Farm Bill Fight Keys on Protecting Interstate Commerce

National Hog Farmer, Nov. 6, 2013. In its latest attempt to coerce Congress, the lobbying arm of The Humane Society has taken out $100,000 in online ads to force the removal of a key animal rights amendment from the 2013 farm bill, according to The Hill (http://thehill.com.).

The ads, which began running Friday, target members of the newly formed House-Senate farm bill conference committee, which began work last Wednesday. At issue is an amendment sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that attempts to stop states such as California from banning goods made in other states based on the means of production.

The California law is aimed at eggs laid by hens kept in battery cages, and helped spur an agreement between the Humane Society and the United Egg Producers to phase out battery cages. A smaller group of egg producers and lobbyists for other growers, including pig farmers, are behind the King amendment.

The Humane Society Legislative Fund is targeting Sens. Max Baucus (D-MT), Tom Harkin (D-IA, and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN.) and Reps. Collin Peterson (D-MN), Tim Walz (D-MN), Mike McIntyre (D-NC), Steve Southerland (R-FL), Martha Roby (R-AL), Rodney Davis (R-IL), Austin Scott (R-GA), and Glenn Thompson (R-PA).

In 2012, the Humane Society Legislative Fund spent heavily in a failed effort to defeat King, whom the group views as its chief foe in Congress.

Legislation Briefs November 3, 2013

SAOVA Friends,

The final pet seller rule goes into effect on November 18, 2013. This rule would extend APHIS authority to include large segments of the retail pet trade as regulated under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), including pet species as dogs, cats, guinea pigs, rabbits, and hamsters, among others. The overarching intent of the revision is to regulate sight unseen retail pet sales, which, without proof, APHIS claims have dramatically increased as a result of growing Internet usage.   APHIS also claims the rule closes a so-called “Internet loophole” and restores the original intent of Congress for administration of the AWA.

We have always believed the issue of how Congress intended the AWA to be enforced was decided by the Circuit Court in Doris Day Animal League (DDAL) v. Ann M. Veneman (Secretary, USDA). We agree with the Court’s decision and do not think that several decades ago, Congress ever meant USDA to enforce the AWA inside people’s homes.  However, now that the current APHIS administration has elected to make a determination granting themselves additional authority of such magnitude, we believe Congress is obligated to review this issue, and should do so as quickly as possible.  

Download full article at http://saova.org/APHIS_authority.html

Thanks for reading.  Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators
saova@earthlink.net

APHIS PET RULE LICENSING WEBINARS
USDA Animal Care will host a series of Retail Pet Store Rule webinars in November and December. Webinars will be held Thursdays from 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. EST for a four-week period. http://tinyurl.com/kgk4c3p  The schedule of topics for the webinars is as follows:
November 7 – Am I regulated under USDA’s Retail Pet Store Rule
November 14 – How will USDA implement the Retail Pet Store Rule  
November 21 – What is USDA’s inspection process in a home
December 5 – How will USDA enforce the Retail Pet Store Rule

FDA DECISION ON LABELING REQUIREMENTS FOR EGGS
Docket ID: FDA-2006-P-0338. September 22, 2013 FDA posted Denial of petition to revise requirements http://tinyurl.com/k7rxvey
Compassion Over Killing and Animal Legal Defense Fund and Penn Law Animal Law Project Petition, University of PA Law School, filed a citizens petition September 21, 2010 requesting new labeling of shell eggs sold in the U.S.  Petitioners claim that current labeling fails to reveal to consumers certain material facts that substantially influence their purchasing decisions.  Petitioners further requested that FDA require shell eggs to bear one of three labels: Free Range Eggs, Cage Free Eggs, Eggs From Caged Hens and provided descriptions of production conditions that would be associated with each term.

The agency states in its decision summary, “After careful review of your citizen petition and for the reasons described below, FDA is denying your citizen petition in accordance with 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 10.30(e)(3) because you do not provide a sufficient basis for the agency to revise the current labeling requirements for shell eggs. Specifically, you have not provided evidence sufficient to show that eggs from caged hens are “nutritionally inferior” to eggs from free-range and cage-free hens. Therefore, nutritional properties cannot provide a basis to consider the method of production for eggs to be a material fact.  Moreover, nutritional information regarding particular eggs is conveyed to consumers directly by placing the particular nutrient information on the label, not by identifying the method of production, which does not provide consumers with information as to nutritive content. Second, you have not provided sufficient evidence to show that eggs from caged hens have a greater risk of Salmonella contamination than eggs from the other two production methods you define; consequently, the risk of Salmonella cannot provide a basis to consider the method of production for eggs to be a material fact.  Finally, even assuming the method of egg production may be of interest to some consumers, consumer interest alone is not a material fact. Therefore, FDA is not compelled under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“the Act”) or it’s implementing regulations to require such labeling under the law. Finally, even if the agency could require such labeling, it would choose to use its limited resources on rulemakings of higher priority, such as those that are of greatest public health significance or are statutorily-mandated.

