Theme by maraudersmaps.
959 notes
21/10/14 @ 11:14pm
tagged as
vegan
how do you feel about honey/beekeepers?
Anonymous

knowledgeandlove:

appropriately-inappropriate:

knowledgeandlove:

*ahem* appropriately-inappropriate

Thanks for the heads up, random person who apparently hates me?

I was reading and I noticed something:

"Bees are stunned with “smokers” (sometimes literally just cigars) that cause them to believe their hive is on fire so they won’t be as aggressive."

That’s actually incorrect. The smoke acts as a dampener to the ALARM pheromone, thus ensuring that the bees don’t experience undue stress.

It doesn’t make them less aggressive; and actually, why would an animal who believes their whole house is burning down around it be LESS aggressive? That logic doesn’t make a bit of sense.

As for the rest, how are modern apiarists linked to Colony Collapse Disorder? You’re not making sense. You argue that bee populations are collapsing, but you don’t agree with beekeepers transferring domesticated populations into areas that have collapsed. You say that bee populations worldwide are declining (which is a catastrophe, I agree), but disapprove of human intervention, when it’s pretty clearly the only thing that might have a chance of reestablishing a wild population.

I don’t support factory farming of bees. I don’t support factory farming, period. I don’t endorse anyone buying that Billy Bee bullshit. But modern small-scale apiaries are hardly the same as mass-scale apiculture.

The best case scenario for bees might be if they go the way of the dogs. That worked out really well for them.

I have no hatred towards you appropriately-inappropriate. Rather an extreme …. annoyance … at the misinformation you spread about bees, honey, and why you think it’s ok to steal it from them.

You were very well spoken on my post. Your rhetoric was to be admired - if only you would put some good use to that skill rather than spreading detrimental information. 

My tagging you wasn’t random. Your commentary on my post now has 40,000+ people agreeing with your rhetoric, without any of them putting any real thought into the matter at hand. They just saw a well-written argument and went ‘ha! stupid vegans.’ and thus my activity page has now exploded with animosity towards me specifically as well as vegans as a whole.

Hi, I’m the OP of that post. I wonder if you’ll respond to me this time? 

“That’s actually incorrect. The smoke acts as a dampener to the ALARM pheromone, thus ensuring that the bees don’t experience undue stress. It doesn’t make them less aggressive; and actually, why would an animal who believes their whole house is burning down around it be LESS aggressive? That logic doesn’t make a bit of sense.”

Actually, smoking the bees CAUSES stress. The smoke instigates a feeding response, causing the bees to gorge themselves on honey in anticipation of possible hive abandonment due to fire. They believe their home is about to be destroyed and in a panic do what they think is the best course of action to save their precious source of winter food. Honey is, after all, bee vomit, so they’re preparing to move as much honey as they can to the new hive. Being full-to-bursting with honey makes it difficult for them to make the necessary flexes to sting. All of this, combined with the smoke interfering with their sense of smell so they can’t receive the pharamone-enduced signal to guard and attack, slows the bees down, thereby producing what we see as a “calming effect,” which is really just them being full of food, confusion, and stress. 

“You say that bee populations worldwide are declining (which is a catastrophe, I agree), but disapprove of human intervention, when it’s pretty clearly the only thing that might have a chance of reestablishing a wild population.” 

We actually agree here - to a point. Human intervention may very well be the only thing that can help the bees. But that doesn’t mean we have to steal the food they spend the entire year creating in preparation for winter and feed them a sugar-water substitute instead. It’s not healthy for them and it’s having a lot of detrimental effects. 

Let’s put this into more relative terms, shall we? The human body needs sugar, otherwise it would cease to function properly. But there are good sugars and there are bad sugars. Sure we can get all of our sugar requirements from say, corn syrup. That doesn’t mean it’s the wisest choice, and that doesn’t mean there won’t be any negative side effects from corn syrup being your main source of sugar. Just because it works, doesn’t mean it’s right. 

