Farmed Animal Watch: Objective Information for the Thinking Advocate
Farmed Animal Watch
[missing header image] Subscribe to Farmed Animal Watch

DECEMBER 31 , 2008 -- Number 31, Volume 8

1. VIEWPOINTS ON VILSACK

“He's thoughtful and pragmatic. He's experienced in managing government bureaucracy. He's politically astute.” So says a Des Moines Register editorial about Tom Vilsack, the governor of Iowa and President-elect Barack Obama’s pick to head the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The USDA has broad regulatory authority, including over important legislation pertaining to animal protection, and a budget of some $95 billion. The editorial states that Vilsack was supported by key agricultural, conservation and labor groups, and claims that he shares Obama's interest in capping farm subsidies and promoting sustainable agriculture. Vilsack “is sympathetic to big agribusiness…and a believer in biofuels and agricultural biotechnology,” the Register’s agriculture correspondent, Philip Brasher, wrote in his column that same day. “Vilsack is not likely to shift the [USDA] in a radical new direction as many of Obama's liberal supporters had hoped,” he surmised.

“He’s certainly not the best choice,” blogged Farm Sanctuary’s Gene Baur, “however, I think Vilsack may be a choice holding forth a reasonable hope of significant change.” As governor, Vilsack has a mixed record on policies affecting industrialized agriculture, Baur explains: “He vetoed a bill, which would have prevented Iowa from establishing stronger environmental standards for factory farms than the federal government, but he has also compromised with big agriculture, supporting weak environmental protections and genetically modified foods.” Environmental writer Tom Philpott notes that “As a state senator, [Vilsack] voted for legislation which stripped counties of the right to impose restrictions on CAFOs”: http://tinyurl.com/8bdhno

With his “solid record on animal protection,” Vilsack was the top choice of the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and its affiliate, the Humane Society Legislative Fund. “As governor of Iowa, Vilsack advocated for bills to toughen the state’s penalties for animal fighting…stood up to the puppy mill industry and vetoed a bill in 2006 that would have weakened protections for pets by reclassifying dogs as ‘farm products [see: http://tinyurl.com/8u6gqa ],’” blogged HSUS’s Michael Markarian. Nearly 90,000 animal advocates contacted the Obama transition team through a page on the HSUS website which recommended Vilsack.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) has an on-line petition opposing Vilsack’s appointment ( http://tinyurl.com/7xavlr ), which awaits Senate confirmation. Among OCA’s points of contention are that:

  • The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He is also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
  • When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child for economic development was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

“Mainstream agriculture seems happy with Obama's choice of Tom Vilsack to head USDA, but activists and reformers are disappointed,” states a Meat & Poultry article: http://tinyurl.com/9cr6qg “As is always the case, everyone rushed to put out the perfunctory press release claiming their delight with the Vilsack pick and how they were looking forward to working with him, writes BEEF’s Troy Marshall, “In Vilsack’s case, a lawyer by training, the sentiment seems to be generally true.” He notes that “his ag experience, however, is largely that he was the governor of a ‘farm state.’”

Other viewpoints on Vilsack by prominent activists can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/75otr4 and http://tinyurl.com/6v47wg and http://tinyurl.com/9ohbu5.


VILSACK COULD SHAPE SMARTER AG POLICY
Des Moines Register editorial, December 17, 2008
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008812170364

BRASHER: VILSACK NOT LIKELY TO TAKE USDA IN RADICAL DIRECTION
Des Moines Register, Philip Brasher, December 17, 2008
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008812170368

USDA SECRETARY TOM VILSACK - A MIXED BAG
Gene Baur's Bloggings, Gene Baur, December 18, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/9tj7ck

OBAMA'S ANIMAL WELFARE TEAM
Animals & Politics (blog), Michael Markarian, December 17, 2008
http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/12/cabinet_apppoin.html

ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOCIATION: VILSACK NOT 'CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN'
Organic Consumers Association press release, December 17, 2008
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2008/12/17-15#

OBAMA APPOINTS TWO "MODERATES" TO CABINET
BEEF, Troy Marshall, December 19, 2008
http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/1219-obama-moderates-cabinet/

