No one takes health and fitness more seriously than today’s top football players. So isn’t it kind of absurd that as we watch Sunday’s game we will all be bombarded by advertisements for some of the unhealthiest junk food imaginable? And as we admire the speed, strength and agility of our gridiron heroes, chances are that most of the millions of chicken wings and burgers that will be consumed at Super Bowl parties across the U.S. will have come from industrialized livestock farming systems that are damaging to the environment, to animal welfare, and ultimately to our own health.

As two titans of the football world clash this Sunday, there is one Titan football player who is already leading by example. Will Witherspoon is linebacker for the Tennessee Titans – and a sustainable farmer. Will is passionate about producing healthy and nutritious food on his Animal Welfare Approved Shire Gate Farm near Owensville, Missouri. As a professional athlete involved in one of the world’s most physical sports, Will is particularly aware of the health benefits of grassfed, high-welfare farming.

“My cattle are raised as nature intended, on grass, and aren’t fed growth hormones, antibiotics or other unnatural additives,” says Will. “As a pro football player, I can’t take over-the-counter cold medicine without letting my trainer know about it. So why would I want my kids eating beef from cattle fed hormones or routine antibiotics?”

The truth is that if you knew what goes on behind the closed doors of most industrial farms you probably wouldn’t want to touch the meat – let alone eat it. The only farming images that Big Ag wants you to see are the bucolic, picket-fenced scenes on their food packaging – along with false messages, such as ”naturally raised” or ”free-roaming” (neither of which actually means that animals were raised outdoors).  In the drive to produce ever-cheaper foods, the pursuit of profit comes before all other concerns, including our health. The soaring rates of obesity, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, and diet-related cancers stand in stark contrast to the healthfulness and sporting prowess that we will all applaud this coming weekend. In today’s junk food world, where childhood obesity and diet-related ill health is epidemic, Will Witherspoon is just the kind of sporting role model we urgently need.

So when you’re out shopping for your Super Bowl party, why not make sure that at least one of your purchases is a truly sustainable choice. Seek out some high-welfare, pasture-raised chicken wings or grassfed ground beef for your burger patties – I can guarantee you’ll taste the difference. And don’t be fooled by terms like “all natural,” “naturally raised” or “cage-free” – they are used to mask the same old industrialized farming system where confinement, routine antibiotic use, and a horrific, short life are the norm. Make sure you ask for grassfed or pasture-raised meat at your grocery store. Better still, why not make a play for your local farmers market – or use our online directory to find your nearest supplier of Animal Welfare Approved meat and dairy products.

Small changes can make a big difference. As we build up to one of the greatest sporting contests on Earth, let’s use the opportunity to start reducing our consumption of unsustainable, unhealthy, intensively reared meat and dairy – and choose high-welfare, pasture-based meat and dairy products instead. Let’s make this Super Bowl Sunday really count: let’s make it a Sustainable Super Bowl Sunday.

We’ve seen it happen with organic, where some of the rules that farmers and food manufacturers must follow in order to use the coveted organic label have been watered down or manipulated. This has happened to such an extent that many well-meaning organic consumers would now struggle to differentiate between some larger ‘organic’ operations and their industrial cousins. The same thing is now happening with the term “grassfed.” While the range of products, labels and brands that make grassfed claims grows day by day, the sad reality is that some of the grassfed meat, milk and cheese you can buy probably shouldn’t be labeled grassfed at all.

Fortunately, Animal Welfare Approved has just published an 18-page booklet called The Grassfed Primer to cut through the confusion surrounding the term “grassfed” and to help the public to understand the wide benefits that real grassfed farming systems can have for the environment, for farm animal welfare, and for our health.

The good news is that people across the U.S. are waking up to the hidden costs of cheap, industrialized meat production and damaging impact that intensive farming is having on the environment, on animal welfare, and on our health. Growing numbers of consumers are voting with their wallets and seeking out truly sustainable alternatives – including grassfed meat and dairy products.

And they would be right to do so: Scientists have shown that grass-based farming systems, where livestock eat a diet of 100 percent grass or other forage throughout their lives and have constant access to pasture or range, are far better for animal welfare and are less likely to cause environmental pollution. We know that grassfed farming has the potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As cattle and other ruminants graze pasture they stimulate the growth of grass, which absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere through its leaves and stores it in a mass of roots under the ground in a far more stable form of carbon – a process called carbon sequestration. Indeed, scientists now think that grazing cattle on pastures and restoring grasslands could play a vital role in slowing the global warming process. We also know that grassfed meat and dairy products offer real human health benefits in terms of higher levels of omega-3s, CLAs and vitamin E, as well as reducing the risk of E. coli food poisoning and the development of other antibiotic resistant bacterial diseases associated with intensive farming systems.

