Daily Archives: July 18, 2021

Last fall, while checking my DNA matches on Ancestry, I discovered I have a niece that my younger brother fathered around 40 years ago. I contacted her, and she was unaware of who her father was, which I thought was tragic. I also contacted my brother, and he said he was unaware of her existence. He said had no interest in meeting her, as he was afraid to upset his wife. They have a son and daughter in their 30s, and the timing of the conception may overlap when he was dating his wife. My newly discovered niece confronted her mother, and her mother said that my brother knew about her all along, which means he lied to me.

By all indications, my niece is a very nice person, in a good marriage, with children. She lives in Illinois; so does my brother and his family. I plan to meet her when I go to a high school reunion next year.

Heres my question. My brothers daughter, i.e., the niece Ive known my whole life, has a wedding in Chicago this December, and Im attending. My brothers son my nephew will be there. Im debating telling my nephew that he has a half-sister. I dont want to rain on my nieces wedding parade, so Ill leave talking with her for another time. I think my nephew should know that he has a half-sister. He can do nothing about it if he chooses, which would make him just like his father. I dont know him well enough to know how hell react.

What do you think? Should I let sleeping dogs lie, or should I try to facilitate expanding the family?

Youre in a tough position and any action you take risks irreversible fallout from angering or alienating your brother, to rocking the stability of the lives of his adult children, to blowing up his marriage or even messing up the wedding day of his daughter. That said, its understandable that you feel driven to do the right thing, whatever that may be. After all, youve learned your brother carried on a lifelong deception at the expense of costing a woman her relationship with her biological father. That would spur anyone to consider action.

Lets walk it back: does your new niece even want to meet her estranged dad and his brood? Its great the two of you have struck up correspondence and could possibly build your own familial relationship. But youre a very different matter than your brother, who represents a past of missed opportunity. He has lied about his very knowledge of her existence, and basically chose his own comfort and happiness over owning up to his actions and subsequent consequences.

So rather than make judgment calls on what you think people deserve to know, dig in a little deeper on what shes looking for, if anything. Is she interested in knowing her half-siblings? Would that be exciting for her, or conversely, would they always too closely represent a life that could have been? You say shes married with kids; shes possibly quite fine as she is, with no interest in rocking the boat.

Either way, youre weighing actions with potentially massive outcomes. Fully discuss this with your newly discovered niece to understand where her head is at before you go dropping truth bombs just before the bouquet toss.

Dude, the real tragedy is that you have stuck your nose so far into something that isnt your business that you cant even see that you are dropping bombs on your relationship with your brother, the life of a woman who is doing just fine without her dad and his family members including you thank you very much and your nephew and niece, who dont even need to be dragged into this, not to mention two established families that dont need the drama. And you want to break the news to your nephew at his sisters wedding? Seriously?

Sorry Wanda, but this isnt a tough spot. Not his role to force any kind of relationship between his brother and his estranged, and possibly unknown, daughter. Not his role to determine if the mom is really telling the truth and the brother is lying. Not his role to meet up with his newly discovered niece, though fully within his rights anticipating the start of a great friendship, some closure or Unknown Uncle of the Year Award? (What could a coffee and convo at Starbucks hurt? Maybe a lot, maybe not at all. Just think about why youre really doing this before doing this, please.) And not his role to drag his known nephew and niece not his son and daughter, his nephew and niece into an awkward-at-best situation. That role is his brothers alone.

You found a new relative. You let your brother know he has a daughter and let the daughter know who her dad is. You talked with the mom. Thats the end of your investigation, Magnum P.I. These are families with calm and settled lives, man! Now respectfully keep your mouth shut and move on. If any of the truly important and affected parties want to do any kind of connecting, youve set them up to do so. Feel good about that if you want.

And if your heart is compelling you to do something really significant to help the lives of parentless young people, donate some of your travel money and enthusiasm to an organization that supports foster children. They have their whole lives ahead of them and someone with your passion might actually help them in a positive way.

