Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation

USDA "Natural" Label a Misnomer

2009-11-11T16:28:56-05:00

Would you consider meat to be “natural” if it came from an animal who was raised in lifelong confinement on a factory farm? How about if the animal was fed manure and other animal waste? And what about if the animal was routinely dosed with antibiotics and other drugs for non-therapeutic reasons?

Producers and retailers can legally affix that label even if the production practices mentioned above are used.

East Bay Animal Advocates

For many years, transcending any single Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has allowed companies to affix this label on animal products, as long as the meat, post-slaughter, is minimally processed and no artificial ingredients are added. Because of this, respected consumer organizations do not deem the “natural” label, as defined by USDA standards, to be meaningful or the least bit helpful as consumers sort out in the marketplace how the animals were raised prior to slaughter.

Opinion polls have shown that most consumers seek out foods labeled as “natural.” Some pay more for meats with this label. In fact, one recent survey found that consumers prefer the “natural” label over the “organic” label, not understanding that “USDA organic” at least has minimal welfare standards, while the term “natural” does not.

The HSUS is asking the USDA to make changes to its label regulations, since the term “natural” has been so corrupted. We’re calling for that label, as it is now defined, to be replaced by “minimally processed” and “no artificial ingredients added” labels, so consumers will better understand what they’re buying. And we’re arguing that any label on meat containing the word “natural” must ensure that the animal, from conception to slaughter, was cared for in a manner that consumers will reasonably understand is natural—meaning, among other things, no caging, crating, or extreme confinement; no waste products as feed; and no routine non-therapeutic use of drugs.

The Obama Administration has asserted to the American public that it intends to be fully transparent. Here is a good opportunity for the Administration to put that principle into practice by revamping this label—and moving from opaqueness to transparency. I hope you’ll take a few moments to contact the USDA by this Friday, the deadline for public comment.

A postscript: On this Veterans Day, as we honor those in the armed forces who have served our country, I draw your attention to a story about military working dogs in southern Afghanistan who face extreme working conditions. Responding to a request from an Army veterinary officer, The HSUS recently provided much-needed cooling vests and cooling pads to the unit's 100 dogs. It's an honor to be able to help, in some small way, those dogs who serve in war beside their human handlers.

Home Sweet Home for 50 Feral Cats

2009-11-10T17:30:00-05:00

The HSUS provides direct care for more animals than any other organization, in addition to improving the lives of countless animals through our macro-level work to shape public policy, corporate policy, and public attitudes.

Our hands-on care work takes so many varieties, including our Emergency Services response today to rescue 19 horses in Baltimore from a life of neglect and squalor.

Today I am also so pleased to report that 54 domesticated cats we rescued from San Nicolas Island in California are resting comfortably in their brand-new outdoor enclosure at The Fund for Animals Wildlife Center in San Diego County. Most of them are likely to be permanent residents of our animal care facility, which now includes an HSUS pet shelter.

Last week we dedicated a special outdoor habitat for these cats at our Ramona, Calif. facility. Working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Navy, and other government groups, we saved these cats from certain death—they would have been euthanized if The HSUS and the Fund for Animals didn’t step in to provide them with a permanent home.

The new habitat was constructed thanks to the financial support of DoGreatGood.com and the cats are thoroughly enjoying their new territory (I’ve included a few photos below as a testament). Some of the cats gave birth soon after capture so their kittens are being socialized early to ensure they’ll be adoptable—12 kittens housed in our indoor cattery are friendly, social, and ready for adoption.

While trap-neuter-return is still the most effective and humane option for feral cats, in some areas with threatened or endangered species, alternatives are needed. Removing the feral cats from San Nicolas Island will benefit several native species, including the unique San Nicolas Island fox and the federally threatened island night lizard—a topic I wrote about in August.

At The HSUS, we work to protect all animals and we believe in paving new ground to explore what’s possible. The success of working hand-in-hand with multiple state and federal agencies shows what can be achieved when we debunk the old methods of elimination and come together in the spirit of life-saving collaboration to protect all animals. As Betsy McFarland, our senior director of companion animals said, "This project is a testament to the commitment of multiple agencies to find common ground and develop solutions for feral cats in areas with threatened or endangered species."