However, the bad news is that despite the apparent assurances that a grassfed label might offer, some of the so-called grassfed systems out there actually fall well short of our expectations because the requirements for keeping animals on pasture can vary significantly among the different grassfed labels.

When you ask most people to explain what “grassfed farming” means, they will almost always describe a pastoral farming scene with animals grazing outdoors on pasture, rather than in intensive feedlots. The truth is that a number of the grassfed labels which have recently sprung up may actually hide farming systems that still allow farmers to confine cattle in feedlots for at least part of the animals’ lives.

For example, some well-known supermarket retailers have set up their own grass-based beef standards which require participating farmers to ensure their animals spend at least two thirds of their lives on pasture. This sounds great. But when you realize that this could mean that the cattle may actually spend a third of their lives in barren confinement on a feedlot system, the bucolic “grassfed” image of this label starts to fade, and you start to wonder if this beef should really be labeled grassfed at all.

What about the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) definition of grassfed, which was introduced in 2007 to protect consumer and farmer interests? Unfortunately, the USDA’s voluntary grassfed standards only require farmers to ensure their animals have access to the outdoors during the grass growing season. This means that farmers in some states could confine animals for as much as six months of the year in what is essentially a feedlot — yet still label products as grassfed — provided animals are fed trucked-in cut grass or forage.

Even more shocking is that the USDA also allows these grassfed farmers to feed a grain supplement to their cattle. In fact, the USDA sets no limit whatsoever on the amount of grain supplementation that is allowed, as long as the percentage of grain fed is stated somewhere on the grassfed label. Of course, this percentage could appear in much smaller print on the back of the packaging. Some of these grassfed labeling programs also permit highly questionable farming practices such as the routine use of antibiotics and do little to address other problem areas, such as environmental pollution.

So how can you be sure that the grassfed beef you are about to spend your hard-earned cash on really does meet your expectations? When you see the Animal Welfare Approved and the American Grassfed Association logos together on a label, you can be absolutely confident that the animal was raised according to the highest welfare standards, and lived its life on pasture eating a natural diet of 100 percent grass and forage. Animal Welfare Approved certifies truly free-range systems. No feedlot or confinement operation may use the AWA logo to sell its products — and that’s a guarantee.

We published The Grassfed Primer to help people to identify and purchase meat and dairy products from real grassfed farms. We hope that it helps to explain the problems with feedlot farming systems, but also the significant solutions that real grassfed farming can offer, and why it is important to choose a “grassfed” label that really means what it says.

Find out more about real grassfed farming and Animal Welfare Approved: download The Grassfed Primer here.

As the range of products, labels, and brands making grassfed claims continues to expand, The Grassfed Primer is designed to cut through the confusion and provide an informative, easy-to-digest introduction to the benefits of real grassfed and pasture-raised beef.

The 20-page publication includes chapters titled “Grassfed, health, welfare and the environment,” “The problem with feedlots” and “How do I know it’s grassfed?” Written in an accessible and informal style, the booklet also contains full scientific references for further reading and research.

Some facts covered in the publication include:

• Today’s U.S. feedlot system is the largest and most concentrated in the world, with less than 5 percent of the nation’s feedlots marketing 80-90 percent of all U.S. beef. A single modern feedlot can hold tens of thousands of cattle in confinement.

• The official USDA grassfed definition has loopholes that potentially allow a farmer to raise their “grassfed” cattle on a confined feedlot and use routine antibiotics and hormones. As long as farmers feed the cattle on trucked-in cut grass or other forage, they can still label their beef as “USDA grassfed.”

• Real grassfed farming has a potentially vital role to play in helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through carbon sequestration, the process where atmospheric CO2 is absorbed by the growing pasture and locked in the soil within the plant’s root system.

• Grassfed meat and dairy products also offer real human health benefits in terms of higher levels of omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and vitamin E, and can reduce the risk of E. coli infection. Scientists now believe that CLA may be one of our most potent defenses against cancer.

Commenting on the publication of The Grassfed Primer, Dr. Patricia Whisnant,  President of the American Grassfed Association and grassfed beef farmer,  says, “Animal Welfare Approved’s The Grassfed Primer is a timely and much needed publication. As demand for sustainably produced grassfed beef grows it is vitally important that consumers understand the benefits of real grassfed beef – and that they can identify the ‘real McCoy’ from the growing mass of lesser ‘wanna-be’ labels. I believe that The Grassfed Primer will play a key role in helping consumers to make the right choices whenever they buy beef. It goes to the very heart of the grassfed story, describing a model of agriculture where animals are raised on pasture in a manner that is biologically and behaviorally appropriate for the animals, for our health, and for the health of the planet.”