So let’s put that to the perspective of bees. Sure they can survive off of sugar-water instead. But that’s not what they’re meant to survive off of. You asked for proof of modern apiarists being linked to CCD? How’s this for you (source):

The researchers identified specific components found in honey that turn on defense genes in the bees. Most active is the chemical p-coumaric acid, which is present within walls of pollen grains. Certain chemical components give animals — including humans — the ability to break down chemicals. 

“Like bees, we use enzymes to break down poisons. Our liver breaks them down,” Berenbaum said. “Honeybees use their mid-gut like we use our liver. They need a signal to get activated, and the honey provides a signal for the enzymes to act.

“Honeybees that eat honey are better at breaking down pesticides than bees that eat sugar. The big surprise is not only do they turn on detoxification genes, they also can turn on some of the immunity genes.”

The use of pesticides — specifically neonicotinoids — has been suggested as a contributing factor of colony collapse disorder, a phenomenon of reduction in honeybee populations both in the U.S. and Europe, though the cause has not been scientifically established.

Regardless, a diet that impedes a honeybee’s ability to break down chemicals in poisons could have an effect on hive health, according to Berenbaum.

“One of the longstanding questions about bee health and bee decline was whether there’s an impact of feeding bees — particularly over the winter — not honey, which is what they naturally eat, but sugar substitutes,” she said. “Our results suggest that maybe it’s not such a good idea to feed bees only sugar substitutes because none of these sugar substitutes contain the components we found in honey that turn on the defense genes.

So, your comment on my own post In the wild, honey is used as a food stock, but in a domesticated honeybee colony, the bees are fed quite well, and so the honey is a surplus.” isn’t very well thought out. They’re not fed well, they’re just fed something else that is harming them in the long run. The honey isn’t a surplus, there is no surplus. They knew how much to make to get them through the winter. Every ounce of that honey made by them, was made for them. 

While we’re on the topic of sugar, you were shockingly silent when I replied to your commentary about the horrors of the sugar industry. You automatically assumed that no honey means yes sugar, and the main point of your commentary was to point out how unethical the sugar trade is. 

It’s pretty funny that you contribute more to that sugar trade by eating honey than I do by not eating honey - considering fair trade sugar is a thing that exists that I buy. And yet you were quite quick to villainize me and anyone else who doesn’t eat honey (which again was a serious leaping assumption to make - no honey = yes sugar. There are so many sweetener alternatives out there, and fair trade encompasses more than just sugar. Personally, I like turning to coconut oil as a sweetener now. Fair trade coconut oil. Before you go off assuming again). 

But I digress - humans truly might be the last hope for the bees. Being an apiarist doesn’t mean you have to be a part of the honey industry. You can care for your bees by offering them a safe place to be themselves and do their work. You can also plant bee-friendly flowers everywhere you can. Your backyard, along the side of the road, in a park, in pots or windowboxes for your own home or to give as a nice home-made gift. There are so many things we can - and most definitely should - do to help the bees.

Stealing their winter food source is NOT one of them. 

But modern small-scale apiaries are hardly the same as mass-scale apiculture.”

Wrong.  Sorry, I don’t feel like explaining in my own words and this blog did a pretty good job of explaining that. 

Please stop spreading the idea that we can ethically steal from the bees, because we can’t, and we shouldn’t, and if we continue to do so the results will be dire. 

Here are some really great articles for you to read through. Thank you so much for your post providing these extremely helpful links, fightingforanimals :)

Managed honeybees linked to new diseases in wild bees - Science Daily

Wild bees contribute more than honeybees - Planet Earth, Online

Wild bees are better pollinators - UC Berkeley News

Also from fightingforanimals' post - 

headandfuckingstomachache:

I am opposed to any and all exploitation of bees. As an ethical vegan, I believe that the exploitation, manipulation, harm, and murder of animals in the industrialized world is morally unjustifiable.

Bees are insects and insects are animals, so I extend the same ethical consideration to them that I do vertebrates and other sentient beings throughout the animal kingdom. Despite common belief, many invertebrates including insects have been found to share the criteria for the ability to feel and interpret pain. Bees in particular are very complex beings that have been shown to have what appear to be moods, a language of sorts, impressive cognitive skills, and, yes, even signs of actual pain rather than just mere basic nociception.