'Eating Animals': A Book to Digest

2009-11-09T16:24:14-05:00

Jonathan Safran Foer has burst from his comfortable cocoon in the world of fiction writing and thrown four feet into the tussle over the food we eat in America through his first work of nonfiction, "Eating Animals." In just the past couple weeks, he’s had major pieces in The New York Times Magazine and Wall Street Journal, appeared on Ellen, and seen his new book reviewed in The New Yorker, the Los Angeles Times, and other major media outlets.

Though just 32 years old, he’s already established as an acclaimed novelist and short story writer in American culture, best known for "Everything Is Illuminated" and "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close." But he’s taken a three-year respite from writing fiction to probe the question of whether we should eat animals—with this research and writing task triggered by his meditation on what to feed his first child. In bringing us into the deliberation, he’s added a powerful new title to the growing body of work examining how we produce food in America and made some of the best arguments I’ve heard in quite a while.

His three-year quest took him across the country, visiting factory farms, talking with farmers and animal advocates alike, and learning more about the production of meat, eggs, and dairy. It’s all packaged together, in a refreshing and nonlinear manner, in "Eating Animals"—all of it reflecting the nuances that come from conflicting religious and cultural traditions, our personal struggles with ingrained habits, and economic factors. That said, he’s making an argument here, and he skillfully addresses the problems in current thinking that accept eating animals—including offering a tough critique of Michael Pollan ("The Omnivore’s Dilemma") and his decision to continue eating animals as long as certain animal care standards are observed.

Jonathan takes a harsh view of what’s happening to animals, and he does some great writing about the waste produced from factory farms, the public health threats of the system, and its other collateral impacts. He questions the contradictions associated with a nation that expresses a profound love of animals, yet does such terrible things to animals raised for food.

He also appropriately shines a spotlight on the fact that not all animal products are equal when it comes to animal welfare. While many people interested in eating ethically may switch from beef to chicken, for example, Jonathan points out why the poultry industry—especially the egg industry—is actually responsible for far more animal suffering than the beef industry.

Check out the book and see for yourself. It’s more than worth your time, and it already stands as one of the most important contributions to the literature on food and animals that’s come about in many years.

Talk Back: Veal Calf Cruelty

2009-11-06T16:47:57-05:00

See footage from the latest HSUS undercover investigation.

The reaction to The HSUS’s latest undercover investigation exposing callous animal cruelty at a Vermont slaughter plant was universal: absolute disgust, especially when readers found out that a U.S. Department of Agriculture inspector failed to stop gross abuses of infant calves and that the plant’s co-owner joined in on the abuse. Today, I post some of your responses.

But first I wanted to share an update on Arkansas hoarder Tammy Hanson, whose case I've chronicled on the blog. On Wednesday, an Arkansas judge sentenced Hanson to one year in prison, plus $18,000 in fines, court costs, and restitution, in connection with her 2006 conviction on multiple charges of cruelty to animals. Together with her husband, William Hanson, she kept more than 500 dogs in terrible circumstances at her property in Gamaliel, Ark., which law enforcement authorities raided in October 2005. The Hansons fled to Vermont, and Tammy Hanson was arrested there in July of this year and subsequently extradited. William Hanson is in jail in Missouri fighting extradition to Arkansas at this time. The HSUS played a major role in the Hanson case at all stages, and I am pleased to report that there has been a reckoning.

Your comments on the investigation:

Wayne, thank you for putting HSUS money into undercover investigations. These horrors must be exposed over and over again to wake up the public and the government to the truth of what is going on behind slaughterhouse and factory farm walls. —Janet Hamilton

Sorry Wayne, I just couldn't watch this video after reading your message. Just reading your words sickened me and made my skin crawl knowing how these poor little babies suffer. I have never eaten veal and always ask those who do if they know what veal is...most answer no. This story is a heart crusher. Will the cruelty of animals ever stop? —Nancy Ball

Kudos to the HSUS and a big "thank you" to the undercover investigator who had to bear witness to this. The footage is extremely difficult to watch; I'm sure it was a very distressing assignment. Those of us who love and care about animals appreciate the sacrifice he/she made. It's these kinds of investigations and results that make me proud to be a HSUS supporter. —Del

