I could've probably labeled this post "HSUS" since it would've been a synonymous title, but who really would've wanted to read a post with that title? Let's talk for a few minutes about the past couple of weeks worth of reports and commentary stemming from the ADSA e-newsletter I receive. Feedstuffs does a really great job of combining relevant articles and attracting attention to critical issues in their assistance to this e-newsletter and the last couple of weeks have been especially good so I'm just going to have time to share briefly the best of the lot, because I think that these all link together nicely.
It wasn't too long ago that HSUS released yet another video of a bunch of alleged poultry abuse and neglect on a farm in Texas. Well, the UEP invited reporters to visit this same farm on an unguarded tour of the whole facility. They were free to ask any question, take any picture and record any video. Of course, HSUS didn't solicit any of this media for their own benefit, but I think this reporter would argue that's because it all turned out to be a lie. (And in case you think it's possible to clean up a farm's act in that short of time, let me just say it can't happen. It would've been easier to just go out of business and restart than to clean up a bad act that fast).
I recommend you to read both parts of this farm visit, starting with an introduction and then more of the specific critiques in the second one. The reporter's best statement in the entire thing might be near the beginning when he says that he felt betrayed by HSUS for having been giving such faulty media for release and coverage. So it seems that nobody really likes being played, not even the media.
Of course, while we're in the habit of discrediting HSUS and their claims, we probably ought to also examine the new reports about foodborne illness incidence in the US. With new reports just released, indicating significantly lower illness occurrence than previously cited, that takes just one more bite out of the dog.
Finally, let's take a look at HSUS's past work. Prop 2 in California still sits as a relatively useless piece of legislation that is more of a legal excuse to neglect animals than it is a regulation for improved care of animals. And this is why a farm in California has petitioned for a true ruling on what this law means. If they'd have had a Care Standards Board, these things might've been more clearly defined by experts in the industry who care about animal care, rather than self-obsessed activists with little regard for the animals they steal money on behalf of. For a video feed on the chicken farm who petitioned for this clearer legialation, click here.
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Monday, November 8, 2010
Unconstitutional Prop 2?
So I figure that headline ought to have caught your attention by now, but what I'd really like to do here is make a small concession towards HSUS, and here's why.
Regardless of whether or not California decides that Prop 2 is unconstitutional, regardless of how much money HSUS deceived out of unwitting animal shelter donors, regardless of how badly this proposition is written, and the fact that because it is so poorly written Prop 2 itself will not likely help animals enjoy increased well-being, this proposition and its supporters helped bring to the forefront something that has been lurking in our midst for a long time now. Sure, PETA and other more radical groups have done a lot to bring attention to animals and the rights movement, but HSUS really grabbed attention in a more forceful manner by making us campaign, vote and decide on how animals should be raised in a food production system.
I'm not condoning HSUS's actions or endorsing their organization. Far from it, I consider them to be the biggest economic threat to livestock producers right now. They are willing to lie, create legislation and spend millions of dollars in advertising just to cram their end-point agenda of no animal product consumption down our throats. But what I am trying to say is that in the process of being the enemy, they have done the livestock industry a great service by making us re-consider and re-evaluate the possibilities of better systems for producing food in terms of animal welfare. This is one change that can't be re-traced even if we determine that Prop 2 is unconstitutional or if we further undermine all of HSUS's progress over the past 5 years. Thus the above article is really irrelevant in the long run.
HSUS and their associated groups have helped forced us into a new age, where we have to speak up for ourselves and defend our practices, because we are under fire by a larger and more powerfully politically aligned organization. They have brought us to a point where we will need to re-vamp our processes in a more holistic manner in order to bring our industrial considerations of animal welfare up to a new level in order to ensure consumer confidence. In the end, what people really want to know is that we've taken the best care of the animals that we could, ensuring them a healthy lifestyle and a suffering-free death.
Were we abusing animals on farms, or will animal abuse stop once new regulations and researched facilities are put into place across the U.S.? No. Farmers were not nor are they abusing their animals, rather, they are caring for them as they best know how. Nor will those rare cases of abuse stop with regulation or new research. There are crooks and bad cases in every industry and these people will continue to both arise and be sorted out throughout generations.
No, the difference as we move forward into the future is that animal welfare has now become critically more important to big industry players who request that we can prove that what we do is better for the animals than other options presented. It has brought increased institute attention and funding on potential research to further improve our understanding of what animals need and how we can best provide for them. These are things that farmers want to know, but now the formalized industry is more focused on it. This is all good, and the ball is rolling. Ruling out Prop 2 will not change this.
What we need to do now is continue to improve animal welfare on farms through implementation of ideas as research discovers new viable and practical options. This doesn't happen overnight or with happily worded constitution amendments. The best people to improve the care of animals are the people who know them best from working with them most. Animals will continue to be raised for food as long as we do our best to care for them and provide them an existence free of suffering. Through the research that is going on, we will identify the best options for raising animals and continue to improve them in the future so that farmers can keep doing what they do best: raising the food that fills your plate and provides valuable nutrition every day.
Regardless of whether or not California decides that Prop 2 is unconstitutional, regardless of how much money HSUS deceived out of unwitting animal shelter donors, regardless of how badly this proposition is written, and the fact that because it is so poorly written Prop 2 itself will not likely help animals enjoy increased well-being, this proposition and its supporters helped bring to the forefront something that has been lurking in our midst for a long time now. Sure, PETA and other more radical groups have done a lot to bring attention to animals and the rights movement, but HSUS really grabbed attention in a more forceful manner by making us campaign, vote and decide on how animals should be raised in a food production system.
