Where I am

I am no longer posting on Beefbite’s – law school is keeping me busy!

If you want to keep track of me I post on a couple group blogs. Food For Thought is a group of K-Staters working to advocate for agriculture. I also write for NCBA’s Young Producer’s Council (YPC) Blog Cattle Call.

You can also check out my Web site at cgoodcomm.com or follow me on Twitter. I tweet from cgoodcomm.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Not My Kind of Law

I’m starting law school at Washburn University in August and this Meatingplace blog post made me even more sure I’ve made the right decision. In the post Yvonne Vizzier Thaxton talks about animal law becoming more and more popular at U.S. law schools. However, many of these programs look into issues such as how to defend the rights of animals in the same way you would defend the rights of a human. In fact, George Washington University Law School and the Humane Society of the United States, HSUS, have a joint venture, the Animal Law Litigation Project, which is intended to “improve enforcement of animal protection laws.” However, anything with HSUS involved concerns me. It makes me think of court cases like the one a couple years ago where it was argued since a chimpanzee’s DNA is 96-98.4 per cent similar to that of humans they should be able to legally own assets.

My goal in law school is learn how to defend the rights of livestock producers to make an honest living doing what they love. No doubt, those who truly abuse animals are breaking current laws and violating their responsibility to care for animals’ well being. However, I’m confident in six years I’ve been actively engaged in the industry I’ve never met a producer who doesn’t love livestock and treat theirs with utmost care and respect. I become increasingly concerned when the government is granted increasing power to dictate what people can and cannot do with their livestock property and even go as far as using laws to determine what people can and cannot eat. I’ll talk about that more in my next post.

Leave a comment

Filed under HSUS, legislation

HSUS is anti-meat | in their own words

Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) CEO Wayne Pacelle wrote a blog post recently titled “Cutting Back Means Cutting Animal Consumption.” In it he writes, “The HSUS is a big tent organization, and we support people who want to switch to more humanely raised animal products, reduce the amount of meat in their diets, or try a vegetarian lifestyle—but the reduction of meat consumption is one of the best things we can do for the planet given how unsustainable the current levels of factory farming are.”

If you ever need a place to point to prove that HSUS is really about running animal agriculture out of business and not working with local humane shelters.

Leave a comment

Filed under HSUS

Producers respond to Food, Inc.

I posted a while ago about the opening of Food, Inc, a documentary attacking the agriculture industry. There have been two great responses to the movie on the Farm Bureau blog.

In the first post, Chris Chinn states ” This movie is an assault on food production and agriculture. No matter the size of your farm or ranch, if you are a modern farmer, using science-based production methods, the messages of this movie are an affront to you staying in business. As a farmer, agriculture is my life calling, and I have dedicated my life to producing safe, nutritious and affordable food. Our farm operation revolves around my family, and we manage every aspect of our farm in a socially responsible manner so we can pass it down to our children. Animal agriculture is the backbone of my rural community and many other rural communities across this country. I understand that contemporary agriculture doesn’t look like it did in the past. But agriculture is like many other industries that have had to become more efficient to survive.” You can learn more about Chris and her family’s hog farm by watching her YouTube video below.

In the other post, Glenn Brunkow says Food, Inc is “a sensationalized, full-on attack of the farmers and ranchers who utilized modern technology to produce the most wholesome, abundant supply of food in the world. If you a member of the agriculture community I am asking you to share our story with your non-ag friends and associates. Education is the key to stemming this tide mis-informed, anti-ag messages.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Advocacy, American Farm Bureau, Animal Welfare, New Media

The Economics of HSUS Legislation in Ohio

The Economics of Animal Welfare Regulations Proposed for Ohio

Luther Tweeten, Emeritus Chaired Professor, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, Ohio State University

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) seeks to phase out battery cages for Ohio’s laying hens, gestation crates for its pregnant pigs, and crates for veal calves in favor of group housing (FarmPolicy [farmpolicy@gmail.com], May 5, 2009). As the nation’s second largest producer of eggs (27 million laying hens) and a major producer of swine and dairy cattle, Ohio agriculture has a major stake in the outcome of this HSUS effort.

HSUS is likely to put its proposal before Ohio voters next year if poultry and livestock producers don’t cooperate with HSUS to write legislation changing the way producers operate. This is no idle threat. Last year California voters approved a similar measure (Proposition 2 or Prop 2) mandating as of January 1, 2015 that it shall be a misdemeanor for any person to confine a pregnant pig, calf raised for veal, or egg-laying hen in a manner not allowing the animal to turn around freely, stand up, lie down, and fully extend its limbs. At least four other states have passed laws similar to California’s Proposition 2.

Is such legislation a good idea? The following discussion is especially focused on laying hens, the enterprise likely to be most affected in Ohio. The following analysis addresses animal welfare dimensions of Prop 2-type regulations before addressing the economic dimensions.