Those who obtain undercover footage of animals being abused are heroes. Very few people would be up for the challenge. It's these videos that provide the proof and can lead to convictions, closures, and a shift of public perception. It is awesome that officials as high up as the Agriculture Secretary have condemned the abuse at this Vermont facility. Let's keep working to end veal production altogether, in each and every state. —Charley

I am so sickened by this. I sit at my desk at work in tears and unable to speak. These poor defenseless creatures. Is it not bad enough they are basically sent to slaughter right after birth, but they are also treated with such unspeakable cruelty? What is wrong with these people doing this? It scares me to know they walk the Earth. I have such hatred in my heart for these individuals and such despair that humans are capable of this. I will not forget these images anytime soon. Thank you for your hard work and for bringing this to light. —Cyndee H.

I am so thankful that this plant was shut down. Thank you HSUS investigator for taking the risk and filming this horrendous abuse. How often people make the claim that because USDA inspectors are present the animals are slaughtered humanely. Nonsense. Some of them are just putting in their time and look the other way or, worse yet, watch the abuse. —Craig

I wish the people involved could be prosecuted but I know that is unlikely with food animals. It seems some people involved in this work enjoy it and there is something wrong with that. While I do eat some meat, I don’t eat veal because of what I have learned about it. And I feel guilty eating anything after hearing these stories. I wish all involved in this business could have some humanity. —John Gilligan

These factories should be run by people who truly care for the welfare of animals; people who will put a stop to workers who commit these crimes. Thank you for bringing these stories to the surface. The more people know about the problem, the more they will get involved in the solution. —Jana Hardison

I don't think I have ever been so horrified in my whole life. I could not finish watching the surveillance video because it completely broke my heart. How can we be so cruel? —Honeybee

The undercover investigators have to have the heart of a lion to go in there and document these atrocities time and time again. It is so hard to watch these videos—I break down EVERY time, but without the work that you do things will never change. —Lois Silvanovich

I believe it. They treat those animals so bad, I hate it. I think anyone who abuses an animal is capable of the worst. I feel like a hypocrite because I eat meat, but I really believe there is a more humane way to treat them while they are alive. I love animals so much and I just cannot conceive how anyone could be cruel to them. —Chel1720

I am just sickened by what I have been seeing since I made a conscious choice to "look behind the curtain" of what happens on factory farms, in puppy mills, the Canada seal slaughter, etc. I never looked before and now that I have I wish I could run back inside. I will never be the same and will do whatever I can to help end abuse for these very deserving animals. —Kitty Corbitt

Breaks my heart to see what kind of people we have become. And the abuses Wayne cites above are just the most egregious. What grieves me even more is society's level of tolerance for the daily lives of most factory farm animals. Dairy cows with their 1,500 pound frames standing day after day on hard barn floors with grassy pastures out of the question. Mama pigs strapped down for more efficient nursing. The hens trapped by the thousands in cavernous barns. It's no way to treat the ladies. —Jean Johnson

Halt the Trade of Endangered Species

2009-11-05T13:34:00-05:00

Once every three years, delegates from 175 countries meet to decide the fate of dozens of species of animals and plants that are traded internationally. In March 2010, 2,000 people will assemble in Doha, Qatar, for the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). At stake is nothing less than the continued existence of critically endangered species, as well as preventing international trade of threatened species at risk of becoming even more imperiled.

soggydan / CC BY 2.0
A caged slow loris.

Capturing and killing animals for the wildlife trade—just behind the drug trade and the arms and ammunitions trade in total commerce—does not just result in the loss of species, but in grossly inhumane treatment of animals. A case in point from the last CITES meeting in 2007: the slow loris. You may have never heard of this wide-eyed species of primate who lives in Asia but exotic pet traders have. Captured from the wild, stuffed into cages and displayed to potential buyers in Asian marketplaces: until 2007, that was the sad fate of many slow lorises. However, at the last CITES meeting, slow lorises were placed on CITES Appendix I, which banned international commercial trade. While there is still some illegal trade, now hundreds of lorises every year are spared from the cruel exotic pet trade.

