[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REVIEW OF THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS IN AGRICULTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON LIVESTOCK, DAIRY, AND POULTRY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 8, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-18
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
www.agriculture.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
39-809 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota, Chairman
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
Vice Chairman Ranking Minority Member
MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina TERRY EVERETT, Alabama
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JOE BACA, California ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia SAM GRAVES, Missouri
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia JO BONNER, Alabama
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
Dakota STEVE KING, Iowa
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas MARILYN N. MUSGRAVE, Colorado
JIM COSTA, California RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
BRAD ELLSWORTH, Indiana Louisiana
NANCY E. BOYDA, Kansas JOHN R. "Randy" KUHL, Jr., New
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio York
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
JOHN BARROW, Georgia KEVIN McCARTHY, California
NICK LAMPSON, Texas TIM WALBERG, Michigan
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
TIM MAHONEY, Florida
Professional Staff
Robert L. Larew, Chief of Staff
Andrew W. Baker, Chief Counsel
William E. O'Conner, Jr., Minority Staff Director
.........................................................
__________
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa, Chairman
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin Ranking Minority Member
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JOE BACA, California STEVE KING, Iowa
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
NICK LAMPSON, Texas K. MICHAEL CONAWAY, Texas
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
JIM COSTA, California ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
TIM MAHONEY, Florida TIM WALBERG, Michigan
Chandler Goule, Subcommittee Staff Director
.........................................................
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Boswell, Hon. Leonard, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, opening statment................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Hayes, Hon. Robin, a Representative in Congress from the State of
North Carolina, opening statement.............................. 3
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Lampson, Hon. Nick, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Texas, prepared statement................................... 55
King, Hon. Steve, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Iowa, prepared statement....................................... 56
Peterson, Hon. Collin C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota, opening statement.......................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 57
Goodlatte, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, opening statement.................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Witnesses
Stenholm, Hon. Charlie, Olsson, Frank, and Weeda, P.C.,
Washington, D.C................................................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 60
Pacelle, Mr. Wayne, President and CEO, The Humane Society of the
United States, Washington, D.C................................. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Golab, Dr. Gail C., PhD, DVM, Associate Director, Animal Welfare
Division, American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg,
Illinois....................................................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 79
Leary, Dr. Steven L., DVM, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Veterinary
Affairs, Washington University, on behalf of National
Association for Biomedical Research, St. Louis, Missouri....... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 98
Gregory, Mr. Gene, President, United Egg Producers, Alpharetta,
Georgia........................................................ 22
Prepared statement........................................... 108
Gonzalez, Mr. Guillermo, Owner, Sonoma Foie Gras, on behalf of
Artisan Farmers Alliance, Sonoma, California................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 114
Martosko, Mr. David, Director of Research, Center for Consumer
Freedom, Washington, D.C....................................... 25
Prepared statement........................................... 116
Baur, Mr. Gene, President, Farm Sanctuary, Watkins Glen, New York 37
Prepared statement........................................... 123
Ramsey, Mr. Paxton, Member, National Cattlemen's Beef
Association, Devers, Texas..................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 131
Determan, Ms. Barbara, National Pork Producers Council, Early,
Iowa........................................................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 136
Lange, Ms. Leslie Vagneur, National Director, American Quarter
Horse Association, Greeley, Colorado........................... 43
Prepared statement........................................... 153
Jordan, Dr. Karen, Owner, Large Animal Veterinary Services, on
behalf of National Milk Producers Federation, Siler City, North
Carolina....................................................... 45
Prepared statement........................................... 158
Submitted Material
Scott, Mr. Bryan, Executive Vice President, American Veal
Association, Antioch, Illinois................................. 161
Golab, Dr. Gail C., PhD, DVM, Associate Director, Animal Welfare
Division, American Veterinary Medical Association, Schaumburg,
Illinois....................................................... 171
Pacelle, Mr. Wayne, President and CEO, Humane Society of the
U.S., Washington, D.C.......................................... 175
National Cattlemen's Beef Association............................ 180
Riley, Ms. Janet M., Senior Vice President, American Meat
Institute, Washington, D.C..................................... 204
Baur, Mr. Gene, President, Farm Sanctuary, Watkins Glen, New York 304
Gregory, Mr. Gene, President, United Egg Producers, Alpharetta,
Georgia........................................................ 308
American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, D.C................. 328
Stenholm, Hon. Charlie, Olsson, Frank, Weeda, P.C., Washington,
D.C............................................................ 333
Jordan, Dr. Karen, DVM, Owner, Large Animal Veterinary Services,
on behalf of National Milk Producers Federation, Siler City,
North Carolina................................................. 242
Lange, Ms. Leslie Vagneur, National Director, American Quarter
Horse Association, Greeley, Colorado [American Quarter Horse
Association Official Handbook of Rules and Regulations
Contained in Committee Records]................................ 391
Answers to submitted questions................................... 432
HEARING TO REVIEW THE WELFARE OF ANIMALS IN AGRICULTURE
----------
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry
Committee on Agriculture
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in
Room 1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Leonard
Boswell [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Boswell, Kagen, Holden,
Cardoza, Lampson, Costa, Peterson (ex officio), Hayes, King,
Conaway, Smith, Walberg, Schmidt and Goodlatte (ex officio).
Staff present: Adam Durand, Chandler Goule, Tyler Jameson,
Scott Kuschmider, John Riley, Sharon Rusnak, April Slayton,
Debbie Smith, Kristin Sosanie, Lindsey Correa, John Goldberg,
Pam Miller, Stephanie Myers, Pete Thomson, and Jamie Weyer.
STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD BOSWELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF IOWA
Mr. Boswell. We would like to call our meeting to order for
today, and I would like to thank all of you for being here. I
give a special thanks to our witnesses for offering their
insight into the current welfare issues surrounding animal
agriculture. I look forward to hearing your testimony. I think
it an opportunity for us to share together and treat each other
like we would like to be treated and get some things out we
ought to be talking about.
I would just say this. Having spent most of my life
involved in animal agriculture, I understand many of the issues
firsthand. Looking back over my own history, I have worked with
a variety of animals from dairy cows to feeder pigs to my
current cow-calf operation and of course we have always had a
couple of horses or more on the farm as we do even today. So
these issues are not showing up on my radar for the first time.
We will hear from all sides of this issue today with two
primary questions, maybe more: what is the status of animal
welfare in American agriculture, and what is the industry
currently doing to address the concerns of consumers. On the
first question, as animal agriculture has grown over the past
50 years, I believe our views on animal welfare have advanced.
Today we will hear from the industry about the science-based
self-regulation that the poultry, cattle, hog and many other
livestock producers have developed to ensure that welfare
standards remain current and reflect consumer concerns.
My own experience in agriculture has shown me what happens
when producers treat their animals poorly. Take, for example,
dairy cows. If these animals are not properly fed, watered, and
sheltered, we know what happens to milk production, which makes
a difference in many cases whether the person can stay in
business or close their doors. Mistreated animals simply will
not produce and that is not good for the animal or the farmer.
On the second question, I believe that the industry has
already taken steps to address some consumer concerns. With the
recent boom in demand for organic agriculture, which is going
on across the country, it is clear that more and more consumers
are focusing on not only what their food is but where it has
come from and how it was grown and raised. For example, Burger
King, Wendy's, Ben and Jerry's and all Wolfgang Puck
restaurants also now expect their suppliers to meet certain
animal welfare standards.
I welcome these changes in industry from cage-free to free
range chickens. Consumers deserve the choice. If someone is
willing to pay $3 for a dozen eggs to ensure they come from
chickens that lived in certain conditions, they should have
that option. Similarly, if someone decides to use products from
conventionally raised animals, they should have that choice as
well as long as the operation is up to Federal, State and
industry standards.
These voluntary market-driven changes may or may not be
enough to fix problems in the industry. However, there may
still be more than we can do. That is why hearings like this
are important. We need to consider all options and we must
ensure that existing laws are being enforced before we move too
quickly to write new ones. Creating news laws before the new
ones are properly enforced is not necessarily the solution. Our
hope is this hearing today will not simply focus on problems
but solutions as well. We need solutions not only to protect
animals but ensure safe, plentiful, and affordable food supply.
Animal agriculture is a multibillion-dollar industry in the
United States which not only helps feed those of us in this
room but people around the world. In a sense, we all have a
vested interest in agriculture, the consumer as well as the
producer. We all have a vested interest for this reason, and
that is simply this: Based on per capita, we have the least
expensive food in the world. That is right. We have the most
plentiful and we have the safest per capita. The percentage of
disposable income in the United States, I am told by those who
study this, is the lowest by quite a bit compared to modern
places like western Europe all the way to the undeveloped
countries where this takes all of their income. So we have a
very good situation in that sense. We have food that is safe,
plentiful and inexpensive.
So as we go on to this discussion today, for some it is a
highly emotional situation but I am glad to have witnesses from
all sides of the debate so we can have a candid, respectful and
productive discussion on the welfare of animals in American
agriculture.
So at this time, I would like to turn it over to my good
friend and colleague, Robin Hayes from North Carolina, for any
opening remarks he would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBIN HAYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Boswell has
called today's hearing to discuss animal welfare issues
affecting American's livestock and poultry producers.
I am pleased that we will be hearing from the former
Ranking Member of this committee and someone who is a great
friend and expert of the U.S. producers, Congressman Charlie
Stenholm. We welcome you hear today and know that you bring us
insightful words of wisdom regarding animal welfare and the
challenges that lie ahead for animal agriculture. I am sure Mr.
Stenholm would agree that it is our job as members of this
committee representing our agricultural constituents back home
to stand strong for our producers and stand up to anyone
wishing to put them out of business.
I must applaud the animal agriculture industry for the
great strides they have made over the years to address animal
welfare. Producers have been proactive in the humane treatment
of animals by implementing industry-led standards and
guidelines based on the latest scientific recommendations for
animal welfare and I might add their own concern for their own
animals. Farmers, ranchers and sound science-based
veterinarians, not activists, should be dictating animal
husbandry practices. I am pleased to see representatives of the
scientific and research community as well as the livestock
industry that are here to share with us the programs and
measures they have in place to ensure animals are treated with
the utmost of care.
Mr. Chairman, with the farm bill looming, I would like to
express my concern about the timing of the hearing. I think we
all recognize that we are in the middle of working on the farm
bill and the hearings we have should directly relate to farm
bill issues, especially considering the time constraints we are
under. Given the fact that I do not believe these issues should
be included in the farm bill, I do question the timing of the
hearing. I believe everyone would be better served if we
address these issues outside of the farm bill venue so that
they can receive the attention they deserve.
Having said that, I appreciate you and applaud your efforts
to be inclusive in this hearing and I appreciate the witnesses'
time in being here today. Thank you.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Hayes. I notice we have the
Chairman of the Full Committee with us and I would like to
offer an opportunity for Congressman Peterson at this time.
STATEMENT OF HON. COLLIN C. PETERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Chairman Peterson. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking
Member for their leadership in calling this hearing. I have got
a statement but I think we have got a fairly long list of
witnesses so I am just going to include the statement for the
record and look forward to hearing the testimony.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, and I recognize Mr. Goodlatte, who
is the Ranking Member of the Full Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB GOODLATTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
take this opportunity to welcome each of our witnesses today
and to thank them for their time and effort in addressing the
complex issues of today's hearing.
In my conversations with Chairman Peterson, he has laid out
a very challenging and aggressive schedule for the pending farm
bill. For that reason, I am curious why we are having this
particular hearing at this particular time. While we all share
the same values in regard to animal welfare, the practical
application of those values requires significantly more time
and thoroughness than this hearing affords. Additionally, this
hearing lacks the participation of the sheep industry or the
packers including poultry, pork and beef sectors or animal
exhibitions such as zoos, circuses, marine animal parks, rodeos
or companion animal representatives. I think that if we were to
have a complete record on this topic, we need to hear from all
of them as well.
Like all Americans, I support the humane treatment of all
animals including those in our Nation's farms and stockyards,
research facilities, processing plants, exhibitions and our
homes. It is our responsibility to be good stewards of the
animals under our charge.
Let me be clear on this point. I know that I speak for my
colleagues on this committee when I say that the inhumane
treatment of animals will not be tolerated. In conversations I
have had with farmers and ranchers across the country, it is
clear that the animal agriculture industry shares this strong
belief and appreciate for the animals in their care. These
farmers work alongside their animals day in and day out. These
animals are the very livelihood of many farmers in the 6th
District of Virginia and elsewhere. For that reason, the animal
agriculture industry continues to develop practices on its own
that meet the evolving scientific research on animal welfare.
As we discuss these issues going forward, I will continue to
take my guidance from the men and women involved in animal
agriculture, trusting in the knowledge that they both care
about their animals and understand the challenges associated
with their care.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of today's
witnesses and their responses to our questions. Thank you.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte. I appreciate you
being with us today.
The chair would request that other members submit their
opening statements for the record so that witnesses may begin
their testimony and we will do our best to ensure that there is
ample time for questions.
So at this time I would like to welcome our first panelist
to the table, the Honorable Charlie Stenholm. Mr. Stenholm,
please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLIE STENHOLM, OLSSON, FRANK AND WEEDA,
P.C., WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Hayes, members of the committee. I appreciate very much the
opportunity to testify here today on behalf of all animal
agriculture. If you eat or wear clothes, you are affected by
agriculture. The industry remains an important part of the
United States economy. According to USDA, animal products
account for the majority, 51 percent, of the value of U.S.
agricultural products, exceeding $100 billion per year.
I am sure many of you went to zoos as a child or will bring
your children or grandchildren to one this summer. Caregivers
at zoos nationwide care about the welfare of their animals.
Many of you probably remember the first time you saw a circus
and may attend one when it comes here. The Ringling Brothers
Barnum and Bailey Center for Elephant Conservation has one of
the most successful breeding programs for endangered Asian
elephants outside of Southeast Asia. They care about the
welfare of their animals. Just like these groups of animal
owners, production agriculture has not and will never be given
the credit it is due by animal rights activists and that we too
care about the welfare of our animals.
There is one thing though that everyone you will hear from
today agrees on. All animals should be treated humanely from
birth until death. Now, what you will not hear is an agreement
on the facts. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but not
everyone is entitled to their interpretation of the facts. You
will hear testimony today from several livestock producer
associations and they all care about the same thing: ensuring
the health and well-being of their animals is their number one
priority.
The livestock industry has worked hard both from a
legislative standpoint through this committee and through
industry guidelines to improve animal welfare conditions.
Animal agriculture constantly works to accept new technologies
and science and apply them to industry, investing millions of
dollars every year to ensure the wellness of their livestock.
Producers recognize the need to maintain animal welfare
regulations for the safety and nutrition of their livestock,
for the conservation of the environment and for the
profitability of their operations. But those regulations should
be based on sound science from veterinary professionals that
best understand animals, working together with legitimate
animal use industries.
While the livestock industry has a long history of
supporting animal welfare, many activist groups such as PETA,
the Humane Society of the United States, and Farm Sanctuary
have used falsehoods and scare tactics to push their hidden
agendas of fundraising and systematically abolishing all use of
animals including production agriculture, zoos, circuses and
sporting events. These groups campaign for animal rights, which
is not synonymous with animal welfare, using half truths or
complete deception. These groups also fail to mention the
millions of dollars in fundraising and assets that drive their
misguided goals. The Humane Society has accumulated $113
million in assets, has a budget 3 times the size of PETA's, and
according to the ActivistCash website, has more than enough
funding to finance animal shelters in all 50 States. Yet it
only operates one animal sanctuary, Black Beauty Ranch in
Texas, which is at full capacity. Now, you will hear later that
they are doing more, and that is great, we commend them for it,
but they haven't to this point. According to the Wall Street
Journal, two offshoots of Humane Society spent $3.4 million on
Congressional elections and ballot initiatives, which is more
than Exxon Mobile Corporation spent and there is an ongoing
investigation by the Louisiana Attorney General to determine if
the $30 million the Humane Society fundraised during the
Hurricane Katrina crisis has been handled appropriately.
