5

Food for Thought

Pig Stalls Become Focal Point of Animal Rights Debate

From Wilbur in Charlotte’s Web to Porky Pig and Babe, fictional pigs are cute,
cuddly, and smart, but real pigs are a commodity—and a multibillion dollar
industry. Driven by consumer demand for affordable meat, pork production in
the U.S. has evolved from family farms to what critics call “factory farming.”
These large-scale farms raise large numbers of animals in confined spaces and
are now common in the production of meat, milk, and eggs.
For large-scale pork producers, a successful operation begins with an
efficient breeding system. Unlike adult females on small farms, a sow in a
factory farm setting is confined during her 114-day gestation period in a “sow
gestation stall,” about two feet wide by seven feet long. Pork producers say the
system provides a safer and more efficient way to produce healthy piglets,
with between 2 and 2.1 healthy litters each year. Animal welfare groups, such
as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), maintain that the use of
what they call “gestation crates” is inhumane and unhealthy for pigs.

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Figure 3.1 Sows in gestation crates.
Source: http://video.pork.org/
The National Pork Board

Animal Welfare and Animal Rights

Most Americans know little about where their food comes from and how it’s
produced. For some, the hard-working family farmer raising pigs to take to
market conjures up a pleasant image: a small farm with a few animals in an
open field. With few exceptions, that idea is long gone. “Factory” farms, on
the other hand, present a very different picture; they are large facilities built
for efficiency.
In recent years, a wave of news reports, books, documentaries, and research
have explored factory farming and depicted some of the industry’s operations
in unflattering detail. Consumers began to take note.
Critics of large-scale farming, such as the HSUS, say that animals kept
indoors can live in such close confinement that their natural social behaviors
are often curtailed or prevented. Instead of the large number of small family
farms that helped feed Americans in the 20th century, large-scale farms are
relatively few in number. According to the National Pork Board, the top 25
pork producers account for about half of the breeding herd in the U.S. Still,
there are about 67,000 hog farmers nationwide.
According to a 2012 Gallup poll, 5 percent of Americans considered
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
themselves vegetarians, and 2 percent said they were vegans.
While most Americans don’t have a problem with a meat-based diet, some
people believe animals deserve more protections and even rights. The term
“animal welfare” refers to the physical and psychological well-being of
animals. Researchers and activists have identified indicators, including
behavior, physiology, longevity, and reproduction, to measure how well an
animal is doing.
Animal welfare proponents believe that animals are sentient creatures; they
can feel, perceive, be conscious, and have subjective experiences. While there
are many points of view, adherents to animal welfare want to minimize what
they describe as adverse effects of animal treatment, particularly for those
animals that benefit humans.
Animal rights adherents go even further. They believe that animals should
not be treated as property and that their use by humans is not acceptable.
Animal rights activists oppose the use of leather clothing and the consumption
of animals. Animal rights groups, such as People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA), advocate for vegan or meatless diets. Eating animals, they
contend, is cruel.
The pork industry says it is bad business to mistreat pigs and that pig
farmers take great care to feed and shelter their animals properly. In fact, the
pork industry argues that gestation stalls are a safer and more nutritional way
to raise sows indoors.
Pig farmers say to meet the growing demand for meat products nationally
and globally and stay in business, farmers must be efficient and use factory
farming methods.
So, who’s right? Since one cannot ask pigs what they think, and no one
knows for certain if animals can perceive their situation as humans would, the
issue poses a problem with ethical and emotional dimensions.
This case study examines the HSUS’s campaign to eliminate sow gestation
crates and the pork industry’s response to its pressure tactics between 2010
and 2012.

