Menu

• To help members better understand animal care issues.
• To illustrate how animal care issues affect producers, processors and consumers.
• To help members better understand corporate social responsibility and how it relates to agriculture

• We support properly researched, veterinary approved and industry-tested poultry and livestock practices that provide consumers with a wholesome food supply. We recognize that animals are personal property and we oppose legislation that, unless clear abuse is evident, restricts the private ownership or use of animals, or that inhibits free trade of any animal provided it meets Ohio Department of Agriculture testing and import requirements. The Ohio Department of Agriculture should administer any animal welfare laws at the state level.

• We support a unified animal agriculture effort to educate the public concerning humane farming practices. We support an aggressive, comprehensive educational program presenting the facts of animal and poultry husbandry and production to the general public. We strongly oppose the use of educational materials in our public schools that discourage use of animal products.

• We oppose the restrictions on the use of antibiotic drugs in farm animals for nutrition and health purposes. Such restrictions should be based only upon sound science and extensive research.

• We are opposed to the concept of animal "rights," the associated elevation of animal rights to those enjoyed by humans, and the expenditure of public funds to promote the concept of animal rights.

Attempts by animal rights activists to restrict livestock and poultry production have gained momentum in state and federal legislation, on state ballots and in the courts. Animal protection activists have long sought legislation to modify or curtail some practices considered by American agriculture to be both acceptable and necessary to maintain and protect animal health. The goal of many animal rights groups is more to end animal production for food rather than to actually ensure animals are treated humanely. The effect of ending animal agriculture would be devastating both to the economy and to consumers’ quality of life.

Additionally, consumer choice is having a tremendous influence over the food system. Consumers are increasingly including animal welfare, environmental concerns, genetic modification, organic and other issues more broadly defined as "social responsibility" issues in their decision-making process. Consumers do have an option to choose if they have an issue with certain farming practices. The wide array of choices that many food retailers provide to their customers reflects this.

Likewise, major companies and organizations are spending more time on "corporate social responsibility" in the food system, and retailers are requiring quality assurance, which, in many cases, must be verified by a third party. Livestock and poultry producer groups have developed strategies to address consumer desire for social and corporate responsibility in the food chain. The Food Marketing Institute and the National Council of Chain Restaurants have endorsed many of these guidelines. On the other hand, critics believe the guidelines are not valid, thinking that production systems in which animals are confined are inherently inhumane.

Almost a year ago, the nation’s largest hog producer – Smithfield – said it would phase out confining sows in crates by 2017 and begin grouping sows in pens where they can move around. The move was hailed by fast-food giant McDonald's as well as the animal rights group the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). It could very well increase pressure on other producers to stop using gestation crates, which are used on approximately 80 percent of swine farms in the United States.

Smithfield's move is one of many examples of how producers and retailers are being forced to bow to consumer demand over issues of nutrition and animal welfare. Other companies, including McDonald's, have pressured poultry producers to alter farm practices criticized as inhumane. Starbucks was the first major retailer to announce that it would stop buying milk from dairy farms that use artificial hormones. A few months later, one of the nation’s largest retail grocery chains, Kroger, announced that it is in the process of pulling milk produced with the artificial growth hormone rbST from its store shelves by February 2008. The company said consumer preference, not safety concerns, prompted its decision.

Prior to Kroger’s decision, Publix Super Markets had replaced its store-brand dairy products (milk, cheese, yogurt and ice cream) using milk from cows not treated with rbST. Other noted food service industry players such as Safeway and Chipotle are taking an active part in eliminating dairy products produced from cows treated with rbST, too. Chipotle’s advertisements also speak to concerns about the use of treating food-producing animals with antibiotics and opposition to concentrated animal feeding operations’ (CAFOs) production practices.

In March 2007, Burger King, the world’s second-largest hamburger chain, said it would phase-in purchases of pork and eggs from suppliers that do not confine their animals in cages and crates. It also said it would favor suppliers that use gas, or "controlled-atmospheric stunning," rather than electric shock to render chickens unconscious prior to slaughter.

It is clear that Burger King’s changes were made after HSUS and another animal rights group -- the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) -- engaged the fast-food chain in on-going discussions about improving the treatment of farm animals. Burger King executives said the move "was driven by their desire to stay ahead of consumer trends and to encourage farmers to move into more humane egg and meat production," according to The New York Times, which characterized Burger King’s announcement as "the latest success for animal welfare advocates, who were once dismissed as fringe groups, but are increasingly gaining mainstream victories." HSUS said the move was "an important trigger for reform throughout the entire industry."

