American actor and TV personality Whoopi Goldberg has been slammed for having a ‘triggered fit’ over plant-based meat.
The celebrity featured on talk show The View earlier this month, where she defended her right to consume bacon.
“What I don’t want is no choice…,” the star said. “I like the bacon, I want the bacon, you don’t have to eat it… No one should tell you that you can’t have something.”
The comment received backlash from animal-rights charity PETA, who said it couldn’t help but ‘call-out’ Goldberg for her ‘rant on The View’.
“Really, Whoopi? Eating bacon is your Friday cause? Your ‘choice’ really hurts. Be kind,” PETA said. “Animals should have a choice though. Eating bacon causes enormous suffering and ends a pig’s life.
“It’s so easy to make choices that don’t support suffering and death. We urge you to consider that.”
‘Making a fuss’
“Hey I understand PETA is making a fuss because I like bacon,” Goldberg tweeted to her 1.5 million followers.
“I never said I was a vegan, and just like I want choice over my body, I want the same for what goes into my body. I would NEVER suggest that ANYONE pressure any one of YOU to change your vegan habits. Go eat a couch if you want.”
‘Animals are not property’
The star’s response added to the controversy, with a plethora of vegans highlighting the cruelty of bacon.
“You spoke a truth in you that you didn’t realize you had, Whoopi,” one user tweeted.
“Animals are not property just as human beings are not property. They don’t belong to us. They deserve to have control over what happens to their bodies just as we do.”
This video includes graphic images some readers may find disturbing.
The meat industry depends, more than anything else, on walls. The walls of farms and slaughterhouses prevent consumers from seeing what the production of their food really looks like. They prevent journalists and activists from exposing unethical, even criminal acts within. They enable corporations to paint happy, bucolic pictures of their operations that bear no resemblance to the reality of modern-day factory farming.
To get inside those walls, over the last two decades, dozens of activists have gone undercover, finding employment on factory farms and wearing concealed cameras, shooting hundreds of hours of footage over the course of months on the job. They have documented the routine acts of mistreatment and abuse of animals that are an inherent part of raising livestock for slaughter with maximum profit in mind.
In response, the industry has pushed to criminalize undercover investigations, through legislation known informally as “ag-gag.” Ag-gag laws target activists in a variety of ways, from imposing criminal penalties on investigators for misrepresenting themselves on employment applications to outright banning the collection of footage on the premises of animal agriculture operations without the owners’ permission.
In Iowa, an ag-gag law passed in 2011 was struck down earlier this year by a federal judge. But thanks to the political power it wields in the state, the meat industry did not have to wait long to see the law resurrected. Just two months after the court’s decision, Iowa’s legislature passed a brand new ag-gag bill, and its newly elected governor, Kim Reynolds, signed it into law.
Our short documentary tells the story of one undercover investigator whose footage is at the center of Iowa’s ag-gag backlash.
Southern African nations are threatening to quit the global wildlife trade regulator after it refused to relax restrictions on trade in ivory and rhino horn and imposed a near total ban on zoos taking African elephants captured in the wild.
Ties soured during this week’s meeting of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in Geneva after numerous proposals from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) regional bloc were rejected.
Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe – home to the world’s largest elephant population – asked for the right to sell ivory acquired through natural deaths, confiscations and culling.
The demand was rejected by a majority of 101 votes.
The CITES treaty, created more than four decades ago, regulates trade in some 36 000 species of plants and animals and provides mechanisms to help crack down on illegal trade and sanction countries that break the rules.
But members of the 16-nation SADC bloc accuse it of turning a blind eye to Africa’s problems.
“The result has been failure to adopt progressive, equitable, inclusive and science-based conservation strategies,” Tanzanian Environment Minister George Simbachawene told the Geneva meeting.
“Time has come to seriously reconsider whether there are any meaningful benefits from our membership to CITES,” he said.
Past sell-by date
The ministers accused the regulatory body of bowing to animal rights groups and unreasonably prohibiting the trade of African wildlife and products rather than regulating it fairly.
“A great disappointment, shocking outcomes,” said Botswana’s Environment Minister Onkokame Kitso Mokaila.
“I think CITES has long passed its sell-by date,” he said, adding SADC needs “something else… that speaks to the issues of today.”
