Gene Baur's Bloggings

Slaughterhouse Fear

 

An article in an agribusiness journal from earlier this year reads: "Sanderson Farms' poultry processing plant in Moultrie, Ga. was temporarily locked down on Wednesday when an employee reported a colleague was armed. Turns out the ‘gun’ was actually a novelty cigarette lighter shaped like a pistol, according to police called to the scene."

There are few workplaces where the presence of a novelty cigarette lighter would result in a lockdown like this. But slaughterhouses are violent, fear ridden environments for farm animals, and also for human beings. And, killing is in the air. Can you imagine doing a job that involves cutting animals’ throats eight hours a day? Such bloody work has a negative effect on us, and I wish nobody had to do it.

The article also noted that despite concerns that somebody had a weapon in the slaughterhouse, the killing continued. It stated, "…while the guards did lock the gates, as per company policy, the production lines never stopped."

Shift Happens

Animal advocates want to change the way farm animals are treated, while agribusiness tends to defend the cruel status quo. But it’s important to recognize that farm organizations’ perspectives vary, just as different animal protection groups have different approaches.

Although animal advocates are animated by diverse perspectives, we’ve been able to join forces on common purpose, to push forward with achievable goals, such as banning cruel factory farming confinement systems like veal crates, gestation crates and battery cages. With each legislative advance and with growing mainstream awareness about and opposition to these inhumane systems, farmers and agriculture groups are responding. Some are beginning to recognize that change is inevitable, but industry hardliners are digging in their heels and trying to maintain the status quo.

I recently visited Ohio and Michigan and met with agribusiness representatives to express concern about legislation they are advancing in both states to set up quasi governmental bodies to give the factory farming industry control over regulating how it should treat animals. These measures are a blatant violation of democratic principals, just as factory farming cruelties are an affront to basic humane sensibilities. On both counts, industrial farming is out of sync with mainstream societal values.

We are urging lawmakers and others in Michigan and Ohio to oppose or amend agribusiness’ extreme bills so they better reflect popular sentiments. Though factory farms have an inordinate amount of influence in Lansing and Columbus (as well as in other state capitols), and they are often unwilling to compromise, we remain hopeful.

If the legislature fails to take appropriate action, we’ll have to explore other options, and there is a good chance these matters could be addressed through direct democracy, such as the ballot initiative. Stay tuned …

Agribusiness Subverts Democratic Process

The factory farming industry has a lot to hide, and when its harmful behavior is exposed, there are inevitable calls for change. Industrial animal agriculture’s practices are irresponsible and repugnant, and out of step with mainstream values. But rather than reflecting and adjusting its behavior to be more aligned with societal norms, industrial animal agriculture is trying to prevent transparency and public discourse.

Agribusiness would do well to remember that it depends on consumers to buy its products, and it should not ignore the old adage: “the only constant is change.” Thus far, there have been three statewide citizen initiatives to address the cruel confinement of animals on farms in the U.S. In all three instances, voters sent a clear message that confining animals in cages and crates so tightly that they cannot turn around or stretch their limbs is unacceptable. But some aggies still don’t get it.

Rather than adapting its practices to fit societal norms and consumer expectations, the factory farming industry continues attempting to squelch public discussion and the democratic process. This industry is seeking to pass misguided legislation to give itself control over how farm animals are treated . This is bad for animal welfare and an affront to basic democratic principals. But unfortunately, it is typical of an industry that engages in cruel and aberrant behavior that cannot stand the light of day.

Incremental Steps for Downers

Last week, the United States Department of Agriculture strengthened its policy to prevent the slaughter of downed cattle for human food by closing loopholes that allowed downed cows to enter the human food supply under certain circumstances. This is a positive development, which represents another incremental step towards lessening the suffering and abuse of downed animals (i.e. animals too sick even to stand).

After Farm Sanctuary’s rescue of Hilda, a downed sheep who was left on the “dead pile” behind Lancaster Stockyards in 1986, media exposés about downed animal abuses in the 80s and 90s led the USDA to start a surveillance program to monitor stockyards. The Agency even tried to prosecute stockyards for mistreating downed animals, but that effort ended when a court ruled that U.S.D.A. had no legal authority to address animal welfare at stockyards. The law (i.e. the Packers and Stockyards Act) required stockyards to provide adequate care to maintain the economic “value” of the animals, but if an animal was discarded and considered to have no economic value, stockyards were legally allowed to leave them to suffer and die with impunity.

In the 1990s, we broadened our effort to address the abuse of downed animals at slaughterhouses, in addition to stockyards and auctions. The primary federal law addressing farm animal welfare in the U.S., ironically, is the Humane Slaughter Act. The USDA. has a notoriously poor track record of enforcing this law, but it has adopted some positive positions regarding downed animals over the years, usually because of pressure.

In 2001, Farm Sanctuary brought a lawsuit to end the slaughter of downed animals for human food, citing animal welfare and human health concerns, including the threat of mad cow disease. The U.S.D.A. denied the existence of mad cow disease in the U.S. until December, 2003, when mad cow disease was confirmed in a downed cow in Washington State. After that discovery, our lawsuit was settled in 2004 with the U.S.D.A. agreeing that downed cattle would not be used for human food and banning the delivery of downed cattle to slaughterhouses. But the meat industry was able to insert a loophole during the regulatory process, and a policy adopted in 2007 prohibited downed cattle from being accepted at the slaughterhouse, but strangely allowed cattle who walked into the slaughterhouse but then became downed afterwards to be used for human food. In 2008, an exposé showed a southern California slaughterhouse exploiting this loophole, and violating federal and state downed animal regulations and laws (California enacted a law to restrict the abuses of downed animals in 1994), which led to the largest meat recall in U.S. history. Once again, a light was shined on downed animal abuse, and the U.S.D.A. was compelled to tighten its downed animal rules.

We are pleased that USDA has instituted a strict ban on slaughtering downed cattle for human food, and this policy should now apply to pigs and other animals too. We will keep the pressure on.

Cut the Crap

For decades, factory farms have subjected animals and workers to abuse, and polluted the environment with reckless abandon. They have been able to get away with it because there is a lack of transparency and accountability, and because agribusiness has been able to influence legislative bodies to enact laws that exempt farming from basic standards of decency.

But, the various harms of factory farming are becoming painfully apparent. A couple years ago, the United Nations issued a report entitled “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, which described how the livestock industry contributes more to global warming than the entire transportation industry, and now the Environmental Protection Agency wants factory farms (along with other entities) to provide information about their green house gas emissions.

Agribusiness was angered by the idea that it might be held accountable for its emissions, and convinced federal law makers to propose legislation to exempt factory farming.  Factory farming’s arrogance, lack of accountability and failure to take responsibility for their actions continue to amaze, as do the willingness of politicians to support agribusiness’s indefensible conduct. Both need to be held accountable for their ignominious behavior.