Agriculture Industry Rallies the Troops Against Anti-Confinement Law

A recent agriculture industry opinion column, titled Farm Animal Welfare Best Left to Livestock Producers, grumbled, "It was bound to happen sooner or later." This Eeyore-worthy sense of gloom was caused by a bit of proposed animal welfare legislation which would prohibit government purchases of animal products from factory farms that use veal crates, gestation crates and battery cages.

These practices are widely considered to be the epitome of factory farm cruelty; each system crams animals into cages where they don't even have enough room to stand up, turn around, or lie down. Or, as the article summed it up, the government would be forced into purchasing food "only from sources that raised the animals free from cruelty and abuse," where "animals can move freely and extend their limbs in confinement."

The article went on to say, "it's hard to pinpoint the motives behind this." Well, Big Ag, let me help you out there. The motive behind banning inhumane practices is pretty simple: To reduce animal suffering.

The Best Left to Livestock Producers column is pretty representative of the other industry opinions I've seen making their way around the web, as are the comments, such as the claim that "cages reduce the stress and increase the welfare of the animal." Or, my favorite theory, that wanting to give animals enough space to move is part of a "Veganist Jihad," with the ultimate goal of extinguishing the human race. It would almost be funny ... if there weren't millions of animals suffering and an extremely powerful lobby behind the rhetoric.

The agriculture industry is circling the wagons to fight the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act (HR 4733). The bill, which was referred to the House Agriculture Committee in early March, is not the most earth-shattering piece of legislation. But considering the government spends more than $1 billion on animal products each year, it would put serious pressure on the market to move away from these inhumane systems, and it would send the message that the government is starting to pay attention to animals raised for food, who have long been ignored by federal law. I'm not sure which of those factors has  Big Ag more afraid.

Perhaps the most disturbing — and telling — comment is the opinion that "producing livestock for food is not animal welfare." That's exactly the problem. If farm animal welfare is left to livestock producers, they'll continue to treat animals as walking meat.

The industry claims that it's in their best interest to keep their animals healthy. The outbreaks of e. coli and salmonella are certainly proof that it would be, but as long as they can keep pumping animals full of antibiotics to mask the unsanitary conditions where they're raised, that's close enough to "healthy" as far as factory farmers are concerned. There's also the issue of downed animals, those too sick or injured to stand, who are evidence that the industry's "best interest" is to get the animals to the slaughterhouse floor, come hell or high water.

The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act is a pretty conservative bill. It doesn't outlaw any practices, it just stops the government from spending taxpayer dollars on extreme cruelty. It would also be one of the only federal laws that acknowledges that producing livestock for food is, in fact, an animal welfare issue. 

Tell your representatives to support the bill, and let's hope that, when it passes, the agriculture industry's worst fears come true. (Well, not the Veganist Jihad one, but the one where this has a ripple effect in the market that puts all confinement crates out of commission, and leads to even more farm animal protection laws.)

Photo credit: Farm Sanctuary