No member has permanently quit the Convention since it was adopted in 1963.
The United Arab Emirates withdrew in 1988 but rejoined in 1990.
The largely aid-dependent SADC region hosts the lion’s share of Africa’s wildlife.
Zimbabwean President Emmerson Mnangagwa blasted the decision not to relax ivory laws saying the money – estimated to have a combined value of $600 million – could fund conservation projects.
‘Divide and rule Africa’
“They bar us from killing our animals for selling ivory, but they want us to protect them from being poached,” he protested.
Namibian Environment Minister Pohamba Shifeta said CITES was “increasingly becoming a forum dominated by non-state players with the agenda to divide and rule African states.”
“We are reconsidering our stay in CITES,” Shifeta said, suggesting regional and national talks could take place this year.
CITES’ refusal to overturn the international ban on ivory trade was, however, welcomed by conservationists.
Wildlife NGO Born Free’s head of policy, Mark Jones, told AFP that lifting it would have “seriously undermined” existing conservation efforts.
Poaching has decimated the world elephant population, which slumped in Africa from several million at the turn of the 19th century to around 400,000 in 2015.
Jones said devastated and vulnerable elephant populations would face “increased risk from poachers and traffickers who would not hesitate to use legal markets to launder illegal ivory into trade”.
He urged SADC countries to continue their membership and work with the international community to find solutions for species threatened by trade and trafficking.
Competition for resources is fierce, as growing human and wildlife populations increasingly encroach on each other’s space.
Zimbabwean Parks spokesman Tinashe Farawo told AFP 15 people had died in animal attacks during the first eight months of this year.
More than 200 people were killed in the past five years, he said. Crops have also been destroyed.
“Our people must benefit, this is a resource we think we can monetise, Farawo said.
“That’s why we have been saying we believe that the elephants must pay for their upkeep.”
Botswana’s environment minister Mokaila said detractors need to consider that rural communities were being affected by increasing wildlife numbers, climate change, water shortages and loss of land fertility.
“It’s not just about talking about elephants or rhino, it’s about talking about economies in Southern Africa,” he said.
“We cannot be emotional about it. We cannot bury our heads in the sand and think that the problem will solve itself by saying stop trade,” said Mokaila.
More than 40 wild burros have been found shot and killed along the Interstate 15 near the Nevada state line, Federal officials said on Friday, and they’ve offered a reward of up to $18,000 for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible.
It is one of the largest killings of its kind on public land managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management in Southern California, officials said.
A total of 42 wild burro carcasses with gunshot wounds have been found in various states of decomposition near the freeway corridor through the Clark Mountain Herd Area managed by the Needles field office of the BLM.
“We will pursue every lead until we’ve arrested and prosecuted those responsible for these cruel, savage deaths,” said William Perry Pendley, the BLM’s Deputy Director for policy and programs, “and we welcome the public’s help to bring the perpetrator or perpetrators to justice.”
Details about the ongoing investigation were scarce. However, BLM officials said the burros, including several juveniles, were shot in the neck with a rifle.
Some were brought down while drinking water in the Halloran Springs area.
Animal protection organizations said they were outraged by the slaughter and have contributed thousands of dollars to the reward.
“It’s a travesty that these animals would be gunned down,” said Grace Kuhn, spokeswoman for the nonprofit American Wild Horse Campaign. “There’ve been isolated incidents before over the years, but nothing on this scale in memory.”
Neda DeMayo, president of the nonprofit Return to Freedom, said, “I’ve been told that at least one of the burros was still alive when it was discovered by a passerby. But it succumbed to its injuries by the time BLM investigators arrived on the scene.”
“It’s all so unbelievable,” she added. “Crazy. Hostile. Cruel.”
Burros are not native to the West’s deserts, but they became some its most valued resources: sure-footed in rugged terrain, capable of carrying heavy loads long distances, and withstanding extremes in temperatures of cold and heat.
In the 1920s and 30s, they were turned loose and replaced by Model-A Fords and other vehicles. Since then, they have multiplied without restraint with few predators to check their numbers.
With populations that doubled every four to five years, they’ve managed to survive by feeding on the sage and wild growth of the Mojave Desert.
By the 1950s, wanton slaughter of wild burros in California’s desert and mountains had reached such proportions that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals pressed for legislation to protect the creatures from trigger-happy hunters.