Now, these activist groups use the platform of animal
rights to advocate for regulations so strict they will put
animal agriculture out of business, which is their real goal. A
video recently circulated to Members of Conservation and a
video produced by the Humane Society make numerous false claims
against the livestock industry. For example, the video suggests
that horses are inhumanely transported on double-deck trailers
on their way to slaughter, and if a horse does arrive in one of
those trailers, the processing facility would not accept it.
They say that we are still doing it. It has been against the
law since 1995. In addition, numerous truck drivers invested in
new trailers at a tremendous investment on their part to comply
with the law and agriculture has stepped up once again to
improve animal welfare conditions.
Another example of misleading rhetoric by animal rights
activists involves the process of captive bolt euthanasia. The
previously mentioned videos claim that captive bolt is not
humane. Interestingly, however, the 2000 report of the AVMA's
panel on euthanasia specifically approves the use of captive
bolt as a humane technique of euthanasia for horses. It is also
an approved method of euthanasia for pork, cattle and lamb. The
captive bolt method meets specific humane requirements set
forth by AVMA's panel on euthanasia, USDA and, interestingly,
the Humane Society of the United States statement on euthanasia
because it results in instantaneous brain death and is
generally agreed to be the most humane method of euthanasia for
livestock. Watching the end of life for any living creature is
not a pleasant experience, even when performed in the most
humane manner. However, these groups continue to use human
emotion and sensationalism to prey on the public's sensitivity
in order to reach their goal of abolishing animal agriculture.
Unfortunately, we all know mistakes happen and laws are
broken. We cannot say that any form of euthanasia is perfect. I
will not try to convince you or anyone else otherwise. But when
these unfortunate incidents occur, appropriate action should be
taken. We should not get in the habit of creating arbitrary,
uninformed and emotionally based regulations on an industry
whose livelihood depends on the health and well-being of its
animals. We should not tie the hands of researchers and
investors that continually seek improvements in animal welfare
practices and we should not tie the hands of producers who work
night and day to ensure the quality of life of their livestock
so they can provide this country and others with the most
abundant, safest, and the most affordable food supply.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, professional experts such as
AVMA, the American Association of Equine Practitioners and USDA
should not have their expertise continue to be questioned by
animal rights activists who line their own pockets with
donations secured by exploiting and distorting the issues.
These groups throw sensationalistic and often staged photos in
the faces of those who do not understand it including your
fellow Members of Congress not on this committee. What they do
not do is use their millions of dollars in fundraising to build
animal shelters and provide research for new technologies and
procedures or provide truthful information to consumers about
animal agriculture industry. Emotions run high and with
continued antics by activist groups, the ultimate outcome will
be devastating. If animal rights activist groups continue to be
successful like we have seen in recent months with the closing
of U.S. horse processing facilities, abandonment of animals
will increase, animal welfare will decline, honest and legal
businesses will close, America's trade balance will worsen,
jobs will disappear, family heritage and livelihood will be
stolen and the best interest in the welfare of animals will be
lost.
As the Agriculture Committee, it is your job and
responsibility to keep science and best management practices at
the forefront of your decisions when developing legislation.
Emotional, feel-good policy is not reasonable for the
agricultural industry. As a committee, you are tasked with
providing the type of environment for your agricultural
constituents and your other constituents, the 99.3 percent of
your constituents who enjoy the food that is produced by the
.07 percent that in fact are the producers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you, Mr. Stenholm. We appreciate
that. You covered a lot of territory. I didn't know a Texan
could talk that fast. I appreciate what you said. I have a
couple questions and then we will go to the rest of the
members.
Some of your testimony speaks of the efforts of the
European Union to regulate animal welfare. What are your
thoughts on these efforts and has it impacted their trade
balance?
Mr. Stenholm. Well, one of the--you look for a pony in the
pile every now and then in this whole area and just recently
Britain has decided they have had enough with the animal rights
activists in Britain where a lot of our folks go to be trained
in some of the tactics that are used and they have said enough
is enough, and interestingly, public perception in Europe is
now beginning to change. Europeans are finally, recognizing
that if you continue to do as some would have us to do,
eliminate the use of animals in research and eliminate the use
of good science and technology in all production agriculture,
that the world is going to have a hard time feeding itself. So
that is one of the areas that we have seen a little good news.
Just this last week USA Today had an article on it, it was the
first time I had heard about it. But from the standpoint of
trade balance, I have been fortunate and honored and pleased to
be declared the spokesman for the Horse Welfare Coalition over
the last year and a half. Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member
Peterson last year, turned around this year, did an excellent
job on this committee of showing to our colleagues that ending
the horse industry, which is what the folks have successfully
done with the temporary reprieve now with Cavel being back in
operation as I speak but hopefully a permanent reprieve coming
soon in which the processing component of the horse industry,
which adds over $30 million to the export trade surplus for the
United States, will not be ended. People will say to you, we
don't have any intention of ending the animal industry but
folks have been almost successful in ending the horse
processing industry in the United States at a loss of jobs,
loss of income and the devastating results now to the horse
industry that we are already beginning to see.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. I have other questions but I think
I will yield to Mr. Hayes at this time.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stenholm, it is a rare and unique opportunity to have
someone of your stature who has been on both sides of the
witness table and we appreciate what you bring to the table and
you also have been on both sides of the horse and the cow and
the livestock industry. Just take a few moments, if you will,
to describe from your own perspective the attitude and the
relationship between the rancher and his animals.
Mr. Stenholm. That is one of the parts of the emotionalism
of this that has really bothered me, and again, I want to make
it very clear. I respect the rights of those who you will hear
from who basically want to eliminate horse slaughter as an
option. I respect their right to that opinion. But I do not
respect their right to take that away from me as a horse owner
or my fellow horse owners. The private property rights option
is one that the cattle industry and the horse industry and
sheep industry and all agriculture and it is amazing to me how
many of our members now in this Congress have suddenly
forgotten about individual property rights. No one argues about
how a horse's life should be ended or a calf's life should be
ended. Well, some do. Some believe no life should ever be ended
except naturally, but that is a very small minority. But an
owner of livestock, to be accused of mismanaging or mishandling
their livestock when their very livelihood depends on that
animal living a healthy life under the best conditions that you
can present to them affects the bottom line. Now, this bothers
some people, the bottom line. But, Mr. Chairman, as you noted
in your opening statement, we are blessed to live in a country
that has the most abundant food supply, the best quality, the
safest food supply at the lowest cost of people in any other
country in the world. That doesn't happen by accident. That
happens because producers use the best science and technology
from the best universities in the world, teaching our young
people how to do better, how it used to be said in Norman
Borlog's time, how to make 2 blades of grass grow where 1 grew
before and then to use that and to use it in a humane fashion.
With all due respect, I would say that I believe it is good
we are holding this hearing today because you can be almost
guaranteed that there will be amendments offered in the
Congress on an appropriations bill, which got us off on the
wrong foot with horses a couple years ago, you remember. You
can imagine that there will be folks that will have amendments,
and by providing this good record today, showing what ranchers,
farmers, livestock producers, all individuals who are concerned
about the welfare of animals what you are actually doing is
something that I know you have already been using but what we
have got to do is find a way to get that story out to where
more of the non-agricultural press begin to pick up on what we
are really doing in agriculture, not what some people say we
are.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, sir, and one more question. As a
rancher, is there anything any more important to you as a
businessman and rancher than the welfare of your livestock?
Mr. Stenholm. No.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Boswell. At this time the chair recognizes Mr.
Goodlatte.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Charlie, welcome back. We very much appreciate your
testimony and very much appreciate the opportunity to work with
you on this committee for many years including as the Ranking
Member.
You mentioned in your testimony that the Humane Society of
the United States operates an animal sanctuary in Texas. Is
this sanctuary subject to regulation under the Federal Animal
Welfare Act?
Mr. Stenholm. I don't believe that it is but I think you
will find general agreement that it should be.
Mr. Goodlatte. Has it been inspected by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture?
Mr. Stenholm. Not to my knowledge it has not.
Mr. Goodlatte. Do you know anything about its compliance
history with animal welfare regulations?
Mr. Stenholm. Not to my knowledge, it doesn't.
Mr. Goodlatte. There is no record at the Federal level?
Mr. Stenholm. There is no record that we have ever been
able to determine because again, under current law, I believe
this approximates what is called private property rights but
this is an area that quite rightly should be looked at in the
same venue in which we look at how we have done an excellent
job of regulating the horse processing industry, for example.
Every horse that is brought to the plan is inspected. This
constant statement of stolen horses is not true. Now, when I
say that, there is always the possibility that one is going to
slip through the cracks. It is like the unloading of the
double-decker trucks. Every horse that is euthanized in a
processing plant, it is done under the supervision of a
veterinarian. That is not true in other countries of the world.
So, this is where there is a lot of needs out there by those
who advocate the abolition of horse slaughter in this case
without ever answering the question what is going to happen to
the 100,000 unwanted horses and how are they going to be
regulated and under what conditions. We are seeing it all over
the country now, all over the country in which we are already
beginning to see inhumane treatment of horses by people who
have good intentions.
Mr. Goodlatte. I take it if that sanctuary is not inspected
under the Federal Animal Welfare Act, than other sanctuaries
for animals are not inspected as well. Is that correct?
Mr. Stenholm. That is my understanding because in our
pursuit of legislation and pursuit of bigger and better laws, I
guess is what you would say, that is one area that has not been
looked at to the same degree that we have in all of other
production agriculture. We got a double standard.
Mr. Goodlatte. I see periodically, even under the current
circumstances where there are clearly not enough sanctuaries
for unwanted animals, horses included, of course, in existence
right now, I see periodic reports even of the number that exist
today of animals not treated well where local authorities
intercede to take action for animals that are underfed or not
given proper treatment or medical care. Do you think that is a
circumstance that ought to be regulated?
Mr. Stenholm. That is always a tough call for me because I
think we have got plenty of regulation in so many areas and I
always hesitate before I answer a question of that nature. It
is tremendously costly. I think that is something that we would
want to look at. Certainly if we are going to follow the line
that some are advocating in which you are going to have more
and more unwanted horses that have to be cared for, more and
more unwanted other animals that have to be cared for. At some
point in time I think you are going to see a clamor for it. But
in the same vein in which we have as production agriculture, as
we have constantly and consistently upgraded our laws and
regulations to meet the sincere requirements or the commonsense
requirements for humane treatment of animals, it is amazing
that we have kind of excused some of the other side from any of
that.
Mr. Goodlatte. I see my time is almost expired. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Goodlatte.
The chair at this time would recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Cardoza. Mr. Cardoza has stepped out. Okay. Mr.
Lampson stepped out. I am just catching up here. I guess I
should keep up with everybody who is coming and going.
Mr. Kagen.
Mr. Kagen. I didn't chase anybody out, Mr. Chairman. They
left on their own.
Congressman Stenholm, I am new in Congress, a little over
110 or 120 days, and I want to thank you for your years of
service. I have got to ask you, do you miss being a
Congressman?
Mr. Stenholm. I don't miss the hours you are keeping and I
don't miss the controversy that you are involved in. It feels
pretty good to be up here telling you what you ought to do.
Mr. Kagen. Well, my father raises horses and he told me
when I came to Congress I would be getting a lot of advice and
I appreciate your advice, but you served on this committee
before and you have seen these issues come up before in terms
of animal welfare. Has anything changed over the years in terms
of your point of view, not just back home but also here in
Congress in terms of how you feel Congress could make a
difference on the farm or in agricultural control of animals?
Mr. Stenholm. Yes, I have seen dramatic changes from--this
will be my 8th farm bill that I have participated in, 2 before
Congress, 5 in and 1 now after Congress. It used to be back in
the good old days, as was said, that only had to consult 3
entities to write a farm bill, or any issue. One was the House
and Senate Ag committees, 2 was USDA, and 3 was the farm
organizations. Well, we now have hundreds if not thousands of
organizations that have an interest and again, as I said in my
testimony, have every right to have input into the policies of
our food production system but it makes for a much more complex
situation and it makes the difficulty of finding a majority
vote that is helpful is a lot more challenging than it was 28
years ago when I sat not in that chair but down here.
Mr. Kagen. Well, would you agree that there is an economic
interest on all people in agriculture who raise animals for
eventual slaughter or for use in food production to keep their
animals happy and healthy and their general welfare? Isn't
there an economic interest to keep them in that condition?
Mr. Stenholm. Absolutely. Here again, I respect all
opinions. My opinion differs from what is humane treatment and
the most acceptable from some of the animal rights folks. That
is the biggest disagreement I have with the idea that animals
have rights like humans have rights. All animals deserve to be
humanely treated from birth until death, period. Definitions of
humane treatment from birth until death differ, particularly
with those of us who raise animals and those who only consider
them pets.
Mr. Kagen. Very good. Thank you very much.
I yield back my time.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Conaway.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Charlie. Good to see you here this morning. There
has also been restrictions placed on our ability to manage wild
horses and wild burros on Federal lands being swept into this
whole issue as well. What is your understanding of how those
excess horses and burros are being warehoused?
Mr. Stenholm. This is an interesting phenomenon that we
have today because in the wisdom of Congress several years ago,
we decided that excess wild horses could not be processed for
human consumption and therefore must be preserved until their
natural death or they are adopted and most of us in production
agriculture agree that adoption of wild horses is the preferred
alternative. The last resort is slaughter for human
consumption. But now we have somewhere around 30,000 wild
horses unadoptable, unwanted that are being fed in feed lots
and other pasture operations at a cost to taxpayers
approximating $50 million a year and we are going to add
another 4,000 surplus horses to that number this year. Now,
here is where I have a little bit of problem with what I guess
kindly I would have to say is a little hypocrisy because many
of the same groups that say it is inhumane to keep wild animals
in zoos say it is perfectly all right to keep a wild animal in
a pen, a wild horse or a wild burro. Now, that is where common
sense gets in the way of good policy and that is why it is so
emotional. But we are talking about real horse owners, the
majority of which disagree with the majority of Congress and
with the majority of this House voted and a majority of the
Senate committee. They will tell you privately, we understand
but it is emotionalism and that is scary but you bring up a
point that again common sense needs to be prevailing in this
and it doesn't make sense to spend $50 million a year feeding
unwanted wild horses.
Mr. Conaway. My second question was going to be, if those
feed lots were zoos, would they meet standards for maintaining
animals? A horse is a roaming type of an animal and to keep it
locked in the feed lot for years, cattle go into feed lots for
a limited amount of time but putting a horse into a feed lot
environment for the rest of its natural days to me seems
noticeably cruel.
Mr. Stenholm. I have to assume that they are because that
is under the jurisdiction of the BLM and I have to assume that
the regulations like Mr. Goodlatte was asking about, private
facilities, do not apply there but I think this is a question
that I would recommend to this committee to ask the appropriate
committee in the Interior to do a little oversight on this. I
don't think we have done any oversight that I can remember and
that is a long time.
Mr. Conaway. We have asked for pictures and we are trying
to get those. Let me ask you this. Under the Fifth Amendment,
by taking personal property away from folks, which is in effect
what this destroying the horse processing business does, do you
see the Federal Government having a responsibility for all of
these abandoned horses as a result of not being able to sell
them into a market that previously existed? In other words, is
there an unfunded mandate that we passed that forces counties
to now take care of these horses that are abandoned? Should
that be the Federal Government's responsibility to assume
responsibility for those horses that this business has taken
out by these new regulations, new laws?
Mr. Stenholm. Only if the Federal Government insists on
following a procedure in which the Federal Government
determines what is going to happen to the unwanted horses. Then
I think it is natural the Federal Government should assume the
responsibility. It is like what we have done with wild horses.