With five months to go before the next CITES meeting, a new slate of animals and plants to be considered has been announced. The questions before the delegates include: Should hundreds of polar bears be killed every year to supply the international trade in polar bear skin rugs? Should hundreds of thousands of Central American tree frogs be captured from the wild every year to supply the international exotic pet trade? Should the international trade in millions of sharks be regulated to ensure that wild populations are not being wiped out by the trade? Should Tanzania and Zambia be allowed to sell ivory to Japan and China, or should there be a 20-year moratorium on ivory trade? Should we allow unregulated international trade in the skins of bobcats who have been trapped in cruel leghold traps and who closely resemble the critically endangered Iberian lynx?

The HSUS and our global arm, Humane Society International, are already on the campaign trail, urging country delegates to vote for animal protection. Working with our 80 partner organizations from around the world—all of which are members of the Species Survival Network—we are fighting for the right answers to the questions posed above.

You can help. Please join us in thanking the United States for submitting a proposal to establish CITES protection for sharks, and urge them to also support the shark proposals submitted by the European Union and Palau. At the same time, the United States should know that the global public is not pleased with the American proposal to remove CITES protection for bobcats; please urge them to withdraw the proposal. Finally, we must urge the United States to support efforts to maintain a strong ban on the trade in ivory. We are also supporting proposals to increase CITES protection for polar bears and to establish CITES protection for red and pink coral, and may ask you to take action on those issues in the future.

You can also play an important role by signing our Don’t Buy Wild pledge, pledging not to patronize those who profit from the use and abuse of wildlife.

From California to Ohio: A Year After Prop 2's Passage

2009-11-04T15:46:49-05:00

A year ago today, voters in California sent shockwaves through the world of agribusiness by approving Proposition 2 and agreeing to phase out the confinement of veal calves, pregnant pigs, and laying hens in cages or crates barely larger than their bodies.

Mercy for Animals

Spending by both sides was comparable, and voters in California approved the measure by a wide margin, giving it majorities in 47 of 58 counties. It was the third in a series of successful ballot initiatives to phase out certain confinement practices on factory farms, with Arizona and Florida charting the course.

Prop 2 will ultimately provide relief to 20 million animals in California kept in veal crates, gestation crates, and battery cages. We’ve spent the last year advocating for legislation aimed at extending Prop 2’s provisions to cover all shell eggs sold in California and working with dozens of California restaurants, grocers, farmers markets and food service providers to make the switch to cage-free egg purchases. The California egg industry, on the other hand, has largely squandered the year with misguided efforts to thwart change and circumvent the basic animal welfare improvements that have been mandated by law. Our anniversary message to them: It’s not about bigger cages. You said so yourself. So let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work.

California’s Prop 2 was also an opportunity to build momentum for our broader efforts to crack down on the worst abuses of animals in industrial agribusiness. And in the last year, the Prop 2 vote has reverberated, just as we hoped it would.

In California, lawmakers passed legislation to ban tail-docking of dairy cows—the first state to ban this, or any, mutilation commonly endured by farm animals. The enactment of the law, with the support of the California Farm Bureau Federation, the California Veterinary Medical Association, and the California Cattlemen’s Association, was particularly significant since California is the nation’s top dairy state.

Maine lawmakers passed legislation to ban veal crates and gestation crates. And last month, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm signed a bill into law very similar to Prop 2, after The HSUS and agriculture leaders there forged an agreement.

We tried for a sit-down with agriculture leaders in Ohio to effect a similar reform, but the Ohio Farm Bureau stonewalled us. Instead, they instructed their allies in the Ohio General Assembly to craft a constitutional amendment to create a livestock board to dictate agriculture policy in the state. The measure was labeled Issue 2, and it was on the ballot yesterday.

By packaging Issue 2 as pro-animal welfare and pro-food safety, the architects of the ballot measure went a long way to assure its passage. Last night, it was approved 63.5 percent to 36.5 percent.

We did not view Issue 2 as a poisonous package, but rather an empty one. The Ohio Farm Bureau and other agribusiness lobby groups cooked it up in an effort to block real reform.

Now that the Issue 2 campaign is over, we can get on with such real reform—a measure to phase out the extreme confinement of animals in veal crates, gestation crates, and battery cages, where they cannot even turn around and stretch their limbs. Both sound science and common sense show that these confinement systems are inhumane and should be phased out.

