星巴克的污穢和動物虐待

觸目驚心的星巴克雞蛋供應鏈

你在星巴克喝過咖啡或用過餐嗎?如果有的話,您可得要好好想一想了。一段令人震驚的新視頻揭露了星巴克在亞洲使用的雞蛋背後存在的食品安全隱患和極端的動物虐待行為。

在把母雞關在籠子裡的農場裡,下蛋的籠子欄杆上沾滿了糞便和污物,糞便堆積在離蛋和鳥本身只有幾英寸遠的地方。母雞幾乎一輩子都被關在籠子裡,籠子太小也太殘酷,這在世界上幾十個國家都是非法的。死去的母雞的屍體就在產蛋供人食用的母雞旁邊腐爛著。

星巴克承諾,到2020年,該公司旗下門店將只提供無籠雞蛋,這種雞蛋更安全、更優質、更人性化。然而,星巴克並沒有強制被授權商們加入該承諾,星巴克在許多亞洲市場也沒有達到其承諾的無籠蛋標準。看來,星巴克是認為亞洲的顧客不需要得到同等質量的食物。他們繼續出售來自骯髒和殘酷的籠蛋農場的雞蛋,且沒有做出任何改變的承諾。

在美洲、歐洲、亞洲和其他地區,其他數十家領先的餐廳和咖啡館連鎖店已經承諾只使用無籠雞蛋。例如,漢堡王、賽百味、Pret A Manger、棒約翰、蒂姆•霍頓斯和咖世家咖啡都在美洲、歐洲和亞洲做出了100%無籠雞蛋的承諾,其他50多家領先的食品公司也是如此。但是星巴克似乎認為他們的顧客不值得擁有相同的待遇。他們繼續出售來自骯髒和殘酷的籠蛋農場的雞蛋,且沒有做出任何改變的承諾。

現在是時候讓星巴克設定一個只賣無籠雞蛋的時間期限,來趕上其他領先的國際餐廳和咖啡館連鎖店。

请在请愿书上签名!

星巴克:我不會在你們任何一家餐廳喝咖啡或用餐, 直到您赶上其他具领导性的食品公司,并承诺停止在马来西亚贩售肮脏、残忍的笼饲鸡蛋,现在是牛奶国际使用100%放养鸡蛋的时候!

    Egg safety - Food safety risks

    籠飼雞蛋的食物安全風險

    數十份食品安全科學研究一致發現籠飼蛋場感染沙門氏菌明顯較高。歐洲食品安全局(European Food Safety Authority)在針對此議題進行有史以來最大規模的研究,分析來自5000座牧場的資料,發現籠飼農場感染沙門氏菌的可能性比起放養農場高出25倍。 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)

    將母雞限制在籠子中會增加食品安全風險的原因很多,美國農業部表示將母雞終身關在籠子所產生的壓力,使其更容易患病,且籠子特別難以清潔和消毒,導致籠子上有「大量糞便和灰塵的污染」(18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23)

    籠飼雞蛋是殘忍的

    就像狗和貓一樣,雞是聰明的,是個會感到快樂和痛苦的聰明個體,限制動物一生在狹小幾乎無法轉身的空間是錯誤的。(24)

    籠飼系統對動物太殘忍以至於數十個國家是禁止使用的,世界上每一個主流動物保護組織都譴責將產蛋母雞限制在籠子裡是殘忍且不人道的。(25, 26, 27)

    這裡有幾個組織的說法:

    RSPCA「在這類籠養蛋場的【格子籠】裡,蛋雞連伸展翅膀或飛上枝頭棲息這些最簡單的自然行為都無法進行。愛護動物協會深切關注這數以百萬計蛋雞的福利。」香港愛護動物協會

    WAP

    「格子籠飼養蛋雞極不人道,不僅飼養密度高,也剝奪了蛋雞洗沙浴、築巢的權利。飲食業應開始選用人道的放養雞蛋,讓台灣能夠盡快地跟上國際社會的步伐,確保動物福利。」台灣防止虐待動物協會

    World Animal Protection

    「格子笼饲养蛋鸡极不人道,不仅饲养密度高,也剥夺蛋鸡洗沙浴、筑巢。。。饮食产业也应开始选用友善鸡蛋,让台湾能够尽快地跟上国际脚步,确保动物福利。 」台湾防止虐待动物协会

    我們引用的是這些組織過去已公開發佈的內容,這些組織與此網站以及特定的系列活動無關。

    Battery Cage Photo 1 - Battery Cages

    層架雞籠

    牛奶國際持續供應消費者骯髒殘忍的籠飼雞蛋

    Battery Cage Photo 2 - Dirty

    藏污納垢

    在星巴克的雞蛋供應商那裡,設備被糞便覆蓋,雞蛋被糞便塗抹

    Battery Cage Photo 3 - Animal Cruelty

    殘忍

    每一隻母雞幾乎終身關在非常小的籠子裡,幾乎無法活動

    文檔和引文

    Equitas是總部位於英國的全球非營利組織,致力於全球食品供應鏈中的消費者保護和動物福利。

    以下是針對食品安全和動物虐待部分的科學研究引文

    1: Van Hoorebeke S, Van Immerseel F, Schulz J, et al. 2010. Determination of the within and between flock prevalence and identification of risk factors for Salmonella infections in laying hen flocks housed in conventional and alternative systems. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 94(1-2):94-100.

