The Long Road to Animal Welfare

This is a very long essay by Wayne Pacelle published in the magazine Foreign Affairs by the Council on Foreign Relations. In this essay he covers ballot initiatives; use of Michael Vick to promote anti-dog fighting (not to mention raise money); history of the animal rights movement; HSUS successes. Pacelle covers his version of the HSUS heroic efforts in New Orleans following hurricane Katrina. Pacelle includes as a success story an anti-confinement ballot measure in Florida in 2002; however he fails to mention there were only 2 hog farmers in the state. After the ballot passed, both farmers sent their herds to slaughter. 

The article states: "The two largest groups, the HSUS and the ASPCA, together raise and spend nearly $400 million a year and have assets approaching $500 million."

The Long Road to Animal Welfare -

How Activism Works in Practice

By Wayne Pacelle

On election night in November 1992, I waited anxiously with other animal welfare activists at the Radisson Hotel in Denver, Colorado, to learn the outcome of a statewide ballot measure to ban the baiting, hound hunting, and spring hunting of black bears. The initiative was a big deal both for me (it had been my idea) and for the animal welfare movement more generally. Colorado was a political redoubt for the National Rifle Association and other pro-hunting groups; if the ballot measure passed, it might inspire other reforms for animals, and if it failed, it might set the movement back years. Most of my fellow activists had been skeptical about the initiative, arguing that it was a fool’s errand because the hunting lobby was too strong to defeat. But the leaders of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS—then as now, the largest animal protection organization in the country—had overruled their political staff and decided to support the effort, on principle. “It’s too important not to try,” John Hoyt, then the group’s president, told me. “If we lose, I want to be on the side of the losers.” In the end, we won big, getting 70 percent of the vote.

Full Article at link: 
 https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2015-06-16/long-road-animal-welfare

Kangaroo courts are coming…

SAOVA Friends,

Steven L. Kopperud is executive vice president of Policy Directions Inc., a Washington, DC government affairs/specialty communications company specializing in animal production agriculture, nutrition, agribusiness, biotechnology, animal health and welfare, food, farm policy, trade and ag research and human health-related issues. As a recognized authority on activist assaults on animal agriculture and food technology, Mr. Kopperud has spoken to audiences in the U.S., Europe, Canada, China, Australia and Latin America on threats to food production.

Kopperud has long been one my favorite voices speaking out against the animal rights agenda and tactics. Never one to mince words, he tells his audience:  “You will never negotiate successfully with an animal rights group.”

Thanks for reading.  Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators


KANGAROO COURTS ARE COMING…
April 18, 2014 By Steve Kopperud

My opinion since moving to Washington, DC – where you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting a law school graduate – is the world has enough lawyers.  However, there are times when lawyers are welcome because they’re very necessary.  Today there’s an animal rights initiative just getting legs and its success or failure will likely hinge on whoever has the most – and best – lawyers.  I’m talking about the legal concept of animal “personhood.” Stick with me; this may be esoteric and sound comical, but the threat is nevertheless very real.

“Personhood” under law recognizes only a natural person or “legal personality” has rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and legal liability. “Personhood,” according to one legal journal, “continues to be a topic of international debate, and has been questioned during the abolition of slavery and the fight for women’s rights, in debates about abortion, fetal rights and reproductive rights (and) in animal rights activism…” (my emphasis).

In the 1980s-90s, we beat back an aggressive campaign by PETA and other animal rights groups to achieve “standing” in federal courts to sue on behalf of animals those who transgressed the animal rights philosophy, e.g. biomedical researchers, farmers and ranchers, zoos, rodeos and other legitimate users of animals. We watched class action suits filed on behalf of unnamed millions of consumers and lots of animals dismissed because the wannabe plaintiffs had no standing.

In the early 2000s, animal rights and real world lawyers sought to change companion animals’ legal status from property owned by someone to animals as semi-persons who enjoy not an owner but a “guardian.” Some California towns actually enshrined part of this philosophy in local law. The push was to allow owners who brought suit in cases of veterinary negligence or other wrongful acts to sue not just for the property value of the animal lost as is the case today, but for noneconomic damages, i.e. emotional distress, loss of companionship, etc. While pets don’t enjoy “personhood,” there is a trend in the courts to ignore the animals’ legal status and award non-economic damages.

The whole animal-as-person effort is the brainchild of Steven Wise. Wise, who’s practiced animal law for over 30 years, heads his own group called the Nonhuman Rights Project (http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/). In his own words:

“Our mission is to change the common law status of at least some nonhuman animals from mere ‘things,’ which lack the capacity to possess any legal right, to ‘persons,’ who possess such fundamental rights as bodily integrity and bodily liberty, and those other legal rights to which evolving standards of morality, scientific discovery, and human experience entitle them…The most powerful ram…is the litigating of the capacity for legal rights of those nonhuman animals who are both the most cognitively complex (they have extraordinary minds) and the most cognitively similar to humans. These include the four species of great apes, dolphins and whales, elephants, and African Grey parrots.”

