Editor's Note: Continuing with our Food Revolution series, today John Robbins compares the idyllic view of animal husbandry that corporations seek to project with the realities of modern 'animal processing'. As in other areas of our economic system, health, happiness and sustainability take a back seat in the drive for maximised profits.
by John Robbins, an author widely recognized as one of the world's leading experts on the intimate link between diet and environmental and personal health. Amongst others, John is the author of the revolutionary book 'Diet for a New America', a book nominated for a pulitzer prize, as well as the updated 'Food Revolution' and 'Healthy at 100'.
Order here (U.S.)
or here (Europe) |
But we don’t do that anymore. Why? Because it dawned on us that while the ritual provided us with entertainment and a sense of wonder, it was cruel. What we were actually seeing were birds who had been trucked in, crowded underground, and then propelled upward, and who were terrified, confused, and disorganized. What we were seeing were birds who were exhausted and panicked, and who, trying to fend for themselves in strange surroundings, would perish as a result of the theatrical display. At the Korean games, many of the frightened and disoriented doves actually flew into the Olympic flame, with the result that the millions watching were treated to the less than inspiring spectacle of seeing the birds burned alive.
There are still many places, including Disneyland, where dove releases persist. But as people have started to be more aware of what really takes place, the practice has become for many people as unappealing as cock-fighting, bull-fighting, dog-fighting, or any other form of “entertainment” in which animals are mutilated or killed.
Before I knew better, I liked watching the doves be released. I never thought of the actual birds, or what happened to them. I assumed they just flew free. But once you know, you can never forget.
So often I’ve been blind. I remember, when I was a child, thinking that fur coats were fabulous. I never imagined that fur-bearing animals trapped in the wild inevitably suffer slow, agonizing deaths. Or that when we purchase the products of fur farms, we support massive animal pain and death. But slowly it dawned on me that, as beautiful as furs are, they look a lot better on their original owners (the foxes, minks, and other animals from whom they were taken). When I see someone wearing a fur now, I don’t see a fashion statement, I see ignorance of the pain that is involved, and I see cruelty.
When I was a child, I would go to a friend’s house where there were deer heads on the walls. I thought they were cool. But comedian Ellen DeGeneres has a point when she says, “You ask people why they have deer heads on the wall. They always say, ‘Because it’s such a beautiful animal.’ There you go. I think my mother’s attractive, but I have photographs of her.”
I remember thinking ivory was incredible. I thought wearing an ivory bracelet gave you some connection to the elephants, and maybe even let you carry some of their awesome power. I didn’t want anyone to limit my freedom and tell me I shouldn’t buy or use ivory. But now I know there’s nothing positive about the merchandising of extinction.
We’re learning that there’s nothing cool about cruelty, but sometimes we still have to rethink our attitudes. I used to think it was great to see dogs and cats have litters. The puppies and kittens were so adorable. But then I learned how great is our cat and dog overpopulation problem. Seventy thousand puppies and kittens are born every day in the United States, and only 15,000 of them will ever be adopted as pets. Twenty million cats and dogs are killed each year at U.S. animal shelters because there are no homes for them. Now I think “Neuter is cuter.”
It’s amazing to me how good I was at not seeing animal suffering, even when, or maybe particularly when, my own actions were causing pain. I didn’t want to see it. I wanted to keep my eyes closed, lest I be troubled by the pain and feelings of helplessness that such awareness often brings.
This is another of the reasons the pig farmer is one of my heroes. He broke through the wall of denial. He saw that what he was doing with his life was causing animals to suffer, and he decided, even though he did not know how he would manage to feed his family, to stop and find a better way. Armed only with the depth of his feeling that what he had long been doing was contrary to his own spirit and to the well-being of life, he did the one thing that many of us find the hardest to do, and the one thing that integrity always requires. He brought his life into alignment with his heart.
What gave him the strength to do this? I believe it was not only that his childhood feelings reemerged with such force. This was important, but it took something else, too. I believe he drew strength, whether he knew it or not, from the changes that are sweeping across our society in the way we treat animals.
An awareness is dawning. We no longer allow entrepreneurs to trade in protected and endangered species. Every day more people are deciding not to purchase or wear furs, and not to condone trophy hunting. More and more frequently, people are asking whether it’s really necessary to test oven cleaners and floor waxes by dripping them into the eyes of rabbits. And whether schoolchildren should be forced to dissect animals when there are more sophisticated learning techniques that yield more knowledge with less suffering.