Visit link:
I took a DNA test to learn about my family tree, and discovered my brother has a daughter he's never met - Anchorage Daily News

(THE CONVERSATION) Since the human genome was first mapped, scientists have discovered hundreds of genes influencing illnesses like breast cancer, heart disease, and Alzheimers disease. Unfortunately, Black people, Indigenous people and other people of color areunderrepresented in most genetic studies. This has resulted in askewed and incomplete understandingof the genetics of many diseases.

We are two researchers who have been working tofind genesthat affectpeoples riskfor various diseases. Our team recently found a genetic region that appears to beprotective against Alzheimers disease. To do this, we used a method called admixture mapping that uses data from people with mixed ancestry to find genetic causes of disease.

In 2005, researchers first used a groundbreakingmethodcalled agenomewide association study. Such studies comb throughhuge datasetsof genomes and medical histories to see if people with certain diseases tend to share the same version of DNA called a genetic marker at specific spots.

Using this approach, researchers have identified manygenes involved in Alzheimers disease. But this method can find genetic markers only for diseases that are common in the genomes of the study participants. If, for example, 90% of participants in an Alzheimers disease study have European ancestry and 10% have Asian ancestry, a genome-wide association study isnt likely to detect genetic risks for Alzheimers disease that are present only in individuals with Asian ancestry.

All peoples geneticsreflect where their ancestors came from. But ancestry manifests as both genetic variation and social and cultural experiences. All of these factors can influence risk for certain diseases, and this can create problems. When socially caused disparities in disease prevalence appear across racial groups, the genetic markers of ancestry can be mistaken for genetic markers of disease.

African Americans, for example, are up totwice as likelyas white Americans todevelop Alzheimers disease. Research shows that much of this disparity is likelydue to structural racismcausing differences innutrition, socioeconomic status and other social risk factors. A genome-wide association study looking for genes associated with Alzheimers might mistake genetic variations associated with African descent for genetic causes of the disease.

While researchers can use anumber of statistical methodsto avoid such mistakes, these methods canmiss important findingsbecause they are often unable to overcome the overall lack of diversity in genetic datasets.

Disentangling race, ancestry and health disparities can be a challenge in genome-wide association studies. Admixture mapping, on the other hand, is able to makebetter use ofeven relatively small datasets of underrepresented people. This method specifically gets its power from studying people who have mixed ancestry.

Admixture mappingrelies on a quirk of human genetics youinherit DNA in chunks, not in a smooth blend. So if you have ancestors from different parts of the world, your genome is made of chunks of DNA from different ancestries. This process of chunked inheritance is calledadmixture.

Imagine color-coding a genome by ancestry. A person who has mixed European, Native American and African ancestry might have striped chromosomes that alternate among green, blue and red, with each color representing a certain region. A different person with similar ancestry would also have a genome of green, blue and red chunks, but the order and size of the stripes would be different.

Even two biological siblings will have locations in their genomes where their DNA comes fromdifferent ancestries. These ancestry stripes are how companies like Ancestry.com and 23andMe generate ancestry reports.

Because genome-wide association studies have to compare huge numbers of tiny individual genetic markers, it is much harder to find rare genetic markers for a disease. In contrast, admixture mapping tests whether the color of a certain ancestry chunk is associated with disease risk.

The statistics are fairly complicated, but essentially, because there are a smaller number of much larger ancestral chunks, it is easier toseparate the signal from the noise. Admixture mapping is more sensitive, but it does sacrifice specificity, as it cant point to the individual genetic marker associated with disease risk.

Another important aspect of admixture mapping is that it looks at individuals with mixed ancestry. Since two people who have similar socioeconomic experiences can have different ancestry at certain parts of their genomes, admixture mapping can look at the association between this ancestry chunk and disease without mistaking social causes of disease for genetic causes.

