NEW DEHLI, India – Recent publication of graphic images of cows at an American slaughterhuose released by the Indian Cultural Affairs Office on Thursday mean a stronger legal case against cattle consumption, the Indian government says. Indian government officials have been monitoring American slaughterhouse activity and the nation is still considering what kind of legal action is available, should be taken, and which institutions and individuals should be targeted.

The picture above was released by the Indian Cultural Affairs Office and shows a spinning sawblade about to slit the throat of one cow in an American industrial slaughterhouse. The cow swinging from the mechanical rack was in the same position 30 seconds before.
Environment Minister Gogel Ganguli says the pictures support India’s position in condemning cattle slaughter. “I think it’s explicitly clear from these images that this is industrial-style killing of cows.” Agricultural Minister Kumar Patel said the “shocking images” would support international legal action to stop the mass factory farming of cows that claims the lives of more than a hundred million cows a year in the United States alone. It is not yet clear how the pictures were obtained.
The US State Department has condemned the Indian government and media for “creating emotional propaganda to mislead the public.” The Agricultural Department has further asserted that instead of publication of images that insight fear and hate, “we must handle the issues calmly and avoid damaging friendly relations.” The United States was particular concerned about one leading media report titled, “Death! Dismemberment! Exclusive footage of America’s shocking cattle slaughter!”
Complicating the debate is the finding that red meat can directly and indirectly cause a wide variety of health problems including cancer, high blood pressure, heart disease, and obesity. But the findings have not swayed US government officials. As part of the regular US rebuttal of India’s beef with these matters, Washington says its slaughter is legal and part of its historical food culture. The Hindu practice of revering cows in India is not a value that should be exported overseas at the expense of friendly relations, said a government spokesman.
Yet international pressure on the United States is growing. Jolipimp Wigglebottom, the environment commissioner of ASEAN, released a statement reading in part, “the graphic images on our television screens bring home the reality of cattle slaughter.”
Amid the tensions, a poll published Wednesday said that nearly two-thirds of Americans back beef consumption, although support is apparently waning among vegetarians.
Author notes: Image taken from the documentary film Our Daily Bread. Actual method of execution was either electrical or captive bolt. Thanks as always to Party Pooper for creative inspiration.

Comments to this entry
Aceface
February 19, 2008
3:37 am
Joe
February 19, 2008
3:42 am
dj
February 19, 2008
4:15 am
Dan tdaxp
February 19, 2008
4:39 am
Some vegetarians support beef consumption?
Mike
February 19, 2008
4:49 am
Adrian
February 19, 2008
4:53 am
"Because the arcane rules of high-seas fishing are largely defined by consensus, even small countries that are genuine moral outliers in world attitudes toward oceans can prevent agreement."
Blame Iceland - WaPo editorial, Dec 3 2006.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/02/AR2006120200937.html?referrer=facebook
Younghusband
February 19, 2008
5:09 am
James
February 19, 2008
5:14 am
It's all cultural imperialism. India is always trying bully us into adopting their views on the "holy" cow!
India Protests American Cattle Slaughter : Japan Probe
February 19, 2008
5:24 am
kende
February 19, 2008
5:26 am
Curzon
February 19, 2008
2:46 pm
And yes, in addition to items like "Gogol Ganguli" and "opposition is strong among vegetarians," there's also the fact that, the alleged spinning saw blade when actually the method of slaughter was captive bolt is a play on the Australian groundless assertion that the two whales killed in the photos in the links above were a mother and a calf, which was simply wrong.
Aceface
February 19, 2008
4:38 pm
C.W Nichol,the writer of a Welsh born ex-Brit,ex-Canadian,Japanese citizen whom I have been reading for 28years had wrote this on Japan Times on Feb.9th.
"However, with this new lack of judgment in taking a minke calf, which no boatswain directing the movements of the ship from the crow's nest, and certainly no harpooner worth his salt could mistake for an adult, I feel I can no longer justify further support for Japan's Antarctic whaling."
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20080209f3.html
Japan Catacean Institute have denied that the whales were a mother and a calf,and were hunted to obtain different size of specimens to have statically accurate data.
Getting a little personal,but my first encounter with the business of whaling was in the article of dolphing hunting(slaughtering by the author of article)in Iki,Nagasaki on the Japanese edition of National Wildlife Magazine way back in Feburuary of 1981.And Nichol was one of the commenter in the discussion in relate with the article.
There,he was a pro-whaler,but he change his stance on one time and another.
I'd assume Nichol nolonger wants to share the notriety of being pro-whaling with the rest of us anymore after all these 28 years.
Say you ain't so Nick san!
