This letter was written by Wayne Pacelle, CEO and President of the Humane Society of the United States
Notice: Beware Farm Bureau Bait-and-Switch
Dear Friend,
As we turn into the new year, I write to alert you to an emerging issue I hope you'll take note of, and to ask for your heightened attention to the subject.
While dog and cat welfare of course remains a core issue for America's animal welfare movement, our cause has always been grounded on a broader concern for protecting all animals from cruelty. The humane movement is built around a concern for any mistreatment and abuse of any animal—whether domesticated or wild or by individuals or institutions. Increasingly, there has been a more careful assessment of how animals are treated in the agribusiness industry. HSUS has done a series of investigations that have exposed inhumane slaughter practices across the nation and the awful mistreatment of animals at stockyards and intermediate transport points. There have also been pointed criticisms focused on the lifelong confinement of certain farm animals—such as veal calves, breeding sows, and laying hens—in cages and crates barely larger than their bodies. Whether you are a devoted carnivore or a committed vegetarian, these inhumane production and slaughter practices should be a concern to every humane advocate.
Two slaughter plants we have investigated have been shuttered, and there is a new national policy prohibiting the slaughter of downer cattle. And in recent elections, citizens in Arizona, California, and Florida have voted by overwhelming margins to phase out the use of certain intensive confinement practices that do not allow animals the opportunity to move in any meaningful way.
The trend toward improved treatment of farm animals is spreading, and that has agitated agribusiness interests, particularly the American Farm Bureau Federation and perhaps even your own state or local Farm Bureau. With a few exceptions in some states, where we worked with reasonable voices in the agriculture industry to negotiate standards for more humane treatment of farm animals—Colorado, Maine, Michigan, and Oregon—state farm bureaus are digging in and mounting counter-measures to thwart reform, especially in states where there are no laws at all to provide for farm animal welfare.
The newly crafted plan of some local, state, and federal Farm Bureau organizations is to try to divide the humane community, in order to undermine support for humane reforms in agriculture. As such, some state Farm Bureaus across the country are now making a concerted effort to forge relationships with local humane organizations, arguing that the care of pets is a laudable goal, but that the broader movement to promote new policies to protect farm animals is wrong and misguided. In some limited number of cases, the Farm Bureaus are even donating to sheltering organizations in order to buy goodwill. These agricultural organizations have never stood for policies to protect companion animals, and it is obvious that this is a strategic effort to block reform and not a sincere effort to associate themselves with our cause.
Although The HSUS welcomes sincere dialogue on farm animal welfare and has spoken with the American Farm Bureau Federation and state Farm Bureaus across the country, their newfound interest in animal protection groups should be treated with some skepticism based on their consistently hostile record on animal welfare issues. Typically, they are the biggest impediment to humane reforms at the state and national level:
Many leading agriculture groups have opposed the imposition of felony-level penalties for cruelty, and they have sought and gained exemptions in anti-cruelty statutes for livestock.
They have lobbied against prohibiting the worst abuses at large-scale puppy mills.
They actively oppose federal legislation to crack down on horse slaughter for human consumption. They believe long-distance transport and slaughter is an appropriate option for these animals, rather than urging individuals to provide lifetime care for their horses or see that humane euthanasia is performed for unwanted horses.
At the federal level, they support indiscriminate and inhumane predator control methods, such as trapping and poisoning which kill and injure non-target wildlife and companion animals.
They have opposed virtually all farm animal reform efforts, including efforts to include poultry under the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, to stop the abuse of downer cattle and pigs who are too sick or injured to walk, and to allow animals on large-scale operations the ability to stand up, lie down, and turn around.
Sadly, even on the clearest policy questions of right and wrong, such as upgrading penalties for animal fighting, Farm Bureau organizations have stood on the sidelines. We urge you not to be deceived by this newly hatched effort by the Farm Bureau to enlist you in opposing legitimate and mainstream animal welfare reforms for animals used in agribusiness. As humane organizations, we have an obligation to confront all forms of cruelty, including the mistreatment of animals raised for food. All public attitude surveys, and the ballot initiative votes in several urban and rural states, indicate that all Americans are concerned about the well-being of these animals, too.
We are pleased as an organization to commit resources to sheltering issues—from Animal Care Expo to Animal Sheltering magazine to The Shelter Pet Project and much more. We think your work on companion animal care programs is critical and it is highly valued. And we are confident you agree that other work in the field of animal protection is important and worthy of support as well. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely Yours,
Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States
Link to this letter
It seems that Wayne Pacelle from the Humane Society of the United States is getting more concerned with farmers and ranchers who are actively telling the accurate story of agriculture and food production. The reason he is concerned is because family farmers and ranchers are much more believable than an animal rights group who has called for abolishing animal agriculture and ending hunting. Even their over-flowing coffers can't compete with the truth. So keep up the good work everyone.