One killing ground was Homewood Canyon, near Trona, about 240 miles northeast of Los Angeles, where the SPCA officials in 1953 reported a shocking scene: Over an area of 50 acres, they found 50 burro carcasses. Only a few had bullet holes in the head, indicating that most had been left wounded where they fell.
Today, the animals are protected from capture, branding, harassment or death under the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, which considers them an integral part of the natural system of public lands managed by the BLM.
Violations of the act are subject to a fine of up to $2,000, or imprisonment for up to one year, or both, for each count charged.
Anyone with information about this incident is asked to call the WeTip hotline at (800) 782-7463 or visit http://wetip.com.
No chickens were harmed in the making of the new KFC nuggets and wings going on the menu in Atlanta.
A single KFC franchise — the one near the SunTrust Park baseball stadium in Atlanta — is now offering meatless chicken from the plant-based food company Beyond Meat. The deal makes KFC the first fast-food restaurant to serve plant-based chicken.
The early results? Hours-long lines, with cars and pedestrians wrapped around the building as customers try to get a taste.
2 hour wait and line wrapped around the building at @kfc for this Vegan chicken here in ATL y’all. They cut off the drivethrough and will be sold out by 3pm. #BeyondFriedChicken
It’s a huge step forward for both companies — and for chickens, nearly 50 billion of which are raised in factory farms in the US annually.
“KFC is an iconic part of American culture and a brand that I, like so many consumers, grew up with. To be able to bring Beyond Fried Chicken, in all of its KFC-inspired deliciousness to market, speaks to our collective ability to meet the consumer where they are and accompany them on their journey. My only regret is not being able to see the legendary Colonel himself enjoy this important moment,” said Ethan Brown, founder and CEO of Beyond Meat, in the press release announcing the deal.
So far, Beyond Meat — like its competitors — has largely focused on imitation beef, with its signature Beyond Burger and new offerings of imitation ground beef. There are some good reasons for plant-based companies to start with beef: Cows are huge contributors to global warming, and there are big sustainability gains from replacing them with plant-based products.
But there are also some good reasons chicken should be at the top of the agenda. Each cow produces a lot of burgers, which means we kill far more chickens than cows to get the same amount of meat. And chickens are among the worst-treated animals on factory farms, caged in small, chemical-treated spaces where disease is rampant, and engineered to grow so quickly that their legs give out. Chicken farming also contributes to public health problems like antibiotic resistance and the spread of bird flu — and yes, chicken factory farms have a carbon footprint too.
For those reasons, animal welfare researchers have urged plant-based meat companies to figure out a substitute for chicken and other farmed chicken products like eggs. Now, Beyond Meat has answered that call with a partnership with the most famous fast-food chicken restaurant in America.
“Beyond Fried Chicken is available in nuggets with choice of favorite dipping sauce, like KFC’s signature Finger Lickin’ Good sauce, or boneless wings tossed in one of three delicious sauce options: Nashville Hot, Buffalo or Honey BBQ,” KFC announced. If consumers in Atlanta agree that they’re finger-lickin’ good, the meatless nuggets could hit menus elsewhere soon.
Vegans, we have a problem. We’re insulting each other, we’re alienating each other, we’re destroying each other’s businesses and reputations, and we’re playing right into the hands of the animal exploitation industry. To paraphrase a line from one of my favorite television Presidents (Jed Bartlett of The West Wing), we’re eating our young. And if we don’t get our act together soon, this movement we’re all passionately fighting for will never make the impact we crave or the change the animals need.
For those of you who were lucky enough to miss out on 2018’s burger-induced vegan community meltdown, here’s the basic story. Impossible Foods debuted their plant-based burger patty that many consumers consider to be the closest imitation of a cow-based patty. The smell, the texture, the juiciness…it’s so beef-like, many vegans are too creeped out to even try it. According to Impossible Foods, the Impossible Burger uses 1/20 the land, requires 1/4 the water, and produces 1/8 the greenhouse gas emissions compared to its cow-based counterpart. For those of us who like plant-based meats, it was a dream come true, right?