Researchers estimate that58% to 79%of Alzheimers disease risk is caused by genetic difference, but onlyabout a thirdof these genetic differences have been discovered. Few studies have looked for genetic links to Alzheimers risk among people with mixed ancestry.

Our team applied admixture mapping to a genetic dataset of Caribbean Hispanic people who have a mix of European, Native American and African ancestry. We found a part of the genome where Native American ancestry made people less likely to have Alzheimers disease. Essentially, we found that if you have the color blue in this certain part of your genome, you are less likely to develop Alzheimers disease. We believe that with further research we can find the specific gene responsible within the blue chunk and have alreadyidentified possible candidates.

One important note is that the genetic diversity that plays a role in disease risk is not visible to the naked eye. Anyone with Native American ancestry at this particular spot in the genome not just a person who identifies as or looks Native American may have some protection against Alzheimers disease.

Our paper illustrates that gaining a more complete understanding of Alzheimers disease risk requires using methods that can make better use of the limited datasets that exist for people of non-European ancestry. There is still a lot to learn aboutAlzheimers disease, but every new gene linked to this disease is a step toward better understanding its causes and findingpotential treatments.

See original here:
Mixed-ancestry genetic research shows a bit of Native American DNA could reduce risk of Alzheimers disease - KRQE News 13

In 2018, the Maple Fire ripped through Washington states Olympic National Forest, burning 3,300 acres and taking down dozens of bigleaf maple trees, a species prized for its wood, which is used to make high-end acoustic guitars. Local officials became suspicious that the conflagration might have been a tree theft gone wrong when they noticed large stumps surrounded by sawed off limbs amid the destruction.

Now, in a first for federal criminal proceedings, tree DNA has been used to convict two men of stealing the valuable trees from public lands and selling them to local mills, the Associated Press reports.

Richard Cronn, a research geneticist for the Agriculture Departments Forest Service, showed via DNA analysis that the lumber Wilke sold to local mills matched the remains of three bigleaf maples in the charred national forest and had not been lawfully harvested from private lands with a valid permit as the defendant claimed.

The DNA analysis was so precise that it found the probability of the match being coincidental was approximately one in one undecillion (one followed by 36 zeros), according to a statement from the U.S. Attorneys Office for Western Washington.

Using this unique evidence the main defendant, Justin Andrew Wilke, was convicted of conspiracy, theft of public property, depredation of public property, trafficking in unlawfully harvested timber and attempting to traffic in unlawfully harvested timber, according to the statement. He could face up to ten years in prison when he is sentenced in October.

When people steal trees from our public lands, they are stealing a beautiful and irreplaceable resource from all of us and from future generations, says Acting U.S. Attorney Tessa Gorman in the statement. That theft, coupled with the sheer destruction of the forest fire that resulted from this activity, warrants federal criminal prosecution. I commend the various branches of the U.S. Forest Service who worked diligently to investigate and hold this defendant accountable.

Notably, the jury did not convict Wilke, his accomplice Shawn Edward Williams, and two other men who were not named in the court documents of starting the Maple Fire, which cost Washington state around $4.2 million to extinguish.

According to the authorities, Wilke and his accomplices started the blaze one night in August 2018 after they discovered a wasps nest at the base of one of the maple trees they hoped to illegally log. When a spritzing of wasp killer didnt eliminate the stinging insects, the group opted to douse the nest with gasoline and set it on fire, a claim that Wilke disputes.

In a statement, Wilkes lawyer Gregory Murphy tells Jaclyn Peiser of the Washington Post that his client did not dispute that he, along with other uncharged co-conspirators, unlawfully profited from unlawfully logged maple in 2018 But Mr. Wilke has always maintained that he did not cause a forest fire.

Williams, on the other hand, testified that it was Wilke who lit the fire, according to the statement. Ultimately, the jurys failure to convict Wilke of igniting the costly forest fire may rest on witnesses who testified that although they saw Wilke standing next to the fire, they did not see him light it because it was night time, per the AP.

