|
1.
TWENTY-EIGHT HOUR LAW APPLIES TO TRUCKS
The Twenty-Eight Hour Law, passed in
1873, requires that farmed animals be unloaded every
28 hours during shipment and given feed, water and
rest. The law was passed before trucks were used for
that purpose. They are now the means by which some
95% of all farmed animals are transported, according
to The Humane Society of the U.S (HSUS). The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) had in recent years
stated that the law does not pertain to trucks. Accordingly,
per HSUS, “…more than 50 million of the
nearly 10 billion farm animals transported by truck
every year must endure trips far in excess of 28 hours
without food, water or rest.” HSUS, along with
Farm Sanctuary, Compassion Over Killing, and Animals’
Angels, petitioned the USDA last October for trucks
to be recognized under the law. Early this month the
USDA made it known publicly that, in a 2003 internal
memo, it had clarified that trucks are indeed covered.
Its new interpretation was based on changes Congress
made to the law in 1994. Those changes also switch
enforcement responsibility for the law from the USDA
to the U.S. Department of Justice.
The change in policy was news to many
organizations, including the National Cattlemen's
Beef Association and the American Trucking Associations,
some of which have raised concerns. It has become
common practice in the pig industry for two drivers
to be assigned to every trip, avoiding having to stop
along the way. Trucks carrying calves avoid stopping
so the animals don't lie down, said a representative
of the Iowa Cattlemen's Association, who claims that
calves travel better standing. Chickens, turkeys and
other birds, who constitute some 95% of all farmed
animals, are still not protected by the law.
USDA REVERSES DECADES-OLD POLICY ON FARM
ANIMAL TRANSPORT
The Humane Society of the United States, September
28, 2006
http://www.hsus.org/farm/news/ournews/usda_reverses_28_hour_policy.html
USDA LIMITS LIVESTOCK TIME ON TRUCKS TO 28 CONSECUTIVE
HOURS
Herd on the Hill, Edited by Elliotte Bowerman, Oct.
9, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/rk862
USDA SAYS RULE ON LIVESTOCK STOPS APPLIES TO TRUCKS
The Des Moines Register, Philip Brasher, September
29, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/qy5no
2.
NATIONAL CHICKEN MONTH
September was “National Chicken
Month.” The National Chicken Council recognized
it with a website (hyperlink to: http://www.nationalchickenmonth.com)
with the theme “Taste the Possibilities,”
which offers chicken recipes and resources for boosting
sales of the birds’ meat. The Humane Society
of the U.S. instead celebrated it by urging consumers
to “check out some delicious alternatives to
meat and eggs—and give the chickens something
to crow about!” (See: http://tinyurl.com/kysfv
)
3.
EGG LOGO AGREEMENT; D.C. PROPOSAL
The egg industry has agreed to permanently
drop "Animal Care Certified" logos on egg
cartons, which has been replaced with a logo that
instead says "United Egg Producers Certified."
The agreement was reached with 16 states that contended
the original logo falsely implied a higher level of
care for hens. United Egg Producers (UEP) also agreed
to pay $100,000 to the states for attorney fees, consumer
education, and other costs. The trade group denies
it misled consumers, noting that the certification
program guidelines are still the same.
Compassion Over Killing [which initiated
the action in 2003 with through a successful petition
to the Better Business Bureau] is now petitioning
the Food and Drug Administration “to establish
a uniform, market-wide regulation mandating the labeling
of egg production methods on egg cartons (i.e. “eggs
from caged hens”) to protect consumers from
false and misleading advertising” (see: http://tinyurl.com/hosrv
). In Washington D.C., City Councilor Jim Graham has
introduced legislation requiring retailers to hang
signs with black letters at least one inch tall stating:
"Eggs may be from caged hens." The law would
be the first of its kind in the U.S. According to
the UEP, about 95% of eggs sold are produced by caged
hens, whereas a decade ago almost all eggs were. UEP
contends that it is meeting market demand for cheap
eggs with the use of battery cages, and that eggs
from uncaged hens are already labeled as such. A discussion
with Councilor Graham and reps from advocacy and industry
can be heard at: http://tinyurl.com/hy5go
On a similar note, Berkeley Bowl Marketplace,
the largest grocery store in Berkeley, California,
has agreed to allow Foster Farms and East Bay Animal
Advocates the opportunity to express their positions
via point-of-sale-notices on the treatment of chickens
by Foster Farms. Additionally, Ben & Jerry's Homemade
Inc. will, over the next four years, become the first
national food manufacturer to require egg producers
to allow their laying hens to live outside cages (see:
http://tinyurl.com/f6g9y
& http://tinyurl.com/quvx8
).