Humane Farming Association

We decided to spend nearly no money against Issue 2 and to reserve our energy and resources for an effort to promote the humane treatment of animals and protect food safety and the environment. The Ohio Farm Bureau, the National Pork Producers Council, the United Egg Producers, and other agribusiness concerns raised $4 million in a major campaign to push the passage of Issue 2.

Maybe the new Livestock Board will do some good, and ban archaic practices like tail docking. But we won’t hold our breath. And we know that the appointees will be even less likely to meaningfully address tougher issues like gestation crates and battery cages in a serious manner. And that’s why we need to launch a ballot initiative to give Ohio voters the chance to weigh in.

For Ohio residents, we’ll need your labor to help gather the 400,000 valid signatures needed to qualify the measure. We’ll look to make some announcements soon about our formal plans. But with national agribusiness concerns expected to provide a large share of the funding against our ballot measure, we’ll need a major effort to reach voters in Ohio with our message of sound science and basic values.

One Lone Voice Against Animal Welfare

2009-11-03T14:52:50-05:00

I’ve been encouraged, even heartened, by the swift and broad reaction to The HSUS’s recent undercover investigations of wanton animal abuse at a heinous facility in Vermont that specializes in slaughtering infant calves discarded by the dairy industry and processes them to make “bob veal.”

That is, with one inexcusable exception. So bear with me, because this single wrong-way group of corporate mercenaries deserves to be called out as the champions of cruelty that they really are.

The HSUS

On the positive side, government agencies took action when we showed our latest undercover video evidence of horrible animal abuse at Bushway Packing. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Vermont Agency of Agriculture shut the facility down. They launched an investigation. Agency leaders used the strongest possible language to condemn the conduct our investigator documented on videotape.

Just as important, leading agriculture trade associations and commentators also provided no apologies for the abuse. The American Veal Association distributed a statement to the press declaring, “The treatment of calves depicted in the videos taken at Bushways Packing Plant in Vermont are unacceptable.”

The agribusiness trade journal Feedstuffs could have been reading my mind when it published a recent editorial saying, “This has got to stop.”

The editors were referring to yet another, earlier video investigation of needless suffering inflicted on farm animals. To continue the quotation, “It has to stop because it leaves the consuming public with a bad taste in its mouth for dairy, meat and poultry products. It's important to understand that companies and producers can't just say ‘bad apple’ and move on because—to consumers who have seen these videos again and again—there are no bad apples anymore. The bad apple, to consumers now, is the industry.”

And industry commentator Chuck Jolley noted on Monday, “It has happened again and our industry has sustained another we-can’t-afford-it black eye. These bad actors must be found and removed from our industry immediately through the combined efforts of governmental and trade association pressure. Corrective action must be swift and indisputable.”

Finally, industry leaders are saying exactly what we are: cruelty against farm animals is too common, inexcusable, and the public won’t tolerate it.

So how do we explain the misnamed Center for Consumer Freedom? The last word I’ve seen from this corporate front group on the subject of farm animal abuse came from its glib mouthpiece, David Martosko.

See footage from the latest HSUS undercover investigation.

Let’s consider the kind of misery that intrepid HSUS investigators have brought to light. Our videotape showed a calf kicking as his hoof was cut off. Our videotape showed infant animals too weak to stand subjected to powerful jolts of electricity to get them to move, with water splashed on one of the animals to amplify the power of the electric shock. Our videotape showed living animals piled on top of dead ones. An earlier investigation at the Westland/Hallmark slaughter plant in Chino, Calif. showed cows rammed with forklifts. And water from a high-power hose injected into a cow’s nose to simulate drowning. Still another recent investigation showed a cow, too weak to stand, abandoned in the dirt of an auction lot overnight without food or water. Not one of these acts has anything to do with producing food. Added together, they show a corruption of the human soul.

So what does David Martosko offer on the subject?

On Twitter awhile back, he remarked: “Cheap solution to #PETA & #HSUS? Stop animal-rights infiltrators in farms & slaughterhouses … ” He then provided a link to a website that sells a supposed gadget to detect the presence of hidden cameras.