Like this article?SIGN UP for our newsletter

Continue reading here:
For the First Time, Tree DNA Was Used to Convict Lumber Thieves in Federal Investigation - Smithsonian Magazine

In this 2014 photo provided by Lori Mallory Eckhart, nurse Leah Davis Lokan poses for a photo at her office in Chico, Calif. Lokan was pulled from her tent and killed by a grizzly bear in Ovando, Mont., early on July 6, 2021. Wildlife officials say they shot and killed a bear early Friday, July 9, that they believe was responsible for Lokan's death. (Lori Mallory Eckhart via AP)

In this 2014 photo provided by Lori Mallory Eckhart, nurse Leah Davis Lokan poses for a photo at her office in Chico, Calif. Lokan was pulled from her tent and killed by a grizzly bear in Ovando, Mont., early on July 6, 2021. Wildlife officials say they shot and killed a bear early Friday, July 9, that they believe was responsible for Lokan's death. (Lori Mallory Eckhart via AP)

HELENA, Mont. (AP) DNA results received Wednesday confirmed a grizzly bear shot and killed by federal wildlife officers in Montana was the same one that pulled a California woman from her tent last week and killed her, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks officials said.

The DNA samples from the bear match a saliva sample from the scene of the attack in the western Montana town of Ovando as well as samples obtained from two chicken coops that were raided last week, said FWP spokesperson Greg Lemon.

The bear killed Leah Davis Lokan, 65, of Chico, California, early on July 6 at a campsite near the post office. She was participating in a much-anticipated trip along a long-distance bike route that traces the Continental Divide.

The bear was shot and killed early on July 9 near a chicken coop that it had raided two days earlier. The bear also got into a chicken coop the night Lokan was killed.

Lemon has said the bear was a healthy weight and showed no sign of illness.

Lokan, a retired nurse, was an experienced outdoors woman and cyclist, friends said. They said she was a free spirit, competitive and adventuresome and was aware of the dangers she faced on the trip.

Continued here:
DNA: Wildlife officials killed bear that mauled woman - Associated Press

In yet another twist in a fishy tale, the fast-food chain Subway is pushing back once again against its tuna critics, launching a website in defense of its popular sandwich.

The site, subwaytunafacts.com, declares in block capitals Subway tuna is real tuna, with real underlined, with the company countering a claim made in June by a New York Times investigation that Subways tuna may not, in fact, be real.

A New York Times-commissioned lab test earlier this year acquired over 60in worth of Subway tuna sandwiches from three Los Angeles stores and engaged a specialized fish-testing lab. The results failed to identify a species, having found no tuna DNA, the newspaper reported.

According to a lab spokesperson, the Times noted: Theres two conclusions. One, its so heavily processed that whatever we could pull out, we couldnt make an identification. Or we got some and theres just nothing there thats tuna.

On its newly launched website, Subway rejects the premise of the story, stating: What actually happened is that the New York Times commissioned a test that couldnt detect tuna DNA in their sample. According to scientific experts, this is not unusual when testing cooked tuna and it absolutely doesnt mean the sample that was tested contained zero tuna.

In addition, the website argues that the New York Times conclusion lacked important context surrounding the limitations of DNA testing of denatured proteins, indicating that the process of cooking and packaging tuna ultimately breaks down DNA fragments, thus making it difficult to accurately test for the processed fish.

Subwaytunafacts.com also provides a breakdown of the companys quality control mechanisms that include the Seafood Import Monitoring Programs requirement of complete tuna traceability, as well as multiple authenticity certificates associated with its tuna.

The New York Times is not the first to question the authenticity of Subways tuna. In January, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Subway in California that claimed the sandwich giants popular tuna subs were completely bereft of tuna as an ingredient and were rather a mixture of various concoctions.