Wise’s goal is to litigate state by state on behalf of “smart” animals, his targets chosen based on the evolution of common law in that state and whether there’s a “plaintiff” of sufficient standing. He’s filed three cases in New York, lost one on appeal and the other two appeals are pending. It will only take one or two successes for there to be sea change in the legal status animals, including those we raise for food, use in research to find cures and treatments or those who educate and entertain us.

Animal agriculture must pay attention to this legal threat now. This sounds fanciful, even ridiculous, but remember at least two European nations amended their national constitutions to recognize animals as “sentient creatures.” Remember there exists the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) to provide pro bono (free) legal assistance to animal rights groups, that HSUS and TV game show host Bob Barker have spent literally millions of dollars endowing “animal law” chairs at some of this country’s biggest and most prestigious law schools, and the American Bar Association (ABA) has an “animal law committee” and the majority of its members aren’t our industry’s best legal minds.

Which brings us back to lawyers, numbers and talent. We need to find working attorneys willing to donate – yes, I said donate – time and talent to help us prepare for this assault before someone files a personhood suit on behalf of pigs – deemed by those in the animal rights movement as one of the most intelligent animals we routinely kill and eat.

We need young attorneys and law school students to help us – and the rest of legal animal users – to maintain our legal rights and protections. We’re fortunate to have the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas (http://nationalaglawcenter.org/). This is a group which needs our attention, our support and our donations. I have a feeling it may be our version of ALDF one day in the future.

Check out the websites I’ve listed; check the Internet and newsfeeds for “animal law” and “animal personhood.” It’s a serious issue – at least for the other side – and one that gives the term “kangaroo court” a whole new meaning.

Copyright 2014 Brownfield, All rights Reserved. Written For: Brownfield
Reprinted with Permission

http://brownfieldagnews.com/2014/04/18/kangaroo-courts-coming/
http://tinyurl.com/k69wg4b

Continue To Spread The Word: HSUS Is A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing

by Amanda Radke in BEEF Daily
Feb. 17, 2014

A Wisconsin dairy producer takes HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle to task for his organization’s deceitful practices.

Over the weekend, I spoke at the annual meeting of the Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association. On our way back to South Dakota from Wisconsin Dells, we stopped in Minnesota to visit my husband Tyler’s family. We were visiting with his grandparents when we both noticed a pair of winter gloves lying on the table. Eblazoned on them were the words, “Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).”

Immediately, Tyler asked his grandma where she got those gloves. Worried that the gloves were a reward for her $19.99 donation to HSUS to save homeless dogs and cats (a fallacy that HSUS claims in its advertising), we were somewhat relieved to hear she had received the gloves from a neighbor. My mother-in-law had explained to Tyler's grandma how HSUS is an adversary to animal agriculture, and Tyler’s grandma had dutifully tried to obscure the “United States” part of the gloves with a black permanent marker.


What I found disturbing, however, was that the neighbor who had given Tyler's grandma the gloves is from an active hog-producing family. Apparently there are still well-intentioned farmers and ranchers out there who unknowingly donate money to HSUS, the very organization that seeks to end animal agriculture.
full story at link: http://beefmagazine.com/blog/continue-spread-word-hsus-wolf-sheep-s-clothing

Legislation Briefs and APHIS Rule Update October 14, 2013

SAOVA Friends,

Since APHIS announced the Final Retail Pet Store Rule a number of commentaries have surfaced as groups and individuals attempt to interpret this rule and provide guidance. The overarching intent of the revision is to regulate sight unseen sales which APHIS claims have dramatically increased as a result of growing internet usage. APHIS has determined that their mission to enforce regulation of listed animal species under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) now includes those sold in retail as well as commercial markets.

The revised language as set in the APHIS rule now has the force and effect of law. Anything else stated by APHIS staff in response to questions should only be considered as an explanation of pending policy. These policies are not only open to interpretation by individual inspectors, but can be modified by the agency at any time.

Part 3 of the AWA details the Standards of Care for housing, facilities, exercise, cleaning, sanitization, and housekeeping required under USDA/APHIS regulation. Standards will not be revised for home-based retail sellers as APHIS cannot privilege newly licensed breeders over currently licensed breeders. The Final Rule notes: “Several of these commenters suggested that we amend part 3 in the final rule to establish alternate, performance-based standards for dog and cat fanciers and other small-scale residential breeders. We are making no changes in response to these comments. The comments were predicated on an assumption that it will be cost-prohibitive for most residential breeders who are regulated as a result of this rule to meet the standards in part 3; we do not consider that to be the case. (Page 63 of 91)

Below is a short list of noteworthy statements from the Final Rule Discussion of Comments regarding who APHIS intends to license. Access this document at http://www.saova.org/APHIS_rulemaking.html

1. We consider private rescues and shelters that perform any of the activities listed in the definition of dealer, including transporting or offering animals for compensation, to be dealers. We consider acts of compensation to include any remuneration for the animal, regardless of whether it is for profit or not for profit. Remuneration thus includes, but is not limited to, sales, adoption fees, and donations. (Page 13 of 91)