Showing posts with label American Farm Bureau. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Farm Bureau. Show all posts
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Our Affordable Food Supply
The $4.29 Thanksgiving Dinner
Posted by Brad Tuttle TIME Magazine
Monday, November 23, 2009 at 10:48 am
We're not talking about using coupons or tricks to throw together a random cheapie meal. We're talking about the typical Thanksgiving feast, with turkey, cranberry sauce, rolls, stuffing, sweet potatoes, and pumpkin pie.
The American Farm Bureau (spotted via Consuming Interests, thanks) says that because prices have come down on certain foods, including turkey and milk, Thanksgiving dinner should be 4% cheaper than last year. In 2009, the average cost for a Thanksgiving dinner that feeds ten is $42.91, or about $4.29 a person. Last year, the average meal for ten was $44.61, $1.70 more expensive.
The price decrease is nice. But what stands out to me is that the day we gorge and eat and pass out and unbuckle our belts and eat some more isn't that expensive, even before food prices dropped. All you have to do is cook at home and your meals will be reasonably priced. It's as simple as that. Even if you occasionally go all out with an expensive piece of meat, cooking at home is still way cheaper than going out to eat, even at restaurants we all consider cheap.
As Jim Sartwell, an American Farm Bureau economist, says of the home-cooked Thanksgiving dinner:
Again this year, the cost per person for this special meal is less than a typical "value meal" at a fast-food outlet.
Think about that the next time you're pulling up to the drive-thru. Link
No where else on the planet can you feed so many people such a fantastic meal at such an affordable price. This is something we should be proud of, not ashamed of like some of our famous food elitists in the country try to tell you. We continue to produce this abundant, affordable food supply all the while maintaining the safest food supply in the world, growing it on less land and with less environmental impact. It’s an incredible story to tell and one that I am proud to be part of.
Posted by Brad Tuttle TIME Magazine
Monday, November 23, 2009 at 10:48 am
We're not talking about using coupons or tricks to throw together a random cheapie meal. We're talking about the typical Thanksgiving feast, with turkey, cranberry sauce, rolls, stuffing, sweet potatoes, and pumpkin pie.
The American Farm Bureau (spotted via Consuming Interests, thanks) says that because prices have come down on certain foods, including turkey and milk, Thanksgiving dinner should be 4% cheaper than last year. In 2009, the average cost for a Thanksgiving dinner that feeds ten is $42.91, or about $4.29 a person. Last year, the average meal for ten was $44.61, $1.70 more expensive.
The price decrease is nice. But what stands out to me is that the day we gorge and eat and pass out and unbuckle our belts and eat some more isn't that expensive, even before food prices dropped. All you have to do is cook at home and your meals will be reasonably priced. It's as simple as that. Even if you occasionally go all out with an expensive piece of meat, cooking at home is still way cheaper than going out to eat, even at restaurants we all consider cheap.
As Jim Sartwell, an American Farm Bureau economist, says of the home-cooked Thanksgiving dinner:
Again this year, the cost per person for this special meal is less than a typical "value meal" at a fast-food outlet.
Think about that the next time you're pulling up to the drive-thru. Link
No where else on the planet can you feed so many people such a fantastic meal at such an affordable price. This is something we should be proud of, not ashamed of like some of our famous food elitists in the country try to tell you. We continue to produce this abundant, affordable food supply all the while maintaining the safest food supply in the world, growing it on less land and with less environmental impact. It’s an incredible story to tell and one that I am proud to be part of.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Don't Cap Our Future
November 2009
Don’t Cap Our Future
By: Bob Stallman
Farm Bureau recently kicked off a climate change grassroots campaign appropriately titled “Don’t Cap Our Future.” Farm Bureau members are getting out the word on Capitol Hill that cap-and-trade legislation would impose higher energy and food costs on consumers, raise fuel, fertilizer and energy costs for farmers and ranchers, and shrink the American agricultural sector, resulting in reduced U.S. food production.
The consequences of climate legislation far outweigh the benefits and aren’t worth capping America’s future.
Paying the Piper
Under the cap-and-trade legislation in the House and Senate, American families will pay higher energy costs. According to the Department of Energy, energy costs could grow by $1,870 per household. Combined with higher costs for food, the additional yearly hit on families would total about $2,300 per household. Said another way, the cap-and-trade law would impose costs of up to $200 billion a year on American taxpayers.
At the farm gate, as much as 17 percent of U.S. agricultural land currently used for food production will be idled and planted in trees under the House bill. That is because the vast majority of incentive payments will go to people who choose to grow and maintain trees for greenhouse gas reduction, rather than farmers who work to put food on American’s tables. This shift in land use will hurt consumers at the grocery store. Food costs could rise by up to an average of $33 billion annually in 2020 and up to $51 billion annually by 2030 as a result of this legislation. Read More
The American Farm Bureau has launched this innovative idea to help drive home the message that any type of cap and trade system will be very detrimental to farmers and ranchers and their ability to grow our food. The real cap from this legislation will be the one put on our ability to continue the amazingly successful American agriculture story. In a land that we have always promoted as having limitless possibilities, we don’t need laws that can cap our success.