The plaintiffs have since walked back on their original claims and instead now claim that Subways tuna is not 100% wild-caught skipjack and yellowfin tuna. Subways new website also rejects these claims, calling them equally wrong and a reckless and improper attack on its brand and goodwill.

Read more:
Our tuna is real tuna, Subway insists, rejecting exposs fishy DNA tests - The Guardian

BOGOT Andrea Padilla is a 42-year-old Bogot city councilwoman. She has a Ph.D. in law, two masters degrees in criminology and philosophy, and an undergraduate degree in psychology. Her doctoral dissertation makes the case that animals in Latin America are not simply objects, but rather sentient beings whose rights should be protected by law.

Padilla spoke with Mongabay recently from her home in Bogot, where she described her place as usually being full of animals because she is a cat rescuer. In addition to being an elected official, Padilla coordinates CER Gatos, a volunteer organization working to capture, sterilize, rescue and return cats without homes. Padilla is also a university professor, vegan and writer. Her first non-fiction book will be out within a year.

Mongabay: How would you describe yourself? Who is Andrea Padilla?

Andrea Padilla: I am an activist for the rights of animals who made the leap to electoral politics. I say electoral politics and not politics because life was already political. Everything someone does as part of a cause or movement is political. I believe that once someone forges a leadership role, and has a deep commitment to an issue, that person should take part in the decision-making process and stop delegating that power to others.

I started out as one of the semi-naked people in the streets, marching, performing. I organized demonstrations. Politicians shut the door in my face when I approached them for help. This was years ago, when we were laughed at, not taken with any degree of seriousness or importance. I started, like many, taking in dogs, cats, volunteering weekends at a shelter.

Mongabay: Tell us more about these early formative experiences.

Andrea Padilla: Getting all those doors slammed in my face was a formative experience. Seeing that most politicians dont fight for causes, that was formative. It is easy to feel disgust for politics in a county like Colombia, with so much corruption and clientelism.

One day, a cat came into my life. We named her Mayo because she arrived in May. I had never had a cat. I always had dogs. And this cat changed my life. This cat was a revelation, because one day I am cooking a chicken and Mayo is standing next to me on the counter. And while I am holding this chicken, I feel its claw. And I think to myself, this chickens foot feels just like Mayos foot, the same bones, the same muscles, this is the same animal, the same being. That day I became a vegetarian.

Later I got involved with PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). PETA would send me packages in the mail with VHS cassettes, pamphlets, signs. This was long before the internet got going, but I just remember seeing these videos and thinking to myself the day people can see this, they will have a change of conscience!

Mongabay: What images shocked you the most?

Andrea Padilla: The slaughterhouses and the laboratories where they test cosmetics on animals.

Mongabay: And now you are a member of Bogots City Council?

Andrea Padilla: Correct. I was elected democratically in 2020 with 23,749 votes. And I spent less than $4,000 on the campaign. I believe it is one of the cheapest campaigns in history.

Mongabay: As an animal rights advocate turned politician, who are your constituents?

Andrea Padilla: I would guess that 80% or so are pet owners and probably close to that, maybe less, are vegetarians. I just saw a study that says 70% of homes in Bogot have at least one non-human animal. This is amazing. Another important trend is that a lot of younger people are not interested in having children. They consider their spouse or partner and their pet as their true family. We now have multi-species families.

Mongabay: What do you believe is at the core of the animal rights movement, why did you join it?

Andrea Padilla: When we exclude animals and discriminate against them because they belong to a different species, and we think it is OK to subject them to cruelty and suffering because they dont speak like us, reason like us, feel, think, communicate, walk or live like us, we generate exclusion and malice through pain and suffering. I became interested in this cause because I believe its the foundation of kindness and compassion in the world.

Mongabay: You are highly criticized by just about everyone. Animal rights activists criticize you for not being radical enough. Many traditional environmentalists or conservationists criticize you for caring too much about domestic animals and pets and not enough about native fauna and wildlife. For example, what are we going to do about the fact that both feral and domestic cats kill billions of wild birds each year?