2. If an individual is selling animals at retail for breeding purposes, that individual is not a dealer. We do, however, share the concern that claiming breeding purposes as the purpose for an animal’s retail sale could be subject to abuse. Therefore, if we were to receive word that individuals making such claims are, in fact, marketing their animals as pets, we would consider this to be grounds for initiating an investigation to resolve the matter. (Page 15 of 91)

3. Those who own more than four breeding females and wish to continue selling the offspring as pets, sight unseen, can do so by obtaining a license and allowing APHIS inspectors to inspect their facility. (Page 24 of 91)

4. As is the case with commercial pet retailers, representatives of rescue groups also must be physically present at a place of business so that potential buyers/adoptees can personally observe their animals before purchasing and/or taking custody of them. (Page 35 of 91)

5. In instances where there is some question about the method of sale, APHIS will conduct an investigation and determine whether a sight unseen sale has occurred. (Page 36 of 91)

6. APHIS investigates all credible reports we receive of unlicensed activities involving sales of covered pets. (Page 39 of 91) Note: APHIS stated in a conference call hosted by AKC that complaints of noncompliance will be accepted by email and through their web site and can be anonymous.

7. Farm animals intended for use as food, fiber, or other purposes specified under the definition of farm animal in § 1.1 are exempt from regulation, regardless of whether those animals are sold face-to-face or sight unseen. Farm animals sold specifically as pets in face-to-face transactions are also exempt from licensing. (Page 41 of 91)

8. If sellers of such [working] dogs also sell dogs at retail for pets, any female dogs bred to produce puppies for sale would be counted as breeding females. (Page 57 of 91)

The commentary contains considerable discussion of Breeding Females and Offspring as the final rule exempts anyone who maintains a total of four or fewer breeding female dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals, and who sells only the offspring of these dogs, cats, and/or small exotic or wild mammals, which were born and raised on his or her premises. It is important to note that the word “maintains” includes any breeding female even temporarily residing at that premise, and that the exemption refers to the aggregate number of females on premise regardless of species. It is ultimately an APHIS inspector’s responsibility to decide whether an animal is a breeding female and, generally, APHIS assumes that any female capable of breeding may be bred.

When the rule was proposed in 2012 there was uncertainty regarding its effect on sales of farm animals because the definition of retail pet store names domestic farm animals in the list of covered animals. We were told by APHIS personnel this was not an issue as farm animals were excluded from AWA regulation by definition. However, the Final Rule Discussion of Comments raises this concern once again. APHIS acknowledges that farm animals intended for use as food, fiber, or other purposes specified under the definition of farm animal in § 1.1 are exempt from regulation, then adds “Farm animals intended to be used as pets, for biomedical research, or other nonagricultural research are regulated under the AWA. APHIS further stipulates (Page 41) “Farm animals sold specifically as pets in face-to-face transactions are also exempt from licensing.” Does this provision imply that shipping a “farm animal” as a pet requires a license?

APHIS repeatedly states they will determine who requires a license on a case by case basis. We would strongly advise having an attorney assist you in any dealings with APHIS regarding these decisions.

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

UKC COMMENTARY ON NEW USDA RULES
Posted by Sara Chisnell, UKC Legal Counsel under Your Dog, Your Rights

By now, most of you have heard that some changes have been made to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) that affect dog breeders, but there has been a lot of confusion on exactly how these changes work. I will attempt to clarify and simplify, to the best of my knowledge, but many of the definitions and applications remain unclear.

First of all, what is the AWA? In a nutshell, the AWA was originally created in order to oversee the humane treatment of animals used in research, and was later expanded to include transporting and dealing animals, as well. The law delineates who must be licensed and subsequently adhere to regulations and standards. Dog breeders who sell pets only at retail, and “retail pet stores”, are exempted from the AWA. The changes to the AWA revise and narrow the definition of “retail pet stores”.

The AWA regulates and requires dealers to be licensed and inspected. A “dealer” is defined as “any person who, in commerce, for compensation or profit, delivers for transportation, or transports, except as a carrier, buys, sells, or negotiates the purchase or sale of: Any dog or other animal whether alive or dead (including unborn animals, organs, limbs, blood, serum or other parts) for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, exhibition, or for use as a pet, or any dog at the wholesale level for hunting, security or breeding purposes.” “Retail pet stores” or anyone who sells dogs at retail for “hunting, breeding or security purposes” are exempt from licensing.

Who will be affected by this definition change? It might not be as sweeping and over-inclusive as it first appeared. Basically, the dog breeders it will affect will be those who sell dogs sight unseen, have more than four (4) “breeding females”, and sell dogs as pets. Sounds simple, right? Not so much. Read commentary at link: http://tinyurl.com/mlwqwxj

USDA ORDERS FOSTER FOODS TO CLEAN-UP PLANTS
Foster Farms in California was told to clean-up or shut down after three of their California plants were linked to a salmonella outbreak. This week Foster Farms issued a press release stating plants would stay open. “USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) today reviewed Foster Farms’ safety plan for its three California facilities in Livingston and Fresno. This follows Foster Farms’ implementation of several new food safety controls over the last two months and the company’s commitment to install added processes during an enhanced inspection period over the next 90 days.”

