Some of the attendees from the United States at the second global animal welfare meeting were Dr. Paul DuBois, Cargill Pork; Dr. W. Ron DeHaven, AVMA CEO; Dr. Michael David, USDA-APHIS; Joan Galvin, JD, Kelley Drye & Warren; Dr. Elizabeth Parker, National Cattlemen's Beef Association; Kay Johnson Smith, Animal Agriculture Alliance; Chuck Lambert, PhD, USDA; Dr. Gail C. Golab, AVMA Animal Welfare Division; Dr. Jennifer Greiner, National Pork Producers Council; and Dr. Chester Gipson, USDA-APHIS.
The AVMA CEO is encouraging veterinarians worldwide to take responsibility for implementing animal welfare standards.
"Veterinarians in all types of practice have the opportunity and obligation to help animal owners, caretakers, handlers, and policy makers improve animal welfare," Dr. W. Ron DeHaven said.
Dr. DeHaven delivered the comments at a global animal welfare conference Oct. 20-22 in Cairo, Egypt, where he was among more than 400 veterinarians, government officials, humane group representatives, and industry representatives who met to discuss animal welfare standards. He and Dr. Gail C. Golab, director of the AVMA Animal Welfare Division, actively participated in the event.
He is also encouraging veterinarians to back standards that are driven by science, with appropriate consideration given to the environments in which they are being implemented.
"Among the most important responsibilities that veterinarians have in development and implementation of animal welfare standards is to ensure those standards are science-based and that consideration has been given to interactions among the various components of animal care systems," Dr. DeHaven said.
The conference was the second global animal welfare meeting for the World Organization for Animal Health, the first having been held in 2004 in Paris. The recent meeting was primarily focused on implementing OIE standards in developing countries.
Dr. Bernard Vallat, director general of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), also said veterinarians, veterinary services, and their partners throughout the world need to take more responsibility for animal welfare and implementing humane animal care standards.
Dr. DeHaven was invited to present a paper on the veterinary profession's role in implementing OIE standards, and he emphasized in his presentation that there are no better advocates for animals than veterinarians. He also encouraged development and implementation of animal welfare standards that include considerations of human needs, environmental concerns, and economic realities.
In his presentation, Dr. DeHaven talked about the roles veterinarians could fill in implementing standards in developed and developing countries. In doing so, he invoked consideration of animals' physiologic, safety, and psychologic needs.
Veterinarians in developing countries often have limited resources and encounter human needs that compete with animal welfare concerns for attention, Dr. DeHaven said. "They will likely spend most of their time helping owners find ways to fulfill animals' physiological and safety needs, since meeting these needs generally provides the greatest return on investment in terms of quality and quantity of animal product."
He encouraged veterinarians practicing in developed countries where resources are more plentiful to look beyond basic needs to satisfy animals' more complex safety and psychologic needs. Dr. DeHaven said veterinarians have a professional obligation to comprehensively evaluate approaches to animal care, use their expertise and influence to maximize all aspects of the animals' welfare, and help people understand the complexity of animal care decisions.
The conference theme was "Putting the OIE Standards to Work," and attendees reviewed the state of implementation of standards for transporting livestock, slaughtering animals for human consumption, and killing animals to control disease.
Dr. Nestor Tadich, dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Science at Universidad Austral de Chile, said Columbia, Mexico, Paraguay, and Uruguay have legislation based on OIE standards, and Chile is introducing OIE recommendations on animal welfare and producing guides on good practices for farmers and veterinarians.
Among 22 veterinary schools in Latin America that provided answers to a questionnaire, four have only optional animal welfare courses, 10 have only compulsory courses, one has one of each, and seven have none, Dr. Tadich said. Of those that have such courses, five have more than one.
The universities polled are located in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Salvador, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Respondents at 18 of the veterinary schools indicated animal welfare is taught in other courses, Dr. Tadich said. Respondents at 19 said animal welfare is an important issue, and 12 indicated their schools conduct research in animal welfare.
Dr. Tadich said in his presentation that constraints or limitations in Latin American universities include a dearth of staff trained in animal welfare concepts, overloaded curricula, lack of support for research, lack of research for postgraduate programs, cultural traditions such as bullfighting, poverty, lack of legislation supporting animal welfare recommendations, lack of public awareness, and distrust toward people encouraging observance of animal welfare standards.
Dr. Nils Beaumond of the Animal Welfare Committee of the International Meat Secretariat advocated against animal welfare labeling on meat products, which he said could present a new trade barrier. He argued in his presentation that the focus should be on outcomes, not means.
Dr. Beaumond said demands from provegetarian and extremist groups surpass animal welfare requirements, and collaboration with the extremist groups is impossible.
Dr. Peter Thornber, manager of Australian Animal Welfare Strategy and Communications, talked about how planning and management can be used to mitigate stress for animals during transportation. He said farmers, agents, drivers, and shippers have to share responsibility, and appropriate vehicle design, trained drivers, travel plans, and prepared animals are needed.
Research and data analysis can help in creation of practical standards, Dr. Thornber said.
Dr. Thornber said indications of acceptable welfare include animals that are free of visible injuries or postslaughter evidence of carcass bruising, animals that walk up loading ramps with minimal intervention, animals are deemed fit before loading, and animals that can walk off vehicles unaided.
—Greg Cima
Monday, December 8, 2008
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.”
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.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