Yes, Martosko and his misnamed CCF are virtually alone in arguing that the torture of animals can be addressed by trying to prevent anyone from seeing it. He’s a cover-up artist, with a corrupt purpose.

It won’t succeed, of course—and we’ve got our countermeasures in the works for CCF. But if you follow the saga, CCF makes a fat bundle going around to corporations, like tobacco companies and restaurant chains, by promising them anonymity as it attacks the individuals and organizations trying to build the component parts of a civil and humane society. Because CCF is a nonprofit charity—an utter laugh if I’ve ever heard one—the corporations don’t have to reveal themselves and can hide their money. Then, Martosko, who was a music major in college, and his unctuous mentor Rick Berman take their baseless potshots at groups working diligently to stop drunk driving, alert pregnant women about the dangers of consuming mercury, fight obesity, safeguard the environment, and halt animal cruelty.

For instance, what restaurant or grocery chain would dare to say the government is “overly cautious” in warning pregnant women and young children about the dangers of mercury in seafood? Not many. But CCF is happy to spread this kind of absurd propaganda—for what is surely a juicy fee.

In a recent letter criticizing us, Martosko asked people to believe that The HSUS is pursuing “fringe” goals. Oh yeah? The kind of farm animal abuse that has become public in recent years, fringe? The kind of farm animal abuse that leading agricultural trade associations and commentators condemn? Dogfighting, fringe? Puppy mills, fringe? I wonder what Martosko and CCF would charge to defend the breeder who kept a dog in an undersized cage for so long that her fur grew into the wire of the cage and had to be cut free when our rescue team arrived? Fringe?

The one agreement I have with CCF is a belief that there are two sides to every story. In this instance, it’s simple. We’re against abusing animals for any reason. And Martosko and Berman support it. The only question left unresolved is, who is paying you Dave and Rick? That’s the tune we want you to name.

Caught on Tape: Cruelty to Calves a Wake-Up Call

2009-11-02T17:55:32-05:00

My colleague Michael Markarian and I participated in a press conference today to provide more details about our undercover investigation of Bushway Packing, Inc., a plant in Grand Isle, Vt. that specialized in slaughtering days-old calves discarded by the dairy industry for “bob veal.”

Based on the result of the video we sent state and federal authorities last week, the plant was shut down on Friday—and we released some preliminary footage to the public on that day. Today, we released additional video revealing a USDA inspector at the plant apparently allowing violations of federal law to occur, including the skinning of a live calf. Based on his recorded comments, he appeared to know the conduct he was witnessing was illegal, yet he took no remedial action and warned that punitive action would have been taken if a more scrupulous inspector had been present.

The HSUS

We also captured on video the co-owner of the plant repeatedly and maliciously shocking a baby calf with a hot shot (an electric prod), and otherwise inhumanely handling him. This is the same man who told the Burlington Free Press on Friday that he was not aware of any mistreatment of animals at the plant. Well, sir, not only was there mistreatment, but you were one of the main players.

Today, The HSUS also submitted a 66-page legal petition to the USDA to ask the agency to close the loophole that allows the slaughtering of downer veal calves for human consumption. We’ll follow up on that with a separate request to stop the transport of baby calves younger than 10 days old. As our investigation demonstrated, these baby animals are too weak and poorly nourished to withstand the rigors of long-distance transport and handling at slaughter plants.

And finally, we’ll be talking to USDA to do better when it comes to its humane handling and slaughter enforcement efforts. Through the years, this agency has been plagued by a cozy relationship with agribusiness and lax enforcement of the very modest humane handling and slaughter laws that exist. While there are many dedicated inspectors committed to upholding humane standards, this latest case again underscores why the agency must do better.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s statement expressing frustration and outrage about the abuses that occurred at Bushway gives us hope that there will be meaningful internal reforms at the agency, along with new policies for the nation. They are long overdue.

HSUS Investigation Uncovers Veal Calf Abuse, Closes Plant

2009-10-30T16:13:09-04:00

It’s always deeply disturbing to see the mistreatment of animals, but there’s something even worse when the victims are babies and seem so utterly vulnerable and frightened. Today, The HSUS released results of our latest investigation of modern agribusiness—in which one of our people went undercover for seven weeks at Bushway Packing, Inc. of Grand Isle, Vt. The plant specializes in slaughtering some of the rejects of the dairy industry—namely, the male calves who obviously cannot be used for milk production, nor as breeding stock.