The Grassfed Primer is available for free download from the Animal Welfare Approved website along with AWA’s recently published Food Labeling for Dummies.

Sparboe Farms of Litchfield Minnesota produces 300 million eggs per year in shell, liquid, frozen and dried form. The company supplies retailers and food service outlets across 26 states. The undercover filming showed disturbing abuse of chicks and older hens at several of the company’s farms.

In addition to this undercover video, Sparboe Farms recently received a warning letter from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that said inspectors found “serious violations” at five Sparboe facilities of federal regulations meant to prevent  Salmonella. The warning said eggs from those facilities had been “prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby they may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby they may have been rendered injurious to health.”

McDonald’s is finding out that there is a price to be paid for dealing with industrial egg producers like Sparboe. By their very design these industrial systems fail to meet the needs of the hens, fail to protect the consumer from health problems such as Salmonella and fail to provide farm workers with a safe and positive working environment.

Following the horrific recall of over  half a billion eggs in Iowa last year – where significant failings in basic management of the hens and their environment led to serious Salmonella risk – this is another scandal in an industry that seems incapable of regulating itself. As AWA pointed out at the time, recent research has shown a direct correlation between flock size and confinement and the presence of Salmonella – basically the bigger the flock and the more confined, the greater the risk of infection. It is also well documented that caged systems inherently lead to poor animal welfare.  A standard industry cage forces birds to live in an area smaller than a sheet of paper. The natural stress response to such close confinement is pecking and cannibalism, a problem which the industry has “solved” by removing all or parts of the birds’ beaks. This type of band-aid approach is especially disturbing given that science has already shown pasture-based systems to resolve this issue.

As McDonald’s is discovering, part of the problem with the industrial farming model is that big agribusiness puts production in the hands of very small group of producers—leaving consumers and birds vulnerable to disease and abuse with limited options of alternative products. There must be a point at which Mc Donald’s, Target and other retailers of eggs look beyond their corporate bottom line and see the future.

It may surprise you to know that McDonald’s has some experience of better and more sustainable sourcing –McDonald’s Europe that is, not McDonald’s U.S. Over 95% of all eggs used by McDonald’s across 21 European countries are either free range or cage free “barn” eggs. McDonald’s in the U.K. say that in 2009 they used over 91 million free-range (pastured) eggs on their breakfast menu, and that all the eggs for their sauces and the breakfast menu were sourced from British farmers. In addition, the hens are all fed non-GM feed; and the company estimates that the egg farmers have planted nearly half a million trees on pastured laying hen ranging and foraging areas to provide shade and shelter  for the hens, thereby improving the environment on the farms. McDonald’s Europe is committed to reaching a 100% non-caged egg supply by 2012.

McDonald’s Europe is working with companies that see the farmers and their birds and animals as an important and integral part of their business; not just figures on a balance sheet. This model of production is providing 100% pastured eggs in one country and a growing majority of non-caged egg in another 20 countries. This is the result of a committed effort on the part of McDonald’s to learning how to stimulate demand, manage distribution and to set real, monitored and achieved targets for improvement. The success of this model shows that the lessons have been learned. Why then can McDonald’s in the U.S. not learn from its European operation?

There are many farmers in America ready willing and able to step up and provide these pastured eggs for companies like McDonald’s, if only the company were seriously interested. In a joint statement today John Boyd of the National Black Farmers Association and Andrew Gunther of Animal Welfare Approved invited executives of McDonald’s to start the conversation and to make a commitment to move away from unhealthy and abusive caged eggs. The alternative is out there. We challenge McDonald’s to start looking for it.

Farmers and processors can use the information in AWA’s new online labeling resource to help distinguish their pastured products in the marketplace, and consumers and retailers will be able to use these resources to ensure they are sourcing sustainable products. AWA farmers interested in using AWA’s free labeling service should contact Emily Lancaster at Emily@animalwelfareapproved.org or (202) 618-4497.

The launch of AWA’s new labeling section coincides with the release of “Food Labeling for Dummies,” AWA’s new comprehensive guide for consumers. The guide dispels some of the common misconceptions in food labeling and is available for free download here. Program Director Andrew Gunther explained the guide’s evolution: “We were first approached by a group of chefs who were bewildered by the array of label claims. They wanted a one-stop resource for accurate information that could be used in their everyday purchasing decisions. What we ultimately created has gone far beyond that to serve anyone engaged in cooking or eating – from the home cook to the school cafeteria to the five star restaurant.”