We have assumed that. But, I have been working with the
livestock marketing association. The first people that have
come in contact now with this unwanted horse phenomenon has
been the people bringing their horse in to the livestock
auction to sell it and they are being turned away because they
are being told we can't buy your horse; what do you mean, you
can't buy my horse? The Federal Government has now provided
laws enforced by the courts so far that we can't buy your horse
to go to a processing plant. What do you mean, you can't buy my
horse? It is my horse.
Mr. Conaway. Well, actually I can't sell my horse.
Mr. Stenholm. Yes.
Mr. Conaway. Or, why can't I sell my horse?
Mr. Stenholm. Why can't I sell my horse, why can't you buy
my horse? That is a good question and it is one the legal
courts are ultimately going to have to decide of which I
believe as you, I believe by the nature of your question,
believe, it is a private property right. Taking away that right
is bordering on unconstitutionality.
Mr. Conaway. Thank you, Mr. Stenholm.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
The chair at this time would recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to hear from our distinguished colleague and friend
who I think is well respected, as it has already been
established.
In your testimony, Mr. Stenholm, you talked about what
constitutes in your mind animal welfare that is reflective of
the care that I think we all want to see provided whether we
are talking about one person's animals or whether we are
talking about, in the case of animal and livestock industries,
business efforts that also constitute proper care of animals.
Have you or your organization had an opportunity beyond Texas
to look at and examine or your organization the list of animal
welfare laws that exist in the country today, and if your
organization has, do you have an ability to reflect on what
areas and which States are working better than others? It seems
to me that under the theory that, you know, there is really not
that much that is new under a lot of this, that taking a
reflection of what a lot of States have done, some efforts have
been I think positive, some have not worked as intended and
some have always faced, as I like to say, the law of unintended
consequences. I am wondering if you could give us a snapshot in
terms of what you sense, what your organization senses as
occurring around the country.
Mr. Stenholm. Well, we have got more and more States
getting involved in determining what is humane and inhumane
treatment of animals. That is one of the concerns that I bring
to this committee. You know, at some point we have got to have
some uniformity in what the standards are. It is going to be an
impossible situation to have differing States with differing
rules and regulations in modern commerce. You know, we have had
the attacks on the veal industry and certain States have
outlawed veal production. We have had the sow stalls
controversy now that is creating a lot of consternation in the
pork industry and again, sow stalls and what you replace them
with or what you do to me always needs to be based on the sound
science and what is best for the pigs. There are different
opinions on that. Different States are beginning to involve
themselves. Ranking Member Goodlatte mentioned the need of
regulation in States of some of the animal welfare groups that
are going to be there. You are going to hear in just a moment
that there is a big effort now to provide for animal shelters.
That is great, but under what Federal supervision and should it
be State supervision? These are questions that you are going to
have to answer. I specifically speak to the horse issue but
right now we are in the process of attempting to repeal the law
in Texas prohibiting it. As I speak, there is a hearing and a
protest in Illinois regarding the banning of the Cavel
processing plant. The protest is coming from horse owners
saying to Illinois, please don't ban horse processing in the
State of Illinois. You are going to see more and more of this
because it is so emotional and it is so sensational for those
on the other side. It is difficult to stand up in a State
legislature where you served so well for so many years. You
know the difficulty of dealing with emotionalism and the
different States doing it is going to wreck havoc on an animal
industry.
Mr. Costa. In the remainder of my time, I would like to
make a suggestion and that is that you, with some of the other
organizations that are so concerned and I think appropriately
so, possibly set up a type of a workshop and maybe we do it in
conjunction with the subcommittee with organizations like the
National Conference of State Legislatures, with possibly the
National Governors Association. I mean, I think there needs to
be a matrix, Mr. Chairman, as we look at what laws exist around
the country and see if we can get a better understanding of the
challenges out there, what has worked, what has not worked, and
see if we can bring about some level of consensus and
uniformity because frankly, I think this current situation
status quo is not helpful to the industry. It is not helpful to
humane treatment for animals in areas where we can I think have
agreement and it seems to me something that we could work on.
Mr. Stenholm. Mr. Costa, there is an effort, I believe they
are called the Animal Alliance, that is set up on the
agriculture side to help do just what you are suggesting and I
think that you will be hearing from them quite often.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you for the suggestion.
The chair at this time would recognize the gentleman from
Nebraska, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Congressman Stenholm, for appearing before us today.
Growing up in rural America, certainly I have always paid a
lot of attention to animal issues, livestock issues, and most
recently, or more recently I should say, it has been brought to
my attention the commitment that having animals on the premises
entails, whether it is a small dog or cat or certainly a horse,
and the financial commitment of caring appropriately whether it
is the feeding or veterinary expenses as well. You touched a
little bit on the cost of caring for these wild horses and
certainly that was a new number for me. It has been brought to
my attention in my district that there is a concern that you
have touched on a bit of what do we do with the unwanted horses
and there has been some concern expressed in my district that a
rancher might find some unwanted horses on his or her property.
What then? I mean, are you aware of what the options a rancher
might have, that are liability issues and certainly in light of
Federal penalties that may exist? Could you please elaborate?
Mr. Stenholm. You bring up a very good question, and if it
is on a ranch and the horse is unwanted, it probably will be
euthanized with a bullet and allowed--well, it probably won't
even be buried and nobody will ever know about it. But if you
are in a non-rural area, you have a problem. Landfills in many
cities will not accept large animals so you don't have the
option of euthanasia by a veterinarian, and here it is
interesting to me when you hear--there are three ways of
euthanizing that unwanted horse. One is captive bolt, which is
the most humane, two is bullet, and three is overdose of
barbiturates. Talk to any veterinarian and they will tell you
that overdose of barbiturates is not the most humane way to end
your horse's life. That is what veterinarians tell us. And we
are already seeing this happening. We are seeing it reportedly
in Kentucky now, these are thoroughbreds, and contrary to what
you hear from California, talk to the livestock auctions and
listen to them what is happening there with mistreated horses
that come in to them. People bring them in because they find
them wandering. People don't have the wherewithal financially
to deal with that question. Renderers, we don't have many of
those left. In some cases that is an option but you have to pay
somebody to come get your horse. That gets into what Mr.
Conaway was talking about a moment ago. What makes the Federal
Government believe that we in our super wisdom can take away
the private property right of that individual rancher who finds
that horse to take it and receive value from if it is still of
value? What makes us believe that we can do this
constitutionally, but those are the choices that you are
putting on those ranchers that you are talking about.
Mr. Smith. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
The chair at this time would recognize the gentleman from
Michigan, Mr. Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have one question and I hope it wasn't asked before
I entered the room but I will take the chance on that. Someone
said that if we continue down the path that we are on presently
in relation to animal welfare, specifically the horse slaughter
bill, that we are basically beginning the roadmap to the end of
taking meat, pork, poultry and other meats off the dinner
table. Now, that is a statement I have heard numerous times in
the past several weeks, and I would, Mr. Stenholm, be
interested in just seeing how you respond to that. Is that a
path that indeed we are taking or is that just a scare tactic?
Mr. Stenholm. I have to say that there are those, I don't
brand everyone, I don't want to say everyone on the animal
welfare side is one of these. I don't say that, but there are
those, and I don't see how even those that are argue that they
are just for the humane treatment but we don't want to
eliminate animal agriculture can square that with some of the
decisions that are now being made regarding how animal
agriculture shall function for the humane treatment of animals.
And when you specifically look at one form of livestock,
horses, you are having a major effect on the economy of an
industry that is $39 billion by itself, over $100 billion in
economic activity, and when you remove the floor price for the
unwanted horse, which is what you do when you remove the
process buyer, you are reducing the value of all horses in the
United States of which we have economists at universities that
have estimated somewhere between $100 and $200 per horse. That
is a pretty good blow to an industry. Now, there will be those
that say well, that is just horses, horses are different. They
are not different. Horses are livestock. They are different to
you if you own the horse and we make it very clear, if you own
a horse and do not wish it to be processed for human
consumption, we are for you, don't sell your horse, euthanize
it yourself, take it to a renderer. If you are more comfortable
having your horse piled on top of a garbage heap after it has
been euthanized rather than having it consumed in countries
that do it, we are for you. That is called private property
rights. All we are saying is, it is a slippery slope, and
remember, the same folks are out to eliminate zoos because it
is inhumane to keep animals in pens. You have to be the judge.
And I just say, let us be careful before we take the first step
down the slippery slope. Let us have everyone with a smile on
their face acknowledge, I am for the humane treatment of
animals. I believe Wayne Pacelle, you will hear from the Humane
Society, is for the humane treatment of animals. I believe
that. But we have different opinions of what the facts are of
humane treatment. That is the political side of this that has
really gotten on a slippery slope and with the 300 million
Americans who only see what you have seen on your Internet and
the movies that are being shown about how horses are
slaughtered, how they are brought to market, how they are
mistreated, if that is all you see, you tell me where the votes
are going to be and why you are having such a difficulty with
your own constituency dealing with this one. And when you have
$100 million to spend on the campaigns and the politics and the
media, get ready for the slippery slope to take off.
Mr. Walberg. I appreciate the response.
I yield back.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
The chair recognizes the lady from Ohio, Congresswoman
Schmidt.
Ms. Schmidt. Thank you, sir. I didn't have any questions.
Mr. Boswell. Okay. That is fine. That completes our first
round of questions. Does anybody on either side have other
questions?
Okay. With that, I would thank you, Mr. Stenholm, we
appreciate your testimony and we would ask that the second
panel would come to the table.
I thank the second panel for coming to the table, and by
matter of introduction, we have beginning Mr. Wayne Pacelle,
President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States,
Washington, D.C. Welcome, Wayne. Glad to have you here. Dr.
Gail Golab, Ph.D., DVM, Associate Director of Animal Welfare
Division, American Veterinary Medical Association. We have Mr.
Steven Leary, DVM, Assistant Vice Chancellor of Veterinary
Affairs, Washington University, on behalf of the National
Association of Biomedical Research of St. Louis, Missouri. We
have Mr. Gene Gregory, President of United Egg Producers from
Alpharetta, Georgia. We have Mr. Guillermo Gonzalez, Owner,
Sonoma Foie Gras, on behalf of Artisan Farmers Alliance,
Sonoma, California. And last but not least, finally, Mr. David
Martosko, Director of Research, Center for Consumer Freedom of
Washington, DC.
So with that, we welcome you all. We appreciate you being
here. We would like for you, Mr. Pacelle, to please begin when
you are ready.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE HUMANE
SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
inviting me to testify. I am Wayne Pacelle, President and CEO
of the Humane Society of the United States.
I feel a little bit unusual in this circumstance, having
heard Congressman Stenholm. Congressman Stenholm is a respected
member of the community in Washington and Texas, served a long
time, but what he did was seek to caricature animal advocates.
I represent just one organization, one of 10,000 organizations
that exist in this country, charitable organizations that work
to alleviate suffering and protect animals from needless
cruelty. Just our organization has 10 million supporters, which
is one of every 30 Americans in the country. Mr. Stenholm and
some of the others whom you will hear from today are seeking to
caricature the entire cause of animal protection as a bunch of
folks who want to stop zoos and meat eating and all animal
research, and it is false. If you look at the issues that the
Humane Society works on, we work on particular abuses that are
out of step with prevailing public sentiment in this country.
Look at every issue that we are behind in this Congress and you
will see strong support among the American public for our
position. Unfortunately, historically, and we hope that this
committee marks a break from the past. This committee has
completely abrogated its responsibility to have proper
oversight on animal welfare issues. This is the first hearing
on animal welfare other than an animal fighting bill in 2000
that has been held on production agriculture since 1989, 18
years, and this committee which has authorized and
responsibility for animal welfare programs hasn't had any
action on these issues. The USDA unfortunately has also grown
very close to the industry and we have an unregulated situation
where there are basically no protections for farm animals at
the Federal level in production agriculture. There is a humane
slaughter act that the humane community pushed and there is a
transport law that was first passed in 1873 that the USDA had
not enforced until HSUS pushed for its active enforcement.
I just want to mention a couple of examples to talk about
how our policies truly are sensible and how we hear this
hysterical exaggeration about the consequences of the adoption
of our preferred set of policies. One is the issue of gestation
crates. These are 2-foot by 7-foot cages that breeding sows are
housed in for their entire gestation period, for the pre-
birthing period, and they are taken out of the gestation crate
just before giving birth and then they give birth in a
farrowing crate, then they are put back into the gestation
crate. They may endure 7, 8, 9, 10 successive pregnancies in a
2-foot by 7-foot cage in which they cannot turn around. These
are curious animals that like to root around in the mud. When
this issue was put to voters in Florida, when it was put to
voters in Arizona, the industry, Mr. Stenholm and others said
this will be the demise of the pork industry, it will be the
end of animal agriculture in terms of hog production. And what
we have seen after voters overwhelmingly approved the measures
in both States was that the largest pig producer in the world,
Smithfield, has voluntarily agreed to phase out gestation
crates over a 10-year period.
We also heard apocalyptic comments about downed animal
protection. You know, downers are livestock too sick or injured
to walk and a number of members of this House have pushed to
stop the policy of abusing downed animals and dragging them
into slaughter houses for processing for human consumption. It
was Mr. Stenholm on the Floor of the House who said in 2003
that no sick animal, no BSE-positive animal, no mad cow can
ever get into the food supply, and it was just 6 months later
that a downer cow with BSE found its way into the food supply.
The consequence of that was pretty severe but it wasn't severe
in terms of the animal welfare issues. It was severe in terms
of the economic impact of the industry because 44 nations
closed their doors to American beef products. The USDA passed
an administrative rule to ban downers in 2003 and we have seen
no adverse impact of a downer ban being imposed.
And we can go on and on. This canard about horse slaughter,
there were 350,000 horses being slaughtered in the early 1990s.
Now there is about 100,000. Where did these 250,000 horses go?
They have been absorbed into this country because there are a
network of sanctuaries and there is also the matter of
responsible ownership of animals and how people who are taking
animals, certainly horses, have a responsibility to care for
them, and euthanasia is an option on site rather than
transporting them 1,000 or 1,500 miles.
In terms of specific policy proposals, Mr. Chairman, there
is a bill called the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act
that deals with some of the worst abuses and intensive
confinement livestock agriculture including gestation crates,
veal crates and battery cages. We are seeing tremendous change
in the private sector already. I have mentioned some of the
public policy changes.
Maple Leaf Foods, the largest pig producer in Canada has
said it will stop using gestation crates. Two of the largest
veal producers, Strauss Farms and Marcho Farms, have said that
they are going to stop crating young male veal calves, and the
head of Strauss called the crates inhumane and archaic.
In terms of battery cage production, which is the
predominant egg laying system, each bird under the United Egg
Producers standards gets 2/3 of an 8-1/2 by 11 sheet of paper
to live her life in, 8-1/2 by 11, 67 square inches. This is the
living space for these animals. Now, we can talk all about
radical animal rights activism, we can hear caricatures of the
animal welfare movement but the fact is, if this is acceptable
as a living space for an egg laying hen, then, this is not he
world I am living in. The public is appalled by the idea that
animals are intensively confined for such long periods during
their lifetimes. We are advocating that the Congress include
poultry under humane slaughter.
Mr. Boswell. The rest of your testimony, Mr. Pacelle, will
be placed in the record but time has expired and we appreciate
your enthusiasm, so----
Mr. Pacelle. May I just close?
Mr. Boswell. You may make a short closing remark if you
wish and then we will move on.
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you. We are very hopeful that the
Congress will include an animal welfare title in the farm bill.
This is an issue that has been long ignored. When the committee
ignores it, the issue gets addressed in other committees in
this Congress. It is time for this committee to address these
issues.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle appears at the
conclusion of the hearing:]
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
Dr. Golab.
