22 ms·
Food Practices Banned in Europe But Allowed in the US
- haliax 13y agoIs there a good way to buy only products that avoid use of these chemicals?
- Svip 13y agoLive in Europe? /me rins
- beatgammit 13y agoI would say "buy organic", but organic farms just use "organic" versions, and I'm not 100% clear on what that means. Anyone know the rules for "organic" foods in terms of pesticides, fertilizers, etc?
- jmj42 13y agoI a nutshell, the legal definition of organic (in U.S.) means that organic foods are produced using non-synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. In other words, if the FDA (EPA/USDA? Not really sure what organization handles it) classifies a pesticide as organic, then it's allowable for organic certification in the U.S.
- VLM 13y agoReally? I eat lots of organic food and have previously researched this, I tried google and its very easy. Pick up any organic product. It has a sticker "USDA Organic" with white on top and green on bottom. Wikipedia has a great article on "National Organic Program" which is run by the USDA. The NOP website is at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop The blanket reg is CFR 205.105 which references each class of substance separately. Its like the overall flowchart. Then other regs list specific stuff. Like "205.603 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic livestock production." So CFR 205.603 says you can use ethanol as a disinfectant only but not in the food, so no white lightning in the food bucket. Aspirin is OK. Vaccines as a blanket order are OK. (whoops edited to add I think you want CFR 205.601 Synthetic substances allowed for use in organic crop production. Whatever. Nothing is really unexpected in these CFRs and for a guy with a chemistry background I think some rules are a little weird (Ethanol is synthetic and allowed, but Arsenic is non-synthetic and forbidden? Really?) but the writing style should be understandable by the general public)
- samatman 13y agoAll seven practices relate to animal foods, with the exception of a possible trickle-down effect on rice arsenic levels. Whether a vegetarian/vegan diet is a 'good way' is up to your taste.
- Shivetya 13y agoExcept that many outbreaks of salmonella occur from greens sold loose and packages in super markets. Quite a few large scale farms use animal waste in one form or another to fertilize crops. I would prefer they settle the irradiated foods disputes and use that to clean up much that is done with chemicals. I have seem far less its unsafe than safe yet radiation is a boogeyman that is hard to beat.
- samatman 13y agoQuite true, and indeed, partially-treated municipal sewage is used on crops in many places, which gives me pause. It happens to be the case that this article focuses on deficits in our meat supply, and wider reading suggests that animal food safety is in fact poorer on many spectra.
- jlarocco 13y agoIn the US, "certified" organic food can't use treated sewage as fertilizer.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- larsberg 13y agoWhole Foods. Whatever else you say about them (or their prices), they've made these issues easy to deal with as a consumer. http://wholefoods.com/about-our-products/quality-standards/animal-welfare-standards http://wholefoods.com/about-our-products/quality-standards/a...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- brown9-2 13y agoFrustratingly (as a frequent Whole Foods shopper), the top of the page raises the question of "What about added hormones and antibiotics?" and then never provides an answer. Found the answer on another section of the site though: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/whole-story/our-meat-no-antibiotics-ever-0 http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/blog/whole-story/our-meat-no...
- jmj42 13y agoBuy local. I live in central Illinois, so it's fairly easy to find local (within 30 miles) producers of most raw foods (meat/veggies/eggs), with the exception of milk. While this may be difficult in some parts of the country, I find getting to know local farmers and buying directly from the ones that do not use these practices (farmer's markets are great for making those connections) is the easiest. Though, as I said, I live in a farm rich region, so it may be much easier for me than others.
- ars 13y agoHu? Why does the fact that the farmer is next to you have anything to do with his process? So if I buy from that same farmer you go to, but I'm hundreds of miles away I suddenly get those chemicals but you don't?
- jmj42 13y ago> Why does the fact that the farmer is next to you have anything to do with his process? It doesn't. It does, however, have everything to do with discovering what that process is. I walk up to a farmer at a local farmer's market and say, "Hey, do you feed your cows chicken shit?... No? Cool, can I buy some steaks from you?" Obviously there's better ways to present the question, but you get the point. It's far easier to discover the process directly (and IMO more reliable) than to follow the supermarket->distributer->packager->slaughterhouse->farmer chain to find out what the process is.