These new labeling resources are part of Animal Welfare Approved’s ongoing commitment to accuracy and transparency in food labeling. Feedback on the new labeling site and guide is appreciated as these resources evolve to serve the needs of farmers and consumers.

North Carolina Rep. Glen Bradley, an advocate for consumer rights introduced a bill earlier this year to require labeling of genetically modified foods. House Bill 446 (text available here) sought to require “labeling of food and milk products sold in this state that are or that contain genetically modified food and or milk and milk products from animals that have received recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH).”  First introduced on March 23, 2011 it was passed the very next day to the Agriculture Committee where it promptly withered and died. A representative from the office of House Bill 446 co-sponsor Rep. Bill Faison told us that it was highly unlikely to be revived this year.

If I were a cynical person, I would speculate that we have Big Ag to thank for this bill’s death. Why? Because industrial agricultural companies are the only entities that profit from our ignorance of what is in our food. This bill was not about banning genetic modification; it was simply about allowing the consumer to choose whether or not to consume its products. The steadfast resistance on the part of Big Ag to offer this choice shows a stunning lack of confidence – either in the ability of the consumer to make an informed decision or in their own products. All the more reason to join those marching in support of mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods. For more information visit Right2KnowMarch.org.

The State of the Plate DC (www.StateofthePlateDC.net) daylong conference is set for Monday, October 17, 2011 at George Washington University’s Marvin Center and will feature a series of panels and notable speakers, focused on sharing best practices, information, and strategies. The event is designed for chefs, restaurateurs, distributors, farmers, ranchers, food leaders, students, faculty and those interested in the topic.

Ultimately, producers want to sell meat and restaurants want to buy it. This event will allow both producers and chefs/restaurant owners to discuss the terms of the trade via lively discussions, and then potentially engage in actual deal‐making that satisfies the needs of both groups. Designed to share information in a positive format, focus will be on sustainable farming, animal product preparation, the myths and realities of food labeling, and supply chain management.

This event is organized by Animal Welfare Approved, the industry leader in auditing and certifying family farms that raise their animals sustainably, outdoors on pasture or range according to the highest welfare standards. The co‐organizer is Educated Eats (the education foundation arm of RAMW), dedicated to creating the next generation of culinary professionals. The George Washington University’s Urban Food Task Force is the event’s key collaborator.

“DC chefs are increasingly renowned for their commitment to top‐quality, sustainable, healthy, and delicious foods. I’m delighted to see more of them entering the dialogue about sustainable and high‐welfare farming. State of the Plate DC fits well with the mission of George Washington’s Urban Food Task Force; it offers hands‐on opportunities for chefs and producers to work together in advancing the conversation about food policy and action,” says Diane Robinson Knapp, Chair, The George Washington University Urban Food Task Force.

Animal Welfare Approved program director Andrew Gunther added, “We believe that attendees will gain a better understanding of the challenges and rewards of developing sustainable food supply chains, but even more importantly, participants will have the opportunity to meet with and taste products from farmers already delivering solutions.”

“Educated Eats is thrilled to be working with our partners on this sustainable meat conference, continuing our series of seminars for our members,” says Gregory Casten, Chairman of the Board of RAMW. “We look forward to raising awareness for chefs and restaurateurs about the many benefits of sustainable farming practices‐‐including raising animals outdoors on pasture or range. Using sustainably raised animal proteins can help improve a restaurant’s image, efficiency and performance.”

Tickets: $55 includes continental breakfast and boxed lunch from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm. Advance registration is required. Seating is limited so be sure to register early. To register online visit www.StateofthePlateDC.net. From 5:00‐6:30 pm a sustainable meat tasting reception will bring together members of the RAMW with farmers, distributors and processors.

Location: The conference will be held at the George Washington University’s Marvin Center, 800 21st Street, Washington, DC 20052.

Questions: Contact Laura Colombi with questions at (202) 446‐2138.

Members of the press are encouraged to contact Beth Hauptle at (202) 446‐2155 to reserve complimentary press passes.

In his blog, HSUS president Wayne Pacelle says that the “landmark agreement” will “help millions of hens.” HSUS has been calling for cage-free egg production for years, so an agreement to end all caged egg production would represent an enormous advancement in welfare. Sadly for the hens, that isn’t the basis of this agreement.  In defiance of common sense, and all previously expressed opinion, HSUS has achieved nothing more than an agreement to work with UEP towards new legislation which will move hens out of one type of battery cage into a another slightly larger cage. An historic welfare advancement? I think not.

