Just wrote a gnarly paper. The Coca-Cola section has already been written about in this blog before, but whatever. In text citations are left because I'm lazy and in case you wanna look at the sources, they were interesting!

 

 

The High Price of Ignorance and Apathy

            It’s hard not to hear all the conversations and debates on the issue of being “green” in today’s world full of hybrids, organic foods and peace signs. However, this seemingly morally conscious society doesn’t act much on the issue of corporate responsibility. The current economy is based on competition for the lowest prices and the highest profits, and many corporations don’t hesitate to exploit both people and nature to save a few bucks, while the general public either remains oblivious or becomes “public-relations’ed” into apathy. Such corporations include, but are certainly not limited to, Nike, Coca-Cola, and Chevron. These companies, seemingly harmless and good-natured thanks to their deceptive advertisements and strategically feigned public image improvements, completely disregard human rights and labor laws and get away with it again and again. It’s time American consumers cease to support these instances of exploitation by boycotting the oppressive corporations that perpetrate them.

Walk through any modern mall in America and it’s tough not to see the plethora of sale signs and imported goods. The American economy, based on competition, forces companies to have a cheaper price than their competitors, and what better way to save a few bucks than outsource to a country where the labor laws are not only skimpy, but also half-heartedly enforced? Many of the more familiar brands in America use sweatshop labor to manufacture their products. Sweatshops are factories where the workers are exploited through extremely low pay, verbal and physical abuse, and horrific working conditions. The shoe industry is notorious for using sweatshop labor, and Nike is among the worst in the business. This might come as a surprise to some, because one might infer that the high prices on the shoes meant high wages for the workers. In this case, the opposite proves to be true; the average Nike shoe is made for under five dollars, while many sell for $100 easily (“Nike). Some people say that the minimal wages workers get are better than no wages at all. However, similar rationalizations were used in colonial times to justify the enslavement of African Americans, some people even believing they were doing their slaves a favor by giving them employment. In hindsight, most people recognize that this is no excuse for mistreatment, and recognize that the answer isn’t taking away jobs but improving conditions and respecting human rights no matter what the economic cost. Because few people would argue against this, sweatshop-supporting companies pretend to hold the same value. Nike has even made numerous, extensive promises to improve conditions in their overseas factories, which was successful in quieting some of the talk about their sweatshop use, but virtually all of these promises remain unfulfilled. According to Clearing The Hurdles, an organization that rates companies’ respect of human rights, Nike has failed miserably in providing access to unions for many of its workers (“Responses). In reply to a request to raise their wages to a reasonable amount Nike said “We are not prepared to incorporate a living wage standard in our Code of Conduct at this time” (“Responses). One of the few things they were rated well on was publicly reporting the process they use to begin or cease purchasing from certain suppliers (“Responses). Chances are, Nike was either already doing this or complied with it to project an image of cooperation with Clearing The Hurdle’s concerns. It must also be noted that this doesn’t improve working conditions whatsoever; in order to buy just one of the products that they make, most sweatshop workers would still have to save up for weeks (“Nike). In fact, “Nike's total annual payroll at six Indonesian factories is less than what Nike pays superstar Michael Jordan per year” (Glenn). A similar attitude of favoritism is reflected in the media; Michael Jordan being featured of hundreds of magazines and Nike’s unjust practices being grossly underreported. The infinitesimal fraction of sweatshop laborers that get to tell their story to some form of media have reported not being allowed to use the bathroom, being beaten and fired for becoming pregnant or not getting any pregnancy leave at all (Kasky). There are also accounts of beatings as a consequence of getting blood on clothing products from sewing machine accidents (seems ironic to beat someone for bleeding, doesn’t it?), as well as physical abuse for trying to establish a worker’s union (Glenn). With such atrocities taking place regularly, it’s surprising to notice the small amount of media coverage on the issue of sweatshop labor. Whether their supplying factories are recognized as sweatshops or not, the reason most American companies outsource their labor is so they can save money by exploiting workers without fear of punishment. While the shoe making industry certainly stands out, virtually every industry has at least one company that practices injustice – even the beverage industry.