You see the changes in many places. You see people refusing to buy shampoos or other body care products from companies that test on animals, and instead buying cosmetics and other household products that are made without cruelty.
We’re learning to see what we didn’t see before, and then, when we have the courage, creating the changes that make our lives congruent with what we know. Every day, you see people adopting animals from local pounds or shelters instead of puppy mills (which are really puppy hells). Every year, you see people coming to understand the responsibilities of having pets and treating their beloved animal companions as friends for life.
Once you start to notice the surging interest in compassion toward animals, you find it’s everywhere. You see people working to create wildlife sanctuaries and to preserve natural habitat for wild animals. You see people choosing not to consume tunafish that isn’t dolphin-safe, and others refusing to buy tunafish because they don’t want to kill the tuna (magnificent creatures who may be the most powerful swimmers in the ocean, reaching speeds of up to 70 miles an hour). You see people starting to take crimes against animals seriously.
We’re helping each other to become mature, and to accept the responsibility that allows us to be fully human. We’re looking at our actions, and trying, when we can, to change those that are causing other beings to suffer.
This is what makes my heart sing—people making their lives into statements of compassion. I celebrate it with all my might. And yet there remains one area where most of us, whether we know it or not, still contribute quite directly to the unnecessary exploitation of animals. It is an area where, to this point, most of us haven’t yet looked at the impact of our choices. And it is, strangely enough, the very area in our lives where most of us have the greatest direct contact with animals.
It’s an area the pig farmer knows quite a lot about.
Not Humanity at Its Finest
Since ancient times, the industries and people who raise animals for meat, milk, and eggs were obligated to make sure that the basic needs of the animals in their care were met. If many animals fell sick or suffered from lack of food, water, or protection, the productivity of the operation suffered, as well as the animals. Livestock operators had a vested interest in the well-being of the animals they raised. They did well only if the animals did well.
It made sense, historically, for farmers to place animals in environments as harmonious to them as possible, and to protect the animals from predators, weather extremes, drought, and famine. The image of the biblical shepherd leading his animals to green pastures suggests how long this way of life persisted.
Much changed, however, with the advent of intensive factory farming. Modern technology has made possible a shift in the time-honored responsibility livestock producers had for the welfare of their animals. Starting in the last half of the twentieth century, it became not only possible, but economically advantageous, to raise animals in conditions that are completely unnatural and unhealthy and that frustrate virtually all of their urges and instincts.
Although extreme crowding of animals greatly increases the rates of the animals’ illnesses and deaths, it nevertheless also raises profits. Even when more than 20 percent of pigs and chickens die prematurely in today’s intensive husbandry systems, for instance, producers find their profits increased by such practices.
The overcrowding that’s typical today would once have been unthinkable, because animals kept in such conditions would have been decimated by diseases. But now, with antibiotics mixed into every meal, with the widespread use of hormones, drugs, and biocides, enough of the animals can be kept alive so that overcrowding becomes cost-effective. Although nearly all of the animals get sick, and many die prematurely, the overall economic efficiency of the system is maximized.
It might seem obvious that animals born with bones and muscles are meant to move. But modern animal factories have found it pays to virtually immobilize animals in crates and cages. And although animals clearly have distinct social needs, factory farms now find it in their financial interest to raise billions of animals in conditions that so completely disregard these needs as to violate the animals’ biological natures.
Chickens, for example, are highly social animals. In any kind of natural setting, be it a farmyard or the wild, they develop a social hierarchy, often known as a “pecking order.” Every bird yields, at the food trough and elsewhere, to those above it in rank, and takes precedence over those below. The social order is extremely important to these birds. According to studies published in the New Scientist, chickens can maintain a stable pecking order, with each bird knowing all the others individually and aware of its place among them, in flocks with up to 90 chickens (1). With more than 90 birds, however, things can get out of hand. In any kind of natural setting, flocks would never get that large. But in the warehouses where today’s chickens are fattened for meat, flocks tend to be a larger than the 90-bird limit. How much larger? There are as many as 30,000 or more “broiler” chickens crowded together inside one building.
Layer hens, meanwhile, are crammed together in cages so tiny that they do not have enough space even to begin to lift a single wing. The amount of space the birds are given for their entire lives is less than they would have if you stuffed several of them into a file drawer. One building will frequently house 100,000 hens packed together under such conditions.