PROHIBIT PUBLIC CONTACT WITH BIG CATS, BEARS, AND NONHUMAN PRIMATES
Docket No. APHIS-2012-0107. In August 2013, HSUS, World Wildlife Fund, Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF), Big Cat Rescue, and others petitioned APHIS to amend sections of the AWA. Petitioners requested regulation changes in part 2.131 to explicitly prohibit licensed exhibitors from allowing persons, with some exceptions, from coming into direct physical contact with any big cats, bears, and nonhuman primates of any age. The petition states that the current handling regulations in 9 CFR part 2 allow licensees the opportunity to engage in animal exhibition practices via interactive public contact sessions and photographic opportunities, and that these activities not only place these animals at risk of harm but threaten public safety.  Petitioners also suggested revisions to 9 CFR part 3 to ensure that the sections containing specific standards for the handling of nonhuman primates are consistent with the regulatory changes they propose in § 2.131.  Nonhuman primates include lemurs which are a popular exhibit at many petting zoos.

APHIS issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on conditions where public contact could be allowed; whether exhibitors and dealers should be required to keep additional records and identify their animals with microchips or retinal scans, etc.  The comment period has been extended to November 18, 2013.  Comment at Federal Register: http://tinyurl.com/ln76cs3
The majority of comments at this time are form letters from the HSUS website supporting a rule.

JUDGE CLEARS WAY FOR DOMESTIC HORSE SLAUGHTER
Judge’s Ruling Favors USDA Providing Horse Slaughter Inspections by Dan Flynn, November 1, 2013
USDA is not required to conduct an Environmental impact Statement or Environmental Assessment in order to grant equine inspection services to businesses planning to pack horsemeat for export, U.S. District Court Judge Christina Armijo ruled Friday. The judge denied the request by animal groups for a permanent injunction and dismissed the case challenging USDA’s authority.  The decision is a massive loss for the Humane Society of the U.S., which largely funded the lawsuit and enlisted 15 other groups and individuals to join it as plaintiffs.

And it was a defining victory for the Department of Justice attorneys who re-affirmed USDA powers contained in the Federal Meat Inspection Act that go back more than 100 years.   It means horse slaughter for human consumption could resume shortly under USDA inspection for the first time since 2006. “Valley Meat Company, LLC and Rains Natural Meats are both very pleased with the decision of Judge Armijo, said Albuquerque  attorney A. Blair Dunn.  “This is a very well-reasoned and thorough opinion.  Valley and Rains are very grateful for the hard work and thought that Judge Armijo put into this decision.  Both companies will now focus on final preparations to open and begin work.”  Full story at link: http://tinyurl.com/mredlmd

CONGRESSIONAL SPORTSMEN'S CAUCUS BIPARTISAN LEADERSHIP
PUSHES TO RESTORE SEQUESTERED SPORTSMEN TRUST FUNDS
For Immediate Release. November 1, 2013 (Washington, DC). In an effort to exempt vital sportsmen trust funds from budget sequestration, the bipartisan Senate leadership of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus (CSC) sent a letter to Sylvia Burwell, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), requesting that the $50 million sequestered from the Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds in 2013 be returned to the states.

In bipartisan fashion, CSC Senate Co-Chairs, Kay Hagan and John Thune, and Senate Vice-Chairs, Mark Pryor and James Risch, signed on to the letter, requesting the OMB release the sequestered sportsmen trust funds that are derived from excise taxes levied on guns and ammunition; fishing tackle and equipment; motorboat fuel; and bows and arrows. The trust funds are the foundation of the unique American System of Conservation Funding, a "user pays-public benefits" program. This user-pays funding strategy has produced numerous public benefits including: abundant fish and wildlife populations, access to public lands and clean waters, improved fish and wildlife habitat, improved soil and water conservation, shooting ranges, and boating access facilities.

Jeff Crane, President of the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation (CSF) praised the Senate CSC leadership for their continued bipartisan support. "We salute the bipartisan leadership of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus for once again standing up in support of hunters and anglers. These dedicated trust funds form the financial backbone of the most successful conservation story in history, and to release them back to the state wildlife agencies where they belong is simply the right thing to do."