The Humane Society of the United States

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
The HSUS, established in 1954, has sought to improve the welfare of animals,
acknowledging that such changes often occur incrementally. According to its
website, the HSUS seeks to protect animals by advocating for better laws and
conducting campaigns to change industries; it also conducts investigations
into animal cruelty and cares for animals through a network of five
sanctuaries and rehabilitation facilities.
Over the years, the HSUS has gathered support for a number of state and
federal legislative initiatives such as the Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 and
the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. Some of its recent campaigns have included
farm animal protection, animal fighting, puppy mills, animals in laboratories,
and the fur trade.
Charity Navigator, an independent nonprofit organization that evaluates
American charities’ financial health and accountability/transparency, gave the
HSUS a four-star rating in 2012, the highest possible. Charity Navigator noted
that the HSUS’s fundraising efficiency was 18 cents for every dollar raised.
Most of its budget was devoted to program expenses (77 percent), and
administrative expenses were low at 3.7 percent. In 2011, the charity had total
revenues of more than $167.7 million, a sizeable amount to fund many
activities on behalf of animals.
However, another organization, Charity Watch (American Institute of
Philanthropy), in 2012 gave the organization a “D” for high fundraising costs—
spending up to 48 cents per dollar raised.
Since 2001, the HSUS has campaigned to reduce what it deems “the
suffering of animals,” which has included many initiatives such as ending
“cruel confinement of farm animals,” “cruel slaughter practices,” and “force-
fed animals.” The HSUS publicized the severe confinement of calves, pigs, and
hens in factory farm settings and pressured producers, legislators, and others
through a variety of tactics. In particular, it estimated that sow gestation
crates were used by 70 percent of U.S. pork producers.

The U.S. Pork Industry

The U.S. pork industry has undergone major changes since 1985. According to

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

the National Pork Board, “output per breeding animal has more than doubled
in the past 30 years, while the U.S. breeding herd has been reduced by more
than 50 percent” due to advances in technology and economies of scale. Pork
is much healthier too. Pork tenderloin is as lean as skinless chicken breast,
according to the National Pork Board. Six of the most common pork cuts
have, on average, 16 percent less fat and 27 percent less saturated fat than
pork sold before 2004, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA). Worldwide, pork is the most widely eaten meat, beating out chicken
by nearly 10 percent, according to the USDA Foreign Agricultural Service.
One study found that each market hog represents 371 servings of pork, based
on a 265-pound market weight hog, 70 percent yield, and 8-ounce servings.
Ninety-four percent of U.S. households consumed pork, according to a
National Pork Board consumer segmentation study in 2010.
There are a host of co-products beyond food that are derived from hogs
today, including insulin used in the treatment of diabetes, hog heart valves
used to replace diseased human heart valves, and hog skin used to treat severe
burn victims. Many consumer products are derived from hogs, including
quality leather for clothes, shoes, and handbags, and many other products
come from hog bones, hair, fatty acids, and glycerin.

Pork Industry Advocacy Organizations

The country’s pork industry is represented by two major organizations: the
National Pork Board and the National Pork Producers Council, along with
other state and national groups. These organizations have worked on behalf of
pork producers to tell the hitherto untold story of what the industry has
accomplished in the last 20 years.
The National Pork Board and its funding apparatus were established in 1986
by Congress to help about 67,000 hog farmers increase demand for pork
products. The Board’s Pork Checkoff Program is the industry’s funding source
for consumer advertising and research to improve production and marketing.
The program collects a small fee for every hog sold in the U.S. and on
imported hogs or pork products, generating about $78 million in 2012. About

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

20 percent of the collected funds are returned to the pork state associations for
their own projects.
The National Pork Board’s mission is to “harness the resources of all
producers to capture opportunity, address challenges and satisfy customers.”
The other leading pork organization is the National Pork Producers
Council, the public policy/lobbying arm of the industry, representing 43
affiliated state pork associations. Its mission is
to fight for reasonable legislation and regulations, develop revenue and market opportunities and
protect the livelihoods of America’s 67,000 pork producers. Public-policy issues on which it focuses
are in the areas of agriculture and industry, animal health and food safety, environment and energy
and international trade.

The National Pork Board and the National Pork Producers Council work
together on many projects that improve the industry and its reputation. In
2012, the National Pork Board allocated $69.2 million, spending $52.7 million
in three areas: domestic marketing, science and technology research, and
communication and producer outreach. Funding for the National Pork
Producers Council is voluntary and not published.
Beyond the sow confinement issue, the pork industry faced other concerns.
According to the National Pork Board’s five-year 2010 strategic plan, the
industry was grappling with high feed and energy costs, soft demand for pork
due to food consumption patterns that emphasized less meat in diets, and
activist groups that attacked the pork industry’s handling of public safety
issues including environmental stewardship (air, water, and land quality), and
animal welfare issues. The pork industry was also dealing with an American
public that erroneously connected the H1N1 (“swine flu”) virus with pigs, had
little connection to modern farms, and did not understand how hard it was to
produce high-quality meat at affordable prices. This was especially true
during conditions of drought or too much rain due to climate change.