The industries behind all this, however, tell the public that it’s all being done for the animals’ own good. Immobilizing animals for their entire lives, they say, is done for the sake of the animals themselves....
Is That So?
“Animal behavior is as varied as human behavior. In some cases, animals are restrained to avoid injuring themselves, other animals, or the farmer. All forms of restraint are designed for the welfare of the animal as well as efficiency of production.” - Animal Industry Foundation (2).Pigs are highly sociable and active creatures, who will in a natural setting travel 30 miles a day grazing, rooting, and interacting with their environment. In the evening, groups of pigs will prepare a communal nest from branches and grass, in which they will spend the night together (4).“One of the best things modern animal agriculture has going for it is that most people . . . haven’t a clue how animals are raised and processed. . . . If most urban meat-eaters were to visit an industrial broiler house, to see how the birds are raised, and could see the birds being ‘harvested’ and then being ‘processed’ in a poultry processing plant, some, perhaps many of them, would swear off eating chicken and perhaps all meat. For modern animal agriculture, the less the consumer knows about what’s happening before the meat hits the plate, the better.” - Peter R. Cheeke, Professor of Animal Science, Oregon State University; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Animal Science (3).
In today’s pig factories, however, pregnant sows are isolated and locked in individual narrow metal crates that are barely larger than the pigs’ bodies. Unable to take a single step or turn around, they are restrained in this un-bedded, cement-floor crate for months at a time, subject to what the industry calls “full confinement” virtually all their lives. Some crates are so narrow that the animal is literally boxed in, almost completely immobilized, so that simply standing up or lying down require strenuous effort. Often, the sows are tied to the floor by a short chain or strap around their necks. Thus, these naturally gregarious and active animals are deprived of all social contact and all possibility of natural physical movement (5).
Meanwhile, the industry tells the public it wouldn’t think of mistreating these animals....
Is That So?
“Animal welfare is the cornerstone of good animal husbandry. . . . Confinement rearing has its precedents. Schools are examples of ‘confinement rearing’ of children which, if handled properly, are effective.” - National Live Stock and Meat Board (6).The Veil Begins to Lift“U.S. society is extremely naïve about the nature of [animal] agricultural production. . . . In fact, if the public knew more about the way in which agricultural animal production infringes on animal welfare, the outcry would be louder. . . . If the public knew, for instance, that some swine [pigs] raised in total confinement literally never see the light of day, it would be more, not less, hostile to current agriculture.” - Bernard Rollin, Colorado State University expert on animal farming, author of more than 150 papers and 10 books on ethics and animal science (7).
If a substantial percentage of the public became aware of how farm animals are treated today, there would be changes. But the meat, dairy, and egg industries have sought to perpetuate the myth that the animals are perfectly content. The Perdue chicken company, for example, has boasted of raising “happy chickens.” Meat packages alike often decorated with pictures of happy animals peacefully cavorting in idyllic conditions. The Carnation Company has presented ads portraying “contented cows.” Egg cartons carry drawings of joyful hens, dancing under the blessings of a smiling sun.
Of course, that’s for the public. Industry journals reveal a slightly different picture.
“What we are really trying to do is to modify the animal’s environment for maximum profit. . . . Forget the pig is an animal. Treat him just like a machine in a factory.” (Hog Farm Management)(8)In Great Britain, the veil began to be lifted, and public consciousness began to be raised as early as the late 1960s, when Ruth Harrison’s book Animal Machines introduced the public to industrialized agriculture. The book mobilized social concern to the point that the British government appointed a royal commission to investigate. In confinement farming, Harrison warned, “cruelty is acknowledged only where profitability ceases.” (9).
In the United States, popular understanding of the realities of modern meat production was first sparked in the late 1970s, when Peter Singer wrote the seminal Animal Liberation, followed in 1980 by the classic book Animal Factories, co-written with Jim Mason. In the late 1980s, Diet for a New America brought the issue to the attention of a great number of people, and contributed to the wider cultural awareness of how our livestock are treated. Noting the human health consequences to factory farming, I wrote . . .