Andrea Padilla: Within the movement I am criticized for not being radical enough. And I recognize that I am at times pragmatic, calculatingly pragmatic, terribly pragmatic. But life is short, resources are scarce and the problems are numerous. Take bullfighting in Bogot. People were upset that bullfighting isnt completely prohibited. It is not within our authority to ban bullfighting, but we can regulate it. We shortened the season from eight dates to three. We increased their taxes. We banned a number of the cruel practices used to poke and prod the animals. We made the actual killing of bulls in the plaza illegal. And we require the organizers to include information about animal suffering when they publicize events. This for me is a win. Weve made this spectacle more expensive, less attractive and in terms of its pragmatism, weve all but eliminated it.

Many environmentalists criticize me for only caring about individuals and not about species, or populations or ecosystems. This is also false. I care about ecosystems and about protecting native and wild species and populations. In the case of domestic cats killing birds, which I believe is a huge problem, we need to ensure that our cats are almost completely indoor animals. We all need to make sacrifices and this is one that we can make. Cats need to live primarily inside. If they are outside, they should be in a managed environment and under very close supervision. In the case of the cats and dogs living in wetlands, as they do here here in Bogot, they must be removed.

With feral cats there is a solution as well. In Barcelona and other places, feral populations are sterilized and then released into enclosures with enrichment. The spaces are managed by city authorities in collaboration with nonprofits and other entities.

Mongabay: Another controversial matter currently receiving a lot of coverage in Colombia and around the world is this business of Pablo Escobars hippos and their impact on Colombias native biodiversity. How did we get here and why are animal rights activists and environmentalists fighting about this?

Andrea Padilla: The situation is that during the 1980s, the narco Pablo Escobar brought four hippos to Colombia, obviously with all the complicity of the state imaginable, because how else do you get four hippos into Colombia? If the authorities would have known what they were doing from the get-go, they could have castrated the male, and the hippos never would have reproduced. But since they fell asleep at the wheel, like they always do, by the mid-90s there were some 16 animals and I believe three managed to escape. Today it is estimated that there are 80 individuals, probably more, because it is likely that people are rearing hippos on their farms, in captivity.

Mongabay: And the conservationists, biologists and ecologists want the hippos exterminated because they are wreaking havoc on the aquatic biodiversity and native ecosystems of the Magdalena River?

Andrea Padilla: One of the things that happened as part of this saga is that in 2009, the Ministry of the Environment and the regional environmental management authority CorMacarena issued permits for hunters from a local foundation ironically enough called the Wildlife Foundation to capture the escaped hippos, which of course meant that these guys were going to go out there and just start shooting them.

So, they go out there and kill this enormous hippo named Pepe. After they kill him, it occurs to these guys that they should take a picture posing with Pepe to show off their heroic feat. This generated all manner of public outrage. And it made me realize, Wow, maybe in Colombia there is a little more empathy than I thought. At the very least there is a certain rejection of this impudent attitude that says its OK to pose with a dead animal as a trophy. This outrage resulted in a legal decision to stop what would have otherwise been a mass extermination of the animals.

I understand and share peoples concerns about the importance of ecosystems and native species. The conservation of nature merits everyones full attention. What I find morally unacceptable is that there wasnt even going to be a discussion. One of the things thats good about all of the hell weve raised in the name of animal rights is that it made the environmentalists the ones screaming kill the hippos! moderate their cry for war and sit down at the table. And thats a win. Were not going to have a mass killing, were going to have a discussion and a mixed solution.

Mongabay: What is the mixed solution?

Andrea Padilla: We are talking now about three options, a combination of them I believe will work. First, sterilization. Both surgical and chemical. Since the chemical needs to be readministered, the surgical solution is a better long-term solution. Second, is some type of enclosed natural space.