I'm not condoning HSUS's actions or endorsing their organization. Far from it, I consider them to be the biggest economic threat to livestock producers right now. They are willing to lie, create legislation and spend millions of dollars in advertising just to cram their end-point agenda of no animal product consumption down our throats. But what I am trying to say is that in the process of being the enemy, they have done the livestock industry a great service by making us re-consider and re-evaluate the possibilities of better systems for producing food in terms of animal welfare. This is one change that can't be re-traced even if we determine that Prop 2 is unconstitutional or if we further undermine all of HSUS's progress over the past 5 years. Thus the above article is really irrelevant in the long run.
HSUS and their associated groups have helped forced us into a new age, where we have to speak up for ourselves and defend our practices, because we are under fire by a larger and more powerfully politically aligned organization. They have brought us to a point where we will need to re-vamp our processes in a more holistic manner in order to bring our industrial considerations of animal welfare up to a new level in order to ensure consumer confidence. In the end, what people really want to know is that we've taken the best care of the animals that we could, ensuring them a healthy lifestyle and a suffering-free death.
Were we abusing animals on farms, or will animal abuse stop once new regulations and researched facilities are put into place across the U.S.? No. Farmers were not nor are they abusing their animals, rather, they are caring for them as they best know how. Nor will those rare cases of abuse stop with regulation or new research. There are crooks and bad cases in every industry and these people will continue to both arise and be sorted out throughout generations.
No, the difference as we move forward into the future is that animal welfare has now become critically more important to big industry players who request that we can prove that what we do is better for the animals than other options presented. It has brought increased institute attention and funding on potential research to further improve our understanding of what animals need and how we can best provide for them. These are things that farmers want to know, but now the formalized industry is more focused on it. This is all good, and the ball is rolling. Ruling out Prop 2 will not change this.
What we need to do now is continue to improve animal welfare on farms through implementation of ideas as research discovers new viable and practical options. This doesn't happen overnight or with happily worded constitution amendments. The best people to improve the care of animals are the people who know them best from working with them most. Animals will continue to be raised for food as long as we do our best to care for them and provide them an existence free of suffering. Through the research that is going on, we will identify the best options for raising animals and continue to improve them in the future so that farmers can keep doing what they do best: raising the food that fills your plate and provides valuable nutrition every day.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Gateway to Animal Welfare
Courtesy of my new e-newsletter: Gateway to Animal Welfare, I received a large quantity of new animal welfare articles which excites me, even if you don't care nearly as much about it as I do.
First on my list today is an article outlining how just one more use of labels to assure consumers of animal well-being has failed. It might be selling to some people, but not like it was supposed to work. You see, we have this great idea that we can sell just about anything with labels. Look at Certified Angus Beef, well, that was a success, right? So then why can't we seem to sell animal welfare certified labels with the same success. Isn't that what the general public wants to see? Better welfare for the animals may be what people want to see but either they don't want to pay for it in the grocery or they don't believe we're really providing better care. And every single time that they find out our standards aren't what they thought they should have been, then the public loses even more faith in our welfare labeling. In contrast here is another article endorsing buying these labels... hold your breath for when they decide that these standards don't match either. "High free-range standards" aren't scientifically proven to be any better for the bird either, especially as they find that the birds in some cases are even worse off in free-range. Think that over...
It sounds like they will find out in 2015 how much it costs for better eggs. Sure, we've speculated and calculated, but once supply, demand and input/output changes, then we'll finally see the true change. And will the well-being of the chickens actually be improved or is this just another example of HSUS publicly helping animals and behind the scenes having only hurt the future of healthy animal production. And then there is the extremely sticky situation of inter-state trade. So the battery eggs can't be sold in California, what about shipped?
And then there's those just "wow" moments... It's really hard for me to take this seriously.
Finally for today, here's another press release from the Ohio deal with HSUS...
First on my list today is an article outlining how just one more use of labels to assure consumers of animal well-being has failed. It might be selling to some people, but not like it was supposed to work. You see, we have this great idea that we can sell just about anything with labels. Look at Certified Angus Beef, well, that was a success, right? So then why can't we seem to sell animal welfare certified labels with the same success. Isn't that what the general public wants to see? Better welfare for the animals may be what people want to see but either they don't want to pay for it in the grocery or they don't believe we're really providing better care. And every single time that they find out our standards aren't what they thought they should have been, then the public loses even more faith in our welfare labeling. In contrast here is another article endorsing buying these labels... hold your breath for when they decide that these standards don't match either. "High free-range standards" aren't scientifically proven to be any better for the bird either, especially as they find that the birds in some cases are even worse off in free-range. Think that over...
It sounds like they will find out in 2015 how much it costs for better eggs. Sure, we've speculated and calculated, but once supply, demand and input/output changes, then we'll finally see the true change. And will the well-being of the chickens actually be improved or is this just another example of HSUS publicly helping animals and behind the scenes having only hurt the future of healthy animal production. And then there is the extremely sticky situation of inter-state trade. So the battery eggs can't be sold in California, what about shipped?
And then there's those just "wow" moments... It's really hard for me to take this seriously.
Finally for today, here's another press release from the Ohio deal with HSUS...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)