What most people, even some people who consider themselves vegan, aren’t aware of is just how harmful and brutal the commercial sourcing of honey from bees actually is and how important honey is to the bees who make it. The reality is that bees create honey for two reasons: to feed their larvae and to keep them going during colder seasons. There is no such thing as “extra” honey and it is actually incredibly labor-intensive for a colony to even create it: for one pound of honey, about two million flowers must be tapped; for one jar of honey, a hive will travel the equivalent of three times around the planet; a single bee only creates a twelfth of a teaspoon of honey in their lifetime; a single hive will only create sixty-six pounds of it in a year (which is crazier when you note that Americans alone ate 450 million pounds of honey just in 2013).

Sourcing honey from bees is by no means peaceful and is actually more exploitative and intrusive than you can probably even begin to imagine. Commercial beekeepers—even the ones that consider themselves “local”, “all-natural”, or “organic”—use the labor of these creatures for profit, nothing more and nothing less, and there is simply no way to get it without being destructive, unfair, and unsustainable. Beekeepers replace the honey they steal with corn syrup. Bees are stunned with “smokers” (sometimes literally just cigars) that cause them to believe their hive is on fire so they won’t be as aggressive. Queen bees are artificially inseminated. Drones are killed just to have their sperm extracted. Queens are actually selectively bred and sold around the world to beekeepers just so they don’t have to deal with the natural process of queens selecting and starting a new colony. "Packages" of bee colonies are transported and delivered around the country through all sorts of weather conditions so beekeepers can profit all year round, resulting in the spread of a parasitic mite that exclusively preys on and subsequently destroys honeybee colonies; if this isn’t the problem, lack of food and unstable weather can also kill off entire hives. In the end, what are basically factory farms for bees kill millions while mechanically extracting boxed hives of their honey.

What makes bees a particularly important ethical and environmental issue is that they are essential to our ability to survive on this planet: Bees pollinate a plethora of different crops, without which we would die. Albert Einstein even allegedly said that, “If the bee disappears from the surface of the earth, man would have no more than four years to live." Regardless of who actually said this, they’re right and we’re already seeing the consequences firsthand. The vast majority of your produce section would literally not exist if bees weren’t around. Everyone knows about colony collapse disorder and the fact that large portions of the bee population are disappearing, but many don’t realize why this is happening and how commercial beekeeping is connected. Beekeeping on any scale only benefits those trying to turn a profit off of the labor of this species. Between transport, selective breeding, taking colonies out of their natural environments, and placing many of these bees near commercial crops that are sprayed with toxic insecticides, beekeeping and the extraction of honey plays a direct role in the demise of the bee.

The fact alone that we farm vomit and wax from the single most important animal on the planet just for money and the fleeting pleasure of taste is totally insane. This is both an ethical and environmental issue; really, it’s life or death for us.

For more information, check out the documentary More Than Honey, which is like the Earthlings of the honey and bee topic. It is the most informative, fair, graphic, concise, and stunningly shot piece on the subject I’ve yet to see and is available to watch instantly on Netflix or be torrented. For quick reading, the most concise page on it continues to be this.

Additional differences:

Honeybees do not trip alfalfa flowers (as the Alfalfa leafcutter bees and the Alkali bees do).Honeybees cannot use the buzz pollination (the vigorous vibration used by bumblebees) necessary to efficiently pollinate tomatoes, eggplants, potatoes, peppers, blueberries, watermelon, and cranberries.Honeybees cannot fly at low temperatures (like the orchard mason bee) to efficiently pollinate early-spring blooms like blueberries, the first apple bloom and almonds. This is not to imply that honeybees are not used to pollinate these crops, just that other insects could do a much better job.

TL;DR? Too bad. No summary. Go back up, read, and educate yourself on the truth about honey, why it is harmful to the bees, why vegans don’t consume it and why you shouldn’t, either. 

