I am all for helping people in need, but I've always felt uneasy about organizations who send farm animals to third-world countries. A great charitable organization that helps the hungry is Food For Life (www.ffl.org). They send vegetarian foods to starving people, and this way they are actually combating the problem -- not contributing to it. It's better for the environment, people, and the animals.

Posted by: Chelsea | November 20, 2007 05:50 PM

I've heard what you foul people do and I dont like it one bit

Posted by: Blaine | November 20, 2007 06:53 PM

there is another organization doing this besides Oxfam. i received theri catalogue a few year's ago. When I wrote to the President, he told me the animals were looked in on and well cared for ..HA!! I doubt it very much.....

Posted by: linda R. Norris | November 20, 2007 10:05 PM

As a monthly donor to Oxfam, I am really disturbed by this and am considering moving my donation to a better charity.

Posted by: Canaduck | November 20, 2007 10:57 PM

Chelsea

I am a great supporter of food for Life. They serve delicious, fresh vegetarian/vegan meals to many people in need. Everyone benefits particularly the animals who are not killed mercilessly and violently all in the name of "food".

Oxfam is a sham.

Posted by: Ana | November 21, 2007 08:49 AM

This is almost as bad as campaigns that destroy or damage private property, or vilify parents to young children (your mommy kills animals!!) or compares factory farms to Nazi concentration camps or slave ships. Almost. Be careful about the stones you throw, peta. I would contend that any campaign that leads to hungry people being fed is likely good.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | November 21, 2007 11:59 AM

Oxfam replyed to my email! They asked why I was so against sending animals to poor places where people have impoverished living conditions. And I asked if they can tell me how they would be able to look after these animals when they are living in impoverty. I mean these animals are living and breathing too, Come on send them food and clean water like we do when disaster srikes areas, you don't see us sending them live animals to those places!

Posted by: Carla | November 22, 2007 11:02 AM

My daughter spent 3 months in Africa.
For those months she helped these people plant healthy
Gardens.
Very, very seldom do they eat meat.
My daughter read this and shook her head and said if they don't get it now they never will.

Posted by: Judith, Freedom Fighter for Animals | November 26, 2007 06:36 PM

Don't forget, sometimes animals can eat vegatation that humans cannot eat. An example would be that cattle can graze on sagebrush, but you wouldn't want to have a sagebrush salad.

Posted by: Jim | November 27, 2007 01:32 AM

Oxfam supports an ideology of human superiority and domination. Other animals exist for their own purposes and should not be bought and sold as commodities. We animal rights advocates are the new abolitionists. It is time to shut the slave trade down!

Posted by: Brandon Becker | November 28, 2007 11:16 AM

judith, depends where your daughter visited. for instance the maasai tribes consume largely a diet of meat, milk and fresh blood.

Posted by: rojo | December 1, 2007 10:11 AM

All of the comments here I'm afraid are very poorly informed. Oxfam does not "send" any animals anywhere. Most animals are redistributed in their local communities and as part of this they receive animal health treatment and their new owners who depend on the animals to survive know how to look after their animals. Unwrapped is so much more than just a goat, there are more than 60 poverty reducing gifts available, and a goat is just one.

Posted by: oscar | December 14, 2007 05:09 PM

Well, aren't the animals in third world countries that oxfam send over suffering exactly the same as the people?
What about the people who benifit?
Sending vegetarian foods is NOT the answer. They are not a nutritious and can't breed.

Posted by: Liz | January 14, 2008 03:03 PM

Don't these programs simply send animals to help out with farm labor? I'm pretty sure the families are discouraged from killing the animals for food... it might occur sometimes but all in all the animals help out with the agriculture.

And it's not like a cow raised in a small pen without light in the U.S. is being treated that well either.

Posted by: Kim | April 9, 2008 06:47 PM

Oxfam doesn't SEND aniamals overseas you nincompoops! They send MONEY overseas so that poor people can buy livestock from LOCAL markets (to boost local economy). The Unwrapped gift aslo covers vet costs and livestock care training. You really are a daft lot!

Posted by: Lucy | April 15, 2008 05:07 AM

I have supported Oxfam in the past, as well as donating. I have to say I am appalled that animals are given to poor people who don't always want them, can't take care of them properly and will likely kill them in in cruel ways.

If Oxfam wants to help, why keep spending donated funds on middle management salaries? If they want to provide food, make it Vegetarian. Stop exploiting animals!

Posted by: Shirley Wold | August 1, 2008 02:51 PM

As a primary agriculture producer I feel strongly that giving people food is not a long term answer. Providing them with a means to produce their own food- is. This program was intended not as a hand-out but rather a hand-up. Sitting anywhere in North America does not grant us the right to comment on the foods that their cultures consume traditionally. They don't havethe right to abolish say fast food restaurant type meals for us! They need a start. A beginning -because they have nothing.

Posted by: Margo | September 3, 2008 04:18 PM

Oxfam is a horrible charity that spends most of it's money on admin costs anyway.

Posted by: DeCoria | January 20, 2010 05:12 PM