But then came the news that Impossible Foods’ proprietary “heme”, the groundbreaking ingredient that gives the burgers their beefy flavor, was tested on animals. Rats, to be specific. Because this newly developed ingredient hadn’t previously been used in food, Impossible Foods agreed to participate in animal testing in hopes of earning official approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). From what I understand, the testing wasn’t legally mandated, but had the potential to make a big difference in terms of distribution approvals.
Cue the internet outrage. Not one day of outrage, this was months of battles taking place in comments sections across the vegan cyber world. The Chicago Vegans Facebook group damn near collapsed into itself like a dying star. I watched vegan icons be smeared for daring to post a photo of themselves eating the Impossible Burger. I saw people defriend one another for coming to a different conclusion on the issue than they did. I personally lost quite a few followers (some of whom left very unkind farewell messages) after mentioning the burger on my Instagram story.
And these are the people who are supposed to be on the SAME TEAM. The people getting sucked into these rage fests didn’t seem to respect or even acknowledge that they all felt as passionately as they did because of a shared love of animals. The pro-burger side was outraged that the anti-burger side couldn’t seem to appreciate the end goal of potentially saving billions of cows with a revolutionary plant-based patty. The anti-burger side was outraged that people who typically boycott products tested on animals were bending their ethics for this one item.
Meanwhile, as vegans spent weeks hurling insults at other vegans (making sure to end every conversation with, “don’t you dare call yourself a vegan!”), cattle transport trucks continued to transport victims to the slaughterhouse. Dairy cows had their newborn babies ripped away. Millions of dogs, cats, rats, and other animals were injected with chemicals and tested on in excruciating ways. The industrial animal exploitation machine didn’t just turn off because we happened to be distracted. In fact, it’s my very strong assumption that our infighting was exactly what cattle farmers dream of.
Personally, I have eaten and will continue to eat the Impossible Burger. I often lean more towards the “ends justify the means” side of the philosophical spectrum, and for me, this falls into that category. Pat Brown, Impossible Foods’ founder and CEO, has been vegetarian for four decades and vegan (if the vegan police are still letting him call himself that) for 14 years. I’ve read his statement on the issue, and while I still have no idea what I would have done in his situation, I fully understand how he arrived at the difficult conclusion that he needed to allow the testing. Just like I understand how my friends who run other big name plant-based food companies repeatedly paid for and consumed animal products for comparison’s sake while developing their plant-based alternatives. Yes, these vegan entrepreneurs and chefs take bites of real chicken flesh and real chicken eggs in the process of perfecting their vegan counterparts. And no, I won’t tell you who those people or companies are, because I don’t want to send the vegan army after them.
I also understand and empathize with the animal advocates who don’t want to support Impossible Foods. I know their reasoning comes from an opposition to animal cruelty, and I of course share that opposition. I actually welcome people who disagree with me yet want to discuss the issue civilly, in the way that people working towards the same end goal are supposed to do.
Unfortunately, it seems I’m in the minority on this. Vocal vegans seem willing and sometimes even happy to tear one another apart in a never-ending game of “who’s the most vegan?” While I guess this makes our egos feel better, I’m not sure how it helps the animals. My strong fear is that unless we tackle this insidious in-fighting now, we won’t be prepared for the inevitable dilemmas ahead.
Leaders in the vegan community are already starting to develop varying opinions on the subject. Most are supportive, but skeptical– which is basically how I’d describe my stance. I often say that any industry that exploits animals for profit will eventually abuse them (hence, why I don’t eat or wear any animal products), but is that true if the industry is run by genuine animal advocates?
If we find ourselves in a situation where “clean” chicken meat can be produced from fallen feathers collected from chickens roaming freely on a sanctuary-like plot of land, I’m totally behind it. However, if we’re forcibly impregnating cows to slaughter and collect serum from their fetuses, I’m not really on board. Earlier I said I tend to fall on the “ends justify the means” side of the spectrum, but it’s never that black and white. If cells from one slaughtered cow were able to feed one billion humans, would I support it? Maybe. If cells from one slaughtered cow were able to feed 100 humans? Probably not.