The calves are taken away from their mothers at birth and sent, as mere infants, to the slaughter plant for immediate slaughter—to be used as “bob veal.” Without their mothers to nourish them, they are in a weakened state—hungry, lonely, confused, frightened, and, in some cases, unable to stand or walk.

The HSUS
Our undercover investigation shows shocking abuse of veal calves.

Our investigator documented the kicking, slapping, and electric prodding of downer calves in the pre-slaughter area—violations of the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. Our person on the inside then recorded inhumane stunning of the animals, and the hacking up and skinning of still-conscious calves.

Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture shut down the plant after seeing The HSUS’s footage and announced the initiation of a thorough investigation.

"The deplorable scenes recorded in the video released by the Humane Society of the United States are unequivocally unacceptable,” said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a statement today. “The callous behavior and attitudes displayed in the video clearly appear to be violations of USDA's humane handling regulations.”

Roger Allbee, the head of Vermont’s agriculture department, offered a similar denunciation.

After reviewing the undercover footage obtained by the HSUS investigator in August and September 2009, animal scientists Dr. Temple Grandin and Kurt Vogel pronounced that, “the handling practices and attention to insensibility at this plant are unacceptable and must improve.”

Early last year, The HSUS exposed the routine abuse of downed cows at a California slaughter plant, which was the number two supplier to the National School Lunch Program. That investigation prompted the largest meat recall in U.S. history and led to a new federal regulation that banned the slaughter of downer cattle, but left open a loophole for downer calves. Subsequent investigations in four states revealed other abuses of downers.

Today, we blow the lid off the abuse of these infant calves—some of them, downers, too. We’ll have more to say on this case on Monday, but here’s our full release today and our video.

Man Bites Shark Protections

2009-10-29T13:22:38-04:00

I have written before about shark finning and the Shark Conservation Act (H.R. 81/S. 850). Decent people are outraged over the gruesome and wasteful practice of shark finning—cutting the fins off a shark and throwing the animal back overboard to languish and die. Earlier this year, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Shark Conservation Act of 2009, but the U.S. Senate has not yet taken action. This appears, in part, to be due to objections by fishing industry representatives in North Carolina and Virginia.

Sen. John Kerry introduced the bill in April after the House passed its measure, and his version has 18 Senate co-sponsors. There is, however, a small but vocal group from the fishing industry seeking an exception for a species of shark called the smooth dogfish, caught off the coasts of Virginia and North Carolina.

A smooth dogfish shark.

Regulations went into effect in U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico federal waters in July 2008 requiring that all sharks be landed with their fins naturally attached—the only way to ensure that finning has not occurred. But a year later, in August 2009, smooth dogfish fishermen successfully fought for an exemption applied to state waters (3 miles from the coast) so they can remove the fins from smooth dogfish sharks at sea. Now they are pushing their senators to write similar language into the federal bill, which would apply to all waters within 200 miles of the U.S. coast.

The industry argues that these sharks are caught in high volume and their meat is in demand, so they want to process the meat quickly at sea rather than waiting until they land. Basically, they want a shortcut that could topple efforts to ban removal of shark fins at sea.

Everyone I have spoken to about shark finning agrees that the United States should put an end to this cruel and wasteful practice once and for all. Landing sharks with their fins attached allows enforcement agents to be sure that sharks were not finned alive and to more easily identify the species. Fins without a shark or a shark without his fins can be difficult for even experts to properly identify. For example, smooth dogfish with their fins cut off look an awful lot like sandbar sharks, a species that has declined to the point where their fishing is banned in the very same waters where smooth dogfish are being caught in high numbers. In short, exemptions to a complete shark finning ban are unworkable from an enforcement perspective.

Please contact your senators to urge support for the Shark Conservation Act with no exemptions to the fins-attached regulation. If you live in Virginia or North Carolina, it is especially important that you call your senators to voice your concerns and your opposition to cutting off shark’s fins at sea.