- ars 13y agoSo you don't actually mean buy local. You mean ask the farmer. But it's not really all that hard to find this out even for bulk packaged meat if it's branded - just call that single company and ask. If it's unbranded from your butcher then ask him. (Although admittedly he might not know.) In all three cases it's just: "Ask".
- jlarocco 13y agoMost of them involve animal products, so eating vegan would help. The first two would be more difficult to avoid. I think the first one can be avoided by buying organic corn. Avoiding rice fertilized with arsenic manure would be more difficult. You could try buying rice at a farmer's market and asking the seller what he fertilizes with. FWIW, I've been trying to eat vegan for a few months now and it's surprisingly difficult at first. A surprising number of the weird ingredients in everything are derived from eggs and dairy. I was vegetarian before, and I still had to make some big changes to my diet. I like that it's made me think about what I'm eating, though.
- jmsduran 13y agoI wonder if livestock producers still feed Arsenic to livestock meant for organic products? It would be a shame if they do this by exploiting the technicality that Arsenic is entered through the feed in "organic form".
- jkldotio 13y agoThe flipside of this are things like the banana regulation, more commonly known as Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94.[1] I believe it's now rescinded under ridicule but there are people who try to deny it even existed. It's well worth reading in full on eur-lex for riveting prose like "the measurement, in millimetres, of the thickness of a transverse section of the fruit between the lateral faces and the middle, perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis".[2] Regulations over the official ingredients of jam, battles over who has the right to make certain types of sausages, the list goes on. It's harder for legal systems other than the common law because of the way they work but I'm of the opinion that we should at least trial putting a word count limit on the total body of law and regulation. A more depressing tale of regulatory woe, given the rocketing suicides and unemployment in Greece, is that of the bookstore/café that can't sell coffee and frequently can't sell books.[3] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No_2257/94 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No_2... [2]http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1994R2257:20060217:EN:PDF http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLE... [3]last three paragraphs http://economistmeg.com/2012/02/27/note-from-athens-feeling-on-the-ground-has-palpably-changed/ http://economistmeg.com/2012/02/27/note-from-athens-feeling-...
- arethuza 13y agoIf your comment about "right to make certain types of sausages" refers to the various protections around food actually coming from a particular area I actually think that is a good thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_traditional_specialities_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geographical_indications_and_t... After all (to pick an example from the news today) - if something is described as "Stornoway Black Pudding" I'd like to believe it actually came from Stornoway: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-22445935 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-2244...
- BCM43 13y agoIf it is exactly the same besides the origin, why does it matter?
- tezza 13y agoA reasonably informative article. It must pain HNers in US that if they perceive these items as problems then they have little access to tasty unpasteurized cheeses which would help ease the blows. http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/consumers/ucm079516.htm http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/consumers/ucm079516.... I'm from Oz originally, and they unfortunately ban unpasteurized cheese too.
- Nursie 13y agoBrie de Meaux honks like stale feet anyway! Seriously, opened some up in the car once, big mistake, it stank for ages.
- masklinn 13y ago> Brie de Meaux honks like stale feet anyway! Not sure what your point is, it's still delicious. Also brie is not the worst smelling cheese by a very long shot. Maroilles is way worse and used in tarts (a common saying is that after you make a maroilles tart you have to throw out the oven). And of course they have nothing on (non-cheese) surströmming or hákarl
- Nursie 13y agoI just meant that you're not necessarily missing out, IMHO. Brie in general I love. But the only time I've tried brie de meaux from unpasteurised milk it really, really stank and I didn't care for the taste either. And I will eat most ripe and blue cheeses happily. I've yet to try surstromming after being warned off it by a Swedish friend. Of course he didn't seem to like any Swedish food so may not be the best person to listen to on that count!