EGG INDUSTRY TO DROP LOGO
The San Francisco Chronicle, September 21, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/ly85c
GRAHAM WANTS STORES TO LABEL EGGS FROM CAGED HENS
The Washington Post, Nikita Stewart, September 29,
2006
http://tinyurl.com/n72no
4.
CHICKEN MORTALITY AND SLAUGHTER
To determine the most common causes
of death prior to slaughter for chickens raised for
meat, 302 birds who died between the time they were
caught and slaughtered were studied in the Netherlands.
Visible skin injuries caused by disease were found
on 89.4% of the birds who arrived dead. Signs of infectious
disease were identified in 64.9% of them, heart and
circulatory disorders were detected in 42.4%, and
29.5% showed signs of trauma. It was determined that
a good health status along with more attention during
the catching and crating process is needed to decrease
the percentage of birds who arrive dead. Prevention
of heart disorders and of ascites was also deemed
necessary to improve livability during production
and to “enormously” decrease the dead-on-arrival
(DOA) rate. (Peak periods of DOA birds are usually
due to heat waves or equipment malfunctions, per (PDF
file): http://tinyurl.com/s975e
)
Although birds constitute 95% of the non-aquatic
animals killed for food in the U.S., they are not
covered by the Humane Slaughter Act. The Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS) and East Bay Animal Advocates
are suing the USDA to have poultry included, arguing
that birds are among the species that Congress mandated
be included under the law. The organizations contend
that birds presently suffer from such industry practices
as shackling and hanging conscious birds upside down,
electrically stunning birds into paralysis but failing
to induce actual unconsciousness, cutting conscious
birds with imprecise mechanical blades, and drowning
conscious birds in tanks of scalding water. They recommend
that birds instead be killed with gas. The article
considers the history of welfare regulations for animal
slaughter, and touches on the use of rabbits for meat.
[Poultry farmers can slaughter up to
20,000 birds per year for commercial purposes without
an inspector present. See (PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/zcreo
] Slaughter at Marin Sun Farms (Ca.) is described:
“Four at a time, they're placed upside down
in metal cones, their heads poking out of the narrow
openings. One at a time, their heads disappear into
the fist of a worker. In a calm and steady motion
he pulls their heads back in such a way to expose
their neck to his blade and makes a slice, careful
to cut only the jugular vein - interrupting the flow
of deoxygenated blood to the heart.” (The on-line
article includes additional details and a photograph.)
PATHOLOGICAL FEATURES IN DEAD ON ARRIVAL
BROILERS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO HEART DISORDERS
Poultry Science, E. Nijdam et al., September 2006
http://tinyurl.com/e952y
CHICKEN SLAUGHTER: KILLING THEM SOFTLY
Point Reyes Light, Meghan Gilliss, September 21, 2006
http://www.ptreyeslight.com/cgi/news.pl?record=194
5.
DELMARVA POULTRY
“42-Day Wonders” is an article
in the September issue of Washingtonian magazine that
looks at the “broiler” industry of the
East Coast’s Delmarva Peninsula, where 2,000
“grower” raise more than 570 million chickens
each year. It begins with a visit to a concealed genetic
research facility where: “Each rooster struts
in his own pen, shared with eight hens which he must
mount at least 40 times a week to produce a flow of
fertile eggs. Should he falter, a pen full of reserve
roosters awaits. The laggard stud is euthanized and
incinerated on site--we can’t risk competing
poultry companies getting his elite genes.”
The “working life” of the birds deemed
best for breeding purposes is about one year. Cloning,
it’s said, “would be stupid because that
would end mutation and the constant gains the industry
demands.”
