|
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
|
![[missing header image]](images/newsletter_ico.jpg)