“Increasingly, in the last few decades, the animals raised for meat, dairy products and eggs in the United States have been subjected to ever more deplorable conditions. Merely to keep the poor creatures alive under these circumstances, even more chemicals have had to be used, and increasingly, hormones, pesticides, antibiotics and other chemicals and drugs end up in foods derived from animals.” (Diet for a New America)(10).How do you think the cattlemen countered this charge? In a report they produced in response to Diet for a New America, they wrote,
“An analogy would be to say that ‘increasingly, in the last few decades, humans have been subjected to ever more deplorable conditions as they moved from rural homes (with no running water, no plumbing, no electricity and no indoor toilet) into urban homes (with central air and heat, telephones, electricity, plumbing, running water, and indoor toilets). It’s true that more chemicals are used now than then, for humans and farm animals, but not merely to keep them alive (but) because they improve living conditions.” (National Cattlemen’s Association’s response to Diet for a New America )(11).The U.S. meat and dairy industries responded to Diet For a New America by spending more on advertising and public relations than ever, seeking to re-assert control of America’s food dollars, and to reassure the public about animal treatment....
Is That So?
“Don’t worry about farm animals. Today’s farmers treat their livestock with the same caring concern as ordinary people treat their pets.” - Robert “Butch” Johnson, poultry producer (12).Meanwhile, in Sweden, children’s author Astrid Lindgren, who was appalled by the treatment of animals in confinement systems, was leading a campaign that resulted in Swedish legislation that greatly restricts confinement agriculture and mandates that the rearing of animals be suited to the animals’ natures. The law was passed by the Swedish Parliament virtually unopposed in 1987, and produced stunning benefits to public health as well as to animal welfare by greatly reducing the incidence of food-borne disease. By 1995, the editor of the U.S. journal Meat and Poultry was writing that, while there are more than 1 million cases of Salmonella poisoning in the United States annually, in Sweden the number had dropped to a mere 800.14.“Agribusiness companies tell us that animals in factory farms are ‘as well cared for as their own pet dog or cat.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. The life of an animal in a factory farm is characterized by acute deprivation, stress, and disease. Hundreds of millions of animals are forced to live in cages or crates just barely larger than their own bodies. While one species may be caged alone without any social contact, another species may be crowded so tightly together that they fall prey to stress-induced cannibalism. Cannibalism is particularly prevalent in the cramped confinement of hogs and laying hens. Unable to groom, stretch their legs, or even turn around, the victims of factory farms exist in a relentless state of distress.”- Humane Farming Association (13).
During the 1990s, laws prohibiting confinement rearing of pigs and cage rearing of poultry were passed in several other European countries. At the same time, many groups in the United States were working to educate ever more people about the actual conditions in which modern livestock are raised, and to strengthen the demand that changes be made to reduce the animals’ suffering. And industry groups, often speaking through the Animal Industry Foundation, were opposing them at every turn.
What We Know
Organizations advocating the factory farming of livestock: Animal Industry Foundation, and their board of trustees, which includes the American Veal Association, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Milk Producers Council, National Pork Producers Council, National Turkey Federation, United Egg Producers, U.S. Poultry and Egg Association, American Feed Industry Association, and many others.
Nonprofit groups dedicated to educating the public about the realities of factory farming: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Humane Farming Association (HFA), Farm Sanctuary, Compassion in World Farming, Farm Animals Concern Trust (FACT), Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM), United Poultry Concerns, GRACE Factory Farm Project, Animal Welfare Institute, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Animal Rights International, EarthSave, and many others.
Ever eager to discredit anyone who openly discusses the way animals are treated in today’s factory farms, some in the livestock industry say that those speaking out on behalf of animals don’t know what they’re talking about. Others, however, disagree....
Is That So?
“There are a lot of loud-mouthed activists out there who want everyone to think modern meat is produced on terrible factory farms where animals are mistreated. So boo-hoo. Most of these self-styled experts wouldn’t know which part of a cow to milk.” - The Beef-Eater’s Guide to Modern Meat (15).Did Somebody Say McLibel?“A common perception of livestock people is that animal rights activists don’t understand the livestock industry (they don’t ‘get it,’ in current terminology) because of their urban backgrounds. . . . The activists do ‘get it,’ they know what is going on, and they don’t like it.”- Peter R. Cheeke, Professor of Animal Science, Oregon State University; Editorial Board Member, Journal of Animal Science (16)..