"North Carolina and states across the country depend on this funding to restore and manage fisheries and wildlife habitats, open and maintain recreational access, and provide hunting and boating safety education. Moreover, applying sequestration to the trust funds represents a breach in trust between sportsmen and women and industries that pay an excise tax to specifically fund projects that enhance outdoor recreation activities and opportunities," Senator Hagan stated.

By withholding $50 million from Wildlife Restoration, Sport Fish Restoration, and Boating Safety programs, the Budget Control Act of 2011 will adversely affect states' ability to manage their fish and wildlife resources; open and maintain recreational access; and deliver hunter and boating safety education.

In the letter, CSC leadership noted that in implementing sequestration, OMB is required to follow rules outlined in the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985. The act provides that budgetary resources sequestered in trust fund accounts in a fiscal year "shall be available in subsequent years to the extent otherwise provided in law."

In March, CSF, along with 44 organizations representing millions of hunters, anglers and other conservationists, sent a letter to House and Senate leadership requesting assistance in exempting the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration and Boating Safety Trust Funds from the Budget Sequestration Act of 2011.  http://tinyurl.com/lvz9mal
CONTACT: Cole Henry  cole@sportsmenslink.org

HSUS, UEP: Strange bedfellows

July 8, 2011 By Steve Kopperud

When I first got wind of the July 7 United Egg Producers (UEP)-Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) agreement on “enriched cages,” egg carton labeling, euthanasia, molting, ammonia levels and so on, I was surprised, but not completely. UEP has been fighting a long, expensive and sometimes (often?) lonely battle to stop HSUS state-by-state, and it was expecting to do battle again in 2012 in Oregon.

I understand the industry’s frustrated desire to end the seemingly unending attack on how it does business, the crazy quilt of state laws that have evolved over the last few years governing how it raises birds, and I know the retailer pressure UEP has been under as company by company – albeit only a few of the truly unenlightened within the retailer community — announce plans to “go cage-free” at some undefined time in the future, honestly believing they’re doing the consumer some kind of favor.

What truly struck me dumb – and this is not generally an easy thing to do – was that part of the announcement where UEP and HSUS announced they would jointly seek federal legislation to enshrine their agreement. At this point my only reaction was: UEP has gone a step too far.

There are currently no federal laws governing how a U.S. farmer husbands animals for food. There are unending laws and regulations on how to make feed, how to practice animal health, how food safety is maintained, how animals are killed, but no federal regulation on husbandry practices per se. Why? Because there’s no reason to regulate how farmers farm or how ranchers ranch. There is no problem that must be solved by federal intervention. Animal ag has battled for 30 years to keep it this way. For 30 years, HSUS has tried to put Uncle Sam in the middle of every farm and ranch in America. For 30 years, Congress has sided with farmers and ranchers.

It’s clear had UEP been able to craft this “partnership” its way, it would have been an industry voluntary program of transition from conventional cages to enriched environment cages. But my guess is UEP couldn’t keep HSUS at the table if it only agreed to a voluntary transition. Full story

Landmark deal to remake how eggs produced

By Philip Brasher

July 8, 2011. A stunning, landmark deal between the largest animal rights group and the egg industry would change the way hens are raised in this country. It shouldn't be surprising that it's making others in the livestock industry nervous.

The agreement, announced today, marks a victory for both the industry and the Humane Society of the United States, which has been seeking to use a series of ballot initiatives, most successfully in California, to force some major changes in way that livestock are raised in the United States.

The egg industry has known for some time that the so-called battery cages that are now the standard industry practice would have to be replaced with something more acceptable to the public. But producers didn't want to go cage-free, as HSUS had been pushing, in part because cage-free operations require more and better trained workers. Cage-free hens also need more feed, further increasing production costs. The industry preferred instead to switch to a larger style of cages, known as "enriched colony" housing, that give the birds more room to move around and also include perches and nesting areas. (See photo) The deal announced today between HSUS and the United Egg Producers allows the industry to do just that and gives farms a decade and a half to phase in the new housing.

There's a big catch, however. The two groups agreed to jointly ask Congress for a federal law that set standards and a timeline for the changes, and that legislation will have to pass for the deal to go through. If the bill doesn't pass, "then the agreement would be off and we'd be likely to see more ballot measures, litigation, etc. Both sides want to work together to enact," HSUS' Paul Shapiro told me.

Most hens now have about 67 square inches of space in conventional cages. Under the HSUS-UEP deal that would increase up to 144 square inches.

As HSUS notes, such a law would mark the first time Congress has ever set standards for how any species of animals is raised on farms. No small achievement for HSUS.