The nation’s No. 3 burger chain, Wendy's International, announced last summer that the company's restaurants will give preferential treatment to pork and chicken suppliers who "adhere to enhanced animal welfare standards." By next year, Wendy’s goal is to source 20 percent of its pork from suppliers that don't use gestation-sow stalls. Wendy's officials say they hope to expand that percentage over time. Wendy’s also will give preferential treatment to chicken processors that are actively exploring and testing controlled-atmosphere-stunning systems as an alternative to electrical stunning. The company is also under increasing pressure from HSUS to reduce purchases of eggs laid by caged hens, which coincides with moves to begin re-introducing breakfast menu items at Wendy’s restaurants.

Minimum space requirements for animals raised in confined housing have become a major action issue for animal rights groups. Ballot initiatives in Florida (2002) and Arizona (2006) banned the use of gestation stalls for pregnant sows and stall-based growing programs for veal calves. Oregon became the first state to ban the use of gestation stalls by legislative action in June 2007.

This past fall, the animal rights group Californians for Humane Farms – backed by HSUS and another animal rights group, Farm Sanctuary – kicked off a campaign in California to gather signatures to place an initiative on California’s state ballot in November 2008 to ban cages for egg-laying poultry, gestation crates for sows and crates for veal calves. If adopted, the measure would take effect in 2015. This would be the first initiative to ban cages for layers and the third state initiative to ban gestation and veal crates. If the measure is adopted, it would set a maximum punishment of a $1,000 fine and 180 days in jail for violations.

The American Veterinary Medical Association studied the pregnant sow housing issue and determined that no existing system is better than another and that the advantages of current systems should be retained while improvements are made.

Nonetheless, the board of directors for the American Veal Association voted during the summer of 2007 to convert the U. S. veal industry to group housing by 2017. Reasons for the decision cited by the association’s leadership included the following:

• Veal housing methods have progressed to the point where pen housing may now be considered viable;
• Group housing already accounts for more than 10 percent of U.S. veal production;
• Many organizations now consider animal welfare issues when they make purchasing decisions;
• The veal industry must be mindful of consumer concerns;
• Group housing was legislatively imposed in the European Union, and
• Conversion to group housing will promote industry stability and growth.

Another veterinary-approved production practice animal rights groups are also targeting is the use of cages for egg-laying hens. According to a recent series of articles in Feedstuffs, animal welfare is management dependent, not system dependent. There is not one kind of production system that, by itself, provides superior welfare. There are, in fact, advantages and disadvantages to all kinds of systems. Animal behaviorists and scientists do not recommend one system over another.

The following is a tabulation of the responses to the September Speakout Guide on the issue of Wading Into Aquaculture. Samplings of some of the comments received are also included.

• Yes 50.3 %

• No 49.7 %

• A neighbor has four or five ponds. They have been in operation for three or four years.
• OSU research program in Piketon
• We have two aquaculture businesses in our county. One is Tilapia and the other is shrimp.

• FB should support legislation to encourage aquaculture production and marketing.
• Provide information to members regarding aquaculture as a niche market.
• Keep us informed and support it.
• Eat more fish!

• Yes 40 %

• No 60 %

• We don’t know enough about aquaculture to suggest a policy.
• Prevent over regulation, yet guarantee a safe, healthful product.
• We have enough policies.
• Current policy needs to be clearer.

• The University of Findlay’s equine program
• Green Field Farms cooperative
• Miami County’s quilt barns
• Steinke’s Bee World
• Chicken recipes

• Discussion Meet: Rose Dudgeon, Knox
• Excellence in Agriculture: Tina Lust, Marion
• Outstanding Young Farmer: Andy and Deanna Troutman, Wayne

• Involve new workers.
• ID local affinity groups where you can give membership presentations and market year-round.

Look here for future news and information about Ohio Farm Bureau’s Organization programs and activities.

280 N. High St. • P.O. Box 182383 • Columbus, Ohio 43218-2383

614-246-8265 • FAX 614-249-2200 • E-mail: speakout@ofbf.org

Prepared by Chris Henney, OFBF director of policy development