The general public is becoming more educated about the health hazards of too much soda, but there is another harmful aspect to it as well – buying Coca-Cola funds the suppression of human rights. The company, which few people would imagine to be abusive, is guilty of murder, worker abuse, and complete disregard of third world countries’ water rights. Since 1990, nine union leaders at a Coca-Cola bottling plant in Colombia have been killed by paramilitaries hired by the plant managers (“Murder). “Hundreds of other Coke workers have been tortured, kidnapped and/or illegally detained by violent paramilitaries, often working closely with plant managements” (“Murder). Such horrific events occur because unions are not in the best interests of the corporation, and in Colombia, “a country where union work is like carrying a tombstone on your back” (“Murder), little is done to enforce labor laws and the respect of human rights. Coca-Cola also purchases a vast amount of sugar from the sugar cane fields of El Salvador, which are worked by children as young as eight, and is characterized by the Human Rights Watch as the most dangerous form of all agricultural work because of the numerous gashes many kids get while cutting cane(“El Salvador). Kids there often skip school or drop out all together to try to earn enough money to live (“El Salvador). India has fallen victim to Coca-Cola abuses as well. The area of Kala Dera, India - a country were clean water was already scarce enough - witnessed a 19 foot drop in water level since the Coca-Cola bottling plant there was established (India). The culprit of the water disappearance was indisputably obvious, and the poor residents of Kala Dera got a horrifying glimpse of “The Coke Side of Life.” This area has been declared a drought area and now has too little water to support the inhabitants and farmers of the area (India), creating a disgustingly clear picture of the rich exploiting the poor for economic benefit. The image Coca-Cola portrays through its advertising as a neighborhood company bringing happiness in a can to people of every age, gender, and race begins to seem more like farce when their production methods are exposed. A little research and education on large corporation’s cost-cutting methods can go a long way.

American-funded injustices often take place in other countries, but one American company continues to operate in a country even the U.S. has forbade involvement with on moral grounds – Chevron. Chevron, the U.S.’s second-largest oil company and third largest corporation (Juhasz), is high-ranking on the list of unethical American corporations. It is one of the few U.S. corporations exempt from the Burmese sanctions, because it was involved there prior to the sanction’s 1997 enaction, (United), which it takes full advantage of. “[Chevron’s  Burmese operations, dubbed] the Yadana Project has led to widespread human rights abuses, including forced labor, murder, rape, [and] forced relocation of villages” (Juhasz). How so? The Burmese junta, a military government that recently seized power from the preceding government, is notorious for its surpression of human rights and repression of protests directed towards it. These injustices were done to further its communist cause, a central reason as to why the sanction was put into effect. Of course, there are exceptions, including Chevron, and the junta has no problem with Chevron’s presence there because of the great benefits they provide (Juhasz). A U.S. Congress report estimates “[Chevron’s Burmese] project provides $400 million to $647 million to the Burmese government annually” (United). The year that report was released, nearly 75% of the profits from Chevron’s Burmese operations went straight to the deep, blood-lined pockets of the Burmese military junta (Juhasz). This statistic surpassed the report’s previous findings vastly, totalling $972 million, which provided the “boycotted” junta with its primary source of income (Juhasz). The strange part is this sanction has been firmly maintained by not only the same party, but also the same president that Chevron gave its political dollars to. It gave “more than $10.5 million since 1990 [to U.S. Federal Elections] 75% of which went to Republican candidates,” six times more money going to Bush than Gore in 2000. Chevron’s political spending is not limited to Presidential elections, though. Its most favored candidates included Republican politicians in Texas and Alaska – which incoincidentally both contain large amounts of oil (Juhasz). The primary recipient of the corporation’s poltical funding, only surpassed recently by John McCain, was California’s “Republican congressman Richard Pombo, who represented…the location of Chevron’s world headquarters, for 14 years…[and] did more than just about any other politician to support the interests of Chevron…[until] public outrage voted him out of office” (Juhasz). However, not all of Chevron’s political funding went to the Republican party, but what little money did go to the other side of the U.S. political system went primarily to those who supported the interests of Chevron. For example, California’s representatives, despite running for office in a relatively liberal state, received significant funding from Chevron. However, the surprise of this act dissipates when it is made known that California is the site of Chevron’s headquarters, two key refineries, and lots of oil (Juhasz). Perhaps such strategic political spending is what enabled Condoleeza Rice to become National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State, seeing how she chaired Chevron’s Public Policy Committee and was part of its board of directors for the preceding decade (Juhasz). Chevron representatives were also found to be monetarily bribing, as well as engaging in sexual practices with, U.S. Department of Interior employees, who were supposed to be inspecting Chevron’s practices without bias (Juhasz). The question isn’t if Chevron is using money and power to influence the government, it’s if Chevron is using this influence to remain exempt from the sanction or to keep the sanction in place. Either way, this is effectively creating a monopoly on Burmese oil in the U.S., and the the chances of Chevron using its influence to serve multiple big oil interests are unsettlingly high.