The pork industry, which has tangled with HSUS for years over the way sows are housed, doesn't like the idea of federal standards for animal welfare. "It would inject the federal government into the marketplace with no measurable benefit to public or animal health and welfare," the National Pork Producers Council said. The group said it is "gravely concerned that such a one-size-fits-all approach will take away producers' freedom to operate in a way that's best for their animals."

Get some more details of the agreement here, in, of all things I thought I'd never see, a joint statement from HSUS and a major livestock producer group.

HSUS to Address ConAgra Executives

At the annual shareholder meeting of ConAgra Foods (NYSE: CAG) on Friday, September 24th, a representative of The Humane Society of the United States was scheduled to ask the company to decrease animal cruelty in its supply chain by switching to cage-free eggs, as other food manufacturers have done.

The HSUS purchased stock in ConAgra as part of its efforts to move the Omaha-based company away from using eggs from hens in confined in battery cages.

In August, MacDonald's shareholders voted down a similar proposal.

Cage-housing tie to egg recall shorts truth

Feedstuffs 8/26/2010
By Rod Smith

As the egg recall related to salmonella-contaminated eggs from two farms spread over the Aug. 21-22 weekend, so did allegations that eggs from big, cage-housing operations are prone to the bacteria.

Nothing is further from the truth, according to Feedstuffs sources. Salmonella can contaminate any animal- or plant-based food from any kind of farm operation or any size, and the last major incident in which eggs and salmonella were linked was two years ago in eggs from a cage-free, organic production system, sources noted.

Still, a noticeably larger-than-usual number of customers -- many of them new to farmers markets -- lined up across the country over the weekend to buy eggs from local producers, who said they were selling out early in the mornings. Many of those producers, in conversations with customers, were critical of modern cage housing and large-scale production, according to news reports.

The Humane Society of the Unites States seized on the recall news to condemn cage housing as a food safety threat and urged U.S. egg producers to cease the housing practice and transition to cage-free operations.

However, scientists and veterinarians, in a paper released to Feedstuffs, said there are advantages and disadvantages to all hen housing types and suggested several benefits in modern cage housing.

Dr. Jeff Armstrong, dean of the College of Agriculture & Natural Resources at Michigan State University, in a statement provided to Feedstuffs, cautioned that the science is unclear regarding how and if production systems affect on-farm salmonella infections.

Some studies have concluded that there is a higher incidence of infection in flocks in modern cage housing than in flocks in cage-free floor housing, he said, and some studies have found just the opposite. More research is clearly needed, he said.

However, some anti-cage groups "cherry pick" studies to report only research that supports their perceptions or theories, Armstrong said. Based on a summary of scientific literature from around the world, any party that maintains that there is a higher prevalence of salmonella in eggs produced in cage housing is in "absolute disagreement with leading scientific experts," he said.

Editor's note: The above is part of a story that will be published in the Aug. 30 issue of Feedstuffs and posted at www.feedstuffs.com.

McDonald’s shareholders reject HSUS proposal

Brownfield Ag August 16, 2010 by Ken Anderson

Shareholders for McDonald’s have voted against a proposal to buy at least five percent of the restaurant chain’s eggs from cage-free facilities.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), which owns 101 shares in the company, had sponsored the resolution. HSUS argued that cages are inhumane and pointed out that McDonald’s own European operations are transitioning toward purchases of cage-free eggs.

McDonald’s board of directors recommended that shareholders vote against the proposal, saying that the science was not there to support a switch. McDonald’s is part of a coalition involved in an ongoing study of hen housing.

Some major fast food companies, including Burger King, Subway and Wendy’s—and giant retailer Wal-Mart—have already made some level of commitment to purchasing or selling cage-free eggs.

HSUS Clucks About Future Politicking

Center for Consumer Freedom. August 12, 2010.

In today’s New York Times, Humane Society of the United States CEO Wayne Pacelle adds two new states to his animal rights group’s hit list: Washington and Oregon. Add that to existing speculation about Nebraska and Minnesota also being in HSUS’s sights, and 2012 could be a big year for the group’s campaigns against America’s farmers. Pacelle has been forcing animal rights into the voting booth for most of his professional career, so this comes as no surprise. Also of note were Pacelle’s comments about a brewing fight over the interpretation of California’s “Proposition 2” requirements:

The breakthrough 2008 law said that animals could be confined only in ways that allowed them “to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.” Egg producers and even some animal advocates say this may permit housing hens in larger “enriched cages,” with perches and nesting spots.

Mr. Pacelle asserts that no form of caging can meet a chicken’s needs for “running, flying and wing flapping” and that denying these impulses can cause a rise in stress hormones.