STATEMENT OF DR. GAIL C. GOLAB, PH.D., DVM, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,
ANIMAL WELFARE DIVISION, AMERICAN VETERINARY MEDICAL
ASSOCIATION, SCHAUMBURG, ILLINOIS
Ms. Golab. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on behalf of
the American Veterinary Medical Association. The AVMA comprises
more than 75,000 members and represents approximately 86
percent of the Nation's practicing veterinarians. Animal
welfare is of primary importance to the veterinary profession
and therefore primary importance to the AVMA.
This hearing will highlight some differences that exist
among stakeholders with regard to how we believe animals should
be used and cared for. An important underlying truth, however,
is that most people in the United States believe it is
acceptable to use animals for food and fiber as long as the
welfare of those animals is good.
But what is good welfare? When evaluating animal welfare,
it is important to be clear what people mean. Animal producers
tend to cite elements of good health and performance as
evidence of good welfare whereas animal activists are often
most comfortable when animals are allowed to live in natural
environments. This dichotomy of use is a result of different
experiences leading to different value frameworks. The AVMA
believes animal welfare science is an important tool that can
be used successfully to bridge these dichotomies.
Although the degree of importance attributed to each
element making up an animal's welfare state may vary, the AVMA
believes no assessment is complete unless all elements are
considered. It is not satisfactory, for example, to judge the
welfare of an animal on the basis of its physical health
without regard to whether it is suffering or frustrated nor is
it appropriate to conclude that an animal that can engage in
species-typical behaviors has a good state of welfare without
also evaluating its health and biologic function. Veterinarians
by virtue of their broad-based training are extraordinarily
well positioned to integrate and bring the relevant elements of
animal welfare science to the table to assist key decision
makers like yourselves in making good decisions.
Two issues currently under the microscope of animal welfare
advocates can be used to demonstrate the power of animal
welfare science to help make decisions and ensure positive
animal welfare outcomes. These issues are space allowances and
cages housing laying hens and usage of station stalls to house
pregnant sows. With respect to cages, the egg industry pulled
together a multidisciplinary, multistakeholder advisory
committee and charged them with making recommendations for
revision of that industry's animal care guidelines. After
conducting a scientific review, this advisory committee
suggested cage space needed to be increased. By phasing in
space allowances according to science-based parameters, hen
welfare improved and economic benefits were also realized. This
experience taught us two important things: first, that science
could be used to help define and resolve an animal welfare
problem, and second, that science should be used to help draft
animal care guidelines rather than being called in after the
fact.
The use of gestation stalls is an example of where animal
welfare science can point out fallacies and simplistic
solutions. Comprising individuals representing expertise in
multiple disciplines and multiple stakeholder interests, the
AVMA's task force on the housing of pregnant sows conducted a
comprehensive review of the scientific literature on housing
systems with the intent of determining whether gestation stalls
were appropriate. In this case, the science couldn't identify a
particular system as being unequivocally superior but it did
provide information suggesting that simply banning gestation
stalls was probably not a quick and easy solution to improving
sow welfare overall.
Animal welfare is an increasing public interest but the
American public has little direct connection with the actual
process of raising animals for food and fiber. As a result,
sometimes people become fixated on forcing changes that they
think will improve animal welfare when in reality that might
not be the case. At the same time, the public's desire for
inexpensive, high-quality food products can create conflicts
between human and animal interests and the industry's efforts
to meet those demands and remain profitable. Pulling together
societal expectations and industry needs means that guidelines
for animal care must be both science-based and dynamic.
Common sense and science depend on each other to reach
sound conclusions on animal welfare. In acting on
recommendations regarding animal welfare, the AVMA hopes
Congress will ensure that, one, sound science serves as a basis
for any recommended interventions; two, actions are consistent
with the reason for the intervention and are based on a
comprehensive risk assessment; three, responses are
proportionate and a complete assessment of costs and benefits
is performed; four, decisions are made in partnership with key
stakeholders; and five, resulting actions will promote a
sustainable agricultural industry as well as meet societal
expectations. I have submitted a written statement with
additional comments and materials for the subcommittee to
consider and I ask that this information be included in the
record of these proceedings.
On behalf of my profession and our association, I sincerely
thank you for the opportunity to appear today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Golab appears at the
conclusion of the hearing:]
Mr. Boswell. I recognize Mr. Leary.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN L. LEARY, DVM, ASSISTANT VICE CHANCELLOR,
VETERINARY AFFAIRS, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ON BEHALF OF
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, ST. LOUIS,
MISSOURI
Mr. Leary. Thank you for allowing me to testify today and
for conducting this hearing on animal welfare. By the way, Mr.
Chairman, I was born and raised in Des Moines and graduated
from Iowa State. It is nice to see you here.
I am testifying today on behalf of the National Association
for Biomedical Research. NABR is the only national nonprofit
organization dedicated solely to advocating sound public policy
that recognizes the vital role of humane animal use in
biomedical research, higher education and product safety
testing. Founded in 1979, NABR provides the unified voice for
the scientific community on legislative and regulatory matters
affecting laboratory animal research. NABR's membership is
comprised of more than 300 public and private universities,
medical and veterinary schools, teaching hospitals, voluntary
health agencies, professional societies, pharmaceutical and
biotechnology companies and other animal research-related
firms.
Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every
medical advance of the last century for both human and animal
health. Ample proof of the success of animal research can be
found in the vast body of Nobel Prize-winning work in
physiology and medicine where 68 awardees since 1901 have
relied at least in part on animal research. Thanks to animal
research, many diseases that once killed millions of people
every year are either treatable or have been eradicated all
together. Six of the discoveries related to cancer using
animals were recognized with the Nobel Prize, among them bone
marrow transplantation, cloning of the first gene and the
discovery that a normal cell could have latent cancer genes.
Animal research for animal health has also resulted in many
remarkable life-saving and life-extending treatments for
animals. Pacemakers, artificial joints, organ transplants and
vaccines contribute to longer, happier and healthier lives for
animals. Through research with animals, sciences are learning
more every day.
Key findings from a recent national public opinion survey
on animal research found overwhelming support. In fact, 81
percent agree with medical and scientific research using
laboratory animals if they believe it will help alleviate
suffering from a serious disease. Animal research is still a
requirement.
Research on animals is in many cases an obligation that
prevents humans from being used as medical guinea pigs. The
Declaration of Helsinki states that medical research on human
subjects should be based on accurately performed laboratory and
animal experimentation. Responsible regulation is a very
important component of oversight to instill public confidence
in animal research. Congress already has provided the mechanism
for assurances of proper care and treatment of laboratory
animals with the 1966 enactment of the Animal Welfare Act and
multiple subsequent amendments. For example, the 1985
amendments require the establishment of the Institutional
Animal Care and Use Committee, or IACUC. The IACUC, which is
taken very seriously by each research institution, is an
internal committee that is charged with reviewing, approving
and monitoring research protocols. IACUC approval for a
proposed research project must be acquired before any
government funds can be secured and any animals used.
Many institutions have gone above and beyond what is
required of them by the law. Ninety-nine of the top 100 NIH
awardee institutions have voluntarily sought accreditation with
the association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory
Animal Care.
In addition, a number of non-animal procedures and tests
have been developed to supplement animal research. Computer
modeling and in vitro testing serve as valuable adjuncts to
basic animal research but there is still no replacement for
animal research.
In conclusion, we are all challenged with that delicate
balance of ensuring the public trust and the highest standard
of care for laboratory animals with a regulatory mandate that
still allows the freedom of inquiry so important to medical
discovery. We who are directly involved with animal research
share this challenge and concern. In fact, it is that very
concern which has drawn many of us to choose careers in
veterinary medicine or medical research. We too have family
members who contract diseases. We too have pets that become
ill. For these reasons, we are dedicated to finding ways to
cure both human and animal ailments. In the words of the
esteemed Dr. Michael E. DeBakey, chancellor emeritus of the
Baylor College of Medicine and director of the DeBakey Heart
Center: ``These scientists, veterinarians, physicians, surgeons
and others who do research in animal labs are as much concerned
about the care of the animals as anyone can be. Their respect
for the dignity of life and compassion for the sick and
disabled in fact is what motivated them to search for ways of
relieving the pain and suffering caused by diseases.''
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee
again for this opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Leary appears at the
conclusion of the hearing:]
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Leary. We will recognize Mr.
Gregory.
STATEMENT OF GENE GREGORY, PRESIDENT, UNITED EGG PRODUCERS,
ALPHARETTA, GEORGIA
Mr. Gregory. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Gene
Gregory and I am the President of United Egg Producers. I have
worked for UEP for the past 25 years. Earlier in my career, I
was in the egg business working for Corn Belt Hatcheries in
central Illinois for more than 20 years. About 90 percent of
all the eggs in the United States are produced by our UEP
members. We are a farm cooperative and we also administer a
program of animal husbandry standards called the UEP Certified
Program, which I will discuss later.
UEP prides itself on being a forward-looking, proactive
organization. We have helped our industry respond to
environmental concerns, animal diseases and other challenges.
We approach animal welfare in the same spirit. It is
increasingly important to our customers in food retailing and
food service and to American consumers. Unfortunately, this is
also a subject that lends itself to emotional, unsubstantiated
allegations and extreme tactics.
If we reduce animal welfare to emotion or subject views of
what feels right, we will base the care of animals of nothing
more than opinion and endless argument. That is not good
enough. Instead, we need to use science. That is why in 1999
UEP commissioned an unpaid scientific advisory committee to
review the animal welfare standards we had at the time and
advise us about science-based changes we should make. The chair
of that committee, Dr. Jeffrey Armstrong, is a dean of the
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources at Michigan State
University. He brought together nine other scientists and
together they recommended significant changes in egg production
practices. Today about 85 percent of our industry has
implemented these standards including an increase in the amount
of space for each bird in cage production systems with the
increase ranging from 26 to 40. Dr. Armstrong has written on
behalf of the entire committee saying we believe these
guidelines set the baseline for humane care.
The committee's recommendations became what is now the UEP
Certified Program. This program features a trademark seal
approved by the Federal Trade Commission and the USDA that
producers that can place on their egg cartons if they adhere to
the UEP Certified guidelines. Every participating producer is
subject to an annual third-party audit by the USDA's
Agriculture Marketing Service or Validus Services, and if a
producer wants to be a part of the UEP Certified program, all
of that producer's operations must conform to our animal care
standards. We are confident that our program reflects the best
science. Many of the scientists on our committee have also
helped developed standards for major food service chains such
as McDonald's and Burger King. Our program also has been
endorsed by the Food Marketing Institute representing the
Nations' major food retailers and the National Council of Chain
Restaurants.
At UEP, we are in favor of consumers having choices
including cage-free, free-range and organic eggs which some of
our members produce. However, we vigorously dispute the
proposition that only free-range or cage-free production is
humane. We disagree with that view and so does our scientific
advisory committee. Cage housing systems protect birds from
predators and diseases such a highly pathogenic avian
influenza. Cage systems also may reduce pecking and other
aggressive behavior including cannibalism. The way eggs are
handled in cage systems may also reduce the chances that the
outside of the egg will be contaminated with its feces,
offering a food safety benefit. If consumer choices are
restricted as some animal rights activists would like to do,
the consequences would be higher food costs for low-income
Americans and a greater strain on our land resources. If all
U.S. production had to be free range, consumers would have to
pay an additional $4.65 billion every year for eggs and we
would need to find additional land resources roughly the size
of the State of Delaware.
Frankly, there is nothing our industry could do short of
all declaring bankruptcy and leaving the farm that would
satisfy some of the activist groups. UEP has been a target of
these groups, even as we have tried to implement the best
science-based guidelines for the care of laying hens.
UEP asks the members of this subcommittee to help us
educate your colleagues about the importance of animal
agriculture and the shortsightedness of legislation that would
harm our industries. We ask you to resist amendments to the
2007 Farm Bill that would harm animal agriculture including
efforts to set new and arbitrary standards for Federal
procurement. The marketplace is the appropriate place to
establish science-based standards that will allow consumers to
make their own choices.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gregory appears at the
conclusion of the hearing:]
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Gregory.
Mr. Gonzalez.
STATEMENT OF GUILLERMO GONZALEZ, OWNER, SONOMA FOIE GRAS, ON
BEHALF OF ARTISAN FARMERS ALLIANCE, SONOMA, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Gonzalez. Good morning, Chairman Boswell, Ranking
Member Hayes and members of the subcommittee. My name is
Guillermo Gonzalez. I am a farmer and the owner of Sonoma Foie
Gras. I am here today on behalf of the Artisan Farmers
Alliance, a new group that represents the three farms in the
United States that produce foie gras. Thank you for the
opportunity to set the record straight about our farming
practices and to share with you the struggle of our three small
farms to stay in business in the face of an aggressive assault
by extremist animal activists.
Foie gras is French for ``fat liver.'' It dates back to
ancient Egypt where they depicted the hand feeding of waterfowl
in colorful relief paintings. Over the centuries, it became an
integral part of French cooking. As you may be able to tell
from my accent, I am not French. I was born and raised in El
Salvador. In the 1980s I moved to France to learn traditional
foie gras farming techniques. Then in 1986, I moved to Sonoma
County, California, and began to produce foie gras and other
duck products. I operate a very small farm set in a walnut
orchard southeast of Stockton in California's great Central
Valley. Last year I raised 50,000 ducks. To put this in
perspective, a modern poultry plant processes more birds in a
single 8-hour shift than I do in an entire year.
On my farm, we still use very traditional methods and I am
proud of our operations. As anyone who has ever worked in
animal agriculture will tell you, there is no one who cares
more about animal welfare than farmers. My entire livelihood
depends on the health of my flocks. The peer-reviewed
scientific studies support our methods and conclude that the
feeding does not create abnormal stress in ducks, and in each
of the last 2 years the American Veterinary Medical Association
has reviewed the foie gras issue and rejected calls to label it
inhumane. Last year the AVMA sent a blue ribbon panel to review
firsthand the operations on a foie gras farm.
While we farmers focus on the objective science, we are
attacked on the basis of emotional appeals. Of course we
understand that some people will choose not to eat our product
just as some people will choose not to eat beef or chicken or
fish. That is their right. But what about the rights of other
individuals to make their own decisions about what they do or
do not eat?
Huge multimillion-dollar organizations are trying to limit
consumer choices and drive us out of business. They have tried
to ban the sale of our USDA inspected and approved products in
many jurisdictions and they have filed countless lawsuits
against us in an effort to drive us out of our land and into
bankruptcy. In many cases, activists have gone well beyond the
law in their zeal to impose their views on others. My own farm
and the two other U.S. foie gras farms, both in upstate New
York, have been broken into and vandalized repeatedly. They
trespass, damage our property, steal our animals and sometimes
do much worse.
In 2002, my wife and I took our retirement savings from
years of hard work and decided to open a restaurant in Sonoma,
California. As the construction was in progress, violent animal
activists broke into the restaurant's historic building, filled
the drains with concrete and turned on the water faucets. They
scrawled on the wall ``stop or be stopped, death, scum,
torturer.'' Perhaps even worse for me as an immigrant, they
spray-painted ``Go home.'' The restaurant was ruined and we
lost our savings. Bad as it was, I am lucky compared to my
business partner. Activists stalked him and his family
including his small child. Secretly, they videotaped them in
their daily routines. One day his wife found a wrapped package
containing the tape in their front yard with a note saying ``We
are watching you.''
These stories highlight a disturbing trend. Acting in the
name of animal rights, some seem to have forgotten the human
rights of farmers. Animal rights groups need to realize that
their inflammatory rhetoric has real consequences. They call me
a torturer. Mr. Baur's own written testimony today equates
animal agriculture with slavery.
This subject of animal welfare needs less heat and more
light. We need a discussion based on science, fact, reason and
experience rather than emotional anthropomorphic appeals. This
is increasingly important as fewer and fewer Americans have a
personal experience with agriculture. The truth is that food
doesn't come from supermarkets. It comes from the hard work of
farmers and we ought to respect farmers for the hard work they
do, not demonize them.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gonzalez appears at the
conclusion of the hearing:]
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. We would like to
recognize now Mr. Martosko.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MARTOSKO, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, CENTER FOR
CONSUMER FREEDOM, WASHINGTON, DC.