The CDC reported in July of 2013 that testing of samples traced back to two Foster Farms slaughter establishments. The CDC also reported that some of the salmonella strains detected were showing resistance to antibiotics. The L.A. Times reported a statement by John Glisson, director of research for the U.S. Poultry & Egg Assn., defending the use of antibiotics in agriculture. Glisson stressed that salmonella was a formidable challenge to the poultry industry. The bacteria grows in animals' intestinal tracts and is spread through feces. It can contaminate a chicken farm through water, feed, birds and rodents. When infected chicken waste dries, salmonella can spread through dust.

Foster Farms was the first major broiler chicken producer in the nation to carry the American Humane Association seal, ensuring consumers that its farms meet the nonprofit's animal welfare guidelines for raising poultry. Sources: CDC , Foster Farms, LA Times, SF Gate

HSUS SEEKS REGULATION CHANGE IN KANSAS
Proposed changes to the Kansas Pet Animal Act (KPAA) are being considered by a House-Senate committee which will forward its recommendations to the full Legislature when the 2014 session starts in January. HSUS state director, Midge Grinstead, called for more inspections of breeders to make sure that animal housing standards are being met. Advocates claim current regulations are inadequate to ensure animals in crowded conditions have adequate water, are subject to proper temperatures, and given enough room to move around. Several committee members said they did not see the need to regulate "hobby" breeders or animal training businesses. HSUS included 11 Kansas breeders in their Horrible Hundred list — the third highest of the 20 states in the study.

MASSACHUSETTS PAWS ACT
New legislation filed by Minority Leader Bruce Tarr of Gloucester titled An Act Protecting Animal Welfare and Safety (PAWS Act) would raise animal cruelty fines and penalties. Second or subsequent offenses would have increased penalties from 5 to 10 years in state prison and fines up to $20,000. The legislation would create an anonymous animal abuse tip hotline and impose a fine of up to $1,000 on any veterinarian who fails to report a suspected act of cruelty to an animal. A statewide registry of individuals convicted of animal abuse crimes would be established, and all animal shelters, pet stores or animal breeders would be required to check the registry prior to offering, selling, delivering, or giving an animal to any individual.

PENNSYLVANIA SB1126 MOVES DOG LAW TO HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Introduced October 10, 2013 by Senators Dinniman, Alloway, Erickson, Vogel and Greenleaf, SB1126 amends the Dog Law by moving responsibility from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Health. The Department of Health would carry out all the administrative and oversight tasks currently required by the Dog Law, including the regulation of dog kennels; the collection of complaints and tips alleging violations of the Dog Law; the seizure of dogs from illegal, unlicensed kennels; and the collection of dog-license, kennel and out-of-state-dealers fees. Senators Dinniman (D, Chester) and Alloway (R, Franklin) state with Dog Law enforcement in the Department of Agriculture, dogs are treated as any other agricultural product and moving them under the responsibility of the Department of Health correctly changes the focus to health, welfare and safety. Senators Dinniman and Alloway plan to unveil a package of bills October 22 with a public dog rally at the Capitol.

COBB COUNTY GA ANIMAL ABUSE UNIT
Cobb District Attorney Vic Reynolds names Sherwin Figueroa and Theresa Schiefer, who both joined the District Attorney’s Office earlier this year, as part of a new Animal Abuse Unit. His office prosecuted five felony aggravated cruelty to animal cases in 2011 and 2012 and, so far in 2013, there have been two cases indicted. Misdemeanor animal cases are prosecuted by the Solicitor General’s Office. Figueroa is an advocate of animal protection and serves as the vice president of the State Bar of Georgia’s Animal Law Section. Source: Marietta Daily Journal

Common Sense Prevails in East Coast Gestation Stall Decisions

Good news is always appreciated, and the common sense displayed by governmental officials in both New York and New Jersey this month is positive for pork producers. On Thursday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed legislation that would have banned the use of sow stalls. The legislation had been pushed by animal rights groups. Earlier this month, the New York Legislature refused to pass legislation banning gestation stalls.

Gov. Christie said, “The proper balancing of humane treatment of gestating pigs  with the interests of farmers whose livelihood depends on their ability to properly manage their livestock best rests with the state’s farming experts — the State Board (of Agriculture) and the Department (of Agriculture).” In response, National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) President-elect Howard Hill, DVM, a pork producer from Cambridge, IA, said, “This is a great example of a governor standing up to powerful lobbying groups on behalf of small, independent farmers. America’s family farmers thank Gov. Christie for rejecting this bad legislation.”

NPPC also joined New York pork producers to applaud the New York Legislature for failing to pass a similar gestation stall-banning measure pushed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups. While talking about the situation, New York pork producer John Lash said, “This is about HSUS using New York to advance its national agenda, regardless of the negative impact it would have on the health and safety of the animals and the small, independent farmers who care for them. Decisions about animal well-being and housing should be determined by those who understand the animals and work with them every day.”  More ...

Related articles:
NPPC Applauds Veto of Proposed Sow Stall Ban in New Jersey
America's Hog Farmers Thank Connecticut Legislature for Supporting Local Farmers

Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran calls foul on USDA Meatless Monday effort

DC Caller. By Caroline May

On Wednesday, Kansas Republican Sen. Jerry Moran called on Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to explain why the agency’s employee newsletter encouraged them to not eat meat and participate in the “Meatless Monday” initiative for the environment.