HSUS claims that this new cage isn’t the same as the standard battery cage; it’s an “enriched” cage. So what exactly is an “enriched” cage and what welfare benefits does it offer the hens? HSUS claims that the “enriched” cages will provide environmental enrichments so birds can engage in important natural behaviors, such as perching, using nest boxes, and having scratching areas. But can a bird that is still behaviorally very much like its ancestor the jungle fowl really express natural behavior in a cage?

The answer is a definitive “no.” The word “enrichment” has positive connotations that quite frankly are not supported by science. In a previous blog, I state that these cages are better described as “furnished” rather than “enriched.” This may seem like wordplay, but the point is that while adding a perch or a nest area to a cage can be factually described as furnishing it, it’s a matter of (scientific) opinion as to whether or not it actually “enriches” the confinement of the bird. Let me explain.

The provision of perches is one of the claimed welfare benefits of furnished cages. Now, you might wonder how it is possible for a bird to get up on a perch in a cage. I suspect that your picture of a bird roosting is probably similar to mine: a bird in a tree or in the rafters of a barn, high up to enable the bird to feel safe from predators and other threats. In a furnished cage the perch is likely to be less than 3 inches off the floor, while the wire top of the cage will be just 15 inches above that. You might argue that as no predators can get into cages the bird must automatically feel safe, but this misses the point. Chickens originate from jungle fowl of southern Asia and, regardless of the cross breeding and hybridization of the species over the years, their natural behavior remains pretty much the same. Scientists have established that in order for chickens to be free from fear and distress they need to be able to get up on a perch where they feel “safe” (Olssen and Keeling 2000; Cooper and Albentosa 2003).

Scientists in Europe have already established that the furnished cage “perch” just isn’t up to the job. In 2012, standard battery cages will be prohibited across the whole of the European Union, following the introduction of legislation in 1999. To assist farmers in the transition, the European Union has funded a huge amount of research into furnished cages and bird welfare. The EU Animal Health and Welfare Panel (AHAW, 2005a) states that “Resting and perching are important aspects of birds’ welfare. Roosting at night on an elevated perch is a behavioral priority.” At just a couple of inches off the floor, scientists have established that hens will regard the “perch” in a furnished cage simply as part of the floor and not as a perch (Tauson, 1984).

Let’s move on to another of the other supposed benefits of a furnished cage: the fact it has a nest area. It is well established that hens place a high value on a secluded nest site. Research has shown that hens will move weighted doors and squeeze through gaps to get to what they consider to be a suitable site. Early work on enriched cages (Guesdon and Faure, 2004) showed that eggs laid in the nest area varied between 43% and 68% in a trial comparing four designs of furnished cages with standard cages. This suggests that the nest areas were not always satisfactory for the hens and reiterates the “furnished versus enriched” argument. The provision of a nest site is not the point: the hens must find it acceptable or they won’t see it as “enrichment.”

The reduced space in cages generally, combined with the small area set aside for nesting in furnished cages, is also a problem. Hens naturally lay at the same time each day – early in the morning – so there could be a line of hens waiting for their turn to get into the nest area. This is not an issue for non-cage systems which provide far more space and more numerous nest boxes.

In some reports on the recent agreement HSUS is quoted as saying that these new cages are better because they are 12 foot by four foot (or 48 square feet). Again, this really is missing the point: the actual size of the cage is nowhere near as relevant as the amount of space each bird gets. A standard broiler house will be around 20,000 square feet, but each of the 20,000 or more birds within the house only gets about 1 foot square as its personal space allowance. Let’s be very clear that whether the cage is 20 inches by 21 inches like a standard battery cage, or 12 foot by four foot, we are still talking about confinement of chickens in cages.

So what exactly is the benefit for the individual bird when moving from a standard to an “enriched” cage? The UEP press release says that as part of its agreement with HSUS the two groups will jointly ask Congress for federal legislation which would require egg producers to increase space per bird in a “tiered phase in,” with the amount of space birds are given increasing, in intervals, over the next 15-18 years. Currently, the majority of birds are each provided 67 square inches of space. The proposed phase-in would culminate with hens eventually being provided with 124-144 square inches of space.