Mr. Martosko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee for inviting me here today. I am David Martosko,
Director of Research at the nonprofit Center for Consumer
Freedom. We are based here in Washington and it is managed by
Berman and Company, a public affairs and association management
firm. Support for the center comes from members of the general
public and from private industry including restaurant and food
companies.
I am very happy to see so many people here today who
actually know something about animal agriculture but I must
urge you to be skeptical of organizations that propose to
extend human rights to animals. Groups like these do include
the Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, People
for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, PETA, and PETA's quasi-
medical affiliate, the Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine. These groups are all led by strict vegans who
discourage Americans from eating any meat no matter how
humanely it is raised. Now, that is not a caricature, that is a
fact. When the topic of discussion is how to make livestock
farming better, the complaints of radical vegans should be seen
for what they are, an attempt to dismantle animal agriculture,
not improve it. Their true agenda is to put livestock farmers
out of business and we should all recognize their ulterior
motives.
Let me express this to you in political terms. What if Rush
Limbaugh suggested that the Democratic National Committee
should invite him into its planning meetings or what if Cindy
Sheehan put her own name forward to moderate a Republican Party
debate? Now, the last thing Cindy Sheehan wants is for the GOP
to improve itself. She wants its marginalized and made less
powerful. The same is true about Mr. Limbaugh and the DNC and
it is also true of HSUS and the entire livestock food chain
including farmers, ranchers, packers, restaurants and
retailers. Encouraging the input of people who want to crush
you is a strange way of seeking sensible reform. And keep in
mind that despite its name, the Humane Society of the United
States is not affiliated with any local humane society anywhere
in the United States. Now, few Americans know this. So HSUS
uses public goodwill that it doesn't deserve in order to raise
millions, and all that money gives HSUS the power to unfairly
attack just about every segment of animal agriculture.
I was really pleased to hear Mr. Gonzalez speaking just
before me, and look what has happened in the case of foie gras.
HSUS and Farm Sanctuary aren't pushing for animal welfare
reform, they want abolition. They are trying to outlaw a kind
of animal protein that many people enjoy. Now, I have never
tasted foie gras but who are these people to decide I shouldn't
have the chance to try it? When zealots ban books because of
their politics, millions of us rise up. Why isn't banning food
for political reasons viewed the same way? And what is next? A
speakeasy where a secret password will be required to get a
veal cutlet? Wouldn't that be ironic too? Veal farmers spend
tons of money paying veterinarians to audit their farms. They
provide a purpose for male dairy calves that would otherwise be
destroyed at birth. HSUS and Farm Sanctuary ought to be
promoting veal but they would rather see it disappear to make
room for a vegan utopia and besides, it is good for
fundraising.
In 2005, after the Humane Society of the U.S. released its
guide to vegetarian eating, one manager of the group told the
animal rights movement magazine that his organization's goals
include, and I quote, ``promoting vegetarian eating.'' And Mr.
Pacelle said HSUS was ``doing a guide to vegetarian eating to
really make the case for it.'' Just last week HSUS ranked U.S.
cities according to what it calls a humane index, and one part
of the index which they call humane eats, it is a scorecard, it
judges how humane a city's dining options are by counting just
one thing: the number of vegetarian restaurants per capita.
That is all they care about. HSUS is judging that only meatless
eating should be considered humane. You see, no matter how much
farmers take their animals' welfare into account, animal rights
leaders won't be satisfied until all animal protein disappears
from our diets. The truth is that HSUS and PETA share the same
long-term goals: no meat, no dairy, no animal ag, period, more
rights for animals, fewer for you and me. HSUS is basically
PETA with a nicer wristwatch and fewer naked interns.
Now, please don't misunderstand me. My organization is not
an anti-vegetarian group. We are interested in protecting all
dietary choices including those of the tiny segment of
Americans who choose to be vegetarians. It is a free country.
But when groups with huge budgets mislead Americans about food
they don't believe we should be allowed to choose, that is not
fair. For instance, right now on HSUS's website, they overstate
the fat content of chicken by over 500 percent in order to
discourage people from eating it. That is not fair. Now, I can
almost understand why animal rights groups spread this kind of
misinformation. If you believe that a veal calf or a breeding
sow or a lab rate is worth the same as my mother or your
daughter, then of course it is remarkably easy to invent moral
justifications for cutting factual corners or breaking election
finance law as Farm Sanctuary did hundreds of times in the 2002
Florida elections, or even in the case of ones spokesperson for
the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, advocating
the murder of people who don't agree with you.
I will leave you with this last thought. Congress could
require U.S. farmers to supply every pig, chicken, duck and cow
with private rooms, daily rubdowns, video iPods, organic meals
catered by Wolfgang Puck. You could do all of this but it still
wouldn't satisfy activists who actually believe farm animals
have the right not to be eaten no matter how they were raised.
Thank you very much for inviting my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martosko appears at the
conclusion of the hearing:]
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you, Mr. Martosko. You made
several pretty strong statements. Are you saying that Mr.
Pacelle and his organization do not want any human consumption
of meat or animal?
Mr. Martosko. Yes, absolutely, and their own literature and
their own website points this out. Mr. Pacelle said that the
reason they came up with the vegetarians guide was----
Mr. Boswell. I am reclaiming my time. Thank you.
Mr. Pacelle, is that correct?
Mr. Pacelle. No, it is absolutely incorrect as are a
laundry list of other statements from Mr. Martosko, who today
is attacking the Humane Society. On other days he attacks
Mothers Against Drunk Driving for its efforts to keep people
who are inebriated off the road, public health----
Mr. Boswell. You are expanding. Because of time--thank you.
So you----
Mr. Martosko. Mr. Chairman, we support a program----
Mr. Boswell. Reclaiming my time. Hold on a second. I think
you mentioned several times in your testimony that the
organization prefers more humane methods of raising and
slaughtering animals for consumption, so is it therefore true
that the society has no problem with those who eat meat?
Mr. Pacelle. Ninety-five percent of our members are meat
eaters, Mr. Chairman, and----
Mr. Boswell. So you have no problem with that?
Mr. Pacelle. No. If you look at the----
Mr. Boswell. Let me move on to another question because of
time. Thank you very much.
I was a little surprised in earlier testimonies regarding
the amount of dollars accumulated by your organization and so a
question comes to my mind, do you have sanctuaries scattered
across the country? Do you have investments in those?
Mr. Pacelle. Mr. Chairman, we have $5 and $10 and $15 and
$20 donors, Americans from every State in the country, and as I
mentioned, 10 million of them. They scrutinize all programs.
All of our programs are advertised on our website and other
materials. This is a program--Mr. Martosko and others are
always fond of saying we don't care for animals. This is an
entire guide about out animal shelter----
Mr. Boswell. No, come on. The question is, do you have
sanctuaries for animals across the country or in----
Mr. Pacelle. We have three facilities that are entirely
animal-related facilities. What we do is, we help shelters run
better across the country. We don't run every shelter. There
are thousands of them across the country.
Mr. Boswell. But you do have shelters?
Mr. Pacelle. We have several different kinds of shelters.
We have an entire veterinary services program that goes into
rural areas and last year handled 40,000 dogs and cats in the
most rural areas in the country, just that one program, which
is a small part of our program.
Mr. Boswell. Okay. Last question and I will yield to Mr.
Hayes. It has been called to my attention that the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act in the last Congress that protected
animal producers and families from extremist animal rights
activists, your organization did not support that. Is that
true?
Mr. Pacelle. We have long opposed any illegal actions
related to promoting animal protection. I have spoken on it
publicly, and the people that have been condemned here today
for going beyond the bounds of the law, we have joined in the
course of criticizing. We were concerned about----
Mr. Boswell. So you did support the----
Mr. Pacelle. Because it had overreaching provisions that
would have checked what we believe are protected speech
activities.
Mr. Boswell. So you did not support it then?
Mr. Pacelle. Not in the form. We wanted to support it but
we could not in the form that it was moved out of the
committee. There was no markup on the bill. There was no
hearing that allowed for any examination of those First
Amendment questions.
Mr. Boswell. Okay.
Mr. Pacelle. But on our website is a strong statement
against violent and illegal activities, and that is core to
what we do.
Mr. Boswell. I appreciate that.
Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will reserve my time.
I don't have a question right now.
Mr. Boswell. Mr. Kagen.
Mr. Kagen. Thank you everyone for being here. With all this
talk about food, I am getting kind of hungry, so I am going to
just ask some yes or no questions. Mr. Pacelle, I would just
like to know, do you live in the city or in the country?
Because where I come from, if you come from the city you don't
understand things are born and die every day. If you live in
the country, you understand the whole circle of life. Do you
live in the city?
Mr. Pacelle. I live in a suburb.
Mr. Kagen. And do you have pets in your house?
Mr. Pacelle. Yes.
Mr. Kagen. And so you are not eating your pets, you are not
recommending people eat their pets. Am I correct?
Mr. Pacelle. Correct.
Mr. Kagen. And do you eat meat from chickens or eggs or
cows?
Mr. Pacelle. I am a vegetarian.
Mr. Kagen. Okay. So you don't feel comfortable with the
slaughtering of animals for consumption. Is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Pacelle. Excuse me?
Mr. Kagen. You don't feel comfortable----
Mr. Pacelle. Personally?
Mr. Kagen. Correct.
Mr. Pacelle. I choose not to do it, yes.
Mr. Kagen. Okay. And I am a person that feels that how you
spend your money either as an individual or as a family or a
Congress is a reflection of your values so in terms of
percentages of your organization's budget, what percent of your
budget for the Humane Society do you spend for the direct care
of animals?
Mr. Pacelle. We have the highest rating on the charity
navigator regulatory group. It is a 4-star rating.
Mr. Kagen. I don't know what that regulatory group is but I
am just looking for a number.
Mr. Pacelle. We are not only a direct care group. Other
groups would like us to spend all of our money caring for
animals. We work on policy issues. We work on a wide range of
other issues. We work with corporations----
Mr. Kagen. I understand that, but what I am looking for is
a number.
Mr. Pacelle. I couldn't give you the percentage. We spend
millions on direct care--millions. We take in--last year we had
revenues from average Americans, not from the government, of
$130 million. We spend millions on direct care of animals.
Mr. Kagen. So that would be 1 percent, 2 percent?
Mr. Pacelle. No. It depends which year. During Katrina----
Mr. Kagen. Maybe you could study that and get information
to me. I would be very interested in that.
Mr. Pacelle. I would be happy to.
Mr. Kagen. And that is the end of my time, so I yield back.
Thank you.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing. I appreciate the testimony. This is a big issue facing
all of us as we go forward to write this new farm bill.
As I listen to this testimony, I direct my first question
to Mr. Pacelle and that is, I would ask you if you could point
out the statutes that you are referring to when you state that
it is illegal to consume horseflesh in America.
Mr. Pacelle. I don't believe I ever said that.
Mr. King. You are on record as doing that and so I would
ask----
Mr. Pacelle. Well, I would like----
Mr. King. --if you could provide--go ahead, Mr. Pacelle.
Mr. Pacelle. No, I would like the context of the comment.
It is often that people take comments out of context.
Mr. King. Okay. This is a context of a complete article
that you have posted on a website that has no source titled
``King Watch'' and so it is some of the information that you
provided in my district that is by my position false and so I
want to give you an opportunity to speak to that, but what I
will do is, since you don't know about the facts of this, I
would ask you to submit to the record a correction of that if
you had an opportunity to do some research, because I think it
would be important for this panel to understand if there are
any laws out there in local jurisdictions that you might have
been referring to at the time that might have passed, you might
have forgotten. But I think we have established that case.
But I wanted to spend my time more----
Mr. Pacelle. Well----
Mr. King. Oh, no, I am completed.
Mr. Martosko, your testimony here today was emphatic enough
to I think bring everybody's attention to this issue and I
would ask you, as you looked at the organizations that you
named that you say are determined to eliminate the livestock
production industry in this country, there are a lot of threats
to the livestock industry. We have diseases, 1, regulations,
another, environmental regulations in particular. You have
activist groups that are involved in legislation and litigation
and BSE in the case of livestock. In fact, 1 of the
organizations states that swine is also a sort of BSE and I
don't find that to be the case. But of all of the things that
threaten livestock, what is the greatest risk to the livestock
industry in your opinion?
Mr. Martosko. In my opinion, the greatest risk right now is
the possibility that the Congress will take seriously the
advice of people who have sworn never to eat meat in crafting
policy that will damage farming.
Mr. King. And I would ask Mr. Gonzalez, what is your
greatest concern to the overall livestock industry or
particularly your own, which I have not had the opportunity to
try either.
Mr. Gonzalez. My greatest concern is that national market
for meat and poultry products can break down if every city and
town starts banning USDA-approved products.
Mr. King. Thank you.
Dr. Golab, at least the implication, if not the statement,
has been introduced into this record or made that swine can
carry BSE. Do you have any knowledge of that?
Mr. Golab. I am not aware that there has been direct
evidence of that up to this point in time.
Mr. King. In fact, I would point out there is a British
study that fed concentrated quantities of BSE-carrying material
to swine back when they had their--are you familiar with that
study or at least have you read of it?
Mr. Golab. No, I have not seen that study.
Mr. King. Any studies that I can find establish that there
is no connection, no link, no transfer from swine to any other
animal that might be subject to potentially BSE.
I also wanted to make a point that was just interesting to
me. Mr. Chairman, I think you might enjoy this. I look back on
some of the things that pop up in my mind as we have these
discussions about particularly animal husbandry and I am
thinking about back in the 1970s when, and I am pulling this
off of memory, but when John McKay was coaching the UCLA Bruins
to national championships, they had a center there named Bill
Walton, about 6"11, a red-haired vegetarian. He did a good job
as an All American center in basketball and I believe they won
at least 1 national championship under him. He went on to play
for the Seattle Supersonics, by my recollection. But his legs
wouldn't hold up and they went to specialist after specialist,
and finally 1 particular doctor said to him, you need to
increase your fluids, you can't play 4 or 5 games a week; 1 or
2 was fine when you were in college but you are in the pros now
and you need to increase your protein. So he recommended that
Bill Walton increase his diet and take on beer and steak. Now,
I am kind of in favor of those things and it is reported in the
news that increasing that protein diet by going to that more
protein concentrated including Pacific salmon was the first
year that he had a good year and his legs held up. So I want to
hold up the livestock industry and ensure that we can watch all
kinds of competitive sports across America for a long time to
come. I am interested in your industry and I am interested in
our entertainment as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would yield back.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. King.
Just a question to the panel at large, and I would like to
ask this. I know I have gotten contacts, a lot of efforts made
throughout the industry whether it is all different types of
agriculture production that you are putting a lot of effort
into the science and study to try to give appreciation to the
needs of animals and healthy environment and so on. Does
anybody want to make any comment of what you are actually doing
to try to meet the concerns that have been brought up to us
today? Anybody?
Mr. Pacelle. Mr. Chairman, there was just a study that came
out of Iowa State University from, it was the Leopold Center
and Iowa State study about sows in hoop barns as an alternative
to gestation crates, and I believe that sort of work is
happening around the country and it is showing that not only is
it more humane for the animals but it is more efficient in
terms of the productivity of the pigs and it is better from a
manure management standpoint. All this talk, you know, I never
bring up vegetarianism. The only thing I ever bring up
vegetarianism is when people like Mr. Martosko and others try
to caricature us. If you look at every policy reform that we
advance, it is about making life a little better for creatures
who are less powerful than we are, and this research validates
that elemental notion that has always governed agriculture
before it got so intensive: give an animal a little space, give
an animal a little opportunity to turn around.
Mr. Boswell. Any other members? Mr. Gregory?