In 1999, McDonald’s was nominated for the prestigious Business Ethics Award, given by the judges at Business Ethics magazine. But the magazine decided not to grant the award to McDonald’s. An open letter from the judges to McDonald’s, published in the November/December 1999 issue of Business Ethics, explained why:
“We must express concern about slaughterhouse cruelty by McDonald’s suppliers. . . . Federal standards require that 100 percent of cows be fully stunned before they are skinned, but (according to) . . . a McDonald’s training video . . . it’s acceptable if five cows in every 100 are conscious while skinned and dismembered. It’s inhumane to allow animals to suffer in this manner. And the real error rate may be far more than 5 percent. . . . In the case of chickens, USDA recommendations say they should have at least 2 square feet of space, yet McDonald’s suppliers allow only .55 square feet—not enough space for a chicken to spread one wing. In addition, birds are bred to grow so large, their legs can’t bear the weight, and they suffer painful leg deformities. Surely it’s not asking too much to change policies, so that these animals are granted a modicum of comfort. The problems cited here go beyond McDonald’s. But McDonald’s is the nation’s largest purchaser of beef, and the second largest purchaser of poultry. It has clout. And as CEO Jack Greenburg himself said, McDonald’s wants ‘to take industry leadership in animal welfare.’ If McDonald’s required changes, suppliers would comply.”McDonald’s has repeatedly claimed in public announcements that it’s the industry leader in animal welfare. But the editors of Business Ethics were aware of the extraordinary “McLibel” trial in Great Britain, in which McDonald’s sued five unemployed activists who had distributed a pamphlet finding fault with many of its practices. Two of the activists, Helen Steel and Dave Morris, with virtually no financial backing, proceeded to take on one of the world’s largest multinational corporations in what became the longest running libel suit in British legal history. McDonald’s fought bitterly, spending more than $16 million in legal fees (17). But in 1997, when Chief Justice Roger Bell of the British High Court in London returned his lengthy findings, he said it had been proven that the animals that became McDonald’s products were treated cruelly, and McDonald’s was “culpably responsible” for this cruelty (18). McDonald’s subsequently appealed, but an Appeals Court judge agreed with the conclusions of the Chief Justice.
On the matter of chickens, Chief Justice Bell said, “Keeping large numbers of chickens in close confinement inevitably leads to disease. . . . The high density is intentional and unnecessary. . . . In my judgement it’s cruel.”
Cruel it may be, but more than 99 percent of U.S. eggs and poultry products come from birds kept in such conditions.
Among the many other factory farm practices Justice Bell deplored are the stalls in which pregnant and nursing pigs are kept for months at a time in a space so small the animals cannot even turn around. The judge wrote that “pigs are intelligent and sociable animals and I have no doubt that keeping pigs in dry sow stalls for extended periods is cruel.”
Although this practice is now illegal in Great Britain and Sweden, and although the European Parliament has urged a complete ban on it throughout the European Economic Community, it continues to be routine procedure in the United States. In fact, 90 percent of U.S. pigs are raised in confinement, their behavioral and psychological needs totally thwarted, their survival in such conditions made possible only by the use of drugs, hormones, mutilations, and antibiotics.
McDonald’s and the others in the meat, dairy, and egg industries repeatedly say that they do what they do in order to bring down the price of food. Making the kinds of changes that animal protection advocates would like, they say, would simply be too costly. But Justice Bell concluded that many cruel farming practices could be easily altered at minimal cost. “There was no evidence,” he said, “that the cost would be increased significantly.”
Today, the very practices that Chief Justice Bell found to be demonstrably cruel—and some that are far more severe—continue unabated in the United States. The reason? For one thing, the Federal Humane Slaughter Act requires that all animals (excluding birds) be stunned properly prior to slaughter, but the law carries no penalties and is rarely enforced. For another, 30 U.S. states specifically exempt “customary” or “normal” farming practices from the legal definition of animal cruelty. In other words, if the industry as a whole is doing it, then by definition it can’t be outlawed. According to attorney David Wolfson, “In effect, state legislatures have granted agribusiness a legal license to treat farm animals as they wish.” (19).
PETA Enters the Fray
After the McLibel trial, in 1997 the U.S.-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) quietly contacted Mike Quinlan (then CEO of McDonald’s), and asked, in light of the judgments made by the British Chief Justice, whether the corporation would be willing to take several specific steps to reduce unnecessary animal suffering (20). If the corporation would show a genuine willingness to address the practices that the Chief Justice had found to be cruel, PETA said, they stood ready and eager to help.
