The success of legislation that promotes scientifically based standards for food production hinges on the willingness of all agricultural groups to work together.

As the parents of three boys, my husband and I have learned the value in presenting a “unified front.”  For livestock producers, the value of the “unified front” was reinforced this past week when 64% of Ohio voters supported Issue 2.  Issue 2 amended the state’s constitution to create a Livestock Care Standards Board with thirteen members that will, among other responsibilities, prescribe standards and best practices for animal care and well-being as they relate to food production.  The success in Ohio was the result of a broad alliance of agricultural industry groups and the American Humane Association working together towards a common goal.  Although the individual groups may have some differences in opinions, they were able to, on Issue 2, present a unified front.

Now contrast the Ohio effort with that in Michigan where, this fall, legislation to establish a similar Animal Care Standards Board was gutted in lieu of a ban on veal crates, gestation crates for sows (with some time-related exceptions) and battery cages for laying hens.  In the end, the confinement dictates from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) were signed into law.

The Michigan Farm Bureau and six other allied industry groups had been working together to pursue legislation to develop a Michigan Livestock Animal Care Standards Board that would have advocated scientifically based care standards for production of animals intended for food.  However, when threatened with the potential of an HSUS-sponsored ballot initiative at some later date, the Michigan Pork Producers, Michigan Allied Poultry Industries and the Michigan Agri-Business Association began direct negotiations with HSUS.

This each-industry-for-itself approach is consistent with that advocated by Bernard Rollin, the animal welfare advocate and distinguished professor at Colorado State University who was instrumental in negotiating the legislation to ban gestation stalls in Colorado.  At a recent speech to a group of beef cattle veterinarians, he suggested that beef production distinguish itself from other species (i.e., pork and poultry) because, “you beef guys do it right.”

Although the timeline for animal housing changes in the Michigan law may be sufficiently delayed to allow producers to incorporate the new requirements into necessary facility upkeep, a larger issue is at stake:  why is production agriculture—including pork production—being asked to abandon the technologies that make food production safer and more efficient?   Why should pig production methods be dictated by the very groups that are seeking an end to meat consumption?

In an apparent attempt to sway the Ohio outcome, the weekend before the election, HSUS released the results of an undercover investigation into animal cruelty in veal production.  The video footage was gathered in August, so motivation behind the story’s delayed release should have been apparent.
 
As a production sector, we know that there will be “bad apples”—producers whose methods and standards of care are indefensible.  Ideally, we should be the ones to bring such cases to light.  When we are not, however, we need to be out on the front lines condemning the occurrence and explaining how we care about [and for] our animals.

There is little doubt that pork producers are growing weary from the challenges of the past two years—first the economic struggles and now the ill-named influenza pandemic.

Whether HSUS is opting to “kick” the industry “while it is down” or just following the “natural course” of its objectives, momentum is building to impose emotion-driven restrictions on livestock [and pig] production.  Not only for our future but for that of future farmers, we need to be proactive in telling consumers our story.  Just as important, however, we need to work together with other agricultural groups to promote legislation that permits science to remain the driving force behind livestock [and agricultural] production practices.

Editor’s Note: This commentary is sponsored by Elanco Animal Health. For more information, go to: www.elanco.com. To visit with the author, send her an e-mail at: rutt0011@umn.edu

This commentary is for informational purposes only.  The opinions and comments expressed herein represent the opinions of the author--they do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Farms.com.  This commentary is not intended to provide individual advice to anyone.  Farms.com will not be liable for any errors or omissions in the information, or for any damages or losses in any way related to this commentary.