Author Tom Horton, who grew up on a chicken farm
and worked in poultry processing plants, notes that
the “relentless [genetic] advance that has transformed
the descendants of Asian jungle fowl into protein
machines…” Today a chicken can be raised
to more than four pounds (65 times their initial weight)
in 42 days versus 116 days back when modern chicken
production began (in the 1920’s) and on half
the feed. They are kept for their 6-week lives in
structures that can hold up to 60,000 birds [30,000
according to the National Chicken Council], with fluorescent
lights kept on 22 hours a day to encourage steady
feeding. Every couple of years the buildings are given
a “total crustout,” with manure-laden
litter removed down to the bare floor.
The article features Lou Ann Rieley, a mother of
12 who had been raising half a million chickens a
year under contract to Perdue. With thousands of the
birds in each flock of 75,000 dying prior to being
sent to slaughter, Rieley’s children learned
to count by collecting dead chickens. Explains daughter
Megan, 16, “We always pray for rain the day
they move [by open truck in cages to the processing
plant]. That little extra weight on their feathers
is more money for us.” She continues: “I
really hate killing em, but you gotta do what you
gotta do.” “As long as they don’t
suffer,” adds her mother. The article describes
how the chickens are caught and slaughtered.
Karen Davis, head of United Poultry
Concerns, is characterized as “a lonely counterpoint”
to the Delmarva chicken industry. At her sanctuary,
some 85 mostly former industry birds quickly revert
to their natural behaviors -taking dust baths, sunbathing,
eating grass, perching in trees, and socializing-
despite having been bred for generations to maximize
egg or meat production. Australian avian researcher
Lesley Rogers is quoted: I am convinced chickens are
not animals that should be kept in mentally and socially
deprived conditions. They are as complex as the cats
and dogs we share our homes with and should not be
looked upon as bird brains.
.
DPI [Delmarva Poultry Industry]’s Bill Satterfield
disputes the contention that the industry is abusive
to birds, arguing that stressed and suffering birds
would diminish performance and profits. The article
includes numerous photographs, all by David Harp who
found some aspects of the industry “a bit jarring”
but “still enjoys barbecuing and eats chicken
several nights a week.”
42-DAY WONDERS
Washingtonian, Tom Horton, September 2006
http://www.upc-online.org/broiler/9230842day.html
6.
RSPCA COMPARES CHICKENS
“The misery of egg-laying birds
has been well-documented,” states the U.K.’s
Guardian Unlimited. In anticipation of a report by
the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals (RSPCA) comparing its standards for raising
birds for meat to Assured Chicken Production (ACP)
standards, by which 90% of U.K. chickens are said
to be raised, reporter Andrew Purvis was sent to investigate
“whether the RSPCA's Freedom Food scheme is
really working or whether chicken farming is just
one big cock-up.”
Purvis, who obtained an advance copy
of the report, warns: “The 30-page document
makes harrowing reading, with tales of up to 50,000
chickens crammed in a dark, airless shed, pumped up
by a high-protein diet and suffering from 'heat stress'
and respiratory problems caused by 'aerial contaminants'.
So tightly packed are the birds, they sit immobile
in their own soiled litter, with blistered breasts
and ulcerated wounds from the ammonia in their excreta.
Grotesquely obese, they suffer from ascites (a build-up
of fluid in the abdomen, caused by the heart being
unable to pump it around their engorged bodies), hip
disorders such as femoral head necrosis (where the
top of the leg bone disintegrates due to bacterial
infection) and 'sudden death syndrome' (acute heart
failure) - all the result of selective breeding for
rapid weight gain.” Writing about report, the
Daily Mail states: “Tens of millions of weak
and injured 'factory' birds die every year because
their bodies cannot cope with regimes designed to
speed their growth. While many more suffer painful
leg burns, which are caused by the acidic filth on
the floor of the barns.” The full report, “Everyone’s
a Winner,” is available at (PDF file): http://tinyurl.com/zsz5q
Producers monitored almost 13 million birds for one
year for the report, 10.5m to ACP standards, 2.4m
to the RSPCA's. The statistics, independently analyzed,
“make grim reading.” In standard birds,
the mortality rate was 5.1% (equivalent to 45 million
of the 900 million “broiler” chicks hatched
annually in Britain) compared to 1.8% for Freedom
Food (F.F.) birds. The level of hock burn was 19%
for standard birds versus 3.5% for those reared by
F.F. standards. Foot-pad burn was half as likely for
F.F. birds, deaths in transit were 70% less likely,
and rejects at slaughter were 1.6% compared to 1.9%
for conventionally raised birds.