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Figure 3.2 Erin Ehinger from Dykhuis farms talks about sow care, including the use of sow gestation
stalls.
Source: http://video.pork.org/
National Pork Board

A National Pork Board survey of pork producers determined that activist

groups were the most significant force facing the industry in 2009. Producers
and other stakeholders wanted the National Pork Board to improve the
industry’s image and address animal care issues (the top third and fourth
priorities respectively) with its Checkoff Program resources.

The HSUS Campaign

In 2001, voters in Florida amended their constitution to ban the use of
gestation stalls. This event ignited efforts by the HSUS, which used a variety
of pressure tactics to increase public awareness and action about sow
gestation crates, claiming these were used by 60–70 percent of U.S. pork
producers. The tactics included publicizing scientific research, undercover
investigative reports, legal actions, lobbying for policy and legislative changes,
and shareholder activism, which supported the HSUS’s belief that sow
gestation crates equated to animal mistreatment.

Scientific Research
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
One of the tactics the HSUS has employed is the use of third-party expert
sources to support its goals. One important study that was promoted by the
HSUS and undertaken by the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal
Production was called “Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal
Production in America.”
This 2008 study was funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Johns
Hopkins School of Public Health. This report recommended abolishing
gestation stalls. In its executive summary, it said:
Gestation crates, the most restrictive farrowing crates, battery cages, and other intensive confinement
systems fail to allow for even these minimal natural behaviors …
… The Commission believes that ethical treatment of animals raised for food is essential to, and
consistent with, achieving a safe and sustainable system for producing food animals. Practices that
restrict natural motion, such as sow gestation crates, induce high levels of stress in the animals and
threaten their health, which in turn may threaten human health. There is growing public concern for
ethical treatment of farm animals that will lead to new laws and regulations governing farm animal
treatment unless the industry voluntarily adopts third-party, consensus-based standards for animal
well-being.

The Commission recommended phasing out gestation crates:

Phase out the most intensive and inhumane production practices within a decade to reduce the risk of
IFAP to public health and improve animal well-being (i.e., gestation crates and battery cages).

The Union of Concerned Scientists also issued a report in 2008, “CAFOs:

The Untold Story of Confined Animal Feeding Operations,” which focused on
the negative safety and environmental effects of factory farming.
These reports generated numerous news media stories. The New York Times
wrote in an editorial based on the reports, “In short, animal husbandry has
been turned into animal abuse,” and called for changes.
The HSUS invested in reporting the research of others to support HSUS
views. These reports were heavily annotated examinations of animal welfare
issues in factory farming.
For example, its January 2012 report, “Welfare Issues With Gestation Crates
for Pregnant Sows,” was 14 pages in length, with half of these devoted to
footnotes. According to this report, “Crated sows suffer a number of
significant welfare problems, including elevated risk of urinary tract

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

infections, weakened bones, overgrown hooves, lameness, behavioral
restriction and stereotypies.” The report noted that sows were unable to
participate in normal behaviors such as grazing, rooting, walking, and lying
down. As a consequence of confinement, abnormal behaviors such as
“repetitive bar-biting, head-weaving” and “chewing motions with an empty
mouth” occurred. Many of the sources were scientific research articles
published in journals such as the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical
Association and Animal Science.
These types of reports attempted to counteract other third-party voices such
as that of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). The AVMA
said in a statement that gestation crates “may minimize aggression and injury,
reduce competition, and allow individual feeding and nutritional
management, assistant in control of body condition,” but that crates “restrict
normal behavioral expression.” The AVMA endorsed more research into
housing systems that would increase sow welfare.
The HSUS report recommended alternative feeding methods, such as an
electronic sow feeder system that eliminates sow aggression and provides for
individual feeding care. Another report that the HSUS promoted, “The
Economics of Adopting Alternatives to Gestation Crate Confinement of
Sows,” tackled the economics of using different feeding systems, showing that
there were viable alternatives.