“There’s going to be a legal wrangle over this,” Mr. Pacelle predicted.

Pacelle is right about that last part: A legal tussle is surely forthcoming over enriched chicken cages that allow more space than conventional ones. They also permit the expression of some natural animal behaviors. But HSUS, with its fleet of in-house lawyers, is looking to muscle farmers around until they submit to 100 percent “cage free” production—or a slow death by lawsuit. (See Hudson Valley Foie Gras’ situation.)

Why? Because HSUS has a losing argument on animal welfare, and any legal setback would significantly slow down its march toward veganizing America. (What HSUS really wants is people eating fewer eggs—or no eggs at all. Forcing egg farmers to go “cage-free” is just one tiny step in that direction.) The regulations HSUS is currently pushing would impose high production costs as farmers change their facilities, and the resulting higher costs to consumers would drive down demand.

If HSUS were really interested in the welfare of hens, as opposed to the bankruptcy of egg farmers, it could start by fully recognizing that animal welfare relies on many different measures. It’s not a black-and-white measure. In fact, the American Humane Certified program (run by the American Humane Association) and animal welfare legend Temple Grandin both favor labeling “enriched” cage systems as “humane.”

But none of this matters to HSUS’s ideological hacks. When animal welfare science gets in their way, the odd lawyer (or 30) can come in handy. Will the activists beat the experts and farmers? Let’s hope not.

Viewpoints: Group's goal is for an egg-less America

Since HSUS's view is that a vegan diet is the only "humane" way to eat, this whole "cage-free" egg campaign is a sideshow. It's a temporary step toward the group's larger goal.

By David Martosko
Special to The Bee
Published: Saturday, Jul. 24, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 11A

Everyone with a head on his shoulders believes in the humane treatment of animals. But egg farmers and American consumers will soon face a choice between what's actually humane and what some animal rights radicals claim is humane. It may seem like a hair-splitting exercise, but the wrong choice will send American egg farmers the way of the telegraph operator.

In 2008 California voters passed Proposition 2, which, among other things, required egg farmers to build facilities by 2015 that allow laying hens to have more freedom of movement. And a newly signed California law expands this requirement to the 49 other states by requiring that all eggs sold in California come from producers who abide by Proposition 2 standards.

Is this good? Is it bad? It's unclear, because nobody can agree on what Proposition 2 actually means.

Egg farmers have one way of looking at it. One farm in Modesto just spent $3.2 million installing "enriched cages" to give its hens more room.

But America's wealthiest animal rights group, the Humane Society of the United States – not to be confused with your local pet shelter – sees things differently. HSUS, the main financial backer of Proposition 2, believes all California egg farmers – and out-of-staters who sell eggs in the Golden State – now must eliminate their cages.

So who's right – the farmers or the animal rights activists? And which solution is better for the hens?

FULL STORY AT LINK

Researchers ask: Are caged chickens miserable?

Earlier this year The Agriculture and Forestry Ministry (MAF) released its findings from a survey of 60 poultry farms around New Zealand. It found both caged and cage-free egg farmng had advantages and issues. Feather loss was worse in cages; however mortality rates were more prevalent in all non-cage systems. Stress levels were similar regardless of the housing system.

In June of this year, a Clemson University animal behaviorist announced the beginning of research on the impact cages and other confinement have on the development and well-being of hens.

More studies are underway which may help counter attacks on producers by HSUS and other zealots.

Researchers ask: Are caged chickens miserable?The Associated Press
Date: Friday Nov. 20, 2009 9:48 AM ET

DES MOINES, Iowa — Are cramped chickens crazy chickens?
Researchers are trying to answer that question through several studies that intend to take emotions out of an angry debate between animal welfare groups and producers.

At issue are small cages, typically 24 inches wide by 25 1/2 inches deep, that can be shared by up to nine hens. About 96 per cent of eggs sold in the United States come from hens who live in the so-called battery cages from the day they're born until their egg-laying days end 18 to 24 months later.

Public opinion appears to side with those who oppose the cages. Voters in California approved a proposition last year that bans cramped cages for hens. And Michigan's governor signed legislation last month requiring confined animals to have enough room to turn around and fully extend their limbs.

Peter Skewes, a Clemson University researcher, is leading one of the studies comparing how different housing affects egg-laying hens. He said there are plenty of "emotional" opinions about whether the cages are inhumane, but few are based on facts.

"Hopefully we will contribute something so decisions can be made based on science and knowledge about how we house birds and the implications for different systems," said Skewes, who is in the early stages of a three-year study funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

full story .....