Letter to Chocolate Company Backing Chimp Haven
Dear Wayne Zink,
We see the Endangered Species chocolate bars in the store with attractive wrapper promising “10% of the net profits donated to support endangered species, habitat and humanity” and, like many other chocolate lovers, assume a portion of the money we spend will go to help the free-living animals beautifully illustrated on each candy bar. So it was with great alarm and dismay that we read in the New York Times story “No Golden Ticket, but More Than Candy” (7 Jan. 2007) that Endangered Species Chocolate has promised to donate at least $25,000 to Chimp Haven, a government-funded holding facility for chimpanzees who can be used in federal laboratories.
Enclosed is an excerpt from an article by Lee Hall, legal director for Friends of Animals. “Chimp Haven: What’s the Story?,” explains the role of Chimp Haven as a holding area for the National Institutes of Health pursuant to the CHIMP Act, signed by President Clinton in 2000. Chimp Haven, with its substantial government funding, competes with true sanctuaries that depend solely on private funding — sanctuaries far more deserving of donations, be they over $25,000 or under $25.
As a vegan organization, we at Friends of Animals appreciate that Endangered Species Chocolate offers vegan certified dark chocolate, but of course we also oppose the company’s use of dairy. Far from upholding your expressed core value of Reverence for Life, dairy means the commodification of cows who are forced to endure continual impregnation and separation from their young, half of whom are sold into the veal industry. Eventually, it’s likely that every one of these “happy” cows will wind up slaughtered for commercial gain.
Furthermore, scientists have implicated dairy as a significant contributor to global warming. Dairy cows are one of the largest sources of methane — which, according to United Nations reports, accounts for a substantial portion of relevant greenhouse gas emissions, and with about 20 times the potential warming effect of carbon dioxide.
Protecting nonhuman animal communities from extinction is important work. And it’s important work because chimpanzees and other animals matter for their own reasons, not because they may be of use to researchers. Please read the enclosed document and make a commitment to support only true sanctuaries.
And please further consider how the use of land for the dairy industry is directly responsible for usurping habitat of a number of the world’s endangered species. Indeed, animal agribusiness now uses 30 percent of the earth’s entire land surface is the critical factor putting endangered species in North America at risk.
Your own product line demonstrates that the use of dairy ingredients simply isn’t necessary to produce good chocolate.
We hope you’ll consider these ways to really respect other animals’ lives, and we’d appreciate your timely response on both of these issues.
Sincerely,
Daniel Hammer,
Staff Writer
Friends of Animals
Contact:
Wayne Zink, CEO
Endangered Species Chocolate Company
5846 W. 73rd St.
Indianapolis, IN 46278
Phone: 317-844-2886
Fax: 317-844-4951
Toll Free: 1-800-293-0160
E-mail: info@chocolatebar.com
See Chimp Haven: What’s the Story?
and Reality Check: Primarily Primates’ Resident Chimpanzees Taken Away to Chimp Haven
Post your comment
Comment Guidelines: We welcome your expressions of opinion on this subject. Please avoid false commentary about individuals or groups. Facts must be verified by the person posting. Off-topic comments, and comments inappropriate for a readership of all ages, may be deleted. E-mail addresses will never be published. Only comments with valid e-mail address will be published.
11 Comments
On January 15, 2007, Renee Sweany wrote:
To read the response from Endangered Species Chocolate, please visit http://www.chocolatebar.com/blog/index.php
On January 16, 2007, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:
16 January 2007
Dear Wayne Zink and Endangered Species Chocolate:
Many thanks for your swift reply to our 11 January 2007 letter. We’re glad you’ve accepted our concerns in the spirit in which they’re intended: to ensure our resources and energy are directed in the best ways. We don’t see it as extreme, though, to encourage humanity to respect other animals’ interests in living according to their nature and on their terms. It’s this view, we think, that would keep so many species from becoming endangered in the first place.
You object to our description of Chimp Haven as a holding site. In legal fact, Chimp Haven serves as a holding site for the National Institutes of Health — as we previously stated, an entity whose only interest in chimpanzees is using them in tests. Donors who sincerely want to help in the best possible way may not know that they are, by promoting Chimp Haven, helping the NIH continue to afford experimenting on these beings. Chimp Haven may be pretty to look at — indeed, it advertises itself as “a destination for thousands…where families come together for fun and hands-on learning” — but it is nevertheless a holding site.
You have said that Endangered Species Chocolate is not concerned that a chimpanzee could be taken away from the site, noting that it has never happened since the opening of Chimp Haven. In fact, Chimp Haven just began accepting chimpanzees in 2005, and the apes’ availability for national use is indeed why they’re put there rather than released from government ownership.
