Campaign Against Animal Production Intensifies

A recent press release from the US Animal Agriculture Alliance, a pro-industry group, reported on the Animals and Society Institute “Strength of Many” Conference which encompassed organizations opposed to intensive animal agriculture.

Miyun Park, Vice President of Farm Animal Welfare for the Humane Society of the United States declared that the objective of the Organization was to eliminate intensive animal production. Erica Meier of Compassion Over Killing, a vegan advocacy group reported on attempts to petition government agencies to enforce labeling of conventional eggs as being “produced by caged hens”.

The strength of the US Humane Society is exemplified by Proposition 204 which will be voted on by the citizens of Arizona in early November. The constitution of many states allows citizens to vote on propositions which on passage become law. Proposition 204 entitled “The Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act” will ban gestation crates for sows.

Advocates of the proposition include the Humane Society of the USA through state organizations including Arizonians for Humane Farms, have spent in excess of $1 million on campaign advertisements to sway voter sentiment.

In 2002, a similar proposition in Florida was passed resulting in withdrawing from the State by the two largest pig producers. Despite opposition to the proposal, recent polls show 72% of voters will endorse the ban, despite the lack of scientific support, including a report by a task force of experts commissioned by the prestigious American Veterinary Medical Association.

Attacks on intensive animal agriculture by determined and politically experienced opponents appeals to the emotional responses of citizens. The demographics of Florida and Arizona presume a high proportion of voters in urban areas. These citizens have little knowledge of farming and take for granted a constant and inexpensive supply eggs, poultry meat, pork and beef to their supermarkets.

While some farming practices are undesirable from an ethical or moral standpoint, unjustified attacks on acceptable practices may radically affect the structure and financial viability of farming systems in industrialized nations.

Generally intensive animal production has responded positively to environmental regulations which are usually based on quantifiable parameters. In the case of animal welfare, much of the opposition is represented by “pseudo-science” and has strong emotional or anthropomorphic content.

It is wrong for vegetarians to force their lifestyles and philosophy on consumers. Organizations such as the Animal Agriculture Alliance play an important role in communicating the contribution of animal agriculture to a supply of nutritious and affordable food products, countering the publicity and half-truths generated by animal rights activists.

Producers of poultry and eggs must eliminate obviously unacceptable practices such as inducing molt by starvation, ultra-high stocking density, handling practices which induce injury and slaughter methods which are inhumane. Proactive communication of valid information to consumers and legislators, supported by scientific opinion and data based on physiologic measurements is essential to protect the industry.


By: Simon Shane