Ethics are tricky, and these issues are going to become increasingly more complex. In addition to the lab-grown meat controversy, we’re inevitably going to face other debates. McDonalds, a corporation most vegans despise, will undoubtedly eventually release vegan burgers in the United States (they’ve already launched the McVegan burger in Europe). Vegans who purchase it in order to support the distribution of affordable cruelty-free food will certainly be chastised for supporting an evil empire. Vegans who boycott it will be insulted and degraded for failing to understand economics. Friendships will end, fights will go on, and we’ll lose focus all over again.
That is, unless we get a grip on ourselves. Unless we remind ourselves during every one of these new ethical dilemmas that regardless of our tactics, we are all on the same side. We’re all fighting this fight because we abhor suffering and needless violence, and we’re trying to create a world without those things. As the vegan community continues to expand, we’ll hear new voices and new perspectives; we should welcome this rather than cast it out.
According to the Top Trends In Prepared Foods Report (2017), the number of self identified vegans in the United States has risen 600% in the past three years! That’s incredible news, but it means our demographics are changing rapidly. This movement is attracting people across all age groups, professions, political parties, ethnicities, education levels, and personality types. Things are only going to get more complicated going forward, and we need to be ready.
If you were hoping to stumble upon a magical solution in this post, I’m sorry to disappoint you. This is simply an invitation for some self-reflection. I don’t have the answers. Instead, I have some questions. Questions I recommend that we all ask before publicly commenting on The Next Great Vegan Battle, whatever it may be:
Ask yourself: Is my comment offering a unique, constructive insight? Am I using insulting or sarcastic language to offend, embarrass, or upset other animal advocates? Would I want someone who just went vegan this week to read this comment? Would I want people who still eat animals to read this? Would my comment please those who are still profiting from animal exploitation? Is this comment pleasing to my ego, and if so, why?
If we remember to ask ourselves these questions before we engage, we have a much better shot at productive, healthy, respectful discussions. We all have egos and strong opinions, and I certainly don’t claim to be immune to any of this drama. I’m sure I’ve played a negative role numerous times over the years, but I’m becoming more and more aware of how harmful that attitude is to animals. It’s only when we work together and resolve our differences respectfully that we actually create meaningful change.
Suffering animals are counting on us. We need to do better.
Last week’s ICE raids on chicken slaughter plants in Mississippi raise an issue that traditional media like to ignore. Undocumented immigrants keep the US in cheap meat.
Few to no Americans want slaughterhouse jobs like knockers, stickers, bleeders and tail rippers. In fact, when Smithfield’s slaughterhouse in Tar Heel, NC, offered inmates work release to work at the local slaughterhouse, the inmates said they would rather stay in their cells. Think about that.
A 2008 ICE raid on the Iowa-based slaughterhouse Agriprocessors wiped out almost the whole work force: 296 Guatemalans, 93 Mexicans, two Israelis, and four Ukrainians were arrested. Initial charges against Agriprocessors included harboring illegal aliens, use of child labor, document fraud, identity theft, physical and sexual abuse of workers, unsafe working conditions, wage and hour violations, and shorting workers’ pay.
According to the search warrant, 1,000 discrepancies between worker names and Social Security numbers occurred in three years. There was even a methamphetamine production plant existing within the slaughterhouse, sanctioned by management. Barack Obama, then an Illinois senator, weighed in on the situation during a campaign stop in Davenport, Iowa. “They have kids in there wielding buzz saws and cleavers. It’s ridiculous,” he said
Undaunted after the raid, recruitment firms hired by Agriprocessors canvassed homeless shelters, bus stations, chapel services, and other slaughterhouses, and ran ads in Spanish-language newspapers and on Mexican radio stations in the Rio Grande Valley to replenish the workforce. One recruitment firm, Labor Ready, says it recalled 150 workers, days after placing them, over Agriprocessors’s “safety conditions.”
Years ago, meatpackers JBS Swift, Tyson Foods and Gold’n Plump began hiring Somalis, fleeing civil war, for their slaughterhouse workers. Sudanese and Pacific Islanders also became popular slaughterhouse employees. Employees fleeing poverty and violence, like those from Central American, are willing to accept low wages and no on-the-job protections or worker rights.
Are conservatives who deplore immigrants ready to give up the cheap meat immigrants make possible? Are progressives and clergy who “love” immigrants okay with jobs with no security that regularly cause workers to lose their hands—to keep Americans in cheap meat? (We won’t even talk about what happens to the animals under these conditions.)