Read more

USDA “Meatless Mondays” Uproar

Ag Wired. Posted on July 25, 2012 by Cindy

An internal USDA Greening Update newsletter that promotes “Meatless Mondays” caused a bit of an uproar on Wednesday.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) sent out a news release linking to the newsletter and questioning USDA’s commitment to the livestock industry. The newsletter talked about various “greening” initiatives by the agency and suggested that “one simple way to reduce our environmental impact while dining at our cafeteria is to participate in the “Meatless Monday” initiative.” But it didn’t stop there:

The production of meat, especially beef (and dairy as well), has a large environmental impact. According to the U.N., animal agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gases and climate change. It also wastes resources. It takes 7,000 kg of grain to make 1,000 kg of beef. In addition, beef production requires a lot of water, fertilizer, fossil fuels, and pesticides. In addition there are many health concerns related to the excessive consumption of meat.

Within an hour after the NCBA release went out, USDA pulled the newsletter from the initial link and a statement was sent out by USDA press secretary Courtney Rowe. “Today, we have received a number of inquiries regarding a rumor that USDA is encouraging “Meatless Mondays,” she wrote, adding a statement from an unnamed USDA spokesperson that “USDA does not endorse Meatless Monday. The statement found on the USDA website was posted without proper clearance and it has been removed.”

The offending document was found on another link, and you can read the whole thing here where we uploaded it to our server. Just deleting the document from the link does not address this issue at all, since this is an internal newsletter that was sent to USDA employees. That makes this more than a “rumor.” While the Secretary may have been unaware of this gaffe and it may not be “official” USDA policy, the message has been sent to USDA employees that meat is bad for the environment. Not only does this have to be pulled, action should be taken against whoever wrote it and an immediate retraction should be made in a new “Greening Update.”

This is animal activism in a government agency that should be supporting all of agriculture and it is unacceptable.

Kudos to Rep. Steve King's Amendment to the Farm Bill

In more specific news about the House Ag Committee markup earlier this week, Chris Clayton reported yesterday at the DTN Ag Policy Blog that, “In a shot against state ballot initiatives on agricultural production standards, the committee adopted an amendment thatprevents states from denying the trade of an agricultural product from another state based on its means of production.

“Committee members got into the details of the Interstate Commerce Clause of the Constitution and the way it may be usurped by state ballot initiatives on issues such as pork gestation or egg production. The amendment goes after the spreading use of such state ballot measures.

“Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, who introduced the amendment, characterized it as a ‘protect interstate commerce amendment’ by prohibiting states from regulating the means of production over a particular farm product. King cited issues such as pork production, eggs and cages for hens and expressed concern that states adopting such laws on production standards would restrict shipping of those products from other states.”

Speaking on yesterday’s AgriTalk radio program with Mike Adams, Senior Director of Congressional Relations at the American Farm Bureau Federation, Mary Kay Thatcher, indicated that the King Amendment was “the Amendment of the Farm Bill yesterday.” To listen to a portion of Ms. Thatcher’s remarks on this issue from yesterday’s AgriTalk show, just click here (MP3- 1:27).

To listen to the full discussion leading up to the vote on the King Amendment that took place Wednesday night during the House Ag Committee markup, just click here (MP3- 23:00). The clip includes remarks from Reps. Steve King (R., Iowa), Kurt Schrader (D., Ore.),Dennis Cardoza (D., Calif.), Bob Goodlatte (R., Va.), Chairman Frank Lucas (R., Okla.), Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D., Minn.), Mike Conaway (R., Tex.), and Marlin Stutzman (R., Ind.).
The audio clip is a bit lengthy, but the discussion regarding the King Amendment was interesting and educational. Source: FarmPolicy.com, Inc.

Related: Rep. King statement on the Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA) Amendment

Alliance Adds Balance to Antibiotic Resistance Discussion

July 5, 2012 – The Animal Agriculture Alliance joined 15 other agricultural organizations today in submitting a letter to Congress in response to the recent Consumers Union report on the use of antibiotics in animal production. Read the full letter here.

The coalition wrote:
“We strongly believe consumers deserve a choice when it comes to their meat and poultry purchases. However, consumers can make an informed choice through balanced information about the challenges, benefits and realities of the various approaches to raising and processing livestock and poultry. We do not believe it serves the consumer to stigmatize certain production systems to boost others.”

Other organizations that signed on to the letter include the American Association of Bovine Practitioners, American Association of Small Ruminant Practitioners, American Association of Swine Veterinarians, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Feed Industry Association, American Meat Institute, American Veterinary Medical Association, Animal Health Institute, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Grain and Feed Association, National Milk Producers Federation, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, and the North American Meat Association.

The Alliance previously addressed the Consumers Union report in a blog post dated June 26. Additional resources explaining the role that antibiotics and other animal health products play in producing safe food can be found on the Alliance’s website.