Leaving aside the fact that it sounds like (at least initially) farmers could install enriched cages and still stock them at the same rate as they currently stock their standard battery cages, we need to ask if 144 square inches per bird is sufficient space? On one hand you might say that any increase in space must be positive for the birds; but on the other, if those in the egg industry are going to claim great changes to their systems then they ought to be meaningful. Of course, it’s natural to think that if a hen is moved from 68 square inches to 144 square inches she will feel like she’s gained something. But unfortunately that isn’t how it works: A hen put in a cage that allows her 144 square inches doesn’t know how lucky she is to have more than 68 square inches room. She simply finds that she hasn’t got enough room to move. Her individual welfare is not improved.

Dawkins and Hardie (1989) looked at the average space required by a hen to carry out basic needs and found that a bird requires an average space of 198 square inches to turn; stretching wings requires 138 square inches; and flapping wings 290 square inches. You’ll probably notice that these figures are all far greater than the space provided per bird in a furnished cage. Of course, each cage holds more than one hen and will be greater than 144 square inches in total, so you could argue that within the cage there is 290 square inches for a particular hen to flap her wings at any given time. Of course, she’d have to count on the co-operation of all the other hens to move out of her way and not want to stretch their own wings at the same time as her. And we’re not even considering the need of the bird to run, fly and forage.

Dustbathing is another key natural behavior (Lindberg and Nicol, 1997) that the furnished cage is supposed to facilitate. Dustbathing involves the hen lying down and throwing litter or other loose material over the feathers of their backs and wings; rubbing it in and then shaking it out. When hens do not have a suitable area and litter in which to dustbathe, they still go through the motions of dustbathing. This is known as sham ‘dustbathing’ and research suggests that it does not properly satisfy the motivation of hens to dustbathe. Scientists found that in enriched cages sham dustbathing on the wire cage floor takes place far more frequently than in the littered area (Lindberg and Nicol, 1997), with two thirds of dustbathing taking place outside of the designated area. At first it was thought that the restricted space in cages was contributing to this and that as dustbathing tends to take place at the same time each day (like egg laying) the birds would be motivated to dustbathe at the same time. But further research (Olsson and Keeling, 2002) shows that there was no relation between sham dustbathing and competition for use of the litter area. This suggests that the area, the type of litter provided, and the depth of litter provided in furnished cages just does not meet the hens’ requirement for a dustbathing area. Like the nest box, it’s not just the provision of a designated area that is important; it’s whether the hens see it as acceptable. In non-cage systems where there is litter on the floor and/or access to outdoor areas there is no evidence of sham dustbathing (AHAW, 2005b). Remember, too, that this agreement between UEP and HSUS does absolutely nothing to address other important welfare issues, such as routine removal of part of the birds’ beaks in caged egg production systems to prevent them from pecking each other in the confined conditions.

Of course, this agreement between HSUS and UEP will ultimately mean very little if the proposed legislation is not actually passed or becomes watered-down during its journey through Congress. Call me a cynic but to assume that the poultry lobby won’t attempt to influence the legislative process is somewhat naïve. In light of this newfound concern for animal welfare, I am also intrigued to know what plans UEP now has to amend its own standards. Or maybe UEP is just happy to wait for the legislation – if and when it comes…

But perhaps the most perplexing aspect of this recent agreement is that just over a year ago HSUS carried out a review of the welfare problems associated with enriched cages, which concluded that enriched cages provided “an unacceptably limited amount of space per bird.” Having reviewed the science myself I am at a complete loss as to what changes have occurred in the last year to make these previously unacceptable enriched cages suddenly so acceptable to HSUS. And while we can debate whether there is any welfare benefit to the agreement reached between UEP and HSUS, it is frankly unacceptable for Wayne Pacelle and HSUS to now present enriched caged systems as “humane.” The fact is that this new agreement between HSUS and UEP appears to offer little in terms of animal welfare, yet much in terms of positive PR. In light of these concerns, perhaps the two parties involved would agree to publicize the full terms of the agreement to allow an open, honest and democratic debate. Until that point I have to assume there are other forces at play, because I fail to see how this private backroom agreement that effectively leaves billions of hens in cages achieves much at all.

References:

AHAW (2005a) Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens (Question EFSA-Q-2003-092), adopted by the AHAW Panel on 10th and 11th November 2004. The EFSA Journal, 197: 1-23.

AHAW (2005b) Report of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Welfare on a request from the Commission related to welfare aspects of various systems of keeping laying hens (Question EFSA-Q-2003-092), accepted by the AHAW Panel on 14th and 15th September 2004. Annex to The EFSA Journal, 197: 1-23.

Cooper, J. J. and Albentosa, M. J. (2003) Behavioural priorities of laying hens. Avian and Poultry Biology Reviews, 14: 127-149.