- masklinn 13y ago> I just meant that you're not necessarily missing out, IMHO. If that's what you meant, I can only state that, as far as I'm concerned, you're definitely and unambiguously wrong.
- 13y ago
- tokenadult 13y agoThe most sensible European regulations of those listed in the article kindly submitted here are "What Europe did: Banned all forms of animal protein, including chicken litter, in cow feed in 2001." and "What Europe did: In the EU, all antibiotics used in human medicines are banned on farms—and no antibiotics can be used on farms for 'non-medical purposes,' i.e., growth promotion." I'd like to see the United States follow that lead immediately, and I write this as a man who has several uncles and cousins who are farmers, including some who raise cattle. It makes sense to me to have lines of defense against transmission of animal-infecting, and especially antibiotic-resistant-animal-infecting, microbes to human beings, by controlling what animals raised as lifestock eat and how they are treated with veterinary medicines. For the other regulatory practices mentioned in the article, especially washing chicken carcasses, I'd like to see more detailed evidence of the safety trade-offs involved in the practices of the United States and of Europe. I'm less sure on some of the other issues that science actually supports the European practice.
- paganel 13y ago> "What Europe did: Banned all forms of animal protein, including chicken litter, in cow feed in 2001." I think this came in the aftermath of the Mad Cow Disease that affected the UK in the mid-'90s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopathy#Epidemic_in_British_cattle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopat...). I know that UK does not necessarily mean Europe, but nevertheless, that was really huge no matter where in Europe you happened to live, it showed that an entire industry could vanish over night just because of bad industry practices.
- Gmo 13y agoMad Cow Disease did not hit only the UK (France, for instance, was also significantly hit). But anyway, for this kind of regulations, it is definitely at the European level and it is quite likely MCD is the reason for it
- Xylakant 13y agoUK was hit worst, but other european countries were affected as well. I was pretty young when that happened but I still remember the images of piles of cow carcasses being burned on the open field. The MCD was the reason to ban feeding animal proteins to cows. Before MCD it was common practice to feed ground animal (cow) bones and leftovers from the slaughterhouse to cows.
- zeteo 13y agoHow can you take such decisions while considering only the purported benefits and not the costs as well? Let's take antimicrobial sprays for example. They presumably protect some consumers from food-borne illnesses. Shouldn't this be balanced against the risk of rashes and such? If say we estimate antimicrobial sprays save a hundred thousand salmonella etc. cases a year at the cost of ten eye irritations, maybe they're not such a bad deal after all.
- Xylakant 13y agoThere are more costs attached to it: Using antimicrobial sprays or antibiotics in abundance tends to create resistant strains and the products enrich in the food chain. The same effect could be created by just using proper hygienic conditions in the slaughterhouse - but that would cost more and require some spoilt food to be trashed - such as the trimmings from beef. Instead it's treated with ammonia and sold as ground beef.[1] Enjoy. [1] http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19947.cfm http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19947.cfm
- zeteo 13y ago>The same effect could be created by just using proper hygienic conditions in the slaughterhouse That's a pretty strong assertion. How did you find out that equivalent hygienic conditions could be created in slaughterhouses at a moderate cost? Aren't antibiotic sprays just getting the germs that got through, despite reasonable precautions being taken?
- Xylakant 13y agoThe article asserts that the increased usage is to compensate for speeding up the kill lines - so less precaution. Bacteria-related food poisonings due to spoiled meat are pretty rare in germany and since the practice is forbidden here I assume it must be perfectly viable, albeit properly more expensive to create proper conditions.
- zeteo 13y ago
- coob 13y agoSee also "Why American Eggs Would Be Illegal In A British Supermarket, And Vice Versa" http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2012/10/25/why-american-eggs-would-be-illegal-in-a-british-supermarket-and-vice-versa/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2012/10/25/why-ame...