“Chimp Haven,” its website states (and you’ve been told), “is a permanent home for chimpanzees providing lifetime care and attention.” And when members of the public write to Chimp Haven to ask whether the chimpanzees live in a true refuge or whether instead they belong to the labs upon request, a public relations manager answers that these chimpanzees are not placed back into research and that Chimp Haven’s main mission is the “welfare and care of these magnificent animals.” Chimp Haven concedes that the controlling law “does have a provision that would allow research to be conducted given that multiple provisions are met” but says “this is not likely ever to be done.”
On 24 December 2006, the Boston Globe provided a dose of reality. Lab Chimps, Uncle Sam May Want You http://tinyurl.com/sbv7n describes how Congress will preserve NIH access to the apes at Chimp Haven. The Globe explained that “the chimps might be needed to test how to protect humans from toxic agents” in the event of a bioterrorism attack. Indeed, that’s what Chimp Haven’s board understood might be asked of them when they signed up.
Permanent relinquishment of apes from labs to lifetime refuges, said the NIH back then, “would be poor stewardship of our federal investment.” So Congress enacted the Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection (CHIMP) Act - bluntly calling it “our opportunity to continue to use these animals for research where it’s warranted.” Under the agreement with the NIH (which true sanctuaries turned down), Chimp Haven’s board members must conform to the specifications of a law that supports research by getting private funds to maintain these apes when they’re deemed surplus to federal requirements.
Chimp Haven’s participation benefits the NIH whether or not apes are removed and sent to labs, for it frees the NIH from the duty of lifetime maintenance, which is supported first by our tax dollars and yet again by the donations of individuals and by corporate promotions. Rather than pretend Chimp Haven is a sanctuary, Congress could have concentrated on improving traditional private sanctuaries. We trust this letter explains why they did not.
But we do. Because now, sanctuaries and rehabilitation projects are left to compete with Chimp Haven for limited donor support. We are helping several of them.
We wouldn’t say that the seven chimpanzees you mention in your post script were “rescued” from Primarily Primates of Texas; they were simply taken. These seven had been legally transferred by Ohio State University to Primarily Primates. In the months leading up to that transfer, Primarily Primates was inspected by veterinary representatives of Ohio State, by Friends of Animals president Priscilla Feral, and by Virginia Landau, an Arizona primatologist with the Goodall Institute. All of them are credible, concerned people. And all of them issued good reports. Since then, the sanctuary has been under attack by a group of activists who’ve long been engaged in a feud with this particular sanctuary. We have confidence that the sanctuary’s reputation will be cleared in a forthcoming jury trial.
At this time, Chimp Haven does not know what the situation of these seven chimpanzees will be at the conclusion of the current legal action that contests their having been taken from the private sanctuary to Chimp Haven.
Finally, please note that, although the government pays most of its costs, Chimp Haven still must raise millions, and - as Chimp Haven told the Boston Globe - fear that the apes will be taken to experiments puts some donors off. So Chimp Haven doesn’t advertise the fact. But it’s naïve to think that Chimp Haven won’t support research in a declared health emergency; and the seven apes from Primarily Primates (who have been used in cognition experiments — not in toxicity or vaccine tests) could be deemed more useful than other apes who’ve alread been used extensively in disease research.
We acknowledge that you entered into this promotion over a year ago, and with good intentions. This is why we’re explaining to you why we believe it’s important to have private sanctuaries, separate from institutions that carry out animal experiments.
As for your claim to have access to the milk of happy cows, it seems you have not really understood our original point. Free-range cows, even European free-range cows, have male babies who are worthless to the dairy industry; and thus the dairy industry as a whole is responsible for veal creation. However they’re raised, cows emit methane, which has about 20 times the global warming potential as carbon dioxide. And indeed the more space they have to roam, the more space the businesspeople who own them are taking from the Earth’s finite amount of habitat; the dairy industry does not make free animals happy. So no, we aren’t asking you to work on improving the conditions of the dairies of the world. We’re saying your chocolate is perfectly great without the milk — so why not take a huge environmental step and refrain from using dairy products? Is this something you’ve considered?
Very truly yours,
Lee Hall (Legal Director) and everyone at Friends of Animals.
On January 18, 2007, James wrote:
I agree with Lee. Wayne Zink just doesn’t get it. Enslaving animals for milk cannot in any way be justified no matter how they are treated. Dairy cows have been bred to produce far more milk than they would naturally which means they are in at least constant discomfort if not constant pain. The dairy industry is a source of veal calves, who spend their short lives in miserable confinement. And of course, the end result in the life of a dairy cow is an appointment at the slaughterhouse.
On January 18, 2007, jimmy allen wrote:
probably not important either way, but it is really not that good of a chocolate bar.
On January 18, 2007, Friends of Animals wrote:
Thinking about veganism?