 

2. ON RENAMING THE USDA

Renaming the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) the Department of Food “would signal that Mr. Obama seeks to move away from a bankrupt structure of factory farming that squanders energy, exacerbates climate change and makes Americans unhealthy — all while costing taxpayers billions of dollars,” asserts New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof ( http://tinyurl.com/6qo6dz ) in a December 11th op-ed. “The Agriculture Department — and the agriculture committees in Congress — have traditionally been handed over to industrial farming interests by Democrats and Republicans alike,” he writes, clarifying: “The problem isn’t farmers. It’s the farm lobby — hijacked by industrial operators — and a bipartisan tradition of kowtowing to it.”

Kristof continues: “Modern confinement operations are less like farms than like meat assembly lines…One study suggests that these large operations receive, in effect, a $24 subsidy for each hog raised. We face an obesity crisis and a budget crisis, and we subsidize bacon?” Noting that two recent former secretaries of agriculture have suggested the USDA be renamed the Department of Food, Agriculture and Forestry or the Department of Food and Agriculture, Kristof explains: “I’d prefer to see simply ‘Department of Food,’ giving primacy to America’s 300 million eaters.”

BEEF Daily’s Amanda Nolz detailed her contentions with Kristof’s column in her December 18th blog. The post generated some lengthy responses and she reran it on December 31st as “the number one BEEF Daily Blog post of 2008”: http://tinyurl.com/9s44ro

See also: A FOOD AGENDA FOR OBAMA: Now's the Time to Reinvent America's Farm and Food Policies, by Christopher D. Cook in the December 26th edition of The Christian Science Monitor: http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1226/p09s02-coop.html


OBAMA’S ‘SECRETARY OF FOOD’?
The New York Times, Nicholas D. Kristof (op-ed), December 11, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/11/opinion/11kristof.html

 

3. SENTIMENTS ON SALAZAR

Obama’s selection of Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) to head the Department of the Interior was met with less enthusiasm than Vilsack’s appointment (see item #1) by animal advocates, environmentalists and at least one industry commentator. “As Interior chief, Salazar will oversee the enforcement of wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and will have authority for wildlife management practices on millions of acres of federal lands in national parks, national wildlife refuges, and Bureau of Land Management properties,” explains Michael Markarian (see item #1). “His record on animal issues in the U.S. Senate has been mixed,” Markarian blogs, noting that Salazar voted against legislation to ban horse slaughter in 2005, but more recently “co-sponsored legislation to strengthen the penalties for animal fighting and signed onto a letter requesting increased funds for the adequate enforcement of animal welfare laws.”

BEEF’s Troy Marshall writes that Salazar “has always billed himself as a fifth-generation rancher. More accurately, however, he’s a lawyer specializing in water and environmental law.” Environmentalists “have expressed anger over Salazar’s appointment due to his ranching ties,” Marshall notes, pointing out that “he has been a strong opponent of drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, utilizing Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and oil-shale development.” He continues: “As a U.S. Senator, he was rarely supportive of beef industry positions, adding: “…compared to some of the names floated, Salazar probably does harbor some appreciation for ranching and rural America.” Marshall concludes: “Overall, it’s difficult to find a beef-industry person who followed all of Obama’s election rhetoric who isn’t surprised with the moderate views of his appointments…from an industry viewpoint, the greatest challenges are expected to come from the Congress and not the Obama administration.”


OBAMA'S ANIMAL WELFARE TEAM
Animals & Politics (blog), Michael Markarian, December 17, 2008
http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal/2008/12/cabinet_apppoin.html

OBAMA APPOINTS TWO "MODERATES" TO CABINET
BEEF, Troy Marshall, December 19, 2008
http://beefmagazine.com/cowcalfweekly/1219-obama-moderates-cabinet

 