- samolang 13y agoAnd the associated hacker news discussion https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5325540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5325540
- AlexMuir 13y agoHN kicks up an almighty fuss about any attempts to regulate our industry (see online payments, sales taxes, etc.) but we are happy to pass judgement on others. In Europe we can barely stop people from selling horsemeat as beef. I'm not sure how effectively we are implementing any of these rules, and I'm sure a farmer who wishes to do so can flout them at will. One positive thing to come from the rise of supermarkets and chains is that their own brands suffer when their suppliers fuck up. They alone have the power to police their producers. And we see this in this article with McD's et al pushing for higher standards.
- Joeri 13y agoIn my view the horsemeat-as-beef scandal demonstrates that the system works and that mislabeled meat gets detected. In this case the meat was perfectly edible, it was just mislabeled.
- gpvos 13y agoTrue in most cases, but there was at least one Dutch company that also mixed rotten meat into its products.
- harshpotatoes 13y agoWas it perfectly edible? My understanding of the fiasco is that it was not simply calling horsemeat beef or some other meat. My understanding is that the horsemeat found in packages originated from meat labeled as not for human consumption, meaning that particular horsemeat had not gone through the same safety inspection normally given to meat which is labeled as for human consumption. To me, this seems that the horsemeat might not be perfectly edible.
- claudius 13y agoNo it wasn’t – horsemeat if meant for human consumption is edible, but meat from racing horses, for example, isn’t. Those having to dispose of such horses even have to pay the renderer for their service, and this was the real problem here, even though the media tended to get more concerned about ‘HORSE meat!!!!’. But, as the GP said, this so far seems to be a singular incident of a single producer trying to make an extra profit, which I don’t really think justifies throwing the entire system overboard.
- Zmetta 13y ago|"You know how arsenic goes inorganic—and thus poisonous—in chickens' guts?" Correct chemistry but perhaps misleading to non-chemist readers. This is one reason that I oppose product labels advertising "green, organic, natural" products. I cannot help but think that some fickle readers will draw some association between inorganic and poisonous.
- derleth 13y ago> I cannot help but think that some fickle readers will draw some association between inorganic and poisonous. Which is exactly the intended reaction. The Organic Industry is big business now.
- mjn 13y agoI prefer the German and Scandinavian descriptor "ecological food", rather than "organic food", partly for that reason.
- coldcode 13y agoRealize the USDA is primarily tasked with promoting agricultural business, only secondarily protecting the public. Guess what takes precedence. The FDA is also limited in anything affecting another agency's primary area. Thus FDA cannot affect usage of antibiotics in animal feed.
- drucken 13y agoThis is one of the reasons why any possibility of a significant "free trade" agreement between the US and EU is virtually non-existent. Their principles, economies, and output across a large range of sectors are much more different than many care to admit.
- lifeisstillgood 13y ago1. Being from UK where we have just had months of "how the hell did horsemeat get into every burger and lasagne meal?", the idea Europeans have this food business sorted is laughable. 2. All western countries have high standards in food processing. The differences are arbitrage not horrors that will kill us all, as this article rather lazily implies. 3. processing food is mostly the problem. Processing meat is almost the whole problem.
- radio4fan 13y agoI don't see where TFA aruges that the food business in the EU is sorted, rather that many practices which are rightly illegal in the EU are legal in the US. Murder is illegal everywhere, but that's not to say it never happens.
- lifeisstillgood 13y agoNewspapers here drool over the high standards of food safety in the USA, and literally faint when they find a drug on sale here that the FDA has banned. These things are par for the course - the Germans and UK have very different meat handling laws - but somehow mass food poisoning are rare and all that seems to happen is we get fatter. Most of what is wrong with our food chain is meat orientated extraction processes pushing low quality cheap reclaims into foods that are overly processed. We know this. It's not a secret nor is it illegal. Nor is it banned in any country. It's just dumb. The Mr Money Mustache of food would laugh at us.
- Tomis02 13y ago> the idea Europeans have this food business sorted is laughable. It was a scamdal. and it IS sorted out. And EU has the regulations in place, as opposed to USA.
- learc83 13y ago>And EU has the regulations in place, as opposed to USA You don't think the USA has food regulations?