Additionally, on July 5, the Alliance sent a letter to the editor in response to a July 1 Washington Post editorial that oversimplified the complex problem of antibiotic resistance. Read the full letter here.

Alliance President and CEO Kay Johnson Smith wrote:
“Calling for “Meat Without Drugs” to eliminate the use of antibiotics in farm animals may sound like a good idea, but the very title is misleading and inflammatory. Our meat and poultry supply is already “without drugs.” When farm animals are sometimes treated to prevent or control disease, a strict withdrawal period is followed to ensure that the end products are safe.

The claim that 80 percent of antibiotics are used on farm animals is unsubstantiated. Fully 40 percent of animal antibiotics are compounds not used in human medicine. FDA has initiated a process ensuring that all medically-important antibiotics will be administered under the supervision of a veterinarian and only for therapeutic purposes.”

The Alliance supports the responsible use of antibiotics by farmers and ranchers in order to maintain the health of their animals and to continue to provide consumers with high-quality food products.

About the Alliance:
The Animal Agriculture Alliance, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, is a broad-based coalition of individual farmers, ranchers, producers, organizations, suppliers, packer-processors, scientists, veterinarians and retailers. The Alliance's mission is to communicate the importance of animal agriculture to our nation's economy, vitality and security. Find the Alliance on Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube.

GAO: 'Limited Progress' in Addressing Antibiotic Resistance

by Helena Bottemiller Sep 15, 2011
Federal agencies have made "limited progress" in addressing antibiotic use in food animals and lack the data needed to track progress, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.

The GAO found that the government is lacking the detailed data needed to measure efforts to reduce antibiotic resistance and fully examine the relationship between using antibiotics in animal agriculture and the growing problem of antibiotic resistance. Without that analysis, it's difficult to measure whether or not policies to combat resistance are working.

The National Pork Producers Council pointed to the GAO report as confirmation of the group's long-held position that science does not back up the link between food animal antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance in humans.

"Not only is there no scientific study linking antibiotic use in food animals to antibiotic resistance in humans, as the U.S. pork industry has continually pointed out, but there isn't even adequate data to conduct a study," National Pork Producers Council President Doug Wolf in a statement. "The GAO report on antibiotic resistance issued today confirms this." full story at Food Safety News

The GAO report details background, research challenges, and recommendations.

New ag organization started to protect state's animal agriculture

By Robert Pore robert.pore@theindependent.com
Published: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 8:27 PM CDT

Animal agriculture in Nebraska is a more than $7 billion industry that supports thousands of jobs.

But a group of agricultural organizations believes the livestock industry is threatened by outside groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

These organizations have formed We Support Agriculture (WSA) to educate Nebraskans about modern agricultural practices and to defend against attacks and misinformation about modern technology used to raise livestock.

WSA was announced on Tuesday at Husker Harvest Days. Pete McClymont, vice president of government affairs for the Nebraska Cattlemen, is WSA president.

He said Nebraska's farmers and ranchers are "caring people who know how to care for their animals properly."

"They go to great lengths to protect their animals from disease, predators and harsh Nebraska climate while feeding their neighbors and the world."

But they now have a new predator to contend with, McClymont said, in the form of increased activity across the country by "extreme animal rights groups who have an agenda to make Americans eat less food originating from animals -- such as meat, eggs and dairy."

He said these groups want to institute "hostile regulations that will increase the price of food and make them much more difficult to produce."

According to WSA, "This negatively affects consumers by inflating the cost of food and limiting the availability of nutritious food choices for their families."

WSA said its goal is to "defend agriculture against this extreme agenda."
Full story
Visit We Support Agriculture website

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

NCBA statement on HSUS-Egg agreement

A truly excellent statement on an issue that should be a major concern for all animal industries as well as consumers.

CattleNetwork. Washington July 13, 2011 – National Cattlemen’s Beef Association Vice President of Government Affairs Colin Woodall issued the following statement regarding a July 7, 2011, agreement between the United Egg Producers (UEP) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to work together toward the enactment of federally mandated egg production standards.

“Cattlemen are rightfully concerned with the recent UEP-HSUS agreement to seek unprecedented federal legislation to mandate on-farm production standards. Cattlemen take very seriously the responsibility to care for their animals. Cattlemen support and actively participate in multiple voluntary, industry led initiatives aimed at ensuring the production of healthy cattle and, ultimately, the safest, highest quality and most nutritious beef. The U.S. beef industry is recognized as a worldwide leader for its proactive and responsible health and wellbeing programs.

“More than two decades ago, long before agenda-driven, well-funded animal rights extremists started spreading fiction as fact, cattlemen adopted voluntary production practice guidelines. Unfortunately, these groups have repeatedly ignored the beef industry’s many cattle care programs, including Beef Quality Assurance program and the Cattle Industry’s Guidelines for the Care and Handling of Cattle. These programs set specific guidelines and provide hands-on training based on decades of practical experience, research and the most up-to-date science and education. They are updated regularly to ensure the use of the newest scientifically sound information and provide flexibility to meet the diversity of the industry.