Mongabay: A hippo park?

Andrea Padilla: It could be a kind of a hippo park, yes. And third, we will have to sacrifice some. This mixed solution allows us to control their reproduction and birth rate, control their geographic distribution and reduce suffering to the animals and to humans, because dont forget there is a human population that benefits from these animals through tourism. But yes, some will have to be killed. Hopefully as few as possible, and after all other viable options have been exhausted, but in some cases, it must be done. We all have to make compromises.

Mongabay: Although you raise the ire of many environmentalists, your legislative wins and proposals are decreasing the wildlife trade and addressing climate change, is this correct?

Andrea Padilla: Yes. In January of this year, we passed a measure that bans the sale of live animals, which includes caged birds, in all five of the citys public markets. I had been tormented by the horrendous conditions of these markets for years because of the risks they generate for human health and animal well-being.

Its also worth noting that within a year, the sale of caged birds in Bogot will be prohibited everywhere in the city. And that we have also increased funding and improved facilities for wildlife rehabilitation in Bogot.

On climate, at the end of last year, we approved a project to declare a climate emergency in Bogot. In addition to upgrading to the Transmilenio (bus) fleet to electric vehicles and taking other steps, we said: what about the consumption of meat? This received pushback. And before I knew it, we were talking about watered-down solutions: using paper straws; taking shorter showers; not taking the car out as often, etc, etc. All these things are great, but come on. Animal-based agriculture and the consumption of meat are the major drivers of climate change and deforestation. As a capital city, with millions of people making millions of decisions a day, we can do something about this.

So, we inserted two articles into the climate agreement. The first is for the development of an ethical, healthy and sustainable menu program for all public entities. The program reduces consumption of meat by providing a vegetarian and vegan alternative at every public function and entity (like schools and penitentiaries) in the district. It also introduces a curriculum into schools so that children will learn about carbon emissions and the environmental impacts of raising animals for human consumption. And that, yes, in the process of being raised, transported and slaughtered, these animals suffer.

The second is a program called Mondays without Meat. The idea is that the district generates campaigns so that people become more aware of these issues, that eating animals drives climate change, drives deforestation, biodiversity loss, and causes suffering.

Mongabay: And its a voluntary decision people can make as to whether or not they eat meat on Mondays, or will you send people to jail if they do?

Andrea Padilla: One hundred percent voluntary. Were not banning the consumption of meat on Mondays or sending anyone to jail. Were educating people about the benefits of giving up meat once a week and if they wish to do so, thats their decision.

Mongabay: You and the animal rights activists in Colombia are now a political force to be reckoned with. How will you deploy this force in the upcoming presidential elections and beyond?

Andrea Padilla: Right now we are waiting for a legal decision regarding the development of national-level animal protection. This is something thats established in President Ivn Duques National Development Plan. But since these guys have been screwing around for two years on this, nothing has happened. So we had to file a grievance against them and are awaiting the response.

With regard to elections, I belong to the Alianza Verde (Green Alliance). I see it as my role to develop the partys animal rights agenda.

Mongabay: The Green Alliance will have an animal rights agenda?

Andrea Padilla: We must. How can we be the Green Alliance without an animal rights agenda? So far, the national-level discussion has been very weak. I see it as my imperative to change this. Animal rights will be part of our DNA. The rights of animals are important to voters, the media is paying attention and our political relevance grows every day.

Mongabay: Thank you for your time. Anything else youd like to share?

Andrea Padilla: Just to say thank you and that all of this really is about understanding that everyone has a place in this world. That we all want many of the same things. To have food, water, air, sunshine, a place to live, to be with our loved ones, our families, to be safe. To know that our lives matter.

Banner image: Andrea Padilla in Bogots Plaza de Toros. Image courtesy of Andrea Padilla.

View original post here:
'Animal rights will be part of our DNA': Q&A with Bogot councilor Andrea Padilla - Mongabay.com