Mr. Gregory. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Boswell. Mr. Gregory, just in your area because I am
acquainted with a gentleman named Van Zetten. Now, you may know
him, Blair, but he tells me, knowing this meeting was coming up
we had a discussion and talked about the efforts that are made
in the egg-laying industry to provide what the consumer wants,
and I would like for you to address that a little bit from your
perspective. Is it across the industry this happening or is
Blair the only 1 that is doing it?
Mr. Gregory. First of all, he is a friend of yours and mine
so I will tell him that you asked about him. Blair is in the
egg products business and his customers are companies that buy
eggs as an ingredient to make other food items. So the
ingredient-buying food manufacturing business has expressed an
interest in their suppliers meeting animal welfare guidelines
nearly at the speed by which retail groceries have done so. Our
program is open and available and voluntarily people come to it
and so we have said to Blair, whenever your customers are ready
for it, we are happy to work with you, and we think that will
happen one day.
Could I say one other thing, Mr. Chairman, while we have
the opportunity? I am really proud of our egg industry because
I really believe that we can find solutions to most anything.
Most any challenge that we are faced with, we try to resolve,
and we try to do it in a way that we are critical about what we
do. We think it is an example of how we have done it in animal
welfare as with the science-based committee of which Dr. Golab
is one of those committee members. We are doing the same thing
now to try to solve environmental problems. We have a
scientific panel headed by Dr. Hong Wa Shin at Iowa State. But
you had asked a question earlier about what is our greatest
concern. I actually believe we can solve almost every problem
there is in our business except the thing that I am most
fearful of is animal activists. They literally want to put all
of animal agriculture out of business and they have broken into
our facilities. They have presented distorted video, and when
they talk about this university or this retailer or so and so
making a switch to cage-free eggs, please understand, our
producers also produce cage-free eggs and organic eggs and so
we are not disparaging to any kind of system. We think there
are advantages and disadvantages to all. But most retailers,
most university dining facilities, et cetera, don't willingly
make those choices. They make those choices after having been
intimidated by some of the animal activist groups that are in
this room today. So make sure that you understand that this
doesn't happen just out of the goodwill of the people to do
this. It comes through intimidation of the marketplace.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pacelle. Mr. Chairman, can I answer that since it is
kind of directed at us?
Mr. Boswell. My time has run out. I will see if Mr. Hayes
has a question and we will go from there.
Mr. Hayes?
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Golab, there are some implications beyond what we have
talked about today. For example, in your medical veterinary
opinion, ending the use of antibiotics in the livestock and
poultry industry, how would such a ban, a blanket ban, affect
the welfare of livestock on our farms and ranches and other
associated issues?
Ms. Golab. I am sorry. I didn't hear the last part of that.
Mr. Hayes. Okay. Blanket ban on antibiotics in livestock,
what other implication besides the livestock, include that as
well, would be created by banning antibiotics in treating
livestock?
Ms. Golab. Well, if you take a look at what happened over
in Europe when a certain proportion of antibiotics administered
to livestock were prohibited, what you saw was that the amount
of antibiotics administered to livestock for treatment purposes
went up considerably. At the same time what you did not see is
human resistance go down, which is what the primary concern has
been with the use of antibiotics in livestock. What we see as
veterinarians is increased disease, increased mortality. That
is our principal concern at that point when you start
eliminating preventive uses in particular.
Mr. Hayes. I appreciate the comment and I think the point
to be made is, some of these extreme positions that are held
have not only unintended consequences but they are not
victimless positions.
Mr. Gonzalez, we applaud you for your efforts as a small
businessman, immigrant to this country. You have raised some
issues. Mr. Gregory has also raised issues. I think it is
important because this Congress has passed the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act, which if you think about, we should
have never had to do because people should never have done the
things that prompted us to have to do this, and I am
particularly sensitive to you as an individual and a farmer,
not an association. Are there other instances--and by the way,
organizations are opposed and lobbied against the Animal
Enterprise Terrorism Act, which is somewhat hypocritical with
some of the statements that have been made here today. Have you
had other experiences that you did not mention in your limited
time for testimony that you think are valuable to this ongoing
discussion?
Mr. Gonzalez. Well, I want to support Mr. Gregory's
statement in terms of changes being made in the marketplace as
a result of intimidation and coercion. The particular case
happening with the foie gras market is that all the restaurants
are being blanketed with letters being sent by these
organizations telling them that if they do not withdraw the
product from their menus, they are going to be picketed, and
obviously no restaurant, especially high-end restaurants,
enjoys or wants their customers to be bothered with picketers
on the outside and this is happening on a regular basis.
Obviously, and this is probably the most important part of my
testimony is, an invitation to these animal rights groups to
tone down, to dial down their inflammatory rhetoric because
nobody can tell when--it takes only one person to snap and it
is very risky at the individual level, especially in our case
of the foie gras producers that we are very clearly identified,
and the way they portray us in the public eye is really putting
our lives and our families at risk. So I made a respectful
invitation to civility in this issue in order to tone down the
rhetoric because it can have real consequences. The hate mail
that I have received is regular. Just before the moment I was
taking off to come to this meeting, I received one that you
don't know who is going to be ticked off by this. I can go on
and on but basically that is my main message.
Mr. Hayes. I appreciate your presence here today.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
Mr. Hayes. The business of hate mail is extremely serious,
but the fact that your restaurant was destroyed before it was
ever completed kind of eliminated the picketing and I think it
is important that the public knows that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Walberg.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me ask Dr. Golab, as a person who works with animals
and handles the science side of this issue, what does current
science say about the treatment of sows, cows, cattle and other
animals that are processed for consumption?
Ms. Golab. Well, I think that the single biggest issue that
we take home, and this is important to me because I concentrate
across issues rather than concentrating on a particular
species, basically what it comes down to is that every single
production system has its advantages and disadvantages, and one
of our biggest concerns I think as an association and as a
profession is when you take those systems and you try and
piecemeal them, and what I mean by that is, you take pieces of
a particular system and you try and take actions on those
pieces rather than considering the system as a whole. When you
do that, you can create situations where you have changed a
piece of a system but the rest of the production has not caught
up with a change. For example, if you were to suddenly move
from stall housing systems for gestating sows to group systems
without consideration for the type of animal that you have in
that system, the individuals that are managing those animals,
how that animal is fed, you could actually make the welfare of
that animal considerably worse rather than better, and that is
pretty true across the system irrespective of whatever piece of
it you select. And so our great wish is that these would be
considered as comprehensive systems, and if changes need to be
made, because the public is uncomfortable with something, do it
in such a way that we phase in those changes and we make sure
that we retain the advantages of the particular system that we
are presently using but resolve its disadvantages.
Mr. Walberg. How do we compare with other nations?
Ms. Golab. I am sorry. What?
Mr. Walberg. How do we compare with other nations in the
handling, the processing, the care for animals?
Ms. Golab. I think in terms of other nations, you have to
look at it in the context of what the philosophy is in those
nations. The fact of the matter is, the way that animals are
viewed differs and it is also a fact that depending upon the
amount of resources that you have, depends how much you can
devote to things like animal welfare. Certainly I think in
comparison with industrialized systems, we are certainly among
the best, if not the best, at what we do. Certainly in less
industrialized nations, they are doing the best they can, I
think, but they have to devote their resources and allocate
those as necessary, and right now they are not able to provide
as much resource in terms of animal welfare.
Mr. Walberg. I want to move on with a few more questions as
long as time remains here, and specifically asking Mr. Gregory,
during the depression my father made it through as a chicken
farmer and learned the value of the egg and I watched him in my
young life train us in the value of the egg whether we liked it
or not and sometimes devouring raw eggs because he still
thought they were good for him, he lived to a ripe old age as
well. But what do you do specifically to maintain the welfare
of your animals, and especially considering these animals are
your livelihood and source of revenue in the industry that you
represent? I guess I am looking for specifics that show your
intentions and show the lengths you go.
Mr. Gregory. Well, first of all, sir, I am not an egg
producer. I am the President of the United Egg Producers
Association. So I would speak for what we ask of our producers
to do, and that is that we believe that egg production can be
humanely produced in cages or in cage-free systems, organic
systems, whatever it may be, providing that the farmer, the
producer is following the recommendations of respected
scientists that knows the well-being of the animals. We
encourage all of our members to follow those kind of
guidelines, and if they do, we believe that their animals will
respond kindly to them as well.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Boswell. Mr. Goodlatte, do you have questions? Or Mr.
King has one. I will let you get organized, whichever.
Mr. Goodlatte. I just want to set the record straight on
something that concerns me greatly because animal welfare
obviously is a very important issue but also food safety is a
very important issue as well and it was asserted by Mr. Pacelle
in his testimony that there was a downer cow with BSE that got
into our food supply. That is absolutely false, and one of the
reasons why we have the system that we have to protect
consumers is to make sure that kind of thing does not happen.
In his testimony, he suggested that the BSE-positive cattle had
entered the food supply. Due to the large number of overlapping
firewalls, no cattle testing positive for BSE have entered the
food supply in the United States. I think this small example
justifies Mr. Stenholm's testimony regarding the scare tactics
used by animal rights activists to invent facts to support
their extreme agenda, and we will submit information from the
USDA of every cow that has been discovered in the United States
with BSE, and there are only a few of them, to show that in
each instance, the cow did not enter the food supply. And of
course, a further safety measure is that the specified risk
material in these animals is removed prior to the processing
anyway so that portion that would contain any such ingredient
would not get in anyway. But notwithstanding that fact, there
is no cow that has entered our food supply, and I just want to
make sure that the record reflects that so that the American
consumer knows that our beef supply is indeed safe.
Mr. Boswell. Mr. Goodlatte, would you yield on that point?
Mr. Goodlatte. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Boswell. I appreciate you making those comments. A
concern of mine for some time of course has been the same thing
that we have shared, you and I have talked about and others on
the committee about BSE, et cetera, and all animals aren't the
same, and concern has risen caused by some that the same thing
applies to pork. That is just not so. Even efforts have been
made to inject in tests, I am told, with BSE and it didn't
take. And I want to ask for you to yield to make this comment.
As a young person, I used to feed and haul a lot of hogs to
market and I had somebody ask me one time well, what goes on
when a pig or a hog just lays down, and some would call that a
downed animal, and I said well, first off, you understand it
has been proven they are very smart animals. They have an
intellect that is unusual when it comes to animals. And to get
my point across, I finally said I will tell you what, as a
person that dealt with that, they protest, they lay down. And
the person said, well, what do you do then, and I said well, we
are trying to load them to go to market, I said, we put a
person on each ear and the tail and give them encouragement and
maybe they just stand up and go. Now, a little on the light
side of it, I get down to the Kansas City market, I was just a
young fellow at those times, didn't have anybody to help me but
sometimes they decided to protest versus get off the top deck
getting off the truck, and guess who had to go back up in there
and get them out after healing them for 2 or 3 hours? I had a
lot of involvement in that, but it is true, the hog, the swine,
there has never, ever been a case of anything that would be
remotely connected to BSE according to the many scientists and
people that I have talked to and the people in the business.
They are smart animals and they will do things like that to
make you think they might be sick and they are not sick at all,
and there is no evidence of it, and I may be overstretching the
comment by saying they protest but that is exactly the way I
see it to understand what they will do, having dealt with them
over the times of my life.
So thank you for yielding. I yield back.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have got to leave
and I just want to point out, Mr. Pacelle and I disagree on the
whole downed animal issue and I understand his position. I
think it is incorrect because I think you correctly note that
there are a multitude of reasons why an animal might be downed,
and there are provisions in the law to assure that an animal
that is downed and may be diseased does not get into the food
supply. An animal that might have a broken leg or something
like that under the old provisions would still be suitable for
slaughter. The disagreement we had was over whether it should
be all-encompassing like that and that an animal that had those
kind of problems would still get into the food supply and an
animal that is diseased shouldn't get into the food supply
under any circumstances whether it is downed or not. But the
important thing here is to make very clear that in no instance
of the very small number, I am not sure of the exact number,
the 3, 4, 5 cows with BSE that have been found in the United
States, none have entered the human food supply, and I just
think it is important to set the record straight on that issue
so that any coverage of this hearing makes it clear that the
food supply, that the confidence of the American consumer in
the safety of their beef is not any way impaired by that.
I thank you very much for allowing me to make that one
point.
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you, and I would say this in
credit to Mr. Pacelle or anybody else in the room: If you have
a concern about BSE or downed animals, we all do. Nobody
objects to that. We all do, and I think that is across the
country, so I think that is something we absolutely agree on
but we just have to use the science and be factual about it.
This pretty much wraps up this panel. Is there anybody that
wants to have the last--Mr. King?
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important
that we end this panel and this important section of this
hearing on the right tone. So sometimes I listen to testimony,
a question will pop up in my mind, and I think I have to have
an answer to that. The question that popped up in my mind was,
can a vegan or a vegetarian, can they eat a carnivore, and as I
rolled that question around in my mind, the very agile staff
that we have comes up with an answer for me that I would like
to share with this committee, and the answer to that is yes,
that there are five plants, at least that we know of, that are
carnivores themselves and we are all familiar with the Venus
Flytrap but if you go across the range from the consumption of
a small insect whereas the largest one is a Raja pitcher plant,
they can actually digest mice. So I would think there would be
a way to get some retribution by making a salad out of these
five carnivorous plants.
But I also wanted to make a confession just to end up my
time here and that is that I am also a vegetarian, that I eat
recycled, concentrated, enhanced vegetables in the form of
meat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Boswell. I would like to close this panel at this time
and thank every one of you for your patience and your
contribution and the manner in which you presented things you
feel strongly about. Thank you very much. We would excuse you
at this time and ask the third and final panel to join us at
the table. As you are getting situated, let me say to the third
panel, thank you for your tolerance and your patience. You have
waited a long time, and we don't want you to think you are any
less important for being here because sometimes they even say
the best is last. I don't know if that would be applicable here
but nevertheless, we are pleased to have you here.
By introduction, I would introduce Mr. Gene Baur, President
of Farm Sanctuary, Watkins Glen, New York; Mr. Paxton Ramsey,
Member, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Devers, Texas;
Ms. Barbara Determan, National Pork Producers Counsel, Early,
Iowa, I know where that is; Ms. Leslie Vagneur Lange, National
Director, American Quarter Horse Association from Greeley,
Colorado; and Ms. Karen Jordan, DVM, Owner of Large Animal
Veterinary Services on behalf of the National Milk Producers
Federation, Siler City, North Carolina. Welcome to the panel.
Mr. Baur, would you please share with us.
STATEMENT OF GENE BAUR, PRESIDENT, FARM SANCTUARY, WATKINS
GLEN, NEW YORK
Mr. Baur. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank
you very much for holding this hearing to address farm animal
welfare. It is an area of growing concern across our country
and that is why we are seeing companies like Whole Foods
develop more humane standards and where companies like
Smithfield are starting to move away from certain practices
that have been common. My name is Gene Baur. I am the Oresident
and Cofounder of Farm Sanctuary. We operate two sanctuaries for
farm animals, one in New York, one in California. I also have a
master's degree on agricultural economics from Cornell
University. So I have spent a fair bit of time taking care of
animals. I have firsthand experience taking care of animals.
Our shelters actually began when we would find living animals
literally thrown in trashcans or living animals left on piles
of dead animals behind stockyards.
What has happened as we have pushed to produce more food
more cheaply is that animals have become increasingly
commodified. Animals are not being seen as living, feeling
creatures and they are seen more as production units, and I am
glad to hear that this assumption that if animals are
productive, their welfare is good, is now being questioned. In
fact, as Dr. Golab pointed out, there are competing interests
on the farm. In some instances, animal welfare is actually in
conflict with animal production. To produce egg-laying breeds
of hens, hatcheries discard millions of unwanted male chicks
every year. I have photos of baby chicks in dumpsters. I was at
a hatchery once and watched living chicks put on an auger, sent
into a manure spreader to be spread on the field as manure. As
Dr. Temple Grandin has said, and she is one of the Nation's and
in fact the world's leading livestock handling experts, bad has
become normal oftentimes what happens on farms. I also want to
just say that I don't believe that farmers are bad people. I
don't believe that people who are throwing living animals in
trashcans or confining them in these devices which I believe
are inhumane, I don't believe that those individuals are cruel
or intentionally causing harm to animals but I believe people
have become jaded, and the industry has looked to maximize
production and it has come at the expensive of animal welfare.