4. NMA & AMI SUE TO BLOCK CALIFORNIA SLAUGHTER BAN

The National Meat Association (NMA) filed a lawsuit in mid-December to overturn part of a California law set to ban the slaughter of non-ambulatory farmed animals for meat for human consumption (see: http://tinyurl.com/6xyll5 ). NMA’s suit seeks to block enforcement of the state law, which goes into effect on January 1st, in regard to pigs at federally inspected slaughterplants. The American Meat Institute (AMI) quickly joined in, broadening the lawsuit to apply to all other species (cattle, goats, and sheep) covered by the law. (See also the 2nd paragraph of: http://tinyurl.com/7xjoyd )

Both trade associations argue that federal law, which does permit slaughter of non-ambulatory goats, pigs and sheep, supercedes state law. NMA and AMI also point out that animals are often non-ambulatory due to reasons that will not result in the use of their bodies as food being hazardous to human consumers. They contend that federal inspectors should determine the health and slaughter status of non-ambulatory animals. A Christmas Eve press release issued by AMI states “. . .in direct conflict with the [Federal Meat Inspection Act] is a provision in the [California] law that provides for criminal penalties against a plant that accepts non-ambulatory livestock, even if those livestock are non-ambulatory and could recover with rest time.”

Industry commentator Chuck Jolley (see last paragraph: http://tinyurl.com/66vvhk ) notes: “It was exactly the failure of the federally mandated veterinary inspection process that led to the downfall of Hallmark/Westland [see: http://tinyurl.com/7wc6pe ] and the passage of the California law.” He further states: “A quick reading of the law indicates that the NMA and AMI have the law on their side and should prevail when they get their day in court. An even quicker reading of public opinion, though, indicates victory in court will prove much more costly than the loss of an extremely small number of non-ambulatory animals…Watching two of the most influential meat industry trade associations fight and win a court battle on a legal technicality will do nothing to help restore [public] confidence.”

AMI, NMA TAKE ON CALIFORNIA NON-AMBULATORY LIVESTOCK LAW
MeatingPlace, Janie Gabbett, December 29, 2008
http://www.aasv.org/news/story.php?id=3379

RELIEF SOUGHT AGAINST CALIFORNIA NON-AMBULATORY LAW
Meat & Poultry, December 29, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/7784eo

JOLLEY: NMA, AMI SEEK PYRRHIC VICTORY
CattleNetwork, Chuck Jolley, December 28, 2008
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=279271

 

5. HORMEL ANNOUNCES CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS

Hormel Foods has announced that by Dec. 31, 2009, it will only purchase pigs from producers certified in the Pork Quality Assurance (PQA) Plus program (see: http://tinyurl.com/6txh93 ). Hormel now requires that all producers, employees of producers and individuals who transport pigs to the company have Transport Quality Assurance certification. Both programs were developed by the National Pork Board. The PQA Plus program includes a training session and an on-farm site evaluation to obtain PQA Plus site status. Random, third-party evaluations are also included, with on-farm assessment of animal care and well-being principles.

In an article about the Hormel announcement, MeatingPlace, an industry-oriented website, notes: “In September, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals released a video depicting animal abuse by workers at a pig farm that supplied Hormel Foods” (see: http://tinyurl.com/89wtlt ).

HORMEL ENDORSES PQA PLUS PROGRAM
Meat & Poultry, December 22, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/9kebse

HORMEL TO REQUIRE PRODUCERS TO PARTICIPATE IN QUALITY PROGRAM
MeatingPlace, Janie Gabbett, December 22, 2008
http://www.meatingplace.com/MembersOnly/webNews/details.aspx?item=10829

 

6. GRANDIN ON HANDLING, ABUSE AND TRANSPARENCY

In the May edition of Meat & Poultry, Temple Grandin (hyperlink: http://www.grandin.com ) notes that animals who “are very difficult to move and handle in a calm, quiet manner” basically consist of “weak, old cull animals” and animals fattened for market. Grandin further notes that about 10% of dairies are responsible for 90% of the dairy cows who become non-ambulatory. “I was totally disgusted when I learned that some dairy producers defended the practice of bringing in downers so they could get money for them,” she states.