Vegan Views, a new forum on Google, invites people to join our community.
This group began because lately vegan ideals are, in many discussion fora, being diluted or misunderstood as a tool to oppose particularly harsh or painful methods in animal industries.
The point of vegan activism is to work for a general acceptance of the ideal of non-exploitation, thereby abolishing vast industries and replacing them with peaceful, respectful methods of providing for our human lifestyles.
So we are here not to talk about opposing the worst, but to elicit the best.
We are here not to obsessively tinker with the suffering in the system; we are here to encourage the view that other animals should be left free to experience their lives — with all the pain and pleasure, autonomy and uncertainty, risks and adventure which living in freedom involves.
Veganism is the avoidance of animal products. As a diet, it means the avoidance of dairy products, animal flesh, eggs, and honey. As a mode of living, it presents a challenge to society’s acceptance of domestication, captivity, and using or thinking of other animals as our instruments. The essence of veganism is an expression of the movement for world peace.
We welcome those who have been vegan for years, those who wish to discuss advancing veganism and understanding it at its best, those who are interested in why veganism matters to environmentalism and animal rights, and those who enjoy reading or taking part in good conversations and will be comfortable allowing a safe space for the discussion and advancement of vegan activism.
Interested people are encouraged to visit the site
http://groups.google.com/group/VeganViews/subscribe
or contact VeganViews-owner@googlegroups.com
Established Spring 2006 by Friends of Animals.
On January 25, 2007, Second Reply from Endangered Species Chocolate wrote:
Letter dated: 17 January 2007
Lee Hall
Friends of Animals
777 Post Road, Suite 205
Darien, Connecticut 06820
Dear Friends of Animals,
Thank you for your second letter regarding Chimp Haven.
Best of luck in all you do to protect animal rights. If there’s anything we can do to help your cause, I hope you’ll be in touch.
Sincerely,
Wayne Zink
Endangered Species Chocolate
5846 W. 73rd Street
Indianapolis, IN 46278
Tele 317.844.2886
Fax 317.844.4951
www.ChocolateBar.com
On January 27, 2007, Jenna wrote:
I cannot believe that you support vivisection. I will no longer be buying your product!!
On January 29, 2007, James wrote:
It appears from Wayne Zink’s last letter to Lee he dodged both the issue of Chimp Haven and the issue of the use of dairy in his chocolate. I looked at the Endangered Species website and as of this moment they are still selling milk chocolate.
If one passes a dairy farm where the cattle are outside, at first glance everything may appear serene. However, one may notice all the cattle are mature lactating females with sometimes one adult male. Where are all the males? They either get slaughtered at birth or put in veal crates destined for a short miserable life. The female calves may be hidden someplace being fed rendering plant formula instead of their mother’s milk so there is more milk for humans.
No one who consumes dairy can legitimately claim to care about animal rights.
On January 29, 2007, Dian Hardy wrote:
I was in Switzerland last year and saw the milking herds, both in the fields and being taken down from the high altitudes to the winter pastures. They do present a charming appearance, heavy-bodied, horned, each wearing her bell. These operations are not factory farms but instead tend to be small dairy farms, usually handed down within a family. Yet they are still predicated on the same concept of right of use: the young males are removed to slaughter or vealing operations as they’re of no use whatsoever to the industry. I sincerely hope Mr Zink will reconsider the use of dairy in his product.
On January 29, 2007, Lee Hall, Friends of Animals wrote:
A key irony here is that the aurochs, free-living ancestors of the bovine animals used in modern agribusiness, went extinct in the 1600s when the last one was killed by a poacher in Europe. Now, much of the natural European habitat is gone — taken up for agribusiness such as that supported by Endangered Species Chocolate.
On March 30, 2009, James Montresor wrote:
As a child, I grew up on the family dairy, where my ancestors had been dairy farmers and sheep herders for hundreds of years. It wasn’t until about the 6th grade when our school decided it would be fun to take us on a school trip to a slaughterhouse that I really understood what was going on.
I’m not even going to go into detail what I saw there. The worst was watching as a man cut the throat of a lamb and watching it struggle and kick while us kids screamed in horror while being splashed in blood. I’m relieved to note that a few months after our visit that slaughterhouse was shut down due to health violations, but a lot of children turned vegetarian that day. I say that with regret only because no child should be traumatized like that.
In our gluttonous society today, Americans eat about a 1/2 lb or more of meat a day, well in excess of dietary needs (I would say less than a half pound a week is ideal, some would say no meat at all). I wouldn’t suggest forcing people to stop eating meat and drinking milk, but our rampant consumption of more resources than we need has caused not only an obesity epidemic, it has led to the very real danger of global warming and the destruction of our natural resources in order to feed our own appetites.