Martha Rosenberg as posted on
OpEdNews.com
November 2016
"Are there systems in place to teach people to care for their new animals?"
"Who determines who gets a chicken and who doesn't, and will that distribution foster ill will? How would introducing livestock to a community or region impact existing economies? And, most importantly, do the recipients even want the gift?"
Many were shocked this summer when Bolivia rejected Bill Gates' and Heifer International's donation of thousands of live chickens to address "hunger." Anyone who's "living in extreme poverty is better off if they have chickens," wrote Gates. "Chickens are small and stay close to home" and can help feed children in poor families he said.
Ce'sar Cocarico, Bolivia's minister of land and rural development
however, was offended by the offer which betrayed ignorance about the
country and its agriculture and was viewed as patronizing.
Every year, Heifer International, an Arkansas-based live animal charity,
mails its saccharine Christmas catalogue to drum up donations. The photos of
animals and children are cute--last year they even put animals in Christmas
sweaters--but there is little proof live animal gifts work says charity
examiner GiveWell.
"Are there systems in place to teach people to care for their new animals?"
asks the Verge. "Who determines who gets a chicken and who doesn't, and will
that distribution foster ill will? How would introducing livestock to a
community or region impact existing economies? And, most importantly, do the
recipients even want the gift?"
The Verge is right. How are people who are already poor going to feed and
shelter animals? How will they provide veterinary care when they probably
have scant medical care themselves? (Heifer International's aquaculture
operations to pull poor ghetto kids out of poverty in Chicago ending in all
the fish dying twice.) How will poor people prevent the devastation of
animal-to-human diseases such as avian and swine influenzas? How will they
keep animals from being stolen? Are live animals a gift...or a "feel good"
charity that actually creates more problems for the poor?
Visitors to villages that have received Heifer International gifts have
reported whole flocks of birds dying from diseases and children sleeping
with the animal to safeguard them.
Parents in the U.S. have complained about the "lessons" taught at Heifer
International's "Global Village" program in Perryville, AK where school kids
get to witness animals being killed. One mother wrote the local TV station
to say her son continued to be haunted by the screams of a rabbit as its
neck was broken.
Thinking poor people have the money, resources, knowhow and desire to raise
livestock is only half the stupidity. Many Asian, African and indigenous
people are also lactose intolerant making dairy foods inappropriate and even
ridiculous. That didn't stop the Gates Foundation from helping Heifer
International set up dairy enterprises in rural African villages a few years
ago with likely little refrigeration, refrigerated trucks, storage or
electricity.
Nor are bacon and eggs even the solution to world hunger. According to the
World Food Program, hunger comes from climate change, poverty, unstable
markets, war and displacement--not lack of animal protein. In fact, its High
Energy Biscuits provide up to 15 grams of protein from grain.
Heifer International is not alone in presenting animal based agriculture as
a hunger solution including ill conceived dairy operations. Animal drug
giant Elanco in its feed-the-world campaign says, "Simply by using practices
available today or already in the pipeline, cows around the world can
increase their output by a mere half glass per cow, enough to satisfy future
global demand."
Don't be fooled by Heifer International's cute pictures. A simple Google
search will show you many food charities that do not rely on live animals
starting with Food for Life Global
(FFLG).
Return to The Heifer Project: Inhumanity in the Name of Humanity