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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Quick Beef Facts

A coworker at K-State’s Beef Cattle Institute had me pull together some quick facts about beef production this morning. Many of these are taken from the Master’s of Beef Advocacy program and the web site www.beeffrompasturetoplate.org. I thought I’d share them with you. It’s important to always have a couple talking points ready to discuss key issues in beef production because you never know when the opportunity to make a positive impact for the beef industry will show up.

GENERAL
Today’s American farmer feeds about 144 people worldwide.

Cattle and beef production represent the largest single segment of American agriculture. There are more than 1 million beef producers in the United States who are responsible for more than 94 million head of beef cattle.

Most farms and ranches in the United States, including cattle ranches, are family owned and operated. Even the largest farms tend to be family farms. More than 97 percent of beef cattle farms and ranches are classified as family farms.

Beef production affects the U.S. economy. According to USDA, producers of meat animals in 2008 were responsible for more than $66 billion in added value to the U.S. economy, as measured by their contribution to the national output.

NUTRITION
There are 29 cuts of beef that meet government labeling guidelines for lean, including 15 of consumers’ 20 most popular cuts like tenderloin, sirloin and 95% lean ground beef.

Just one 3-ounce serving of beef supplies 51 percent of the Daily Value (DV) for protein, 38 percent of the DV for zinc, and 14 percent of the DV for iron. And it contributes less than 10 percent of calories to a 2,000-calorie diet.

Iron deficiency is the most common nutritional deficiency worldwide, and beef provides the most readily available and easily absorbed source of iron.

It’s especially important that young children and older adults get sufficient protein. Children need the high-quality protein, iron and zinc in beef in order to develop their minds, as well as their bodies. Older adults can benefit from the protein in beef to help prevent loss of muscle mass and strength as they age.

ANIMAL WELFARE
Animal care and raising cattle go hand-in-hand. Producers know that giving animals the proper care, handling and nutrition they deserve is the right thing to do and it makes good business sense.

The Beef Quality Assurance (BQA) program was initiated in 1987 to provide cattle producers with the tools and training necessary to assure animal health and well-being as well as provide a safe, quality product. BQA principals influence the management practices of more than 90 percent of cattle in the United States.

The “Producer Code for Cattle Care,” first developed in 1996, reinforces the industry’s strong stance against animal cruelty or neglect. It contains a comprehensive set of sound production practices and states that “persons who willfully mistreat animals will not be tolerated.” In addition, producer leaders worked with animal health and wellbeing experts to develop the “Guidelines for Care and Handling of Beef Cattle,” which are endorsed by the Academy of Veterinary Consultants and the American Association of Bovine Practitioners as well as the Food Marketing Institute and National Council of Chain Restaurants.

ENVIRONMENT
America’s cattle farmers and ranchers are committed to leaving the environment in better shape for the next generation. Preserving, conserving and restoring this country’s natural resources like open space, grasslands, wetlands, clean air and wildlife habitat are extremely important to agriculturists.

Approximately 85 percent of U.S. grazing lands are unsuitable for producing crops. Grazing animals on this land more than doubles the area that can be used to produce food.

Animal agriculture contributes minimally to the production of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. According to EPA, the entire U.S. agricultural sector contributes just 6.4 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

BEEF SAFETY
Beef producers have invested 27 million dollars in beef safety research through the beef checkoff since 1993 and, collectively, the industry invests $350 million each year in safety research, technology and practices.

Consumers play a very important role when it comes to food safety. Using an instant-read thermometer to make sure ground beef is cooked to 160 F is the best way to ensure burgers are safe and savory.

Funny Poster

I received this from a contact on an animal welfare listserve I’m on this morning and thought I’d share it with you.

PETA’s Attempt to Capitalize on Tiller’s Death

A colleague sent me a link to this story about PETA’s plans to put up billboards in Wichita urging people to go vegetarian. The catch; These billboards attempt to appeal to both sides of the abortion debate in the wake of the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller.

One version of the billboard says, “Pro-Life? Go Vegetarian.” The other says, “Pro-Choice? Choose Vegetarian.”

What’s really interesting is the comments following the story. They’re almost exclusively form people who are fed up with PETA’s tactics.

“This is just nuts. A man is killed and they want us to be vegetarian. Some people will go to any lengths to be noticed,” one commenter wrote.

Michigan Farm Bureau hits YouTube

Michigan Farm Bureau has kicked off their YouTube channel with a six-part series on animal welfare. Read what they have to say about it and watch the first video in the series, featuring Michigan State Animal Welfare Specialist Janice Swanson.

“This six part series takes a real look at the animal welfare issue and tells the truth about how agriculture cares for their animals. Todays farmers provide care to their animals based upon knowledge, science and practices that have been time honored, tested and truly provide what is best for the animal. They are also impacted by legislative efforts and outside interest group agendas that cause the entire food production industry to be impacted. These videos take a look at the big picture and discuss animal care practices down at the farm level..watch all six segments to get the full story and the real truth. “