Science has shown us what we can do but it has not asked
the question, what we should do. Ethics is the issue we are
dealing with here and that is why these issues are so
emotional. Animal advocates are very upset about what they see
happening to animals and I also understand that animal
producers sometimes feel threatened and feel that they are
being called cruel. That is not an easy thing to hear. But I
would like to point out again that these are not people
intentionally causing harm or wishing to cause harm. Nobody
wants to cause harm. We all like to see ourselves as humane
citizens. But what is happening on farms is, in the view of
myself and Farm Sanctuary's members and most U.S. citizens,
what is happening on farms is unacceptable. Most people do not
feel that it is right to keep breeding pigs in 2-foot-wide
crates for years. They feel that it is wrong to just throw
living animals in trashcans or leave them on piles of dead
animals.
When we address how animals are raised, we need to look at
the ethical issues. Science is important, that needs to be
brought into the equation but ethics is also important, and
that is one of the things that we haven't really heard very
much about here. What is humane? What is appropriate? What do
we stand for as a people and as a society? Do we think it is
okay for living chicks to be thrown on an auger and dumped into
a manure spreader to be spread on the field as manure? Do we
think that is appropriate? And I would also just say from the
legal standpoint, farm animals are excluded from the Federal
Animal Welfare Act and they are also excluded from many state
anticruelty laws. So this idea of throwing these live animals
away could in some cases be considered legal, and in fact, we
had a court case in New Jersey where there were a couple of
live hens that were thrown into a trashcan as manure. The egg
industry's lawyer actually argued in court that legally the
birds could be treated like manure. The judge said isn't there
a difference between live birds and manure? And the attorney
said no, Your Honor.
So it has gotten to such a point that cruelty is defended
and I think this hearing will hopefully shed some light on some
of the real conditions and I really appreciate the opportunity
to be here. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baur appears at the
conclusion of the hearing:]
Mr. Boswell. Thank you. We would now recognize Mr. Ramsey.
STATEMENT OF PAXTON RAMSEY, MEMBER, NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF
ASSOCIATION, DEVERS, TEXAS
Mr. Ramsey. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and
members of the committee. My name is Paxton Ramsey and I am the
4th of 5 generations on my family's ranch in south Texas where
we raise cattle and horses, and I am honored to be here this
morning on behalf of the American rancher to confirm the
importance of animal welfare in our industry.
Each morning on ranches across the country, over a cup of
coffee in the barn, cowboys are feeding, grooming, shoeing
horses, putting orphaned calves on a nurse cow as they meet and
prioritize their duties of the day. A plan is devised and each
man departs for the day in a dirty pickup with a pair of
fencing pliers, a sandwich, medicine and a fresh horse in his
trailer. Our goal is to as thorough and efficient as we can in
checking and handling our portion of the livestock with animal
welfare and profitability in mind. This includes providing
adequate water, minerals and vitamins based on age, condition,
sex and time of year. A man once told me that ranching is an
art and should be handled in a business-like way. Poorly tended
animals will cause a ranch to go under, the same ranch the
world is counting on for food.
The longstanding commitment to the health and welfare of
our animals is probably not something we talk about enough in
public because it is not something that we have to make a
conscious decision to pursue. Good care of our animals is
second nature to us and it is not something we do because it is
popular or newsworthy. We do it because these animals depend on
us and we cannot fail them.
If I may, allow me to take you a few miles off the highway
where a young man has been working since before we all ate
breakfast to locate a sick calf. He and his horse have just
exhibited a harmony beyond words in roping this calf and giving
the appropriate shots needed to prevent the signs of pneumonia
from spreading. Picture the heat, the thorns, the dust, the
potholes and many more pitfalls that this team has endured to
get through rough country just to doctor one little old calf
that neither you nor I will ever know about if he dies. Is it
really worth all the work, risk and danger? What if the market
value of that calf is at an all-time low? It is worth doing
when no one will ever know if he turns his back and rides away?
Yes, sir, it is. Do you know why? Because that young man
promised his forefathers and his children that he would. Being
a good steward is the job that he asked for and his integrity
and the welfare of his animals are not to be compromised.
Stewardship requires work. The cattle and horses of our
family ranch count on us to adequately care for them as much or
more than we count on them to take care of us. It is not only
our moral obligation, it has also proven to be a more
profitable way of business. We have learned through years of
experience that if you take care of your pennies, your dollars
will take care of themselves. A stressed animal that goes to
market produces a substandard product. An animal that was
raised without proper management practices will not produce
high-quality meat.
As a member of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
and the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association, I
rely on them to help ensure that animal welfare is taken
seriously throughout our industry. NCBA has worked with USDA,
land grant universities, county agents, vets, animal scientists
and cowboys to determine the effects of handling and care on
livestock. That knowledge has helped the industry to develop
new processes, procedures and equipment that improve animal
welfare. For example, NCBA has long taken these principles and
practices from the grass roots level and added the expertise of
many associated entities to develop producer-led initiatives
such as the Beef Quality Assurance Program and the cattle
industry's guidelines for the care and handling of cattle.
Created in 1987, BQA provides guidelines for livestock care
and handling and nutrition and veterinary treatment. Emphasis
on education helps producers identify the day-to-day ranch
management practices that influence the production of safe,
wholesome beef. BQA incorporates current FDA, EPA and USDA
regulations as well as HACCP principles. Today BQA influences
more than 90 percent of U.S. cattle.
The BQA producer code of cattle care gives the following
guidelines for cattle producers: provide adequate food, water
and care to protect cattle health and well-being; provide
disease prevention practices to protect the health of the herd
including access to veterinary care; provide facilities that
allow safe, humane and effective movement and/or restraint of
livestock; use humane methods to euthanize sick or injured
livestock and dispose of them properly; provide personnel with
training to properly handle and care for cattle; make timely
observations of livestock to ensure basic needs are being met;
provide transportation that avoids undue stress caused by
overcrowding, excess time in transit or improper handling
during loading and unloading; keep updated on advancements and
changes in the industry to make decisions based on sound
production practices and consideration to animal well-being;,
and finally, not to tolerate people or practices which
willfully mistreat animals.
In addition, the cattle industry's guidelines for care and
handling cattle, which were developed in 2003, are a
comprehensive set of the best practices for every aspect of the
cattle production. Some of the best practices include: low-
stress cattle handling; effective shelter and housing; careful
loading and transporting; and tips on reducing heat stress.
As you can see, ladies and gentlemen, animal welfare is
given great consideration every day in my business. Not only is
proper care and handling something we practice, it is also
regulated by state and federal law. As such, we look forward to
working with Congress to ensure that state and federal agencies
such as APHIS have all the resources they need for the
inspection of regulated facilities that handle livestock. In
addition, we hope to work with you to continue efforts that
ensure we have plenty of enthusiastic and talented vets
entering large-animal practices.
In closing, years of practical experience have shaped the
practices we as cattlemen use to care for our livestock. It is
not just something we talk about, it is something we do every
day. I assure you, no one looks out for the welfare of our
animals more than we do because it is an integral part of
ensuring the industry remains as healthy and as vibrant as our
cattle. On behalf of NCBA and the American rancher, I
appreciate your time here today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ramsey appears at the
conclusion of the hearing:]
Mr. Boswell. Thank you, Mr. Ramsey.
The chair recognizes Ms. Determan.
STATEMENT OF BARBARA DETERMAN, NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL,
EARLY, IOWA
Ms. Determan. Good morning, Chairman Boswell and Ranking
Member Hayes and other members of the subcommittee. I am Barb
Determan. I am a 4th-generation pork producer from Early, Iowa,
and I am a Past President of the National Pork Producers
Council.
First, I want to make a very clear, definitive statement to
this committee and to Congress. American's pork producers
recognize our moral obligation to provide for the well-being of
our animals and we raise our pigs in a humane, compassionate
and socially responsible manner. Any production practice that
falls short of this high performance standard is totally
unacceptable and will not be tolerated by our industry. In
addition to our moral obligation, pork producers' livelihoods
depend on the well-being and performance of their pigs. Through
my own farm experiences and the countless number of people that
I have met through my work and travels as an NPPC officer, I
have learned that one thing is very constant among pork
producers. We are in this business because we love working with
pigs. None of us would do anything that would be knowingly
harmful to the pigs' well-being but remember, these are food
animals, not household pets.
Today I will tell you how American's pork producers are
addressing the well-being of our pigs through compassionate
swine care, humane sow housing, responsible use of antibiotics
and safe transportation. In 1989, pork producers established
the Pork Quality Assurance, PQA, food safety program. Major
meatpackers require our producers to have PQA certification.
While producers have long used humane well-being practices, the
industry further developed animal care guidelines in the early
1990s and we made them into standards as new knowledge about
animal care became available. More recently, the industry
developed and implemented the Trucker Quality Assurance Program
for those who handle and transport market hogs. The majority of
packing plants also require truckers to be TQA certified. All
three of these efforts were among the first of their kind in
the livestock industry and were developed in cooperation with
animal well-being experts from land grant universities,
practicing veterinarians and other scientists.
In 2002, producers endorsed an updated U.S. producer code
of practice that calls for us to: provide facilities to protect
and shelter our pigs; provide personnel with training for
proper care of our pigs with zero tolerance for mistreatment of
our pigs in their care; provide access to good quality water,
nutritionally balanced diets; provide prompt veterinary medical
care when required; and maintain adequate biosecurity to
protect the health of our herd.
In 2003, the industry updated its Swine Care Handbook which
is the foundation for the Swine Welfare Assurance Program,
called SWAP. It is an educational and assessment program that
looks at 10 specific areas of animal care. Now the principles
of SWAP are in the industry's ongoing and groundbreaking Pork
Quality Assurance Plus Program which does include
certification, on-farm assessments and third-party audits.
There was no pressure to implement these programs other than
our belief to do the right thing. All our animals, even those
raised for food, deserve to be provided with care and decency,
and we do that 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.
With regard to sow housing, the pork industry agrees with
the position of the American Veterinary Medical Association,
the American Association of Swine Veterinarians and other
organizations, which recognize gestation stalls and group
housing systems as appropriate for providing for the well-being
of sows during pregnancy. Science and practice suggest that
both individual and group housing have advantages and
disadvantages. That is why we strongly believe the skill of the
individual taking care of the pigs is the ultimate determining
fact in the well-being of sows and market pigs. Healthy, well-
cared-for animals are raised in almost any system as long as
the care of the animal is the top priority. Science and farmer
experience also tell us that mandating any one type of sow
housing or simply changing for the sake of change is not
necessarily in the best interest of the pig.
We do not believe Congress has the understanding or the
expertise to decide on farm practices for our production. We
also believe that includes the use of antibiotics to treat
injured or sick pigs and that prevent wound infections, pain
and suffering. Pork producers use antibiotics in consultation
with their veterinarian in a responsible manner. In fact, the
industry created the Take Care, Use Antibiotics Responsibly
program to enhance producers' awareness of antibiotic use.
Banning antibiotics because of some misconception or outdated
information related to the antibiotic resistance in humans will
only jeopardize the well-being of our animals. It is clear that
antibiotic resistance in humans would not end if antibiotic use
on farms were eliminated. One peer-reviewed study estimates
that 96 percent of antibiotic resistance in humans is due to
the human use of antibiotic and not from the consumption of
meet products. In addition, the FDA has a rigorous science-
based approval process for animal antibiotics that addresses
human health concerns and sets withdrawal times for each
antibiotic use.
I am proud to be part of an industry that on our own has
developed and implemented world-class programs that help pork
producers raise and care for their animals in a humane,
compassionate and socially responsible manner. We oppose
legislation that dictates our production practices or that bans
products and practices that help us care for our pigs and we
oppose including an animal welfare title in the farm bill.
Again, thank you for letting me testify on behalf of the
Nation's pork producers and I will be happy to answer any
questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Determan appears at the
conclusion of the hearing:]
Mr. Boswell. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lange.
STATEMENT OF LESLIE VAGNEUR LANGE, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
QUARTER HORSE ASSOCIATION
Ms. Lange. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Leslie Lange. I am the National
Director for the American Quarter Horse Association from my
home State of Colorado. It is AQHA's hope that by providing
this testimony, commonsense legislation can be addressed that
will not adversely affect horse owners, horses or the industry
at large.
There are many examples of people who believe they are
working for positive changes yet they are in fact irreparably
damaging the agricultural industry. Threats received by
Colorado's own beloved, century-old National Western Stock Show
and Rodeo and protests at rodeos across the country by militant
animal rights groups are just a few examples.
Today I want to focus on what has occurred recently as a
result of the closure of some horse processing facilities in
the United States. The American Quarter Horse Association
represents a broad base of members who are involved in many
different areas of the industry. The primary concern of these
members, my fellow directors and staff is ensuring that the
welfare of the horse is paramount to all other considerations.
I would like to have added to the record a copy of AQHA's
rulebook that addresses humane treatment. I want the record to
reflect that AQHA does not favor slaughter as a way of dealing
with America's unwanted horses. However, the association's
board does recognize that the processing of unwanted horses is
currently a necessary aspect of the equine industry. Some have
publicly mischaracterized AQHA as not being for the horse and
that could not be further from the truth. If it weren't for the
horse, AQHA would not exist.
Additionally, it has been improperly stated that the
majority of horses that go to slaughter are American Quarter
Horses. To be accurate, the processing facilities do not know
the breeds of these horses.
As a breed registry, the association's primary role is to
record the pedigrees of American quarter horses. It is not
AQHA's role to restrict a breeder's right to breed their
horses. In fact, courts have ruled that in certain cases, it is
a restraint of trade for the association to do so.
The three areas I would like to comment on are long-term
care for horses, funding for enforcement and an equine welfare
system and how the industry is handling the unwanted-horse
issue without the government reacting to animal rights
activists or celebrities who are out of touch.
Earlier this year when the horse processing facilities were
closed, AQHA warned that if this were to occur without
addressing long-term-care solutions, some horses would
needlessly suffer. Their owners would not have a way to sell a
horse they no longer wanted nor could afford to keep. An
unwanted horse is one that has become a burden rather than a
joy to its owner. Examples of these problems, AQHA took a call
from an irate salebarn owner who found himself in possession of
a handful of horses that the owner had simply abandoned because
he couldn't even get the consignment fee for them in the
auction. The association received a call from a feed store in
Mississippi that was approached to help feed 70 horses that had
been abandoned. An AQHA member from Montana mailed pictures of
a 3-year-old gelding that died of starvation because its owner
simply walked away. And in my home State of Colorado, 23 horses
were locked in a barn and abandoned. The owner told authorities
he could no longer afford to take care of these horses because
of rising prices and plummeting value.
Certainly, all owners should care for their animals
properly. Unfortunately, not all do because they can no longer
afford to. While many business owners and animal lovers have a
soft spot for these abandoned horses now, at some point the
gravy train is going to run dry and horses are already becoming
victims.
Activists and misguided legislation circulating around
Washington relating to horse slaughter are having a powerful
impact on the very animal meant to be protected. Whether or not
we want to admit it, economics comes into play. The slaughter
market determines the base or floor price for horses. When that
bottom falls out or is removed, as it has been, it simply
stands to reason that it will adversely affect the horse
industry and the horses themselves.
I make my living off the horse industry, and even at the
upper end where I train and compete, owners are beginning to
feel the effects of the bottoming of the horse industry. When
the floor is removed, the entire industry begins to fall, and
as we are seeing, values are beginning to decline.
