Farm animal well-being: setting the wheels of change in motion Campaign ends face branding Beyond face branding... Farm Animal Well-Being Task Force launched 90% oppose today\u27s factory farms Looking ahead A picture is worth a thousand words! Strategy for the non-violent dinner table: replacement, reduction & refinemen

Animal Rights International

English

WBI Studies Repository (WellBeing International)

WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository Fall 1995 Coalition for Non-Violent Food Coordinator's Report Animal Rights International Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/anircoa Recommended Citation Animal Rights International, "Coalition for Non-Violent Food Coordinator's Report" (1995). Animal Rights Coalitions. 1. https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/anircoa/1 This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact wbisr-info@wellbeingintl.org. ARI COALITION FOR NON-VIOLENT FOOD (s@®ffi0D�ffiTI®ffi°� ffi[][P@ITfil AUTUMN 1995 FARM ANIMAL WELL-BEING: SETTING THE WHEELS OF CHANGE IN MOTION Over the past year we've achieved important campaign objectives. More importantly, perhaps, we've been able to set in motion machinery which is beginning to reduce farm animal misery and reverse the terrible downward trends of past decades. Our recent campaigns have helped push the largely ignored farm animal issue towards center stage, where it rightfully belongs. They have also brought about significant improvements for millions of animals after decades of ever worsening conditions. In the 1980s our lab animal campaigns led to the scientific mainstreaming of alternatives. We now see opportunities to apply chis proven formula to the suffering of more than seven billion animals raised for dinner. CAMPAIGN ENDS FACE BRANDING An opportunity co apply that formula appeared in late 1993 when the US Department of Agriculture proposed to expand their requirements for the face branding of cattle imported from Mexico. We launched a public awareness campaign to first stop the proposed expansion and to then abolish the entire program. We placed full page ads in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Washington Times and in animal advocacy publications. The resulting public our.rage exceeded all expectations. After the first New York Times ad appeared on March 15th, 1994 Secretary Espy's office acknowledged getting at lease a thousand phone calls within cwo days. And they kept coming. This outpouring of anger from the general public was clearly impressive. The USDA cancelled their proposed expansion of the Mexican face branding program. In fact, by September 1994, in a complete reversal, the USDA had generated a new proposal to eliminate the Mexican face branding program altogether. The following month, we ran a second round of ads asking the public to provide written support for che new proposal co end the Mexican face branding program. This cime, the response was even more overwhelming. By che end of the 60 day comment period the Federal Register reported that the USDA had received more than 12,000 written comments, not counting petitions. A sampling of the correspondence suggests that these writers represent a broad cross-section of the public. Clearly, the USDA goc the same message. BEYOND FACE BRANDING ..• On Dec 16th, 1994 USDA officials signed a rule abolishing the requirement to face brand the million steers imported each year from Mexico. However, a smaller number of domestic cattle conrinued to be face branded as part of national disease control programs. Following our discussions with decision makers at ANIMAL RlGHTS INT'L (ARI): COALmON FOR NONVIOLENT FOOD, COALITION TO ABOLISH THE LDS0 and DRAIZE TESTS Box 214 • P1anetarium Station• New York NY 10024 Coordinator: Henry Spira. Consultant: Peter Singer. Advisors: Roger A. Cans. Barbara S. Clapp. Maureen Cunnie. Mark Graham. John A. Hoyt. Paul G. Irwin. Sid and Helaine Lerner. Linda W. Petrie. Gus W .  Thornton. D.V.M .. Jeanne Waller. Palmer Wayne. Science Advisor: Andrew N. Rowan. B.Sc .. M.A .. D.Phil. Legal Advisor: Elinor Molbegott. Esq. In Memoriam: Leonard Rack. M.D .• Founding Science Advisor. THE COALITION COMPRISES INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN THE MILLIONS 328 rhe USDA, they proposed co end face branding of all domestic cattle. And on September 19th, 1995, the Federal Register published the Final Rule, effective in 30 days. This completely eliminates che face branding of all cattle. We see chis as a historic reversal in a 50-year trend of ever greater farm animal suffering. Building on this constructive dialogue, we expressed our thanks to the USDA with full page ads. And this has opened additional doors. There's the recognition char we are looking to work together co solve problems. FARM ANIMAL WELL-BEING TASK FORCE LAUNCHED The face branding campaign affected millions of animals. Our dialogue with the USDA offers oppor­tunities co upgrade che lives of literally billions more. One of these opportunities is an incernal USDA cask force co address the well-being of farm animals across