    2: Snow LC, Davies RH, Christiansen KH, et al. 2010. Investigation of risk factors for Salmonella on commercial egg-laying farms in Great Britain, 2004-2005. Veterinary Record 166(19):579-86.

    3: 2010. Annual Report on Zoonoses in Denmark 2009. National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark.

    4: Van Hoorebeke S, Van Immerseel F, De Vylder J et al. 2010. The age of production system and previous Salmonella infections on farm are risk factors for low-level Salmonella infections in laying hen flocks. Poultry Science 89:1315-1319.

    5: Huneau-Salaün A, Chemaly M, Le Bouquin S, et al. 2009. Risk factors for Salmonella enterica subsp. Enteric contamination in 5 French laying hen flocks at the end of the laying period. Preventative Veterinary Medicine 89:51-8.

    6: Green AR, Wesley I, Trampel DW, et al. 2009 Air quality and bird health status in three types of commercial egg layer houses. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 18:605-621.

    7: Schulz J, Luecking G, Dewulf J, Hartung J. 2009. Prevalence of Salmonella in German battery cages and alternative housing systems. 14th International congress of the International Society for Animal Hygiene: Sustainable animal husbandry : prevention is better than cure. pp. 699-702. http://www.safehouse-project.eu/vars/fichiers/pub_defaut/Schulz_Salmonella_ISAH%202009.ppt.

    8: Namata H, Méroc E, Aerts M, et al. 2008. Salmonella in Belgian laying hens: an identification of risk factors. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 83(3-4):323-36.

    9: Mahé A, Bougeard S, Huneau-Salaün A, et al. 2008. Bayesian estimation of flock-level sensitivity of detection of Salmonella spp. Enteritidis and Typhimurium according to the sampling procedure in French laying-hen houses. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 84(1-2):11-26.

    10: Pieskus J, et al. 2008. Salmonella incidence in broiler and laying hens with the different housing systems. Journal of Poultry Science 45:227-231.

    11: European Food Safety Authority. 2007. Report of the Task Force on Zoonoses Data Collection on the Analysis of the baseline study on the prevalence of Salmonella in holdings of laying hen flocks of Gallus gallus. The EFSA Journal 97. www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620761896.htm.

    12: Snow LC, Davies RH, Christiansen KH, et al. 2007. Survey of the prevalence of Salmonella species on commercial laying farms in the United Kingdom. The Veterinary Record 161(14):471-6.

    13: Methner U, Diller R, Reiche R, and Böhland K. 2006. [Occurence of salmonellae in laying hens in different housing systems and inferences for control]. Berliner und Münchener tierärztliche Wochenschrift 119(11-12):467-73.

    14: Much P, Österreicher E, Lassnig. H. 2007. Results of the EU-wide Baseline Study on the Prevalence of Salmonella spp. in Holdings of Laying Hens in Austria. Archiv für Lebensmittelhygiene 58:225-229.

    15: Stepien-Pysniak D. 2010. Occurrence of Gram-negative bacteria in hens’ eggs depending on their source and storage conditions. Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences 13(3):507-13.

    16: Humane Society International, “An HSI Report: Food Safety and Cage Egg Production” (2010). HSI Reports: Farm Animal Protection. 3. http://animalstudiesrepository.org/hsi_reps_fap/3

    17: European Food Safety Authority. 2007. Report of the Task Force on Zoonoses Data Collection on the Analysis of the baseline study on the prevalence of Salmonella in holdings of laying hen flocks of Gallus gallus. The EFSA Journal 97. www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620761896.htm

    18: The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration. 2004. The national Salmonella control programme for the production of table eggs and broilers 1996-2002. Fødevare Rapport 6, March.

    19: Davies R and Breslin M. 2003. Observations on Salmonella contamination of commercial laying farms before and after cleaning and disinfection. The Veterinary Record 152(10):283-7.

    20: Methner U, Rabsch W, Reissbrodt R, and Williams PH. 2008. Effect of norepinephrine on colonisation and systemic spread of Salmonella enterica in infected animals: Role of catecholate siderophore precursors and degradation products. International Journal of Medical Microbiology 298(5-6):429-39.

    21: Bailey MT, Karaszewski JW, Lubach GR, Coe CL, and Lyte M. 1999. In vivo adaptation of attenuated Salmonella Typhimurium results in increased growth upon exposure to norepinephrine. Physiology and Behavior 67(3):359-64.

    22: Shini S, Kaiser P, Shini A, and Bryden WL. 2008. Biological response of chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) induced by corticosterone and a bacterial endotoxin. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. Part B. 149(2):324-33.

    23: Rostagno MH. 2009. Can stress in farm animals increase food safety risk? Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 6(7):767-76.

    24: Marino, L. 2017. Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and behavior in the domestic chicken. Animal Cognition 20(2): 127–147.

    25: “European_Union_Council_Directive_1999/74/EC.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Web 03 August 2018, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Council_Directive_1999/74/EC

    26: “Farm Animal Confinement Bans.” American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Web. 03 August 2018, www.aspca.org/animal-protection/public-policy/farm-animal-confinement-bans

    27: World Organization for Animal Health, “Terrestrial Animal Health Code” (2017). www.rr-africa.oie.int/docspdf/en/Codes/en_csat-vol1.pdf