Animal Welfare

First, it is important to recognize that nearly everyone including persons associated with large confinement feeding operations supports humane treatment of animals. At issue is what constitutes humane treatment. On the one hand, large confinement cage or crate operations would seem to reduce animal welfare by inhibiting the freedom of animals for nesting, sex, and exercise (Shields and Duncan 2009, pp. 2-5). Proponents contend that Prop 2-type legislation will enhance animal welfare, provide healthier food because animals will contract fewer air-borne diseases, and will reduce soil, water, and air pollution.

On the other hand, confinement is associated with protection of animals from extreme temperatures, predators, and soil-borne diseases and parasites. Animals in confinement can be monitored closely for health. Confinement systems deliver fresh, clean eggs to consumers. Confinement operations use less land, labor, and other resources per animal unit. Opponents of Prop 2-type legislation contend that with sound management, large confinement operations have demonstrated they can produce without harm to the environment or animal welfare.

The public looks to objective scientific findings to narrow differences of opinion between supporters and opponents of Prop 2-type measures. That strategy has met with only partial success as apparent from studies measuring how specific engineering-type provisions (such as space provided per animal) affect animal welfare. In Austria for example, Zaludik et al. (2007) evaluated the usefulness of the government’s Animal Needs Index (ANI) auditing how hen welfare is affected by floor space, feeder space, and the like for organic laying hen production. No relationship was found between a good score on the ANI and hen welfare as assessed by mortality, injury, measures of abnormal behavior, and footpad and breast lesions. This and other empirical studies give conflicting results regarding the contribution of a “favorable” environment to animal welfare (Shields and Duncan 2009, pp. 12, 13). After an excellent review of existing scientific studies, Mench et al. (2009, p. 44) conclude that “…we still have little understanding of how all of the complex inputs on commercial farms (whether those are husbandry inputs or genetic inputs) interact to cause or minimize animal welfare problems.”

Economic Implications

The economic implications of Prop 2-type regulations imposed on Ohio’s agriculture are more clear than the foregoing animal welfare implications. Market forces help protect animals to the extent that abused and diseased animals reduce profits, forcing animal producers to use more humane practices. In part out of concern for animal product demand and profit, the livestock (including poultry) industry has voluntarily changed production practices. Experts on animal welfare and ethics, though noting the absence of federal regulation of animal production, cite the recent voluntary development and enforcement of animal care standards by producer groups and retailers. Animal welfare scientists (Mench et al., 2009, p.2) conclude that “These standards have resulted in some striking improvements in animal welfare…” along the entire supply chain of animals and their products.

Socially acceptable production practices for animal welfare ultimately rest on the public’s values and attitudes and not just on science. Such values range from indifferent observers to animal rightists who object to animal confinement and would end use of animals as sources of food, clothing (leather), fiber, draft-power, or companionship (pets). Even among those who make animal products a part of their diet, the range of preferred animal production practices stretches from conventional to organic, to free range. Markets can serve discriminating consumers over this broad range of preferences. The key is to label animal products by production practices. Preferred animal welfare practices may be more costly to producers, but consumers can “vote” their preferences with dollars in the market.

Click here to continue reading.

Leave a comment

Filed under HSUS, legislation

WSB-TV exposes HSUS

Last month WSB-TV did a segment exposing HSUS and how they extract money from people who think they are donating to local humane shelters but rarely contribute to these shelters. The video was taken off YouTube but is now available again through Vidoosh. Click here to see the video. I’d encourage you to forward this link on to your contacts.

1 Comment

Filed under Animal Rights Activism, Animal Welfare, HSUS, YouTube

Food, Inc. Opens This Weekend

Food, Inc. a “documentary” criticizing all of American agriculture opens in major cities this weekend. Here’s what the Reuters story has to say about it:

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Bigger-breasted chickens fattened artificially. New strains of deadly E. coli bacteria. A food supply controlled by a handful of corporations.

The documentary “Food, Inc.” opens in the United States on Friday and portrays these purported dangers and changes in the U.S. food industry, asserting harmful effects on public health, the environment, and worker and animal rights.

Big corporations such as biotech food producer Monsanto Co., U.S. meat companies Tyson Food Inc. and Smithfield Foods, and poultry producer Perdue Farms all declined to be interviewed for the film.

But the industry has not stood silent. Trade associations across the $142-billion-a-year U.S. meat industry have banded together to counter the claims. Led by the American Meat Institute, they have created a number of websites, including one called SafeFoodInc.com. Click here to continue reading.

I have no doubt this film will create a great deal of misinformation and ill will towards the agriculture industry. I’d encourage everyone to be prepared to do their part setting the record straight, especially in comment sections of major reviews and editorials following the movie’s opening.

Food, Inc. Poster

1 Comment

Filed under Advocacy, Consumer Communication