Dawkins, M. S. and Hardie, S. (1989) Space needs of laying hens. British Poultry Science, 30: 413-416.

Guedson, V. and Faure, J. M. (2004) Laying performance and egg quality in hens kept in standard or furnished cages. Animal Research, 53: 45-57.

Lindberg, A. C. and Nicol, C. J. (1997) Dust-bathing in modified battery cages: Is sham dust-bathing an adequate substitute? Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 55: 113-128.

Olsson, I. A. S. and Keeling, L. J. (2000) Night-time roosting in laying hens and the effect of thwarting access to perches. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 68: 243-256.

Olsson, I. A. S. and Keeling, L. J. (2002) No effect of social competition on sham dustbathing in furnished cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A, Animal Science, 52: 253-256.

Tauson, R. (1984) Effect of a perch in conventional cages for laying hens. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, 74: 193-209.

The Pride of New York Retail Promotion Grant program is working to help NY consumers identify food items from New York State. Their aim is to help increase sales for both NY farmers and retailers.

State Acting Agriculture Commissioner Darrel Aubertine says, “Consumer awareness and interest in buying local food has increased dramatically in recent years…This program will provide valuable assistance to retailers to help them source more local New York products as well as necessary resources to develop customized promotional materials that highlight local businesses. We are pleased to offer this financial opportunity that will support the New York State economy and benefit all sides of the equation, including retailers, farmers, food processors and consumers alike.”

Who is eligible?
Individual food stores, as well as grocery store chains in New York State.   Meat, dairy and egg products are included in the list of eligible products.

Applicants must be selling products that have been produced on NY Farms and also processed in NY.

Funds available:
Each applicant is eligible for up to a total of $5,000 (no more than $350 per individual store).

$3,500 to highlight fresh produce, and $1,500 to promote processed and value-added products made in New York. The funding can be used to supplement existing consumer-focused programs or to initiate new “buy local” retail efforts.

There is a total of $43,172 available for this one-time program.

Deadline:
Grants will be awarded on a first come, first served basis.

Matching Funds
Funding must be matched by the retailer and no more than $350 per individual store will be awarded (based on this calculation, in order to be eligible for the full $5,000, a retailer would need to have 14 stores).

Promotional and Marketing Assistance
The NY State Department of Agriculture & Markets will also provide to eligible applicants for promotional and marketing assistance in:

• developing or expanding “buy local” promotions that can be customized and consumer-oriented and that range from point-of-sale materials and promotional items to advertising.
• expanding their local purchases by showcasing other specialty crop based processed products available in New York State throughout the year.

To download the application, please visit the New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets website.
For additional information contact Dtrae Carter, Retail Promotion Specialist, at 518-457-2774 or dtraecelle.carter@agmkt.state.ny.us

You may expect that animals on organic farms would be raised with the highest welfare in mind, with lots of space and free access to pasture. You may expect that all organic farmers would be caring and conscientious enough to allow organic animals to exhibit their natural behaviors.  You may expect that organic farms would be far superior to industrial farms and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

Sorry to dash your hopes, but all organic farmers do not necessarily raise their animals with even Big Ag’s welfare standards as a base. It might surprise you to know that the United States National Organic Program (NOP) – the federal regulatory framework that governs organic food and farming in the U.S. – has no specific rules on the amount of space that organic farmers are required to give their animals whenever they are housed indoors. This obviously raises questions about animal welfare.

Fortunately, plans were announced earlier this year to remedy this regrettable situation. The Livestock Committee of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) is responsible for making recommendations to ensure that livestock standards are implemented to maintain both organic standards for consumers and good living conditions for the animals. The Committee has now put forward a raft of changes to organic regulations that include new rules on space requirements for organic livestock.

One would presume that the NOSB’s recommendations would automatically represent a welcome step forward in terms of organic farm animal welfare. But the shocking reality is that the NOSB’s recommendations on space requirements for organic systems mean that some organic animals could actually have less space than you’d find in an industrialized intensive farming system, leaving consumer expectations – and the animals themselves – quite literally squashed.

In its recommendation document, NOSB notes that: “Animal welfare is a basic principle of organic production…it is our intention to create a comprehensive animal welfare program that benefits both livestock and farmers.” The document goes on to say: “Ultimately, the Livestock Committee would like the organic seal to be the gold standard, indicating the most nutritious food produced in the safest and most humane manner.”

At Animal Welfare Approved, we agree that the highest levels of animal welfare should form the very foundation of all organic farming systems. But if the NOSB’s starting point is the space recommendations proposed, the Board has a very long way to go before it can claim to have a program that truly benefits organic animal welfare – let alone sets the gold standard for humanely produced food.