The crimes committed by these companies and many others are appaling, and U.S. consumers need to understand that buying these corporation’s products fund the injustice. Nike is using modern day slavery, Coca-Cola is surpressing worker’s rights through coercive and threatening violence, and Chevron is not only paying an exploitive military junta near a billion dollars a year, but also influencing the American government through political funding, sexual engagements, and even having the company’s elite climb the rungs of the U.S. government. These examples of disregard for human rights and laws are something the American people should not endorse. A major boycott would pressure these corporations to purchase from only ethical suppliers and cease some of their unjust practices. It is time for the American people to use their consumer power for good.

Works Cited

"El Salvador: Child Labor on Sugar Plantations." Human Rights Watch. 9 June 2004. Web. 18 Mar. 2010.

Glenn, Tim. "Nike's Cheap Labor." CLRLabor.org. 2004. Web. 24 Feb. 2010.

India Resouce Center. Groundwater Levels Continue Downward Spiral Around Coca-Cola Plant. IndiaResource.org. 11 Mar. 2010. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.

Juhasz, Antonia. "The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report." TrueCostOfChevron.com. May 2009. Web. 14 Mar. 2010.

Kasky V. Nike, Inc. Superior Court of the State of California. 20 Apr. 1998. Web site.

"Murder...It's the Real Thing." Killer Coke. Web. 1 Mar. 2010

"Nike Production Facts." ThirdWorldTraveler.com. Web. 11 Mar. 2010.

"Responses From Nike." ClearingTheHurdles.org. Web. 14 Mar. 2010.

United States of America. U.S. Congress. Congressional Research Service. Burma Sanctions: Background and Options. By Larry A. Niksch and Martin A. Weiss. 10 Oct. 2007. Web. 14 Mar. 2010.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finally! A new post!

-Christopher

http://animalrights.change.org/actions/view/act_now_to_protect_the_rights_of_animal_activists#letter_form (scroll down)

and read about the AETA on the same link

not writing a whole lot on this yet, but check it out. it's effed up.

 

chris

Even though most people have never visited a slaughterhouse,​ the panic, dread, and terror that await innocent creatures, and the gruesome sights and sounds which emanate from these hidden "houses of death" are not at all difficult to imagine. What many people do not realize is that these same horrors are the fate of every factory-raised dairy cow and every hen at commercial egg farms.

Milk's Got More.​.​.​.​Cruelty:​


A dairy cow's life is a continuous cycle of impragna-tion, birth, and milking to provide one thing only -- a constant supply of milk for human consumption and profit. She will be milked for 10 months out of the year, including seven months of each of her consecutive nine-month pregnancies. Two to three times a day, seven days a week, she will be attached to an electric milking machine, like just another cog in a factory. Then she will be returned to her cramped, narrow, concrete stall to do nothing but await the next milking.

Within hours after giving birth, the cow's calf will be forcibly taken from her. Male calves will be sold for pet food, killed at just a few days old to make "bob veal", or raised for beef. Others will be auctioned to producers of "formula-fed veal". On veal farms, male calves are confined in tiny crates to restrict their movement in order to keep their muscles tender. They are fed an iron-deficient diet which causes severe anima but which keeps their flesh white, making it more valuable when they are sold for meat. Subjected to total sensory deprivation and stripped of any measure of joy, 20% of veal calves will die before even reaching the typical slaughtering age of 16 weeks.

The female calves will be sequestered in tiny stalls in preparation for their enslavement to the dairy industry. When they are old enough to be artificially inseminated, they will begin the drudgery of a dairy cow. Their mother will be promptly put back into intensive milk production, where she will remain at risk for numerous stress related illnesses, infections, and diseases, many of which can be fatal.