Sandra Matthews
February 19, 2008
6:50 pm
J. Wellington Wimpy
February 19, 2008
7:07 pm
David
February 19, 2008
8:17 pm
Michael
February 20, 2008
1:06 am
Alfred Russel Wallace
February 20, 2008
3:30 am
Aceface
February 20, 2008
6:09 am
In my opinion whaling that Japan practice is environmentally sustainable.Their target species are carefully selected like Minke whales which have enough population that whaling wouldn't effect to the survival of the species.Anyway if there is any objection to the Japanese decisions there is always IWC,which was supposed to be a forum to discuss about the sustainable whaling and impact on whale population,but somehow tranformed into international arena of vote-buying since Greenpeace and Sea Shephards starts to send their own delegation by buying up the seat of small states to transform IWC into a place to put international presssure to whaling nation.
From my own experience(and believe me,I'm a conservationist.
Being a member of WWF JAPAN for 22 years..)Anti-whaling movements in abroad are seen by majority of Japanese public as Anti-Japanese,and confused everyone to recognize the difference between animal rights movement and wildlife conservation movement.Thus making every effort of conservationist to spread their ideas to public as chilish and radical acts either that is for the protection of mountain gorillas or protection of the rain forest of Borneo.WWF JAPAN's membership went up no more than 5000 during the 80's,big enigma for the head quarter in Geneve and that had made Prince Phillip coming to Japan three times in that decade.
In another words I think anti-anti-whaling sentiment is the biggest reason why green politics is still a marginal topic in Japan(global warming is a big exception.Even the internationally famous right-winger like Ishihara Shintaro is an avid supporter of Kyoto Protocol in Japan)and the reason why many conservationists can't say no to the popular support on whaling.
Curzon
February 20, 2008
6:22 am
Interestingly enough, I know a few people involved with WWF in Japan, including a few lawyers.
Michael: whaling in Japan comes from a combination of local political pressure, including small communities who still depend on whaling for their economy, general support for whaling although not enough apetite for whale meat (some say that if whale meat was permitted to be served fresh instead of having to be frozen first for "research" this change), and concern that, with the overfishing of the seas, it is vital to keep whales in check because they eat enough fish as it is. Finally, it's simply not an environmental issue -- anti-whaling sentiment is not based on rational thought, unless Japan's whaling is shown to be unsustainable, which is not a case that anyone has seriously made yet.
Aceface
February 20, 2008
8:18 am
But I don't buy "keep whales in check because they eat enough fish as it is"thesis.That propaganda started by bunch of fishery agency was criticized heavily by numbers of fishing industry people and marine biologist in Japan as baseless and harm Japan's credibility on whaling issue.(what ever that is).
There is a good site in Japanese discussing on commercial whaling by industry people(In Japanese)
http://kaiseki.ori.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~katukawa/blog/study/0475/
Boobara
February 20, 2008
4:34 pm
parkmount
February 21, 2008
6:01 am
This is exactly a comment that should have directed to Australia when they have excitedly released a picture of Japanese whalers pulling over the catches. Australians are sending so many of their cows and sheep to the death camps as shown at www.savethesheep.com
India to take legal action over cattle slaughter in US | ---->>www.locksleynet.com<<----
February 21, 2008
8:17 am
Curzon
February 21, 2008
11:22 am
Parkmount: do I understand your position to be that Australia shouldn't eat cows AND Japan shouldn't hunt whales, or that Australia is throwing stones from a glass house? To assert that slaughter of livestock is barbaric does not amount to a rebuttal of whaling unless you take the later argument.
Robert
February 21, 2008
7:00 pm
1. They can not gather enough support from the citizens within the US to have legislation passed or to end it.
2. They want to use international law or go through an international organization. That in and of itself is the problem. International law can not be enforced unless the states are willing to either by good faith follow them or unless there is a higher force to uphold them. And another country or group of countries forcing law on another would be a direct breach of a country's sovereignty. The only way that they could do so if there were major human rights violations or maybe if the said country had signed a treaty and agreed to do so and was not following the law. And even then it is very unlikely unless as said before the law being broken was either a war crime or a crime against humanity. Also going through an International Organization (IO) would be equally as meaningful. An IO only helps if both countries are members of it and an IO is only as powerful and as influential as its most powerful member allows. Also if such a piece of legislation went through the United Nations it would be easily vetoed by any one of the 5 permanent members of the security council. All of which have beef consuming populations.
So in essence India is just wasting its time protesting what American eat.
Michael
February 21, 2008
8:21 pm
Curzon: A non-rhetorical question. How easily could those small communities you mentioned be switched over to other livelihoods? Retirement communities (if they're small and pretty enough), bedroom communities for nearby metropoli and aquaculture all come readily to mind.
Aceface
February 22, 2008
2:29 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/world/asia/14whaling.html?fta=y
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/world/asia/21dolphin.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I have argument on details and think both Fackler and Onishi are not exactly first grade reporers,these pieces are acceptable considering the guys who wrote them.
sun bin
February 22, 2008
9:29 am
Curzon
February 24, 2008
4:41 am
BRogers
August 4, 2008
10:41 pm
Curzon
August 4, 2008
10:59 pm