“The cattle industry’s successful programs were not the result of a government mandate. They were developed by industry for industry to ensure cattlemen constantly improve handling and management techniques. And we will continue working to ensure our standards – not just animal care and handling, but food safety and environmental stewardship as well – are based on the latest knowledge. Unlike the UEP-HSUS agreement, our cattle care programs should never be weakened by being misused or construed as the basis of a regulatory or government mandated program.”

USPOULTRY members concerned about deal

July 13, 2011 By Julie Harker

Brownfield Ag News. So far, there is little support from U.S. ag groups for a one-size-fits-all federal cage requirement for egg production. The U.S. Poultry and Egg Association (USPOULTRY) – the “all feather” trade organization – says many of its members have concerns “about inviting additional federal legislation” that the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States are pursuing. Last week, the UEP and the HSUS announced an agreement to push for legislation that would require enriched cages with more space for U.S. poultry production over the next 15 to 18 years.

A statement from USPOULTRY says while the industry has learned that enriched cages “offer many of the same advantages as conventional cage systems while providing birds with an opportunity to engage in additional natural behaviors” – the farming and production of poultry and egg products “is already highly regulated.”

Meanwhile, Colin Woodall, vice president of government affairs of The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said in a statement this week that “cattlemen are rightfully concerned” with the UEP/HSUS agreement to “seek unprecedented federal legislation to mandate on-farm production standards.” Woodall says cattlemen voluntarily developed and follow quality assurance production guidelines that are updated on a regular basis. The National Pork Producers Council made a similar statement last week.

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.

High court to review downer hog ban

Updated: Thursday, June 30, 2011 10:02 AM

Packer group says hogs normally lie down, law interferes with inspection

By MATEUSZ PERKOWSKI - Capital Press

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a lawsuit over California's ban on the slaughter of downer hogs.

The National Meat Association, a packer trade group, contends that the prohibition is preempted by federal laws that govern the slaughter of livestock.

"This is about clear standards," said Jeremy Russell, spokesman for the group.

Unlike cattle, hogs normally lie down, so it's necessary for a veterinarian to determine if an animal is actually non-ambulatory, he said, adding that the California law hinders that process.

"It directly interferes with the antemortem (pre-slaughter) inspection of swine," said Steve Wells, an attorney for the group.

The nation's highest court will probably hear oral arguments and make a decision in the case in the spring of 2012, he said.

Attorneys representing the state of California would not comment on the case.

The Humane Society of the U.S., an animal rights group that voluntarily intervened in the case as a defendant, sees the court's decision as unfortunate, said Peter Brandt, its attorney.

"The meat industry is devoting a huge amount of resources to be able to slaughter animals that are too sick or injured to even walk," he said. "This is about the industry trying to cram animals that can't walk through the food system."

Brandt said he hopes the Supreme Court will recognize that the state has a legitimate interest in the prevention of animal cruelty.

If the court rules in favor of the National Meat Association, that would make it harder to prosecute people across the U.S. for such abuses, he said.

California initially passed its law against the slaughter of all downer livestock in 2008 after the Humane Society of the U.S. released a video that depicted the abuse of non-ambulatory cows at a slaughterhouse in the state.

The National Meat Association filed a legal complaint challenging the law as it applied to swine and won an injunction that prevented it from going into effect.

A U.S. district judge in San Francisco found that the prohibition was preempted by federal law, which prevents states from imposing meat inspection standards that are more stringent than federal standards.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the decision last year, describing the judge's interpretation as "hogwash."

According to the appellate ruling, states are allowed to ban the slaughter of certain animals -- such as horses -- even if federal meat inspection standards exist for such animals.

A non-ambulatory pig is simply another type of animal that the state government can exclude from slaughter, the ruling said.

The National Meat Association disputed these findings in its petition to the Supreme Court.

California's requirement that downer hogs be immediately euthanized prevents federal inspectors and veterinarians from conducting inspections that are mandated by federal law, the group said.

At the Supreme Court's request, the federal government submitted a brief that generally supported the National Meat Association's views. California's ban places requirements on the operation of slaughterhouses and is thereby preempted by federal law, according to the brief.

United Egg Producers- HSUS agreement

From Keith Good at FarmPolicy.com, Inc.

William Neuman reported in today’s New York Times that, “Two groups that are usually squawking at each other — egg farmers and animal welfare advocates — announced an unusual agreement on Thursday to work together to seek a federal law that would require larger cages and other improved conditions for the nation’s 280 million laying hens.

“The deal comes after the egg industry has been put increasingly on the defensive. Animal welfare groups have clandestinely recorded videos showing poor conditions on farms, and various states have sought to set more humane standards for hens. Egg producers have also been struggling to improve their image after tainted eggs from several farms in Iowa sickened thousands of people in a nationwide salmonella outbreak last year.

“The agreement was announced by the nation’s main egg industry group, the United Egg Producers, which represents farmers who own about 80 percent of the nation’s laying hens, and the Humane Society of the United States, the nation’s largest animal protection organization.”

The Times article added that, “The groups said they would ask Congress to pass a law enacting the new standards, which they said would be the first federal law addressing the treatment of farm animals and would pre-empt efforts in several states to set their own standards.