- kevinpet 13y agoIt's a big turn off to me to see these kinds of purely political articles on HN. I like my life somewhat compartmentalized -- I'd like to be able to discuss technology, science, and startups with people without getting dragged into "OMG the US government is bought by industry!"
- _fs 13y agoAgreed. It's been described as the redditification of HN, and will only get worse as the site gains popularity
- sonabinu 13y agoWonder if things are any different if you are on a vegetarian diet?
- gadders 13y agoFor this one: 4. Chlorine washes for poultry carcasses the EU is currently looking at implementing something similar using substances such as ozone in solution or steam.
- claudius 13y agoWith the difference that steam is not exactly as toxic as chlorine, and even ozone is likely to be less of a problem.
- gadders 13y agoYes, but that something needs to wash the chickens due to bacteria.
- claudius 13y agoI am not saying that the problem (dirty chickens) doesn’t exist, I am saying that there are likely superior solutions to that problem which don’t risk leaving an extremely toxic and reactive substance on my food.
- saosebastiao 13y agoDon't worry...we'll throw you in prison if you don't pasteurize your milk.
- gadders 13y ago7. Gestation crates These were banned in the UK in 1999. The EU has just brought in a law banning them, but a lot of countries are still not fully compliant.
- X4 13y agoWe need more advanced Gardens and 100% recycling of everything we use, the system must have a working circular flow. No Genetic engineering, or processing of our food. It took billions of years for the nature to create the foods that are perfect for us, we cannot create something better (in a few hundred years). I wish that someday the entire Human race on Earth will be as enlightened as the people in Star Trek.
- Riesling 13y ago> It took billions of years for the nature to create the foods that are perfect for us, we cannot create something better (in a few hundred years). Technically it's not that nature created those foods for us to be perfect. It's more like that the available food has shaped human evolution. Those individuals who could make best use of those foods, also had the best chance of passing their genes onto following generations. This evolution continues today, probably even at a faster pace, especially since we are processing foods to the limit.
- takluyver 13y ago> It took billions of years for the nature to create the foods that are perfect for us, we cannot create something better (in a few hundred years). Nature has no such intention - in fact, in most cases, evolution favours inedibility. Even simple processing methods like leaching out toxins with water probably made our food much better. Fruit has evolved to be edible, but it's hardly perfect for us - it's more like a sugary treat. Milk might be the only thing we consume which has evolved as a nutrient source for creatures like us.
- ceejayoz 13y ago> It took billions of years for the nature to create the foods that are perfect for us, we cannot create something better (in a few hundred years). Bullshit. We created those foods. Our staple crops and domestic animals have all been genetically engineered via selective breeding and trial and error for millennia. Food processing - making bread, cheese, salted meats, canned foods etc. from raw materials - allowed us to move out of the hunter gatherer existence into a society that sends robots to other planets.
- tayllargardner 13y agoThe fact that the US doesn't care wether or not we eat these harmful things is outrageous. Quite honestly, I don't see why they wouldn't ban it because those who let this slide and know about it are probably eating it too.
- SeanDav 13y agoIn Europe many of the laws tend to try to follow good moral principles. In the USA it would likely be the same if Big Business didn't have such a massive influence on law making.
- kintamanimatt 13y agoBusiness has its hand in the legislative process in Europe too. Europe's not some corruption-free idealistic utopia.
- SeanDav 13y ago>Europe's not some corruption-free idealistic utopia I never said it was. Just in general Europe is driven more by what is good for the people, not what is good necessarily for big business. How else do you explain the gun laws of USA despite the numerous atrocities committed by people with easy access to huge quantities of ammunition and semi-automatic weapons? Can you say that the NRA has nothing to do with the gun laws in the USA? How do you explain the inclusion of so many European banned substances in common food production in the USA? The alternatives are generally more expensive and less convenient, yet they are banned in Europe, not USA.
- epmatsw 13y agoIt's written into our Constitution, which is very difficult to change? A significant portion of our population doesn't desire a change to gun laws? And the point of the banned substances is that they're less expensive and more convenient. That's why they're used. Whether they're harmful or not is up for debate, but I don't think businesses use them because they don't work...