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Figure 3.3 A report funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health was critical of farm factory practices.
Source: www.ncifap.org/
Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (PCIFAP)

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Figure 3.4 A fact sheet from the Humane Society of the United States that summarized its position on
the sow gestation crate issue.
Source: www.fmi.org/docs/animal-welfare/hsus-gestation-crate-factsheet.pdf?sfvrsn=3
The Humane Society of the United States

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Third-Party Endorsements
In addition to the scientific reports that functioned as third-party
endorsements, the news media and others supported the HSUS viewpoints in
editorials and columns or provided credibility to the cause by including the
HSUS information. One major endorsement was quoted in HSUS literature
and on its website from the famed animal welfare scientist Dr. Temple
Grandin, although pork industry advocates noted that she was not a welfare
expert on sow gestation housing options. She said, “We’ve got to treat animals
right, and gestation stalls have got to go. Confining an animal for most of its
life in a box in which it is not able to turn around does not provide a decent
life.”

Undercover Investigations
Three major undercover investigations were conducted by the HSUS
regarding the use of sow gestation crates. The first targeted Smithfield Foods,
a company that pledged in 2007 to phase out the use of gestation crates over
the next ten years but in 2009 delayed its plans. In 2010, an HSUS undercover
investigator witnessed cramped gestation crates, sows with open pressure
sores and wounds that sometimes became infected, the use of gate rods to
make a sow move, mishandled piglets, and premature piglets that fell through
floor slats into manure pits. The video recorded alleged mistreatment issues,
further strengthening the purported evidence of animal abuse. Shortly after
the HSUS released the video and report, Smithfield recommitted to phasing
out gestation crates by 2017, according to a company statement.

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Figure 3.5 A screen shot from the undercover video investigation by the Humane Society of the United
States into farm factory practices at Seaboard.
Source: www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2012/01/pig_gestation_investigation_013112.html
The Humane Society of the United States

Another undercover investigation at two other major pig-breeding

producers’ facilities (Seaboard and Prestage Farms) released in 2012 found the
following alleged problems: physical mistreatment, untreated pressure
sores/wounds, unsanitary conditions in gestation crates, and dead pigs in
gestation crates and pens. National news media such as Reuters and The
Associated Press wrote stories based on the report and graphic video.
The HSUS also performed an undercover investigation of Wyoming
Premium Farms, exposing workers punching and kicking mother pigs, kicking
piglets like balls, whipping them around by their hind legs, smashing them
into concrete floors, and throwing them high into the air. These videos and
first-person accounts provided evidence for legal claims against the
companies, and nine charges of animal cruelty were brought against workers
at the farm.

Legal Tactics
The HSUS filed complaints to challenge the pork industry’s position that sow
gestation confinement was humane and ethical, a description the HSUS called
“deception by omission,” according to a HSUS statement. In 2012, the HSUS
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission alleging that the
National Pork Producers Council’s public descriptions of its animal welfare
commitment (specifically its “We Care” and “Pork Quality Assurance Plus”
training and certification programs) were misleading due to the industry’s
prevalent use of sow gestation crates. The HSUS said in a statement, “The
pork industry spends millions misleading the public about its animal welfare
record while allowing pigs to be crammed into tiny gestation crates where
they can’t even turn around for months on end.”
The National Pork Producers Council responded with a criticism of what it
characterized as Big Brother-type tactics, and stated:
The FTC complaint is the latest attack by animal-rights activists on America’s hog farmers, an
assault that seems obviously in response to the U.S. pork industry’s strident opposition to
congressional legislation that would allow federal bureaucrats to tell farmers how to raise and care
for their animals.

The HSUS also lodged a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) against Seaboard Foods, one of the largest pork producers in the
country. The HSUS claimed that the company’s “Sustainability & Stewardship
Report” contained falsehoods:
Seaboard is issuing unlawfully false or misleading representations about the animal welfare
practices of its wholly owned subsidiary Seaboard Foods, one of the largest pork producers in the
country. Seaboard Foods’ “Sustainability & Stewardship Report,” accessible through both the
Seaboard Corporation and Seaboard Foods websites, and videos and other statements available on the
Seaboard Foods website are replete with false and/or misleading representations about Seaboard’s
animal welfare practices, claims that animals raised to produce Seaboard products are raised “free
from cruelty” and only in accordance with the “most humane practices.”

