

We want fundraising mailers (including forwarded e-mails), old tax returns, advertisements, magazine back-issues, correspondence, legal papers, photos, contemporaneous accounts of historical events—you name it. Anything related to HSUS or any of its many subsidiary groups.

We’ve set up two easy “drop boxes” so you can start flooding us with anything you want to share. Anonymous submissions are welcome (we will take pains to authenticate everything before using it). We promise to protect your privacy.

You can e-mail information about HSUS to [email protected] (a robustly virus-protected address), or send postal mail to “HumaneWatch,” P.O. Box 34555, Washington DC 20043.

Materials sent to the P.O. Box will not be returned, so please only send copies of anything you’d like to keep. If you have large archives to share, please drop us an e-mail for a discussion of how we can take it off your hands at no cost to you.

We’ll let you know when the new website goes live. In the meantime, please gear up to help us ask some tough questions, and provide some answers.

Because even a dog-watcher needs a watchdog.

Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has become the latest pol to jump on the soda tax bandwagon in the wrongheaded belief that kicking the fizz habit will make everyone skinnier. If Patrick’s proposal to eliminate the sales-tax exemption for soda and candy were to become law, Bay State consumers would have to fork over an additional $52 million annually. And for what?

Patrick claims soda makes kids fat. In a policy brief, he argues that “childhood obesity is a critical public health crisis” and ending the tax exemption is “a critical first step.” But science tells a different story. As we’ve reported, there is no evidence definitively linking the consumption of soft drinks with obesity. Patrick, along with New York Governor David Paterson (who recently proposed a soda tax), should actually review the ongoing scientific debate on the issue before needlessly punishing taxpayers with new demands.

This week, the New England Journal of Medicine published several letters from medical doctors who criticize Kelly Brownell for advocating soda taxes on obesity-policy grounds. In an October NEJM article, the veteran “Twinkie Tax” proponent cites four long-term studies that allegedly support a link between soft drinks and childhood pudginess. But the dissenting doctors point out that the studies failto prove any such thing.

For instance, Brownell cites a Brazilian study of 1,140 kids ages 9 to 12. It actually found that a program to discourage children from drinking sugary drinks actually had no effect on overall body weight. Likewise, a Boston study of 103 high school students who were asked to switch to diet drinks for 25 weeks (also cited by Brownell) didn’t lose weight compared to those students who drank regular sodas.

The essential failure of these trials should give us pause. Before assigning blame for the obesity epidemic, we should have clinical evidence that an intervention to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages is effective in achieving this goal.

Dr. Michael Rinaldi of the Sanger Heart and Vascular Institute says Brownell is unfairly singling out soft drinks since there are many behavioral choices that impose costs on society. “All high-caloric foods can be tied to obesity,” says Rinaldi. He adds that it really doesn’t make sense to limit taxes to only food. You might as well start taxing high-risk activities such as “gun and motorcycle ownership” or sedentary lifestyles.

There are other compelling scientific questions being asked about the supposed obesity-soda link. We suspect, though, that Governors Patrick and Paterson really don’t care about the science. They’re just looking for the flimsiest of excuses to subsidize their own bad behavior: excessive spending.

You might remember the 2004 animal-rights attack on a University of Iowa animal laboratory, carried out by the terrorist Animal Liberation Front (ALF). Here’s the scene: 55-gallon drums filled with acid-soaked research documents, 401 “liberated” laboratory animals, the continuous harassment of researchers, and a warning to “stop or be stopped.” So what does a former PETA lawyer who works for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) have to do with this? That’s likely the question a prosecutor has for HSUS attorney Leana Stormont, who was subpoenaed Monday to testify before a federal grand jury about the raid.

Who exactly is Leana Stormont? The former animal control worker graduated from the University of Iowa Law School, and went on to become the Midwest Coordinator of Stop Animal Exploitation Now, a group that (according to the Los Angeles Times) provides research to the rest of the animal rights industry — including HSUS and the misnamed Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine — with suggestions about who’s ripe for targeting.

While enrolled at the U. of I., Stormont helped lead the Iowa Law Student Animal Defense Fund. She was a third-year law student when the ALF lab attack occurred. About two months afterward, Stormont’s group hosted animal rights radical Steven Best, who spoke in defense of the ALF terrorists, saying he’d sacrifice the life of a stranger to save his dog.

Best was a co-founder of the North American Animal Liberation Press Office and has been listed as a “press officer” for the ALF alongside the murder-endorsing Jerry Vlasak. Despite this shady résumé, Stormont writes that Best is “a courageous and provocative thinker.”