I would like to add to the record the American Horse
Council's Economic Impact of the Horse Industry.
The other economic issue deals with how are we going to
care for 90,000 horses each year entering the equine welfare
system. By most assessments, it would take an additional 2,700
bona fide rescue facilities. By providing only the most basic
care of hay and water, it will cost $171 million to care for
90,000 unwanted horses displaced as a result of banning horse
slaughter in the United States.
Staff at AQHA called the hometowns of each of the members
of this subcommittee. Of the 18 municipalities contacted, only
one had the facilities to take in displaced horses. We have a
long way to go.
As a result of the closing of the Nation's processing
facilities, today there are more horses on the market causing
the value to plunge. Low prices have consequences, and while
slaughter is not pretty, it does provide a humane, economical
way for an owner to relinquish an unwanted horse.
The option of sending a horse for processing must remain
available to those who need it so long as measures ensuring
humane transportation and treatment of horses are in place.
Today those rules exist, and in the United States we protect
the dignity of even the most unwanted or unusable horse. Once
an animal is taken outside the borders, we lose those standards
of care.
The good news is, the horse industry is addressing the
issue without government intervention through the Unwanted
Horse Coalition. The Unwanted Horse Coalition, which was
established in 2005, is working to eliminate America's unwanted
horses. Their goal is not to pay for the care of unwanted
horses but to reduce their number and improve their welfare.
Through education and hard work, we are addressing this problem
without creating inadvertent problems like this ban has.
Ladies and gentlemen of this subcommittee, I love horses
and I love how good the agriculture industry has been to me. If
you are serious about helping horses and the good people who
make their livelihood off the livestock industry, I hope you
will do what is right to end this problem. It is not about
passing laws that have unintended consequences; it is about
being realistic, doing what is right for horses and feasible
for taxpayers.
Thank you for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lange appears at the
conclusion of the hearing:]
Mr. Boswell. Thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Jordan.
STATEMENT OF KAREN JORDAN, DVM, OWNER, LARGE ANIMAL VETERINARY
SERVICES, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION,
SILER CITY, NORTH CAROLINA
Ms. Jordan. Thank you for inviting the National Milk
Producers Federation to testify before you today. My name is
Karen Jordan and I am a practicing large-animal veterinarian
from Siler City, North Carolina. My husband and I also own
Brush Creek Swiss Farms, where we milk 75 registered Brown
Swiss and raise about 70 replacement heifers. Currently I serve
as Vice-Chair of the Animal Health Committee of National Milk
and Chair of the Cattle Health Committee of the National
Institution for Animal Agriculture.
My testimony today focuses on the animal care that our U.S.
dairy farmers provide every day for their animals and the
incorporation of new technology as it becomes available to
improve the welfare of our animals. Dairy farmers know that
improving animal welfare pays back on a daily basis. Every day,
regardless of the size of the operation, dairy farmers invest
time and money in providing the best health care, housing and
nutrition that is available. While specific animal care
practices vary depending on the geographic region and climate,
proper animal care is practiced throughout the industry.
Simply put, what is good for our cows is good for our
businesses. In 2002, National Milk Producers and the Milk and
Dairy Beef Quality Assurance Center came together to develop
the Caring for Dairy Animals Technical Reference Guide. This is
a comprehensive set of dairy animal well-being guidelines that
covers all aspects of dairy animal care. The Milk and Dairy
Beef Quality Assurance Center also offers a third-party
auditing component of the program and many dairy farmers choose
to go through own farm audit to verify their best management
practices.
These guidelines have been recognized by the Food Marketing
Institute and the National Council of Chain Restaurants. The
guidelines were developed using the most current animal well-
being research and these guidelines have been extensively
reviewed by dairy animal welfare experts and are endorsed by
the American Association of Bovine Practitioners. At the
inception of the guidelines, a strong promotional effort led by
National Milk was initiated and these guidelines were widely
distributed to dairy farmers, veterinarians, dairy
nutritionists, milk cooperative field staff and others who
interact with dairy farmers on a daily basis.
The dairy industry has not only addressed animal care
standards for the milking cow but also for dairy calves,
replacement heifers and for veal calves. Farmers that raise
replacement heifers utilize the Raising Quality Replacement
Heifers guidelines. The American Veal Association has developed
the Veal Quality Assurance Program, which provides stringent
guidelines for animal well-being and care and requires multiple
yearly onsite visits from an accredited and licensed
veterinarian to document compliance.
Several years ago, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture
was mandated to develop and adopt regulations governing the
minimum standards for the humane treatment of domestic
livestock. The same Caring for Dairy Animals Technical
Reference Guide was a set of dairy animal welfare guidelines
that the State of New Jersey used to develop the dairy
component of their standards.
There are also other dairy animal welfare verification
programs that states or dairy organizations have developed. For
example, the States of California and New York have quality
assurance programs that have a dairy animal welfare component
to them.
In addition to animal care guidelines, the dairy industry
also supports new research in the animal well-being area. As
new appropriate technologies and/or animal care practices
arise, they are recommended to producers, and in the past
decade animal welfare research has lead to many improvements in
cow comfort. Because of this research, farmers have applied the
improvements gained from the research into their management
practices. Today many farmers provide their cows with fans and
sprinkler systems to keep them cool and comfortable. Farmers
also install rubber mats for their cows to stand on as well as
clean, comfortable bedding such as sand and rubber-filled
mattresses for their cows to lie on. Routine herd health
programs are also a part of all dairy farmers' daily
management.
Through a combination of modern production technologies and
experienced gained across generations of dairying, today's milk
producers know how to maximize cow comfort and well-being in
order to achieve the record levels of milk production that you
are seeing today. National Milk Producers continues to work
with other dairy organizations to promote the animal care
guidelines to our dairy producers.
As you can see, U.S. dairy farmers have been very involved
in the welfare of their animals and dairy farmers want to
provide the utmost care for their animals. Because of all the
industry efforts, we respectfully request that you oppose any
proposed farm animal welfare legislation as part of the 2007
Farm Bill. Dairy farmers' livelihood is already based on well-
cared-for and healthy animals to produce wholesome, nutritious
dairy products.
Thank you for providing me with the opportunity to testify
on behalf of the National Milk Producers Federation, and I have
a copy of the guidelines that I have referred to during this
testimony that I would like for this to be made part of the
record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jordan appears at the
conclusion of the hearing:]
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you, Ms. Jordan, for an excellent
testimony.
We will move to our questions now. I guess it is a learning
process for me, but Mr. Baur, if I could start off with, is
Farm Sanctuary an animal welfare or animal rights organization?
Mr. Baur. We are both. We encourage people to consider
eating in a compassionate way, which would include a vegan
lifestyle, but we also work to stop cruelty so we recognize
that each person has to make their own food choices though.
Mr. Boswell. Okay. I am trying to understand your goals. Is
it to end animal agriculture?
Mr. Baur. No, our goals are to prevent suffering, to
prevent cruelty. We are not anti-farmer; we are anti-cruelty.
Mr. Boswell. So you just said you are a vegetarian or a----
Mr. Baur. I am a vegan, yes, but we recognize that each
person has to make their own choice in terms of what they eat.
Mr. Boswell. Out of curiosity, and I am not picking on you,
but would you like to see an end to raising and the slaughter
of animals for food?
Mr. Baur. Personally, I think it is a violent--killing
animals is a bloody, violent thing and I frankly feel kind of
bad for those who have to do it, so in my ideal world and what
I dream about, yes, that is what I would like to see. I also
recognize that I am individual with my own dreams and each of
us have our own dreams but we as a society need to decide what
is appropriate, and I think that is where we are currently not
acting appropriately. We are doing some very bad things to
animals.
Mr. Boswell. I am curious about, if I could, where does
Farm Sanctuary gets its funding. Do you get it from HSUS? Do
you receive funding from them?
Mr. Baur. No, the vast majority of our support comes from
our members. We have 150,000 supporters across the U.S.
Mr. Boswell. But back to my question, do you get any
funding from HSUS?
Mr. Baur. We were involved with a rescue of chickens from
Katrina and we did get a donation from HSUS for that particular
rescue but that was a one-time thing and----
Mr. Boswell. But how about other help? For example, PETA,
do you get any----
Mr. Baur. No, we have never gotten any funding from PETA.
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you very much.
I would like to address this question to some of the
others. I am aware that a lot of quality assurance activity
goes on within your industries, beef, pork, dairy, I think it
does with horses as well so would you just, to enlighten us a
little bit, give me just a little bit of what you are doing to
try to put this forward.
Mr. Ramsey. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I think it varies from
region to region as each ranch requires certain activity to
ensure welfare of animals. I know that NCBA has worked hard to
establish its Beef Quality Assurance Program and it is a
recommended procedure to all of their members. However, our
ranch personally, for example, we actually have to go above and
beyond that to some degree.
Mr. Boswell. But you have an education program, if I
remember.
Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Boswell. I think it is very good. I am going to give
you a chance to tell the folks about that.
Mr. Ramsey. Yes, sir. I think it promotes an activity among
all ranches to be in touch with their veterinarians, to be in
touch with what is a good vaccine program to prevent any
unnecessary sickness or death. But it is very----
Mr. Boswell. Barbara?
Ms. Determan. The Pork Quality Assurance Program, like we
said, has been around since 1989 and anybody who handles hogs,
and especially on our farm, goes through PQA training, even
down to my teenage daughter has gone through Pork Quality
Assurance training. And what that is, is an education process
with a certified veterinarian who walks us through the
education process of how to handle the pigs. The PQA Plus
Program that is going to be introduced this year to producers
now includes the animal welfare component to it too which will
have an assessment as well as third-party audit within that.
Most of the major packers in the pork industry require
producers to be PQA certified.
Mr. Boswell. Ms. Jordan or Ms. Lange, either one, your
quality programs?
Ms. Jordan. For the dairy industry, our Caring for Dairy
Animals Technical Reference Guide has been well circulated
through our different dairy magazines. It has been made
available to the field staff for different member cooperatives
for distribution to our dairy farmers.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you.
Ms. Lange. In the equine industry, it is obvious that we
don't consume a large amount of horsemeat in the United States
but the American Quarter Horse Association does have over $6
million in contributions in equine research for the health and
well-being of the equine animal, and as I spoke in my
testimony, the Unwanted Horse Coalition is working to provide a
place other than slaughter for horses that are unwanted or
unusable. We have brochures that we have put out addressing
those unwanted-horse issues and what the options are besides
slaughter to try to address the unwanted-horse issue.
Mr. Boswell. Thank you very well.
Mr. Hayes.
Mr. Hayes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Jordan, would you outline briefly the guidelines
employed by veal raisers to improve and to ensure animal care?
Ms. Jordan. I am sorry. I would have to get back to you on
that. I don't have access to that document.
Mr. Hayes. How about your personal experience? That is all
I am asking about.
Ms. Jordan. Well, personal experience, our book has--we
usually keep them on the farm for 7 to 10 days and then they
are usually sold locally and they are handled just like as if
they were a heifer calf, and we are trying to get them started
out just as well as any of our heifer calves are started out.
Mr. Hayes. Is Johnson's still in Siler City?
Mr. Jordan. Johnson's Restaurant?
Mr. Hayes. Yes.
Ms. Jordan. Yes, sir, best hamburgers.
Mr. Hayes. We could convert some vegans there, I believe.
Ms. Determan, thank you for coming by yesterday. Talk
briefly about the downers and the ban that is proposed under
H.R. 661. What impact would that have and is that practical and
realistic?
Ms. Determan. Well, as Chairman Boswell explained, pigs
sometimes just protest, and so the pigs when we are unloading
them at the slaughter plant, sometimes we have--they just get
stubborn and especially if it is warm, they will just lay down,
and that could possibly eliminate a lot of pigs from our supply
because this is just a trait of theirs. By eliminating pigs who
are perfectly healthy and pose no threat to the food supply
would be a huge impact on our industry. But more importantly,
they are safe and they are good, quality product to go to
consumers who need to feed their families.
Mr. Hayes. Mr. Baur, do you think Roe v. Wade should be
overturned?
Mr. Baur. I haven't honestly given it a lot of thought. I
mean, we are here to talk about farm animals. Well, Roe v.
Wade, I mean, that is--I honestly don't have a position on it.
Mr. Hayes. Okay. Mr. Chairman, thank you. A couple things.
I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. Stenholm's May 23 letter
to Mr. Pacelle be entered into the record today, and I would
also from personal experience like to add to the testimony that
as a great fan, my wife and I of PBR, the bulls are treated
much better than the cowboys, exemplary across the board. Also,
the circus, as a grandfather, I have never seen better care for
animals and in the quarter horse industry, the dairy farmers,
poultry--Mama, don't let your baby grow up to be a cowboy. You
did a great job, Mr. Ramsey. They are doing a good job.
So thank you for the hearing, and I will yield my time in
case some other questions need to be asked. You need to think
about that Roe v. Wade, Mr. Baur. It is interesting, given your
position.
Mr. Boswell. Well, thank you, Mr. Hayes.
Mr. King.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will move quickly.
Ms. Determan, when I was a young boy, we farrowed pigs with
wooden panels in the barn, pitched straw over them and bedded
the sows in that. They had the pigs, got up, laid back down,
laid on them, sometimes they ate them. How many pigs did we
wean per litter then and compared to 20 years ago when we came
with farrowing crates compared to today with gestation crates?
What has happened to the survivability of those pigs?
Ms. Determan. Survivability of the pigs has greatly
increased, first of all. Second of all, I had the same
experience. I grew up on a pig farm too so I had the same
experience of having those pigs get laid on and other things
happened. But mainly the survivability has increased from
anywhere from 2 to 3 pigs per litter, and that is per litter,
not yearlong but per litter. So it has been a very-- I have had
experience both ways and I will tell you that the individual
care that I can give to each animal in a stall is extremely
important for me as a producer to be able to take care of each
animal individually, not only care-wise but also make sure they
get the right feed and the whole works.
Mr. King. But today you see a wean average approaching 10
pigs per litter?
Ms. Determan. Yes.
Mr. King. And when I was a little boy, what was that
number, what would you--just a guess.
Ms. Determan. Less than seven. Now is 10.
Mr. King. That is about how many pigs' lives one would
sacrifice if they went back to a more natural way of doing
this.
I yield back the balance of my time. I thank the chairman
and thank the witnesses.
Mr. Boswell. I understand Mr. Walberg has no questions.
Mr. Hayes, we are going to ask you if you have any closing
remarks before we wrap up here. Seeing none at this moment, I
would like to say this for my part: excellent panel. Thank you
very much, Mr. Baur, Mr. Ramsey, Ms. Determan, Ms. Lange, Ms.
Jordan, I appreciate you taking the time and coming and sharing
with us and helping us discuss this issue of animal welfare. I
think overall as we think of what has happened here these last
3 hours or so, that it has been an open opportunity to put
things under glass, if you will, out in daylight and talk about
it. One thing I have learned and appreciate very much is that
folks are concerned about animal welfare, they are serious
about it, but I also learned very much that a lot is being done
in the industry to address this, and I want you to know that we
appreciate that.
As a participant myself, I have grown up trying to do that
so I think that you are doing the right thing and we want you
to know we appreciate it. I am concerned particularly about the
downed animal situation that some misinformation is out there
and we have to make sure that is corrected. I rely on a lot of
you in the industry and those who practice medicine in the
industry to help us out on that because I think it would be
devastating to the pork industry, for example, if they would be
falsely accused of sick animals when they are not sick animals.
I have got too much grease on me from the past. I know better.
So I would trust that we would work together on that particular
point because it seems to keep coming back from time to time
and I think it is an education process, so I would hope that
today has facilitated that. That is what we have tried to do.
I am going to bring this to a close and say this for the
record. Under the rules of the committee, the record for
today's hearing will remain open for 10 days to receive
additional material and supplemental responses from witnesses
to any question posed by a member of the panel. This hearing of
the Subcommittee of Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee
is now adjourned. Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]