On F.F. farms, a different breed is used, with birds
whose “bone structure is good, and everything
grows in proportion.” They grow half as fast
and are given 25% more space, lighting is varied and
brighter, and the environment is enriched with bales,
perches and pecking objects. Additionally, their diet
is such that they don’t “'feather-peck'
each other, or eat feathers off the ground, to compensate
for a lack of amino acids in their diet.” While
F.F. standards are not in same league as free-range
or organic, the RSPCA points out that meat from the
birds raised by them is sold at a fraction of the
cost.
Despite a clear correlation between higher welfare
scores and lower incidence of Campylobacter, a disease
that is transmissible to humans, “…the
pressure to grow birds quickly and cheaply - 'has
dictated a more industrialised system.” Meat
from birds produced under higher welfare standards
accounted for only 3% of U.K. production last year
whereas free-range eggs account for 40% of the market.
Purvis attributes this to a failure to register the
plight of these birds with the public. However, sales
of organic and free-range birds, for whom there are
legally mandated standards, are up 65% from 15 million
in 2004.
In 2000, investigators from the Hillside Animal Sanctuary
filmed dead, dying, rotten and sick hens at an F.F.-certified
free-range egg farm. In 2001, similar accusations
were made about a FF. turkey farm, and a pig farm.
Animal protection advocates claim F.F. is also intensive
production with terrible consequences for the animals
used.
The Guardian article concludes with
a comparison of price, market share, welfare, diet,
and pros and cons of different production systems.
PECKING ORDER
The Observer, Guardian Unlimited, Andrew Purvis, September
24, 2006
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/foodmonthly/story/0,,1876749,00.html
RSPCA EXPOSES HORROR OF INTENSIVE CHICKEN FARMING
Daily Mail, Sean Poulter, Sept. 26, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/m8nvb
7.
ARSENIC IN POULTRY FEED, PEOPLE & THE ENVIRONMENT
Over 70% of all chickens raised for
meat in the U.S. are fed roxarsone, an organic arsenic
compound, according to a Poultry Science article published
in 2000. Roxarsone prevents the growth of microscopic
intestinal parasites called coccidia and promotes
faster chicken growth. Some roxarsone is stored in
tissues which are later eaten by human consumers.
Exposure to arsenic from eating chicken is estimated
to be between 3 and 11 times the recommended safe
level. The rest is excreted in the birds’ waste,
90% of which is made into fertilizer that can contaminate
crops, water, and eventually drinking water. Some
250 to 350 metric tons of arsenic is released into
the environment from poultry manure every year.
Roxarsone, along with three other growth promoters,
was banned from farmed animal feed in the European
Union in 1999. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) considers arsenic a class A carcinogen: one
that has definitively been shown to cause cancer.
Other effects from chronic low-level exposure include
partial paralysis, blindness and diabetes. Arsenic
exists in both organic and inorganic forms, and experts
disagree about the relative toxicity of the two. However,
roxarsone converts into inorganic forms of arsenic,
which are present in poultry manure, some of which
are highly toxic. The EPA is responsible for regulating
roxarsone’s byproducts in drinking water but
has no jurisdiction over its use in chicken feed.
Ellen Silbergeld, a professor of environmental
health sciences at Johns Hopkins University, blames
the failure to ban roxarsone on industry influence.
“The major ‘pressure’ to keep drugs
in animal feeds comes from the pharmaceutical industry,
since over 60 percent of antibiotic production, and
100 percent of roxarsone production, is used for nonclinical
‘growth promoting’ purposes in animals,”
she wrote.
FOOD FOR CHICKENS, POISON FOR MAN
Scienceline, Melinda Wenner, September 20, 2006
http://scienceline.org/2006/09/20/env-wenner-arsenic/
|
![[missing header image]](../images/faw_chicks.jpg)
![[missing header image]](../images/newsletter_ico.jpg)