Don’t Cap Our Future
By: Bob Stallman
Farm Bureau recently kicked off a climate change grassroots campaign appropriately titled “Don’t Cap Our Future.” Farm Bureau members are getting out the word on Capitol Hill that cap-and-trade legislation would impose higher energy and food costs on consumers, raise fuel, fertilizer and energy costs for farmers and ranchers, and shrink the American agricultural sector, resulting in reduced U.S. food production.
The consequences of climate legislation far outweigh the benefits and aren’t worth capping America’s future.
Paying the Piper
Under the cap-and-trade legislation in the House and Senate, American families will pay higher energy costs. According to the Department of Energy, energy costs could grow by $1,870 per household. Combined with higher costs for food, the additional yearly hit on families would total about $2,300 per household. Said another way, the cap-and-trade law would impose costs of up to $200 billion a year on American taxpayers.
At the farm gate, as much as 17 percent of U.S. agricultural land currently used for food production will be idled and planted in trees under the House bill. That is because the vast majority of incentive payments will go to people who choose to grow and maintain trees for greenhouse gas reduction, rather than farmers who work to put food on American’s tables. This shift in land use will hurt consumers at the grocery store. Food costs could rise by up to an average of $33 billion annually in 2020 and up to $51 billion annually by 2030 as a result of this legislation. Read More
The American Farm Bureau has launched this innovative idea to help drive home the message that any type of cap and trade system will be very detrimental to farmers and ranchers and their ability to grow our food. The real cap from this legislation will be the one put on our ability to continue the amazingly successful American agriculture story. In a land that we have always promoted as having limitless possibilities, we don’t need laws that can cap our success.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Well-Fed Ag Critics Continue Attacks
Critics of American Agriculture Intensify Efforts
Written by Stewart Truelsen
Thursday, 08 October 2009 11:04
This has been a good year for the critics of mainstream farming and ranching. Time magazine ran a cover story at the end of August sharply critical of modern farm production methods and the nation’s food supply. It said "food is increasingly bad for us, even dangerous" and blamed obesity on American agriculture.
The president of the American Farm Bureau Federation was once on the cover of Time when that was considered a huge honor. Now, the magazine is a shadow of its former self in readership, editorial content and influence, but the recent story was a slap in the face to farmers and ranchers nevertheless.
The University of Wisconsin chose Michael Pollan’s book, In Defense of Food, to be given to all incoming freshmen this fall and incorporated into more than 60 courses from engineering to art. Pollan is a journalism professor from the University of California at Berkeley. His writing is critical of modern agriculture, food science and technology and the Western diet, including meat products.
Wisconsin Farm Bureau President Bill Bruins, a dairy farmer, called Pollan’s book "a direct attack on the way we farm today." The university claimed it was not endorsing Pollan’s views in choosing the controversial book.
A woman in the audience told a reporter, "Unfortunately, if we don’t show up and show our side, many of his claims will become truth." She is right about that. Mainstream farming and ranching are under an intensifying attack by critics who believe they can find a gullible audience. Read More
If you don’t think that agriculture is under constant attack in this country, then this article does a nice job of showing the play by play from just the last few weeks. When you reflect back over all of these events, you have to ask yourself what the end goal is. The only logical conclusion that you can come up with is that there is a segment of our society that wants production agriculture eliminated. Of course along with that plan, they also expect food to continue magically appearing in the grocery store. Good luck with that.
Written by Stewart Truelsen
Thursday, 08 October 2009 11:04
This has been a good year for the critics of mainstream farming and ranching. Time magazine ran a cover story at the end of August sharply critical of modern farm production methods and the nation’s food supply. It said "food is increasingly bad for us, even dangerous" and blamed obesity on American agriculture.
The president of the American Farm Bureau Federation was once on the cover of Time when that was considered a huge honor. Now, the magazine is a shadow of its former self in readership, editorial content and influence, but the recent story was a slap in the face to farmers and ranchers nevertheless.
The University of Wisconsin chose Michael Pollan’s book, In Defense of Food, to be given to all incoming freshmen this fall and incorporated into more than 60 courses from engineering to art. Pollan is a journalism professor from the University of California at Berkeley. His writing is critical of modern agriculture, food science and technology and the Western diet, including meat products.
Wisconsin Farm Bureau President Bill Bruins, a dairy farmer, called Pollan’s book "a direct attack on the way we farm today." The university claimed it was not endorsing Pollan’s views in choosing the controversial book.
A woman in the audience told a reporter, "Unfortunately, if we don’t show up and show our side, many of his claims will become truth." She is right about that. Mainstream farming and ranching are under an intensifying attack by critics who believe they can find a gullible audience. Read More
If you don’t think that agriculture is under constant attack in this country, then this article does a nice job of showing the play by play from just the last few weeks. When you reflect back over all of these events, you have to ask yourself what the end goal is. The only logical conclusion that you can come up with is that there is a segment of our society that wants production agriculture eliminated. Of course along with that plan, they also expect food to continue magically appearing in the grocery store. Good luck with that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)