“The proposed federal standards would include cages that give hens up to 144 square inches of space each, compared with the 67 square inches that most hens have today. They would also include so-called habitat enrichments, like perches, scratching areas and nesting areas, that allow the birds to express natural behavior.”

Mr. Neuman indicated that, “In a statement Thursday, the National Pork Producers Council said that a federal law regulating living conditions for hens ‘would set a dangerous precedent for allowing the federal government to dictate how livestock and poultry producers raise and care for their animals.’

“Robert L. Krouse, chairman of United Egg Producers, acknowledged the difficulties ahead.

“‘That’s part of what we have to do, as United Egg Producers, is talk with these other groups and hopefully get them to see our point of view,’ said Mr. Krouse, an Indiana egg farmer. ‘We understand their concerns, but this is about egg producers, this is a solution that we’ve found for us.’”

Today’s article noted that, “A federal law would be intended to pre-empt state laws. But the groups said it would have to include a faster transition timetable for California egg farmers to match the schedule approved in the ballot measure there, which requires larger cages by 2015.”

A statement yesterday from Arnie Riebli, the President of the Association of California Egg Farmers indicated that:

“While we are still in the process of reviewing today’s agreement between HSUS and the United Egg Producers, we welcome the recognition by HSUS that the enriched colony system is a suitable hen habitat. California’s egg farmers have long advocated the use of an enriched colony system as a superior living area for hens.

“At the same time, we are very disappointed that California is not being treated equally as the other 49 states. While the rest of the nation’s egg producers have until 2029 to spend an estimated five billion dollars necessary to comply with this agreement, California egg farmers must comply by 2015.”

Philip Brasher, writing yesterday at his new FoodWatch Blog, reported that, “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.”

And the AP reported yesterday that, “Threatened with a series of state laws cracking down on cramped cages, the egg industry on Thursday said it would agree to seek federal regulation to improve conditions for egg-laying hens.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Statement Of National Pork Producers Council
Feedstuffs. HSUS, UEP reach agreement to transition to colonies
Brownfield. HSUS, United Egg agree on federal standards
Brownfield. NPPC president says federal standard bad idea
Better housing for hens may mean higher prices for eggs

Farmers rally for, as HSUS protests, dog bill

April 21, 2011 by Tom Steever

Organizers say over 1,000 people gathered Wednesday on the Missouri Capitol lawn to show support for legislation making changes to the controversial Puppy Mill Cruelty Bill passed by voters last fall.

Flanked by Missouri House and Senate members favoring the changes, several spoke supporting Senate Bill 113 that’s been passed but is awaiting Governor Jay Nixon’s signature. Clarence, Missouri, pork producer Chris Chinn told the crowd she’s concerned that the Humane Society of United States, which supports and financed the ballot initiative, will not stop with limiting the number of dogs allowed in a breeding operation.

“They’re going to take our farms from us and they’re going to take our jobs and they are going to steal my children’s future,” said Chinn Wednesday, from the podium on the Capitol steps.

Rally organizer Don Nikodim, head of the Missouri Pork Producers Association and with the Missouri Farmers Care coalition says the turnout will help decision makers still on the fence about compromise legislation.
Full story at Brownfield Ag

Ohio livestock board changes rule on veal crates

Capital Press April 5, 2011

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- An animal rights group says it's pleased that Ohio's livestock care board has reversed an earlier vote on the size of cages for veal calves.

The Humane Society of the United States had been threatening to revive a ballot issue against animal cruelty after the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board voted to allow veal calves to be kept in crates too small for them to turn around.

The board reversed its course on Tuesday and decided to allow the larger crates. The rule still faces one more vote and a hearing before it can take effect.

The Humane Society complained that the earlier vote jeopardized an agreement reached with former Gov. Ted Strickland last year that led them to give up a ballot campaign.

Related article:
Brownfield Ag News. Care Board reverses decision on veal crates

Investigations clear New York dairy of animal abuse

By Dairy Herd News Source | Updated: March 28, 2011

Syracuse.com reports investigations by the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets and other experts show the Willet Dairy meets or exceeds animal-care standards despite accusations by an animal-rights organization.

An undercover worker from Mercy for Animals, a Chicago-based animal-rights group, released a video showing what it called inhumane treatment of cows and calves at Willet Dairy. Results from two investigations found the dairy’s workers used care practices equal to or above industry standards. The final reports showed no systemic abuse of cattle on the farm.

The investigation was completed by state Department of Agriculture and Markets, state Cattle Health and Assurance Program, state College of Veterinary Medicine Animal Health Diagnostic Center and ProDairy.

The investigation did find one dairy worker from the video hitting a cow on the nose with a screwdriver handle. That employee, Phil Niles, pleaded guilty to animal cruelty. He was fined $350, was fired from the dairy and is denied contact with animals for a year, according to The Post-Standard.

Apart from the charge against Niles, practices on the farm kept the 5,000-cow dairy cows clean and well cared for. Some of the practices Mercy for Animals found inhumane were common and according to the district attorney’s report, “not currently illegal in New York state.”

The undercover work who released the video admitted he is not an expert on dairy operations or New York state animal-welfare laws.
Source: Syracuse.com