- SeanDav 13y ago>It's written into our Constitution Of course it is. Other things like free speech etc that are also in the constitution are being run over because it suits the government and Hollywood, yet the right to bear arms has barely been touched, in fact probably expanded. I notice that no-one addressed my point about the NRA influencing gun laws. Also, where is it written in the constitution that ammunition should be available in Supermarkets? As to your point about being harmful is up for debate: Antibiotics in the food chain is a major cause of current immunity issues with disease causing agents. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibiotic_resistance Yet the practice has not stopped in the USA despite the evidence. There are so many other examples, I really don't understand why some people here don't get it - the USA legal and political system is probably more influenced by big business than any other Western democracy. If not the worst, then close to it.
- scotch_drinker 13y agoThis is the problem any time an industry gets big enough to control legislature in Congress. It's happened in finance and it's happening in agriculture. Practices that are most likely detrimental to the long term health of the population continue apace because it makes someone a lot of money. Changing that at the governmental level is almost impossible, not to be all cynical and jaded. The American consumer has long decided they were only going to choose on price and it's a lot cheaper to have agriculture in the state it is than to fix it. What you can do is shop locally, start a garden, support local farmers, start hunting and fishing, etc. Is it harder and more expensive? Yup but that seems to be the state of affairs we find ourselves in. On the upside, growing food in a garden is extremely fulfilling.
- cjensen 13y agoThe US is now the control group to see if these practices make any difference. There's no reason to implement any of them unless someone demonstrates that Europe has a better outcome on the various claimed side-effects. For example, if honeybees fare no better in Europe than the US, then we can eliminate the theory that neonicotinoids are a problem.
- TazeTSchnitzel 13y agoI'm not sure that's the only difference, though.
- kunai 13y agoAnother thing that is not practiced in Europe (to my knowledge) and allowed in the US is fluoridation of water. There is scientific proof that fluoride is a potent neurotoxin[1], and yet the government continues to insist and require fluoridation of water. ------------ 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride_toxicity
- TazeTSchnitzel 13y agoWell, of course it's a toxin. There's a reason it's added to water: In small amounts, it is not harmful to human health but is harmful to bacteria that cause cavities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Safety http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation#Safety
- kunai 13y agoHowever, brushing after meals with fluoridated toothpaste solves the problem. Again, the (local) government(s) choose(s) to legislate rather than educate. Shouldn't one be allowed the freedom to choose whether he/she wants fluoridated water or not? Why not install a fluoridation pump per household rather than at the mains? Offer people a choice.
- TazeTSchnitzel 13y ago>However, brushing after meals with fluoridated toothpaste solves the problem. It doesn't. We have it in water because, really, people need to fluoridate their mouths more often than is practical through teeth-brushing alone.
- edemay 13y agoBy the way, same for Canada except #3 and #4 which have been banned.
- jokoon 13y agoWe live in a world where economic growth is more important than health issues. Having a strong economy means having bad health, and somehow the strong economy can repair the health problems it caused. Problem: recession.
- heyzzz 13y agoLike a lot of other political decisions in the US - they still choose to go with the unlogical choices which in this case would be to not implement some of these bans. I guess there are commercial interests behind these decisions like the gun politics, alcohol laws, etc. What else can you expect in this semi-corrupt country?
- yekko 13y agoProfit is more important than public health. This will end badly for the people.
- dhughes 13y agoMeanwhile in Europe unpasteurized raw milk (good/bad?) is allowed to make cheese and wooden force feed geese to produce foie gras, horse meat and marmite yeah there I said it. I bet European countries have a lot of "traditional" foods grandfathered in even though barely safe. I'm sure the blame game can be used to make the US or European countries look bad. Although it's great if rules can make us safer and animals lives better but even though there are some good rules and common sense to get rid of antibiotics, heavy metals and nasty pesticides. But this strikes me as noses turned up especially quoting radical animal rights groups such as the essentially ten year old Humane Society of the United States organization (pretty much ex-PETA extreme extremists took it over) .