PETA offered to publicly acknowledge McDonald’s leadership in reducing animal suffering and cruelty, if the company would follow through on its stated commitment to animal welfare. As well, PETA offered to give McDonald’s a free two-page promotional spread in its member magazine, which goes to more than 600,000 people, if the company would test-market a veggie burger nationwide (21). This seemed reasonable, in that McDonald’s restaurants in many European countries offer vegetarian burgers and vegetarian nuggets, and the market for veggie burgers in the United States has been expanding rapidly in recent years. But rather than refer these offers to someone with the authority to change policies and procedures, McDonald’s assigned the entire issue of animal welfare and its discussions with PETA to the head of its public relations department.
For two years, PETA engaged in a series of frustrating discussions and negotiations with McDonald’s. While these discussions were taking place, the industry continued its campaign to convince the public that industry practices, even those that might to the “inexperienced” observer seem cruel, were actually done for the animals’ own good, and that anyone who said otherwise simply did not understand animal welfare.
“To the inexperienced viewer, some routine farm handling practices necessary to the welfare and health of the animal and the insurance of quality food may appear brutal, just as some life-saving human surgical and medical practices may seem brutal to the casual observer. All of these practices are done . . . to ensure the welfare of the animal.” (Animal Industry Foundation)(22).Temple Grandin is McDonald’s livestock handling consultant, and the author of the American Meat Institute’s Recommended Animal Handling Guidelines for Meat Packers, plus more than 300 articles in both scientific journals and livestock periodicals on animal handling, welfare, and facility design. She also designed the systems in place in the meat plants in which nearly half the cattle in North America are handled. When asked for her input in the discussions underway between McDonald’s and PETA, Dr. Grandin indicated that the corporation could with virtually no effort require suppliers to hire two stunners, thus markedly decreasing the number of animals who are skinned and dismembered while still conscious (23) — but the company chose not to do so.
Dr. Grandin also noted that the current way chickens are caught for slaughter causes a high incidence of broken wings and legs, and pointed out that in Britain there are incentive plans in place that are effective in reducing the injury and trauma to chickens (24). But despite telling the Associated Press that “if Dr. Grandin sees a problem, we correct it,” McDonald’s again did nothing to improve the situation (25).
Another McDonald’s consultant told the corporation that it would be possible for McDonald’s to obtain a reliable supply of cows and pigs that had been more humanely raised—if McDonald’s would commit to purchasing them (26). But the company’s response was only to state, as it had done so often, that it’s already the leader in animal welfare issues.
Finally, on August 12, 1999, PETA had had enough. In a letter to McDonald’s new CEO expressing the organization’s frustration, PETA wrote,
“Two years of negotiations with McDonald’s have proved that you care not one whit about the animals who are raised and killed for your restaurants. We are disappointed and saddened that McDonald’s public pronouncements about commitment to animal welfare are nothing more than so much public relations. To date, McDonald’s has not even attempted to require slaughterhouses to meet humane standards of slaughter as defined by the USDA.” (27).It was only after the breakdown of two years of frustrating negotiations that PETA in the fall of 1999 launched its international “McCruelty to go” campaign. Graphic billboards and newspaper advertisements—reading “Do you want fries with that? McCruelty to go,” above a picture of a slaughtered cow’s head—were created to inform consumers about McDonald’s failure to implement basic reforms. Despite continual pronouncements from McDonald’s about their commitment to animal welfare, PETA noted, the corporation was still serving the flesh and eggs of animals whose lives were characterized by abject misery, and the hamburger chain still had no mechanism in place to penalize slaughterhouses that consistently skin and dismember conscious animals.
Eleven months later, after PETA had conducted more than 400 demonstrations in 23 countries, McDonald’s finally budged. In late August 2000, the giant company announced an effort to make improvements in the lives of chickens raised for its restaurants. McDonald’s Corporation sent letters to the suppliers providing the company with 1.5 billion eggs yearly, outlining new regulations for raising hens.
The new guidelines called for chickens to have more space than they did previously (from an average of seven to eight hens per 18-inch-by-20-inch cage to a maximum of five), and for the elimination of “forced molting” (the starving of hens in order to increase egg production). At the same time, McDonald’s called for chickens to be caught by more humane methods prior to slaughter, and started auditing slaughterhouses. And for the first time in its history, McDonald’s threatened to cut off suppliers who were not in compliance with humane slaughter guidelines. Applauding these steps, PETA noted that McDonald’s was now doing more than any other fast food outlet, restaurant, or grocery chain in the United States, and that the steps the company was taking would reduce suffering for many millions of animals. PETA declared a one-year moratorium on the campaign against the company.
