Point/Counterpoint: Pacelle vs Mucklow

Recent videos taken by undercover investigators from The Humane Society of the United States at a well-known slaughter plant and at several auction sites have painted the beef industry in a bad light.

The California video showed mistreatment of cattle at a harvesting facility; investigations at five auctions sites showed other types of neglect or mistreatment of downer cows. Animal protection groups say the findings reveal that abuse is not isolated and rare. The beef industry says those cases are anomalies and, as rare as they are, must and will be addressed quickly.

How widespread is the abuse and what is the beef industry doing to combat the problem? I posed that question to two of the most erudite people standing on opposite sides of the fence; Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States and Rosemary Mucklow, Director Emeritus of the National Meat Association.

Their comments about the severity of the taped incidents were remarkably similar; uniformly condemning the offenses. As you might have expected, they started to part ways after that initial agreement. Are those offenses really an anomaly as Ms. Mucklow suggests or possibly endemic as Mr. Pacelle fears?

One point of contention - Pacelle, upon finding more cases of animal abuse, will continue to play his videotapes at the most newsworthy time. He wants to make an impact with heavy press coverage. Mucklow, who thinks HSUS should be more forthcoming, will continue to insist that the organization “promptly convey their observations and concerns to the proper authorities.”

Here is how they answered the question –

Wayne Pacelle: “First, let me say that I appreciate the opportunity to discuss animal welfare issues in a serious and direct way in an important meat industry forum. When I read some of the industry press about me, I think "I don't know that guy," because it seems like such a caricature of me and HSUS's positions. That's why I appreciate the opportunity to communicate directly to folks in the industry and allow them to make judgments based on my words.

I also appreciate being able to communicate after November 4th and after the votes have been tallied on Proposition 2, the California ballot initiative to ban the lifelong confinement of veal calves, breeding sows, and egg-laying hens. It does not directly relate to the question posed to me and Ms. Mucklow today, but it is pertinent because it speaks to public attitudes on animal welfare and animal agriculture and how the public is seeing the issues and the respective messengers.

As most folks within the agriculture sector know by now, Proposition 2 passed by a vote of 63.3% to 36.7%, and it was approved in 46 of 58 counties. Prop 2 got more "yes" votes than any of the other 11 propositions, and it won throughout the vast majority of the state, including in agricultural counties in the Central Valley such as Kern and San Joaquin counties.

In terms of spending, it was a fair fight. Both sides spent about the same money after the signature-gathering phase was completed and the measure was approved for placement on the ballot. About 250 agricultural producers and trade associations donated about $8.5 million in an attempt to defeat Proposition 2; most of the contributors were large-scale egg factory farms, but many were farm bureau groups and some were pig producers from throughout the nation.

By a nearly two-to-one margin, the public opted to phase out the confinement systems, believing that the industry has gone too far in treating animals like commodities and has lost sight of its animal welfare responsibilities. I think it's another wake-up call to the industry -- following on the heels of the Hallmark/Westland investigation -- to reform.

To answer the question posed above, we just do not know how widespread problems are in the slaughter industry. But here's what we do know. HSUS investigators looked at six locations -- one slaughter plant and five auctions. We found problems at every location. Lighting may strike once or twice, but not six times. There's a major problem here, and that's what we reported. USDA's Office of Inspector General also found major problems when it looked at slaughter plants in a January 2006 report. And other animal welfare groups have found problems at a wide variety of slaughter plants -- from Agriprocessors in Iowa to Pilgrim's Pride in West Virginia. A worker was just charged with criminal cruelty at a major hog factory farm investigated by PETA in North Carolina. The industry needs to address these problems head-on and not dismiss them as rogue actors or isolated incidents, yet that is how some trade associations continue to frame the issue.

Hallmark/Westland was chosen at random. Our investigator was attempting to investigate a different location in California, but did not get hired by the facility, so instead he applied at Hallmark, got a job, and worked there and documented terrible, routine abuses, even though USDA had five inspectors at the plant. The treatment of the animals was unconscionable, yet this plant was recognized as recently as 2005 by the Agricultural Marketing Service as the "Supplier of the Year." The plant workers and management were to blame, but so was the USDA, whose inspectors allowed this mistreatment to continue day after day. The USDA's failures call into question the effectiveness of its oversight and enforcement program. If this can occur at a "Supplier of the Year," what must be happening at the thousands of other plants?

The first four auctions we looked at were also selected at random -- a sampling of places in four different states. The final one, Portales, was selected specifically because our investigator at Hallmark said that many of the cows sent there had come from Portales. The industry shouldn't tolerate this mistreatment of animals anywhere, and it is more than distressing to see these problems at every location we examined.

I'd like to say that if we conducted six additional investigations that we'd find no major problems. But based on our experience, I'd not expect that outcome. As the old saying goes, past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior.”

Rosemary Mucklow: “The incidents at the slaughter facility documented by HSUS were exceptional, and were universally condemned by the industry.

Those responsible have paid a very heavy price – the individual employees have been prosecuted, the company is out of business, and its customers have suffered enormous financial losses.

Can there be better evidence that it is in the self-interest of the meat industry to maintain humane handling standards? Not only is humane handling of livestock the law, it is good business and clearly the right thing to do.

For many years the industry has voluntarily developed best practices, improved facility designs for movement of livestock and executed focused training programs to assure proper animal handling. The meat industry is very aware of the importance of handling livestock humanely and has, through ongoing efforts, met the standard.

However, even isolated incidents are unacceptable. Accordingly, in response to the HSUS reports the livestock and meat industry associations, as well as associations representing marketing and transportation entities, have thoroughly reviewed the many means of guidance on animal handling. Best practices, training materials and operational oversight have all been closely scrutinized and, where appropriate, modified and enhanced for maximum effectiveness. These actions are all part of the industry’s commitment to continuous improvement.

Furthermore, the U.S. regulatory system sets parameters for acceptable behavior. And there are checks and balances to ensure these parameters are met.

It was unfortunate that HSUS chose to delay for several months reporting their observations to USDA and other authorities thereby delaying corrective actions. I encourage HSUS or any other organization that truly wants to have a positive impact on the humane handling of livestock to promptly convey their observations and concerns to the proper authorities.”