2,987 notes
19/10/14 @ 11:43pm
tagged as
goth

,

102 notes
@ 05:30pm
tagged as
emily kokal
32,477 notes
14/10/14 @ 11:59pm
tagged as
lol
"its britney bitch"
the bible (leviticus 7:58)
194 notes
12/10/14 @ 01:44am
tagged as
vegan
"Veganism is not elitist. What is elitist is the idea that your palate pleasure and convenience justify the suffering and death of another sentient being."
Gary L. Francione (via necessaryveganism)
1,071 notes
@ 12:07am
tagged as
brittana

You can’t recreate what you and I have.

160 notes
11/10/14 @ 03:03pm
tagged as
vegan
fightingforanimals:

Beware the ‘wonder drug proceeds to human trials based on animal studies’ story! 
Sadly, today the chances of such a drug proceeding much further along the development pipeline are now only 5%.
The most recent study of new drugs approved between 2007 and 2011 has shown that the failure rate is now 95%, an all-time low.
New medicines have to go through a series of human (clinical) trials that utilise increasing numbers of people before they are approved by drug regulatory authorities. Drugs first enter phase I human trials traditionally after tests on animals have apparently shown that they are safe and work. Only after successful phase III trials in humans is a drug approved for use by patients.
BUAV used to quote success rates from a report by the FDA in 2004 that showed that a new medical entity - a genuinely new drug- had only an 8% chance of being approved after entering clinical trials.(1) This statistic was a damning indictment of the ability of animal tests to predict effects in humans. However, more recent data from the drug industry has shown that this success rate is declining:
One US survey of 4,451 drugs made by 835 companies between 2003 and 2011 found that only 7.5% of new medical entities were approved by the FDA after entering the first phase of clinical trials. (2) Cancer drugs (new and existing) were shown to have the lowest success rate (6.7%) followed by those for heart disease (7.1%), and psychiatric disorders (9.4%). The authors themselves admitted that “current animal models [of cancer] can be poor predictors of clinical outcomes in humans”. 
Data collected from 2006-2008 by CMR International from 14 drug companies reported a success rate of 5% (3). 
More recent data obtained from 13 large pharmaceutical companies for approvals made between 2007 and 2011 found the success rate after entering phase I trials was 5%. (4)
In 2013 only 27 new drugs were approved by the FDA (the yearly average over the last five years is 28) (5).
The importance of these statistics is that we are told that animals are used to show that drugs are safe and work in humans. The biggest drug failures are in phase II trials where the drug is tested to see if it works, as well as continuing to look at safety, which use only a few hundred patients (3). “The weakest link in the chain was, and still is, in Phase II, where around 50% of failures are typically due to efficacy, 30% are due to strategic reasons and 20% are due to safety concerns”.
If tests on animals cannot predict effects in a few hundred people then clearly they are not working.
Sadly, because companies know that they have to rely on animal data to get a drug past the regulators they do not invest as much time, money and confidence in high tech, non animal methods as they can - and should - be doing.
We should all be very concerned that drug approval rates are so low. Not only is the industry destroying millions of animal lives but time and money is being wasted on drugs that do not work while patients continue to suffer.
Sources:
Source:
1. U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY ON THE CRITICAL PATH TO NEW MEDICAL PRODUCTS 8 (2004) [hereinafter CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY], available athttp://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm113411.pdf.
2. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. (2014). Nature Biotechnology, 32(1): 40-51. Original article can be found here: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v32/n1/abs/nbt.2786.html
3. Arrowsmith, J. 2012. A decade of change. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 11, 17-18.
4. KMR Group Inc. Annual R&D General Metrics Study Highlights New Success Rate and Cycle Time Data CHICAGO, Illinois, August 8, 2012)https://kmrgroup.com/PressReleases/2012_08_08%20KMR%20PBF%20Success%20Rate%20&%20Cycle%20Time%20Press%20Release.pdf
5. Seven days: 3–9 January 2014. Nature 9 Jan 2014, 505, 136.

fightingforanimals:

Beware the ‘wonder drug proceeds to human trials based on animal studies’ story!

Sadly, today the chances of such a drug proceeding much further along the development pipeline are now only 5%.