These were significant steps, and they were important. But Ronald McDonald was still some distance from deserving the halo that the company now tried to place over his bright orange wig. None of the proposed changes, even if fully implemented, would bring the company even up to the basic standards that were already in place in Europe. For example, the new guidelines called for fewer birds to be placed in chicken cages, permitting each bird to have enough room so that it would no longer have to remain standing at all times. This was a marked improvement, but the cages would still be very tightly packed with birds, with each bird getting only half a square foot of space, not nearly enough for any of the hens to spread even a single wing. And by no means could McDonald’s customers be assured that meat at the company’s restaurants came from slaughterhouses in compliance with the Humane Slaughter Act.
Not ones to rest on their laurels, PETA thanked McDonald’s, and proceeded in 2001 to launch a campaign to compel Burger King to institute the same improvements McDonald’s now had in place.
In something of an understatement, PETA’s Bruce Friedrich commented, “We in the U.S. still have a long way to go.”
Editor's Note: Continue to Our Food, Our World - Choices for a Healthy Environment
Further Reading:
References:1. Duncan, I., “Can the Psychologist Measure Stress?” New Scientist, October 18, 1973. 2. Animal Agriculture: Myths and Facts (Arlington, VA: Animal Industry Foundation, 1989), p. 10. 3. Cheeke, Peter, Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture, 2nd ed. (Danville, IL: Interstate Publishers, 1999), p. 248. 4. “Bringing Home the Bacon: A Look Inside the Pork Industry,” Humane Farming Association, 2000. 5. Ibid. 6. “Facts from the Meat Board: The Animal Welfare/Rights Challenge,” Meat Science Department, National Live Stock and Meat Board, 1991. 7. Rollin, Bernard, Farm Animal Welfare: Social, Bioethical and Research Issues (Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press, 1995), p. 23. 8. Hall, M., “Heating Systems for Swine Buildings,” Hog Farm Management (Dec 1975), p. 16. 9. Harrison, Ruth, Animal Machines (London: Vincent Stuart Ltd., 1964), p. 3. 10. Robbins, John, Diet for a New America: How Your Food Choices Affect Your Health, Happiness, and the Future of Life on Earth (Sausalito, CA: H. J. Kramer, 1987), p. xiv. 11. Smith, Gary, “A Perspective of John Robbins’ Diet for a New America,” in Cross, H. Russel, and Byers, Floyd M., eds., Current Issues in Food Production: A Scientific Response to John Robbins’ Diet For A New America, supported by the National Cattlemen's Association (Englewood, CO: National Cattlemen's Association, 1990). 12. Personal communication with author, August 2000. 13. “The Dangers of Factory Farming,” Consumer Alert, Humane Farming Association, 2000. 14. Bjerklie, Steve, “Who Really Has the World's Safest Meat Supply?” Meat and Poultry (August 1995). 15. Holerton, Gene, The Beef-Eater's Guide to Modern Meat (Los Angeles, CA: Holerton Publishing, 1998), p. 19. 16. Cheeke, Animal Agriculture, p. 258. 17. “British Vegetarians Win Some vs. McDonald’s,” Meat Industry Insights, April 1, 1999. 18. Wolfson, David, “McLibel,” Animal Law 5 (1999). 19. Wolfson, David, Beyond the Law: Agribusiness and the Systemic Abuse of Animals Raised for Food or Food Production, Farm Sanctuary (1999), p. 7. 20. Letter dated July 29, 1997, from Bruce G. Friedrich, Vegetarian Campaign Coordinator, PETA. 21. In discussion among Bob Langert (McDonald’s), Temple Grandin, and Steven Jay Gross (PETA), March 23, 1999. 22. Animal Agriculture, p. 13. 23. In discussion among Bob Langert (McDonald’s), Temple Grandin, and Steven Jay Gross (PETA), June 22, 1999. 24. In discussion among Bob Langert (McDonald’s), Temple Grandin, and Steven Jay Gross (PETA), December 11, 1998. 25. See August 30, 1999, letter from Steve Gross (PETA) to Jack Greenburg (CEO, McDonald’s) and October 18, 1999, letter from Bruce Friedrich (PETA) to Jack Greenburg. 26. Mentioned in discussion among Bob Langert (McDonald’s), Temple Grandin, and Steven Jay Gross (PETA), June 22, 1999. 27. Letter of August 12, 1999, from Steve Gross (PETA).
