Thanks to our friends at Ánima for providing this document in Spanish on their web site.

Too Much Ado About Eggs

This summer the Vancouver Humane Society advertised its “Chicken Out!” project, including a petition asking Canada’s government to label all eggs from hens in intensive battery systems as “eggs from caged hens.” Calling public attention to the cages, according to the Society, “would allow consumers to make educated choices, and it would be consistent with current European Union legislation.”

Such labels, when accepted, can imply that there is something altruistic -- and worth a steeper purchase price -- about a box of eggs derived from hens stuffed not in conventional battery cages, but in airless sheds, or stacked in a tier system as they are in parts of Europe.^[1] Seen in this light, the label concept encourages an industry survival mechanism -- not respect for the nature of birds.

As no one needs to eat eggs, it makes little sense for advocates to rank egg production methods. Laying hens are treated as objects throughout all sectors of the industry. Even “free-range” hens commonly have their beaks seared off to prevent the aggression caused by crowding. Male chickens are killed; female chickens (including “free-range” or “cage-free” varieties) live in large production units, because suppliers all compete under pressure from supermarkets to bring prices down.

Moreover, as long as people keep eggs in their diets, they’ll likely be eating processed foods made with cheap egg ingredients, often traded in liquid or powdered form.

Even if “cage-free” were a meaningful legal term, and did translate into more space per bird, the planet can’t afford to make still more room for a product no one needs to buy.

The Passion of the Meat Industry

In today’s agribusiness and research spheres, animal-welfare reforms comprise a budding satellite industry, promising careers and public relations opportunities for animal researchers and advocates alike. The Animal Agriculture Alliance is an industry organization that prompts corporations to factor activists’ campaigns into their research and marketing decisions. The Alliance quotes Dennis Treacy, Vice President of Environmental, Community and Government Affairs for Smithfield Foods, who says,

Society’s expectation that animals should be treated with respect has not changed. But consumers, without the benefit of agricultural experience, often develop their perceptions from what they hear and read from activist groups. Perception becomes reality, and it's our job as food industry leaders to help communicate the positive steps that are taking place.^[2]

To “establish common ground with animal welfare advocacy and activist groups,” Treacy suggests that producers and food companies work “on a person-to-person level to open dialogue early” and then continue to “demonstrate this compassion” by “establishing and abiding by proactive animal welfare programs.”

Another Animal Alliance press release quotes a “legendary researcher from the University of Illinois” named Stanley Curtis, who hails the “abundant paths for animal welfare research to result in win-win solutions.”^[3]Farmers and the animal-welfare cause both benefit, according to Curtis, from research on tail docking in dairy cows, and the testing of various kinds of confinement on chickens and sows.

Another “third party expert” the group holds out for the media is Temple Grandin, who helps to design improved animal handling procedures in slaughter plants.

Underscoring the peculiar symbiosis between activists and industry, one group of animal advocates has gone so far as to trumpet Grandin as “Visionary of the Year.”

Terms of Confinement

Farm Sanctuary has filed an appeal in a case against Corcpork, Inc. This is the latest volley in a case filed in 2004 over the California company’s use of crates in the breeding of pigs. In 2005, the case was dismissed on procedural grounds. This July, Farm Sanctuary challenged the dismissal, arguing that an animal-protection organization has standing to bring a lawsuit concerning animal welfare.

Farm Sanctuary alleges that the company provides no exercise area for pigs, in violation of California law. Farm Sanctuary’s case relies on “[n]umerous research studies conducted over the last 25 years” that have shown that intensive confinement is not in the interest of pigs.

“Corcpork’s sows,” says Farm Sanctuary, “are treated as pig producing units.” Shock and horror! Who would have guessed? The answer to this problem is not to pay lawyers and tie up dockets, but to make the case, simply and without expensive distractions, that a menu is no place for pigs.

And There’s More…

In July, the California-based Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) filed a complaint in Tulare County Superior Court against a high-volume business for confining female calves in small crates. The Mendes Calf Ranch, says the ALDF, violates the law requiring that animals have adequate exercise areas. Co-plaintiffs include two Stanford law students who claim they have been harmed by paying for dairy products that came from cows who have been cruelly raised.

Then there’s the lawsuit that U.S. Humane Society filed against the Agriculture Department this year on behalf of consumers at risk of becoming ill from the products from inhumanely slaughtered birds.^[4]The lawsuit claims that applying the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act to birds will help to ensure a safe supply of chicken meat for consumers.

The lawsuit cites Upton Sinclair’s book The Jungle-- a tragic irony given that Upton Sinclair wasn't aiming to reform slaughter plants or make animal consumption less risky. Instead, Sinclair became a vegetarian.

Rabbits, Too…

Rabbit rescuers are opposing a drive led by Ron Sparks, Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries, to expand the state’s rabbit farming industry. Rescue groups have pointed out that rabbits are not covered by federal humane slaughter legislation. An Alabama chapter of the House Rabbit Society urged the public to write letters stating that rabbits are companion animals, not food.

We look forward to a movement that gains the confidence to straightforwardly present the idea that rabbits exist on their own terms, that legislation doesn’t transform slaughter into something humane, and we’ll have the vegetarian selection, thank you.

Transatlantic Trends

Militant animal advocacy dropped dramatically in Britain in the first half of 2006. There were just 15 reports of the targeting of private homes during this period -- under half the number in the same period last year and 14 percent of the total for the first half of 2004. Reuters quoted a British official who connected this “sea change” with the current level of legislation and policing in Britain.^[5]

As this column goes to press, however, a paper from England’s Lake District has just reported that 35 masked activists, using stones and sticks, initiated a brawl with anglers.

And in the United States, bills have been introduced in Congress to increase penalties for activism related to businesses involving nonhuman animals. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, H.R. 4239, sponsored by Rep. Tom Petri (R-Wisconsin), was introduced late last year and will be voted on in November when Congress reconvenes.^[6]

The National Association for Biomedical Research supports the initiative. So does the American Veterinary Medical Association. Unfortunately, such bills make it increasingly likely that some people will be subjected to especially harsh penalties on account of their views about selling, hunting, or killing animals. It’s entirely conceivable that, under the “economic disruption” provisions, non-violent protesters who urge a consumer boycott against a pet store could be targeted for disrupting company business.  Thus, the advocacy community should vigorously oppose these bills.

At the same time it’s important to know that this bill is drawing energy from the public apprehension about militant tactics. The bill's provisions would not only broaden the protection for “any property of a person or entity having a connection to… transactions with the animal enterprise,” but would also target parties who cause “reasonable fear” of death or serious bodily injury to a person or “a member of the immediate family of that person, or a spouse or intimate partner of that person” by “threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, trespass, harassment, or intimidation…” The bill also targets conspiracy related to the acts it covers; and today, conspiracy provisions are being applied broadly. For more analysis of the connection between militancy and lawmaking, see our feature article in this issue.

Daniel Hammer contributed to this report.

 

Footnotes