It seems that some people can't see how a regulation that looks good on paper will have bad consequences. That is what is happening at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with a new proposal that would have major animal welfare consequences if it's finalized. I always worry about rules that come out of Washington because the bureaucrats who write them often have no practical experience in the real world and that sure comes through in this latest missive.
Congress told USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) to write some rules about what constitutes an "undue preference" in livestock marketing and procurement. GIPSA is the agency the monitors the marketing of livestock and poultry to ensure that things are done properly and that markets are competitive. But the USDA has gone way beyond what Congress told the department to do. As proposed, the department wants to prohibit meat packers from purchasing, acquiring or receiving swine or cattle from another packer or packer-affiliated company.
That means that an integrated beef-processing company that owns feedlots or production facilities would, for example, be required to ship cattle to either its own plant or sell the livestock to an independent dealer, perhaps hundreds of miles away, rather than selling the cattle or pigs to another company's packing plant very close to the ranch or farm.
Adding shipping time is stressful to livestock and stands to increase injury and potential death losses, particularly among pigs because they are more subject to transport stress. Companies that don't want to ship the livestock the additional distance would be forced to sell their livestock to independent dealers, who serve as middle-men, to facilitate transactions. This also would present unnecessary animal welfare risks, because the dealers likely would not have the animal handling programs and standards in place that have become the standards among production and processing facilities.
I'm also worried that the proposed rule would complicate and compromise the effectiveness of many established animal welfare-certification programs by requiring another level of paperwork and recordkeeping to track the additional transactions and premiums paid to producers for higher quality or niche raised animals.
Niche producers are some of the great success stories in livestock agriculture. Companies with products that bear labels like Certified Humane, American Humane Certified, Certified Angus Beef, Whole Foods or Niman Ranch have made commitments to the principles behind these labels. These companies need established relationships with farmers and ranchers they can trust to raise livestock in a way that is consistent with their brands and their humane labels. But the new proposal would make it easier for farmers and ranchers to sue meat companies that pay premiums to farmers who offer a higher quality animal that was raised in a certain way.
In my view, a farmer with a progressive, humane veal production system deserves a higher price than one offering sick, weak calves -- and no justification should be necessary. Some other examples would be grass-fed beef, certified cattle vaccination programs and specific housing requirements for animals. Producers raising animals to fit specifications should get more money for their animals.
As a scientist who has dedicated her life to improving livestock welfare, I am extremely alarmed that the department ultimately responsible for enforcing the Humane Slaughter Act apparently has paid so little attention to the animal welfare implications of this proposal.
I urge Agriculture Secretary Vilsack to reconsider this rule in order to maintain good animal welfare and to foster development of important niche markets that create many marketing opportunities for producers. This will help animal welfare, rural development and family farms.
Humane Slaughter Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wayne Pacelle: Action Needed to Better Enforce Humane Slaughter Act
Animal welfare doesn't work. Period. No matter who's trying to regulate or promote it ... and we have decades and decades of proof that it doesn't work. There's no way around it, exploiting animals is an inherently cruel and inhumane "business," and will always be so.
Vegan is the only solution.
The Green-Tea Party mentality amazes me, that some person who (unlike Temple Grandin) knows nothing about livestock can belittle the USDA and at the same time pronounce convictions on a complicated issue based on one short column. Life is more complicated than that, people. If this question were stated in terms of fat-cat packers squeezing powerless farmers, I bet you would be just as know-it-all in favor of the rule.
We didn't learn the lesson from Big Pharma and the Medicare reform.
We didn't learn the lesson from the Banks and credit reform.
We're allowing businesses to control our government and we're living the disasters that result.
Mortgage backed securities, off shore oil drilling.
And now food.
Get rid of Vilsack, Salazar and Geitner. Oh, and Arne Duncan.
Secure net neutrality.
Then we'll look at what to do next.
Unfortunately, the new proposed rules do not require shipment of animals as she suggests so her points are moot.
The new rules also do not make it easier for people to sue over added value programs. It will help make these programs available to all producers, however, thus helping the industry work towards better treatment of animals as well as the producers.
These rules are there to stop meat packers from using their market power to lower the prices to producers through exertion of market power, which was proven to a jury in the Pickett Case, only to be thrown out by judges who legislated from the bench. Higher prices to producers will allow them to have the resources needed to raise and produce the most healthy cattle for consumers while giving the cattle an easier life.
I love Temple Grandin's work in the industry making the industry better for animals. Most family farmers have tried to do the same but have been beaten back with prices so low that it makes it harder and harder for them to not cut corners for their livestock. The lowest price isn't always the best. Sometimes the quality of the animal and their lives should be an issue. It is with most family farmers. Only profits seem to be the meat packer's interests.
Tom
Hey, did another else get an email or call about the USDA tax payer money going to a PR firm from the Environmental Working Group?
,
",,,California agribusiness interests targeted EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides with an expensive, misleading public relations campaign this summer. The Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF), a public relations group of big, pro-pesticide. etc
The CDFA and the USDA have handed $180,000 of your money to an industry front group -- a boondoggle intended to counter "claims by activist groups about unsafe levels of pesticides."
"This money comes out of the USDA Specialty Crops Block Grant program -- which is intended to promote sales of fruits and vegetables. Its purpose is being distorted to help chemical-dependent agribusiness fight back against consumers' increasing demand for organic and sustainably produced fruits and vegetables. The grant to the Alliance for Food and Farming was one of 63 grants, totaling $17.3 million, issued to California food and agricultural organizations.
The AFF has a history of putting pesticide-dependent profits ahead of healthy food choices.
This is not the type of group that should be getting taxpayer money. Help us convince USDA officials that the Specialty Crops Block Grant program should be used to promote locally grown, organic and sustainably produced fruits and vegetables -- not to bulk up the public relations budget of pesticide-dependent corporate farming interests. The agency should investigate how an industry front group received a $180,000 grant."
I signed the petition.
http://nppc.org/ContactForm/default.aspx