A dairy cow will survive a mere four years of this cruel, hollow life, whereas under natural conditions, she might live up to 25 years. At the end of her days, when she can no longer keep up the demanded level of milk production, drained and exhausted, she will be packed onto a crowded truck for transport to her final destination -- the slaughterhouse.​ After a life of slavery and servitude, her retirement gift will be to end up like her fellow "food animals" -- on somebody's plate. All vegetarians, especially those who continue to drink milk while unwittingly clinging to the myth that it is benignly begotten, should be outraged to know that 40% of America's hamburger is made from "spent" dairy cows.


The Incredible, Inedible Egg:


On factory egg farms, laying hens are housed in intensive confinement buildings where up to 100,000 birds are crammed into a single warehouse in stacked rows of bare wire cells called "battery cages". Four to six laying hens are crowded into each cage about the size of a folded newspaper, unable to stretch their wings, walk, or even roost. Because of this inability, hens' feet frequently grow directly around the bare wire of their cages.

To reduce stress-induced pecking and fighting resulting from over-crowding, the hens' beaks are painfully severed at the tip. This delicate tissue is amputated without the use of anesthesia, using a hot knife or a crude guillotine-​like device. Debeaking causes excruciating pain and severe shock and frequently results in death.

Hens are also forced to undergo a production process known as "forced molting". This common egg industry practice involves denying the birds food and water for days on end in order to shock their systems into another egg laying cycle. Ultimately, this destroys a hen's immune system and greatly increases the risk of salmonella contamination of her eggs.

Although a hen in a natural environment might live to be 15 to 20 years old, at the age of just 18 months, when she is no longer capable of producing eggs at the rate required to be lucrative for the business, she, like her sister the dairy cow, will meet her demise in the abyss of the slaughterhouse.​ Here she will be ground into pet food or boiled for chicken soup.

Many people naively view dairy and egg production as less abusive than meat production because milk and eggs do not necessitate the immediate deaths of the cows and chickens that produce them. Clearly, dairy and egg farms not innocuous industries as so many of us have been led to believe. Their alliance with animal abuse and slaughter is inextricable and undeniable. But What About "Humane" Farms?


"Free-Range" Eggs:


Although "free-range" hens are generally given more space to live in than hens kept in battery cages, there is no uniform, industry standard defining how "free-range" hens must be housed. The hens may simply be put into larger cages than their sisters who live on factory farms. In addition, it is common for "free-range" layers to be debeaked just like battery cage layers. But even if "free-range" hens were given all the space they could use and an environment in which they could fulfill normal social and behavioral needs, they will still be killed for meat when their egg production rates drop off, usually after just one or two years. And, like other "free-range" animals, they are subjected to the horrors of abusive handling, transportation,​ and slaughter.

Another problem inherent with ALL egg production involves the disposal of unwanted male chicks at the hatchery. Because males don't lay eggs and because egg-type strains of chickens don't grow fast enough to be raised profitably for meat, the baby male chicks are discarded shortly after hatching. There is no incentive for producers to spend time and money to euthanize these chicks which they consider to be a liability. Hence, male chicks are killed by the cheapest and easiest means available. Typically these include suffocation or being ground up alive. All egg hatcheries commit these atrocities whether they provide hens for factory farms or "free-range" farms.


"Organic" Milk :


Cows' milk is intended for calves, not humans, so whenever cows' milk is taken by humans, calves are denied what is rightfully theirs. Milk production, whether on a small dairy farm or on a large, intensive confinement facility causes animal suffering and death.

For a cow to produce milk she must bear a calf. Most cows on modern dairy farms are forced to have a calf every year. The female calves are used to replace worn out, less productive cows in the milking herd. While dairy cows living on less abusive farms may live longer and suffer somewhat less than cows in intensive production, ultimately ALL dairy cows end up at the slaughterhouse.​

Unlike female calves born to dairy cows, male calves cannot produce milk. Therefore, they are used solely for meat. The veal industry was created as a direct result of the dairy industry. It was developed in order to capitalize on the millions of male calves born to dairy cows each year. This ongoing alliance among the dairy, veal, and beef industries occurs whether the farms are "organic" or intensive, factory-style operations.


For love,
For kindness,
For compassion,
and most importantly,
For ANIMAL LIBERATION.

Posted by Ian proudxvxyouth.xanga.com

Taken from Dairy is Rape