the board. On September 8, 1995, then uSDA Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs Patricia Jensen held the first meeting of the USDA Inceragency Animal Well-Being Task Force. The goal of the group is to develop voluntary guidelines co improve conditions for farm animals in all areas. We see this as reason for optimism! As we noted earlier, the face branding campaign clearly struck a nerve with the American public. Public concern for farm animals has just been quancified by a survey done for us by the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, N.J. 90% OPPOSE TODAY'S FACTORY FARMS Among the findings: o A huge 93% of US adults believe that farm animal pain and suffering should be reduced as much as possible, even though the animals are going to be slaughtered. o Nine out of ten adult Americans disapprove of current methods of raising food animals in spaces so confining that sows and calves are unable to even turn around and that laying hens are unable to stretch their wings. 329 o More than eight out of ten people think the meat and egg industry should be held legally responsible for protecting farm animals from cruelty. o 58% of adult Americans feel char fasc food restaurancs and supermarkets, who profit by selling meat, should also be held legally responsible:. o 91 % think the USDA should be involved in protecting farm animals from cruelty. LOOKING AHEAD In approaching the USDA we were able to build on earlier campaigns, including our successful iniciacive co replace most of the shackling and hoisting of conscious animals with the much less traumatic upright restrainer systems. And our joinc effort with Franklin Research & Development Corp which pressured McDonald's to require their suppliers co implemenc certain standards that take into account the most basic needs of farm animals. o We are currently urging ocher major companies that profit from animal agriculture to follow McDonald's initiative. Our recenc survey should help provide che leverage to accomplish chis goal and further encourage the USDA co respond to public concerns. o We concinue co dialogue with USDA decision makers and are encouraging their emerging cask force co launch an audit of farm animal practices co assess opportunities for improving conditions for billions of farm animals. o We recently spoke co the Board of the New York Scace Veterinary Medical Society (NYSVMS) on che responsibilities of veterinarians to upgrade the lives of farm animals. Current veterinary practices tend- co accommodate industry's economic interests while ignoring the individual animal's physical and behavioral needs. And there was sufficient positive response and interest to follow up with an article in their publication. NYSVMS is encouraging their members to discuss these issues. The USDA is listening! to the more t 're listening uwho emanding' ing of arlier 330 THIS IS WHAT USDA POLICY LOOKS LIKE. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT IT FEELS LIKE? Or wtw: il sounds like. Or smcJl.s like. lmaa.ine � �.-hoc fryin1 ,-n pn:ued aga,rut yow c:hcck, -41c searing pain. lhc heal and smoke of sin.Jing Ocsh. Even the meh down ol Y""' eye. Face Branding 11 Barbaricl Hidden from the public. this organized atrocity is how the USDA cwmuJy identifies Me:1ian Steen. Now lhc USDA propc)ICS to up.and this horror co an Muic:an eacde in a puhteic gesture at tn011ito.-inJ tubercuk>sis. Jn bn.ndins. Lhe �-m:,riud Stea' i.s firs.l trapped between ban. Then hiJ held i1 immobilized with .nee-I pinccn pain/ully clamped on to his nostrils and pulled to one side. If that's not cnoui,h the cowboy stepS on the st«r's (liec wi&h his boot. As the red hot iron is pn::ucd into his face. the sr.cer bellow,. his cya buJgc u he dis.appcan into a dood of Ma O'*ft bumjnc llcffl.� It's Completely Unnec11Aryl 'Tl>cft an: fu l¢u painl\ll "'YI o( wisfyin1 the USDA', desire co tnce Mc.dean c-atde. �pcttl say racc.bftnding ii noc only bl,ttlaric b.u W1noccs..-y. Fu more humane aJCCfflali\lq haw: OCC1t sunestcd. inclodina microchips. pu.nchin1 a dtstlnclmt symt,o, ln tho ear ,  nc>(duns the ev o, bnndin1 aur d'IC cd,c of the hide m the ttu. la U1 ace of ONA finser,rincins. why ts chc USDA u.sln1 prc-h...,.;o bnltality ., ideoufy cao.lc? Why is the US°" ....... pcinJ IO Upand faco brondin1 "'hen we $l'lould be 0titlawin1 suc-h bubuisms? Is i1 ju.st buruucnric: inertia. cho comenicnce o( doinJ I.rungs the way c11cy•.,. •lw•ys bom done at the USDA? 1$ it poui�c th.al Scc:n:tary Elpy is DOC C'\'Cr1 aware of his orsuiwion·s face bn.nchng pn>,nm? 111 Mike� <od>y >1/202) 7'.!0-3631. him u (202) 7�2166. or wricc him ..,_: USDA, R- 200.A 12th & J.rr,noe Or .  