When it comes to certified organic livestock standards, surely it isn’t too much to ask that the space given to organic animals is at least equivalent to the space given to non-organic livestock? That is surely a no-brainer, right? Wrong again.

While the NOSB’s recommendations for organic pigs require that  farmers provide both an outdoor area and an indoor area for their pigs, if you add these two areas together,  the total NOSB recommended area for an organic pig is actually less than the total indoor area that the National Pork Board requires for its non-organic, indoor, intensively raised pigs. Yes, you read that right: the NOSB’s recommendation on the space required for organically raised pigs is actually less than that required for many intensively farmed pigs.

Let’s take a closer look at those space recommendations for organic pigs. Under the NOSB’s recommendations, organic farmers would have to provide a twenty four pound pig with just one square foot of space indoors and 0.5 square foot outdoors. Think about just how small one square foot actually is. We’re talking about a space that is a little bigger than a sheet of letter paper. Is this seriously an example of the gold standard when it comes to animal welfare? Does the NOSB really think that this is the kind of space that consumers expect organic animals to have lived in?  It’s absolutely disgraceful.

Time and time again, the NOSB’s public statements are completely at odds with its recommendations. On poultry, the board says: “A minimum of 2 square feet per bird is required to protect the soil and to minimize parasite loads via paddock rotation.” And indoors the space required can be as little as 1 square foot per bird. At Animal Welfare Approved, we know that keeping appropriate numbers of animals in a given field space, combined with a strategy of moving animals regularly around the fields on the farm, can massively reduce the incidence of parasites and other health and disease problems, as well as allowing birds and animals to perform their natural behaviors. But allowing two square feet per bird is not nearly enough space to achieve these benefits. Not even close.

It is hard to understand why NOSB has made its recommendations so low. The organization states that: “The less space provided per animal, the more labor-intensive it may be to keep them clean and in good health…” and that “…outdoor access is important for all livestock to enhance muscle tone and relieve boredom.” Yet these good intentions amount to nothing if the recommendation that comes out of them means that organic pigs have less indoor space than non-organic intensively farmed pigs, or if organic chickens have only one square foot per bird for outdoor access.

Regarding the NOSB’s statement about the less space an animal has, the harder it is to keep it in good health…we wholeheartedly agree. It has been shown repeatedly that animals in cramped, stressful conditions are more susceptible to disease. Since organic standards prohibit the use of antibiotics – even when an animal is sick – you would think that the NOSB’s recommendations on the numbers of animals that farmers can keep indoors would be set at a level to promote health, not to actively compromise it.

Do these proposed stocking densities reflect the reality of what is actually provided for organic livestock? I know many certified organic farmers who are farming in the organic spirit, who pride themselves on the highest welfare standards, and whose livestock housing facilities already far exceed the NOSB’s inadequate recommendations. Many of these farmers are also part of the Animal Welfare Approved program – a clear statement of their dedication to providing their animals with the highest standards of welfare.

But while there are many reputable organic farmers who are passionate about the organic ethos, I am afraid that there are also some who are only interested in providing the bare minimum of space for their livestock. These businesses will certainly not want to make massive investments to increase their housing space, nor will they want to decrease their current stock numbers to meet any new space requirements. Is this what has driven the NOSB Livestock Committee to make such weak recommendations? Whatever the motivation, the NOSB’s recommendations are a disservice to the many thousands of real organic farmers out there. The NOSB should be ashamed at setting the bar so low and missing the opportunity to put pressure on those organic businesses that are failing to farm to the high standards that consumers reasonably expect.

Although the NOSB may claim to have great aspirations for organic livestock standards, its recommendations on animal stocking densities don’t even come close to meeting them. Until such time as they do, consumers should remember that countless Animal Welfare Approved farmers are already meeting the gold standard for meat and dairy products, farming under the most rigorous and progressive animal care requirements in the United States.

People put their trust in the organic label in the belief that it will provide farm animals with high levels of animal welfare. Yet in many cases this trust is being repaid with apathy and downright deceit when it comes to real standards that will benefit animal welfare. If, like us, you feel strongly about the NOSB’s inadequate proposals please let us know, and tell the NOSB before its next meeting at the end of April 2011.

You can submit your comments here on the NOSB’s proposed recommendations on animal welfare standards – including those on stocking densities –until April 10, 2011. It’s high time that we called on the NOSB to step up to the plate and create truly robust organic standards that consumers expect – and which farm animals deserve.