Grandin attributes problems with non-ambulatory pigs to genetics and their lack of familiarity with human movement. She says that overdosing pigs with Paylean can cause pigs to become difficult to handle (see also: http://tinyurl.com/7e9bh6 ). While cattle from feedlots are usually easy to handle, Grandin notes that they can suffer weakness and heat stress, and cattle who have been repeatedly bitten by dogs and those who have only been handled by cowboys on horses are more likely to become agitated. She contends: “Plant managers are going to have to insist that producers bring animals to the plant that can be handled easily…It is the responsibility of producers to bring fit animals to the plant. Producer groups must start taking some responsibility for the disgusting treatment of dairy cows in Chino, Ca.” (i.e., the Hallmark case, see item #4).

"Animal agriculture will have to become more transparent," Grandin writes in the August edition, “The industry needs to get the house cleaned up and show it to the public.” She elaborates: “Hacking horns off of large cattle, beating up animals or shoving them around with a forklift does not pass [the public approval] test. I was very disappointed to learn of a plant that had good handling when I visited was caught on undercover video abusing animals after I left.” Grandin concludes: “I would like to see the day when a meat plant has live video on the Internet,” noting that “a few progressive places” have already installed video auditing. In the December edition of Meat & Poultry, she lists what she considers to be egregious violations of the Humane Slaughter Act (see p. 108: http://tinyurl.com/7v8zyv ).

HARD TO HANDLE
Meat & Poultry, Temple Grandin, May 1, 2008
http://www.meatpoultry.com/Feature_stories.asp?ArticleID=95569

ADVOCATING TRANSPARENCY
Meat & Poultry, Temple Grandin, August 1, 2008
http://www.meatpoultry.com/Feature_stories.asp?ArticleID=95568

SPELLING OUT ‘EGREGIOUS’ ACTIVITY
Meat & Poultry, Temple Grandin, December 2008
http://am.sosland.com/ActiveMagazine/welcome/MP/MP_AMIntro.asp

7. AUCTION CHARGED FOR SHOT COW LEFT TO DIE

At 2 p.m. on December 16th, an anonymous caller alerted authorities that a live cow had been let on the “dead pile” at the New Holland Sales Stables (see http://tinyurl.com/8l6ou7) in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. When humane officer John Matrisciano arrived at the stables at 6 p.m., he reported finding the cow still alive and flailing, lying in a puddle of blood with a small-caliber bullet hole in her forehead. Marks on the ground indicated that she had been dragged from inside the barn out to the pile. Matrisciano alerted stable employees that the cow was still alive, and an employee shot and killed her at 6:30 p.m.

Stable owner David Cobb and employee Thomas Warner have been charged with animal cruelty for not verifying the cow was dead after she was shot. If they plead guilty or are convicted, they face fines. By law, animals at auction being sold for human consumption who are found to be sick or injured must be euthanized. Animals who are unable to walk off transport vehicles on their own also may not be sold and must be killed.

The Intelligencer Journal reports that “though New Holland Sales Stables has been charged with cruelty in the past for the same offense, the most recent charges are only summary offenses — the lowest level of criminal charge — because the statute that increases the severity of charges against repeat offenders applies only in crimes against dogs and cats,” according to Kerry Flanagan of Humane League of Lancaster County. The newspaper further states that: “New Holland Sales Stables was charged with animal cruelty in February 2006 when humane police officers found an ailing sheep alive in a Dumpster and a live Holstein cow on the dead pile.” The auction had a documented history of similar offenses but had not been charged with animal cruelty, according to former SPCA officer Pennell Hopkins. "It's important for people to know this suffering happens locally. It's not just these big undercover investigations that the Humane Society of the United States conducts," Flanagan said. "This happens everywhere….”

STABLE CHARGED WITH ANIMAL CRUELTY
Intelligencer Journal, Susan E. Lindt, December 31, 2008
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/231998






In This Issue








Our Sponsors

The information in this news digest does not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors nor is anything in it meant as an endorsement by them.


Masthead

Compiled and edited by Mary Finelli, Farmed Animal Watch is a free weekly electronic news digest of information concerning farmed animal issues gleaned from an array of academic, industry, advocacy and mainstream media sources.