Ten years ago, a Texas AgriLife Research study of 5,005 dairy farms estimated that the US economy would suffer an $11 billion loss with the loss of foreign workers. Since then, that number has only grown.
Are Big Food corporations—and the lawmakers who serve them—ready to pay real wages to workers and stop hiring undocumented immigrants while bashing them? Are Americans addicted to cheap meat ready to see how their eating habits support the exploitation of undocumented immigrants? No talk about undocumented immigrants is honest if it leaves out the fact that US slaughterhouses are balanced on their backs.
In case you haven’t already heard, Tim Hortons has expanded their menu Wednesday morning by adding a ‘burger’ section to their always-growing selection. However, instead of introducing normal burgers to their menu, Tim Hortons has decided to take it a step further and add two ‘Beyond Meat’ burgers. These two new Tim Hortons Beyond Meat Burgers have been a popular topic this morning, so I decided to head down to my nearest Tim Hortons and give one a try.
Guests can choose from the two different burgers on the menu at locations across Canada. The Beyond Burger is like a regular cheeseburger, containing a plant-based patty, cheese, lettuce, tomato, ketchup, mustard, and mayonnaise, sandwiched between two sesame seed buns. They also offer a BBQ version of the burger, which includes the same ingredients with the addition of BBQ sauce.
These plant-based patties are perfect for vegetarians or anyone just looking to try a meatless twist on a normal burger.
These famous Beyond Meat patties are designed to taste just like real beef burgers and have already been incorporated at other fast-food joints across Canada.
As a meat-eater myself, I headed to Tim Hortons to see just how much these burgers tasted like the real thing.
Being a more traditional burger eater, I opted for the normal Beyond Burger. The first thing I noticed is the low price.
You can get either burger for $5.69, which matches the prices of similar fast food burgers. This means you can also grab a coffee and some Timbits on the side without hurting your wallet.
The second thing I noticed is how in demand the burger actually is across Canada.
Even though the burger was only announced today, it seems like everyone is flocking to their nearest store to give it a try.
While waiting in line, both customers in front of me also ordered the burger. When I finally reached the counter, the employee informed me that I had snagged the second last burger they had and that customers had cleared out their stock before dinner time had even hit.
After making it home and unwrapping the burger, I wasn’t surprised to see that it looked like any other regular fast-food burger.
Of course, it doesn’t quite look like the amazing photos that Tim Hortons has released, but burgers never look like they are promised to.
As for the taste, I was surprised to find that it actually did taste like meat. Sadly, the taste wasn’t anything that jumps out you, but I was surprised in that it resembles any other fast-food burger that you would pick up around the city.
It’s definitely something that I would grab again if I was craving a quick burger on the go. Yet, it didn’t stand out as anything special compared to other burgers I have tried in the past.
One disappointing factor I have to mention is that the Beyond Meat patty isn’t nearly as amazing as the Beyond Meat sausage Tim Hortons offers in their breakfast sandwiches.
Earlier this year, I tested the Beyond Meat Breakfast Sandwiches and fell in love with the farmer’s wrap they offered. The plant-based sausage tasted even better than their real meat.
Overall, the Beyond Meat patty tastes just like any othr normal burger, but it doesn’t stand out as the breakfast sandwiches did.
If you’re a vegetarian, this is a really great option for you. Considering, Tim Hortons didn’t have any burgers on their menu before, if you’re looking for a filling lunch that’s also vegetarian, this is a great option.
The BBQ Beyond Burger and the regular Beyond Burger are both available at all locations across Canada.
If you’re interested in trying more Beyond Meat menu items, their Beyond Meat breakfast options are really delicious. In collaboration with Beyond Meat, Tim Hortons was able to create a new Beyond Meat sausage patty that completely unique and totally tasty. If you’re vegan, you can get a vegan option of the breakfast sandwich as well.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Narcity Media.
A dog was set on fire and killed in Connecticut last Friday — and police are searching for the person who committed the heinous act, according to reports.
The pooch, believed to be a miniature schnauzer, was discovered when firefighters responded to a 10 a.m. blaze in a parking lot of the Sandy Point Beach and Bird Sanctuary in West Haven, according to NBC Connecticut.
Investigators believe an accelerant was also used to burn the animal, the report said.