s.w. Weshl- DC 20250. do ti bcfon: OftC more ca.If MS his fl/ICC torched! __ -ir...,._. ..... _.,..._'II-' __ .. __ _,_......,._,.. .. ,..._ .. __ 11111-.. -­...... lrN..Wt,.,_,,...,_,.,, CE B OULD ISTOR UT ON NSIST. In response to your l expand its face bram re proposing to end I fJSre' HERE'S A WORLD OF MISERY N EVERY MOUTHFUL OF MEAT refelTed meal of affluent SOcieties The misery in meat is food for tho�ght � and diabetes. u, pro,ffl killu ..,.,. � ""'�' = " Ii kills P<aple in Olher "'•Y• roo. The Bnin . which faucns animal, for our dinner rabJe,; oft rimes "Ojlpropri•fcd• ""'? <he �pies o Third World COUotries; it ennc,� dictalOrl while v.,, PoPuJationa s11n1e. Mear Production � the errv;ronmer,,, squander, dwindling warcr �-. pollutes our rivers and '-•• wirh ro.,c anu'.'aJ "'*-'tes, and is causing the destn,crion of rain fore,rs. /iu h., n:lea-ted animals ro v .. .1 ca.Ives live our unable Egg-l•ying hens an: confined ro � ""'• Stria er rJw, <his page. Facrory.famied snunaJs an: so Stressed Iha, only• <oruranr dier of drugs keeps Chem alive ll.Dtil slaughrer. BC)'<)ncl Hlisfyinr our addiction. mear � no demon•ll'able bcnelirs. h <>'Ure, "?"ndinr s feru,g for people. des110yt the errv,�'J inJlicu horrendou. pain on more rhan ,.,,, r animau <onswned in rbis coun11y each re-, Only you can do >Omcrhin1 abour <he mise mear. Cur it our or cur ir down. You·u be • bire out of misery, Y-ond satisfying our a nonstrabJe benefits. It e.zy for peopJe, destroys th ct� .�0rrendous sufferillg 331 of IVI isery fU/ of Meat ought. The ties is a d heart \'<le are collabor:uing with an attorney to publish ;ind disseminate a study on the legal status of farm animals, documenting chat present USA laws are of no help to the cruel realities suffered by seven billion farm animals. => We are preparing aggressive ad campaigns which will use the findings of ARI's farm animal survey. As noted earlier, nine out of ten adulr Americans reject raising animals in spaces so confining chat sows and calves are unable co even curn around and chat laying hens are unable co screech their wings. We believe these practices are now viable candidates for change. o Based on our earlier positive experience with centers for alternatives co lab animals, we are discussing similar centers at major universities that would focus on food for the future as well as farm animal well-being. o While campaigning co reduce the pain and distress of farm animals, we are energetically promoting the vegetarian lifestyle through advertisements, articles and speaking oppor­tunities. We encourage school and company cafeterias as well as fast food chains and supermarkets to offer more vegetarian options. We lobby youth oriented and mainstream media to tell the "mear is misery" story. And we urge environmental activists to promote non-violent food. A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS! But words alone are nor enough. They cannot bring the grim realities of factory farming co the public. As The Economist cover story (August 19, 1995) observed, "What television did for the opponents of the Vietnam war the videocassette recorder has done 332 for the animal-rights movement." While there's no shortage of visuals of lab animal horrors, there's the need for photos, videos, and commercials documenting the suffering of the billions of farm animals. With chat in mind, we are in discussions with photographers and film makers. As we discussed earlier, our face branding campaign was swift and totally successful because we obtained photos of the faces of the steers being torched. The public responded with shock and outrage. At chis time, the movement's most urgent need is to document the entire factory farming nightmare. And have it shown in every community from San Diego up co Maine. STRATEGY FOR THE NON-VIOLENT DINNER TABLE: REPLACEMENT, REDUCTION & REFINEMENT Our ideal is a non-violent dinner table. Wouldn't we all rather stroll through apple orchards than stumble· through slaughter-housos? We actively and urgently encourage the public to upgrade co a meadess diet for ethical reasons. Bue the reality is chat eating habits tend co change slowly and so we also promote part­time vegetarianism by eating fewer animals. And as long as people continue to consider animals as edibles, we will relentlessly pressure industry and government to develop, promote and implement systems chat reduce their suffering. THANKS Our coalition's success is the result of generous, ongoing contributions of time, expertise, and/ or financial support from The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Bernice Barbour Fdtn, The Helen V. Brach Fdtn., Roger A. Caras, Barbara S. Oapp, Mark Graham, John A. Hoyt, The Humane Society of the United States, Paul G. Irwin, Sid and Helaine Lerner, The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Elinor Molbegott, the William and Charlotte Parks Fdtn., Linda W .  Petrie, Bernard E Rollin, Andrew N. Rowan, Marilyn M. Simpson Trust, Peter Singer, the Summerlee Fdtn., Gus W .  Thornton, Jeanne Waller, Palmer Wayne, Joan Zacharias and others too numerous to mention. � Henry Spira :: � .... ..... ;•. :_.* 

Coalition for Non-Violent Food Coordinator\u27s Report

Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy

https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&amp;context=anircoa

Coalition for Non-Violent Food Coordinator\u27s Report

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

WBI Studies Repository (WellBeing International)

Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy