NEWSFACTORY FARMS

Animal welfare and food safety advocates just won a big victory! Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork producer and processer, has agreed to phase out the use of gestation crates by 2017.

Gestation crates are tiny, two-foot-by-seven-foot stalls that factory farms use to confine pregnant sows. Because pigs on factory farms are virtually always pregnant, they spend a huge portion of their lives crammed into these stalls. Most pigs held in these cruel, unsanitary cages don't even have enough room to turn around and are limited to two positions: standing or lying on their stomachs.

Gestation crates are currently banned or in the process of being banned in eight states and the European Union.

Smithfield originally promised to phase out gestation crates back in 2007, but by 2009, the company had gone back on its promise citing economic concerns. Even after the economy rebounded and Smithfield boasted record profits, the company failed to re-commit to its gestation crate promise. That prompted the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to start a petition here on Change.org.

Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork producer, heard you, and it's making some progress in phasing out cruel, unsanitary gestation crates.

You see back in 2007, Smithfield announced a goal to phase out all of its gestation crates — tiny two-foot-by-seven-foot stalls that factory farms use to confine pregnant female pigs — by 2017.  In 2009, however, Smithfield changed its mind, and said it could no longer meet its own goals because of poor economic conditions. The company recently boasted record profits, yet it still hasn't come back to its initial plan to ditch all gestation crates.

That lack of commitment prompted the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to start a campaign on Change.org urging the company to go back to its original goal. Dennis Treacy, Smithfield's Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs and Chief Sustainability Officer, recently responded to HSUS's campaign. Here's what he had to say:

"While the recession that impacted pork producers nationwide has set us back somewhat in reaching our original goal of 2017, our commitment has never wavered, as evidenced by our progress  in converting 30 percent of our sows to group housing by the end of 2011 and our commitment to spend more than $300 million to achieve our stated goal." He encourages anyone interested to read more at www.smithfieldcommitment.com.

McDonald’s is the largest customer of the largest pork company in the world, Smithfield Foods. And lately, Smithfield has been proving itself to be one of the food industry's biggest lying liars.

Back in 2007, Smithfield said it would phase out the use of gestation crates by 2017, a decision that was lauded by McDonald's. Some producers use gestation crates to house pregnant sows, and the enclosures are so restrictive and unsanitary that pigs can't even move around without hurting themselves.

In McDonald’s 2008 Corporate Responsibility Report, the company notes that “McDonald’s has long supported suppliers that choose to move away from sow gestation crates and tethers.” It goes so far as to quote Smithfield’s CEO in saying "...when McDonald's and other customers told us they believe group housing to be more comfortable for animals, we listened."

Unfortunately, Smithfield seems to have forgotten what it welcomed with open ears just a few years ago. In 2009, Smithfield went back on its promise to phase out gestation crates by 2017, claiming economic difficulties. Though the company recently boasted record profits, it still hasn't re-committed to phase out gestation crates. Even after 12,000 activists on Change.org asked the company to tell us why it won't get back on track to phase out gestation crates, Smithfield remained frustratingly silent.

In a stuffy room in Wisconsin, upwards of 500 people gathered for a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) hearing on a proposed factory dairy farm that would bring 5,000 cows to Richfield, WI. Many in attendance wore red "No CAFO" tee-shirts and shared their concerns over waste disposal — especially manure runoff, water usage, and the farm's impact on the local community including its pristine lakes and streams.

The five-hour hearing was held at the behest of local activists and concerned citizens who live near the proposed site. It was meant to help the DNR determine if it will grant a permit allowing Milk Source, the company that will run the proposed farm, to discharge pollutants into state waterways. It seems odd, then, that instead of the DNR presenting the facts and information about the proposed farm to start the meeting, officials granted that role to the CEO of Milk Source. The DNR also seemed to defer to Milk Source, allowing executives to answer questions the DNR should have had answers to (for instance, whether or not Milk Source has had any environmental violations in the past).

The meeting wasn't all pandering, though. Many people got to tell the DNR why they are opposed to the farm and explain their very real worries. Of particular concern is what the farm will do with its waste manure. The farm's current plan is to hold manure in massive pits (small ponds, really), and then have trucks haul it away to spread on fields. "A lot of them will be running right down in front of my house to spread manure on the fields on 3rd and 4th avenue over there," Paul Powolish, the closest neighbor to the proposed farm, said. "I can't live under conditions like that."

When a factory farm sets its sights on a community, it takes a pretty dedicated group to keep it from being built. A group fighting a 5,000-cow dairy farm in Richfield, Wisconsin has taken some pretty big steps to do just that. Activists stoked the media's interest in their cause. They've garnered the support of many statewide organizations such as Sustain Rural Wisconsin Network (SRWN), Crawford Stewardship Project, Family Farm Defenders, and members of several chapters of Trout Unlimited.

They've also gotten the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to hold a hearing on whether or not to grant the farm a permit to discharge its waste into waterways. "The hearing is only allowed when there is sufficient citizen interest to do so," explains organizer and petition creator Bob Clarke. "We were granted the hearing because we mobilized quickly."

The hearing will be held at 1 PM on July 18th at the Adams County Community Center, 569 North Cedar St., in Adams, WI, and it's an extremely important moment in this campaign. "The position of the DNR  is that they plan to approve the permit," says Clarke. "The hearing is our only chance to demonstrate our position as well."

More than 6,500 people have signed an online petition asking the Derbyshire County Council to vote against a proposed factory pig farm in the village of Foston, Derbyshire. The campaign urges all U.K. residents to sign the petition on Change.org and register their opposition on the Derbyshire County Council’s Web site. More than 7,500 people have spoken out against the factory farm on the County Council’s Web site.

“Cheap pork is flooding U.K. supermarket shelves from mainland Europe where, according to Compassion in World Farming (CIWF), 90 percent of the farms are not obeying European Union animal welfare legislation,” said Tracy Worcester, director of the documentary Pig Business. “Instead of trying to compete with these cheap imports by building mega farms with a few small improvements in terms of animal welfare and green credentials, our government should be ensuring that our small-scale family farms receive payments that reflect their benefits to society.”

The petition on Change.org, the world’s fastest-growing platform for social change, was started by the makers of Pig Business, a documentary that explores the health, animal welfare and environmental impacts of industrial-scale pig farms. If approved, Midland Pig Producers’ farm would become one of the largest factory farms in all of the U.K., housing more than 25,000 pigs and sending more than 1,000 to slaughter every week.

What would you do if you found out that 5,000 cows would be moving into your neighborhood? When Bob Clarke heard that a corporation called MilkSource was planning on building a massive, factory dairy farm in Richfield, Wisconsin, he got busy trying to stop it.

Clarke's mission isn't solely personal — constructing a mega dairy would have a huge impact on the local environment and residents' quality of life. If built, the dairy farm will negatively affect local air quality and the already-too-low water table as it pumps 52.5 million gallons of water out of the ground each year. Waste from the farm threatens to pollute the community's drinking water and two nearby, pristine trout-fishing streams. And then there's the noise, traffic, and offensive odors that come with any large factory farm.

As residents Shari Weakman recently commented, "Being a property owner on Pleasant Lake, quite near this proposed farm, I am appalled to think that the peaceful, family farm atmosphere of this area could be over-run by a large factory farm."  Talk about bad neighbors.

Back in 2007, Smithfield, the world's largest pork producer,  said it would phase out the use of gestation crates by 2017. Now the company has gone back on that promise even though it recently boasted record profits. Looks like the behemoth pork producer has no excuse for breaking its promise.

So what are gestation crates, and why should Smithfield ban them? Most factory farms confine pregnant female pigs in a small stall measuring about seven feet by two feet. Because pigs on factory farms like those owned by Smithfield are nearly always pregnant, they spend a huge majority of their lives crammed into these teensy stalls. Larger pigs can’t even turn around and are limited to two positions — standing or lying on their stomachs. Many of these highly intelligent and inquisitive pigs develop pressure sores and infections, as well as other crate-related injuries. Out of sheer boredom, they engage in repetitive behaviors such as bar biting and head swaying, and keeping so many pigs crammed into tight quarters is a breeding ground for bacteria.

Gestation crates are already banned in the U.K., Sweden, several U.S. states, and they're currently being phased out in the European Union and Denmark. Even though it promised to do so four years ago, Smithfield has yet to join this pig protection club.

Canada's University of Windsor brands itself as a progressive institution whose mission is "enabling people to make a better world through education, scholarship, research and engagement." But one University of Windsor student thinks the school could do a bit more to live up to that mission.

Waheeda Ekhlas Smith, a Windsor law student and President of the University's Student Animal Legal Defense Fund, is challenging the college to join a growing number of schools that support humane and sustainable food by buying only cage-free eggs.

"I did not know about battery cages until a few years ago," said Ekhlas Smith. "When I found out about their existence, I was shocked." What she learned was that conventional eggs typically come from factory farms, where hens are crammed together and confined in small cages, unable to even spread their wings or turn around. According to The Humane Society of the United States, "each caged laying hen is afforded only 67 square inches of cage space—less space than a single sheet of letter-sized paper on which to live her entire life." These inhumane conditions are not only bad for hens, they increase the occurrence of salmonella and other bacterial contamination, endangering the health of consumers who purchase these factory farmed eggs.

This is a guest post from Wenonah Hauter, the Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. If you would like to join the non-profit's campaign for fair farm rules, sign the petition here.

President Obama made a promise back when he campaigned in farm states. He needs to keep it.

The President told farmers that his administration would help fix the rules that allow the meat industry to take advantage of the people who raise the animals Americans eat. But, under pressure from Big Meat, the Obama Administration has failed to implement the fair farm rules (also known as GIPSA rules, named for the branch of the USDA that would oversee the rules, the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyard Administration).

Fair farm rules and GIPSA might sound wonky, but implementing them is crucial to leveling the playing field for farmers. As is often the case, the devil is in the details. If we want to move towards a more sustainable and regional food system, we need a fair market. We need to start fixing the nuts and bolts of what keeps farmers from being able to fairly market their products. And consolidation of the food industry is one of the major factors in why our food system is dysfunctional.