The most recent study of new drugs approved between 2007 and 2011 has shown that the failure rate is now 95%, an all-time low.

New medicines have to go through a series of human (clinical) trials that utilise increasing numbers of people before they are approved by drug regulatory authorities. Drugs first enter phase I human trials traditionally after tests on animals have apparently shown that they are safe and work. Only after successful phase III trials in humans is a drug approved for use by patients.

BUAV used to quote success rates from a report by the FDA in 2004 that showed that a new medical entity - a genuinely new drug- had only an 8% chance of being approved after entering clinical trials.(1) This statistic was a damning indictment of the ability of animal tests to predict effects in humans. However, more recent data from the drug industry has shown that this success rate is declining:

  • One US survey of 4,451 drugs made by 835 companies between 2003 and 2011 found that only 7.5% of new medical entities were approved by the FDA after entering the first phase of clinical trials. (2) Cancer drugs (new and existing) were shown to have the lowest success rate (6.7%) followed by those for heart disease (7.1%), and psychiatric disorders (9.4%). The authors themselves admitted that “current animal models [of cancer] can be poor predictors of clinical outcomes in humans”.
     
  • Data collected from 2006-2008 by CMR International from 14 drug companies reported a success rate of 5% (3).
     
  • More recent data obtained from 13 large pharmaceutical companies for approvals made between 2007 and 2011 found the success rate after entering phase I trials was 5%. (4)

In 2013 only 27 new drugs were approved by the FDA (the yearly average over the last five years is 28) (5).

The importance of these statistics is that we are told that animals are used to show that drugs are safe and work in humans. The biggest drug failures are in phase II trials where the drug is tested to see if it works, as well as continuing to look at safety, which use only a few hundred patients (3). “The weakest link in the chain was, and still is, in Phase II, where around 50% of failures are typically due to efficacy, 30% are due to strategic reasons and 20% are due to safety concerns”.

If tests on animals cannot predict effects in a few hundred people then clearly they are not working.

Sadly, because companies know that they have to rely on animal data to get a drug past the regulators they do not invest as much time, money and confidence in high tech, non animal methods as they can - and should - be doing.

We should all be very concerned that drug approval rates are so low. Not only is the industry destroying millions of animal lives but time and money is being wasted on drugs that do not work while patients continue to suffer.

Sources:

Source:

1. U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVS., FOOD & DRUG ADMIN., CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY ON THE CRITICAL PATH TO NEW MEDICAL PRODUCTS 8 (2004) [hereinafter CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY], available athttp://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/ucm113411.pdf.

2. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. (2014). Nature Biotechnology, 32(1): 40-51. Original article can be found here: http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v32/n1/abs/nbt.2786.html

3. Arrowsmith, J. 2012. A decade of change. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 11, 17-18.

4. KMR Group Inc. Annual R&D General Metrics Study Highlights New Success Rate and Cycle Time Data CHICAGO, Illinois, August 8, 2012)https://kmrgroup.com/PressReleases/2012_08_08%20KMR%20PBF%20Success%20Rate%20&%20Cycle%20Time%20Press%20Release.pdf

5. Seven days: 3–9 January 2014. Nature 9 Jan 2014, 505, 136.

126 notes
08/10/14 @ 11:50pm
tagged as
theresa wayman
warpaintwarpaint:

Warpaint Live at The Vic, Chicago. Photo by James Richards IV. 

warpaintwarpaint:

Warpaint Live at The Vic, Chicago. Photo by James Richards IV. 

30 notes
@ 12:23am
tagged as
theresa wayman
via:jphf
source:blazethefuckup
3,647 notes
07/10/14 @ 12:20am
tagged as
cophine
orphan black
76,564 notes
@ 12:19am
tagged as
lol
yes
via:horrispls
source:slugfucker

squiglets:

fishytheheroguy:

squiglets:

*sees a mans ego getting crushed*
*instant reblog*

Why just a mans? Thats sexist.

*instant reblog*

12,833 notes
@ 12:18am
tagged as
me

missdontcare-x:

When someone thinks they love an actress more than me
image