Stormont hasn’t just hosted radical speakers for her student group. She herself opined in 2005 on the use of violence and attempted to justify it, passing the blame off to others:

[Medical research labs], loggers, factory farmers and members of our own government are terrorizing the Earth and its nonhuman animal inhabitants. If these people did a better job of safeguarding our world, groups like the Animal Liberation Front and the Earth Liberation Front would be less inclined to take the law into their own hands.

Get that? It’s not terrorists’ fault for engaging in terrorism. Scientists, loggers and farmers made them do it. “I suspect that groups like ALF and ELF would love nothing more than to refrain from engaging in illegal activity,” Stormont writes. Right.

After law school, Stormont was admitted to the Virginia Bar in 2005 and worked as a PETA legal counsel. Eventually, she moved to HSUS’s immense legal staff; she led a 2008 lawsuit against an egg producers’ trade association, and currently identifies herself as an HSUS attorney. (We placed a call today to HSUS’s legal department and confirmed her status.)

HSUS sure knows how to pick ‘em.

Stormont isn’t even the first full-blown radical to wind up on HSUS’s senior payroll. HSUS still employs former ALF spokesman John “J.P.” Goodwin, who has described his goal as “the abolition of all animal agriculture,” racking up a hefty arrest record along the way.

HSUS responds to our criticism by claiming that Goodwin has “renounced” the activity of his “youth.” (Interestingly, the fur industry has documented Goodwin’s employment history, establishing that HSUS hired him long before he stopped making statements on the ALF’s behalf.) Regardless, a Paul of Tarsus-like conversion story makes for a convenient argument—likely one that parole boards hear from convicts every day. We wonder if HSUS will whistle the same happy tune about Stormont.

We should underline here that having ties with someone claiming ties with ALF doesn’t make Stormont guilty of any crime. And she hasn’t been charged with anything. (Yet.) But her conversation with the grand jury should be telling, assuming she testifies.

One man has already been indicted under the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act in connection with the University of Iowa attack, another woman is in jail for refusing to testify, and (according to the indictment) additional suspects may still be indentified.

We’ll be tracking these developments closely. But in the mean-time, enterprising young attorneys who are considering hopping aboard the HSUS train may want to think twice. You can never be too careful.

We told you last week about some serious issues we had with the Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) latest fundraising drive, which is raising money in the wake of the devastating Haiti earthquake. Today, new concerns come from a disaster expert with Humane Society International (HSI), the global arm of HSUS itself. Lloyd Brown from Wildlife Rescue of Dade County deployed with HSI to Haiti, and tells The Horse magazine that his team has determined nothing can be done at the moment to help animals there:

Our team has been doing assessments for several days now and it is our professional opinion that no animal issues are here that are related to the event of the earthquake. There are a lot of animal issues here, but after speaking with a local American expatriate veterinarian here (who is very well connected in this country) we must agree with her that now is not the time to deal with them.

Let me give you an example: If we were to set up a spay/neuter clinic while so many people are displaced and homeless, it could be disastrous–they don’t understand neutering here. People are hungry, they have no homes, they have no shelter, they are sleeping in the streets. They don’t understand the concept of a PET, they are an agricultural community–animals are for work or to sell food or to help them feed their families.

So let’s recap: A large proportion of the livestock and pet populations in Haiti was reportedly ravaged following strong storms in 2008. Another Haiti observer reports that he didn’t notice any stray cats just six days before the quake. And now, a disaster relief expert with an HSUS-affiliated organization says none of the animal issues that do exist are even related to the earthquake.

Looks like the growing concern that HSUS is raising money to help “animals which don’t seem to exist” is dead-on. But you’d never get that from HSUS’s urgent fundraising appeal pleading for an “emergency donation.” On its own website, just yesterday, HSUS wrote that “Humane Society International’s team on the ground in Haiti continues its work of helping animals in distress.”

Those would be the animals Brown says are either nonexistent or beyond HSI’s ability to help.

We’re calling on HSUS to stop its Haiti fundraising drive, do an immediate public accounting, and give back all of the money that isn’t earmarked solely for Haiti operations. If there’s nothing to do in Haiti with its money haul, who’s to say HSUS won’t funnel the cash elsewhere in its organization—to support a bloated staff of 30 lawyers, PETA-inspired campaigns and litigation, and money counters, perhaps? Now is the time for fundraising transparency—something HSUS has lacked in the past.