A similar legal complaint filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) against Smithfield Foods, a supplier of McDonald’s, said
that a Smithfield video misrepresented to viewers its animal welfare and
environmental standards.
On March 7, 2011, Smithfield posted on its investor relations website a press release announcing the
launch of a series of informational videos—New Smithfield Foods Educational Video Series Helps
Take the Mystery Out of Pork Production. The release directed investors to visit websites hosting
seven videos purporting to show how we raise our pigs and how our environmental and animal
handling sustainability practices work every day.

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

 As detailed more fully below, these videos are replete with false and/or misleading representations
—both express and implied—about Smithfield’s animal welfare and environmental practices. These
claims are material and misleading to stakeholders concerned about corporate social responsibility
(CSR).

The video noted that Smithfield “provides animals with ‘ideal’ living
conditions and that their animals’ ‘every need is met’ despite the fact that the
vast majority of its breeding sows are confined in gestation crates.”
When Seaboard Foods challenged the allegations in the videos, the HSUS
filed more complaints with the SEC and FTC for Seaboard’s alleged false and
misleading statements.

Legislative Efforts
There are no federal animal welfare laws regulating the treatment of “food
animals” while they’re on the farm. While all 50 states had cruelty statutes in
2012, most exempted common farming practices, such as close confinement
housing systems.
Each year, the HSUS ranks each state on its animal protection laws,
including laws protecting farm animal welfare. It gives annual Humane
Legislator of the Year awards to those legislators who have pressed for
effective laws to protect animals. Citizens are encouraged to participate in its
Humane Lobby Day events. These sponsored events give animal welfare
activists information about effective lobbying and bills under consideration in
their state legislature. The HSUS offers to make appointments for these citizen
lobbyists to meet face-to-face with their legislators or staff to seek support for
particular animal welfare bills.
By 2012, eight states had passed legislation banning the use of sow
gestation stalls/crates. Bills introduced in state legislatures often sought to ban
the use of such confinement units and require enough room for sows to turn
around or more. Generally, the legislation developed a gradual phase-out
process over several years to mitigate the economic impact on pork producers.
On this issue, the U.S. lagged behind Sweden and the United Kingdom, both of
which had already banned sow gestation crates by 2012; a limited European
Union ban took effect in 2013.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Shareholder Meeting Tactics
Shareholders of publicly traded companies have voting rights on issues that
affect their corporations. Shareholders also have the right to speak at annual
meetings, although the corporation’s bylaws dictate the scope of such
speeches. Usually, they are short, under five minutes, and speakers are limited
to two presentations during a single meeting. To raise awareness and pressure
companies to change their practices, the HSUS purchased shares in various
companies that either produce or purchase pork in order to present resolutions
or proposals asking for the phasing out of sow gestation crates. Companies
targeted include Seaboard Foods, Bob Evans Farms restaurant chain and food
producer, Tim Horton’s Restaurants, CKE Restaurants (which owns Hardee’s
and Carl’s Jr. restaurant chains), Domino’s Pizza, Bravo Brio Restaurant
Group, Steak ’n Shake, and Jack in the Box.
Shareholders also have the right to inspect their corporation’s records. In
one instance, the HSUS asked Hormel Foods to “disclose to shareholders how
many breeding pigs are confined in gestation crates for its products, and any
progress the company has made moving toward more humane housing
methods.”

The Pork Industry’s Response

The pork industry used its marketing, communication, and lobbying resources
to advocate for industry priorities. In 2010, the pork industry identified
“operating freedom” as its top critical issue, followed by “enhanced demand
and competitive global advantage.” Operating freedom was defined in its
strategic plan as “the rights and ability of U.S. farmers to produce pork in a
socially responsible and cost competitive manner.”
This included the following strategies:

1. Evaluate consumer perception, provide timely research, and lead

discussions throughout the food chain that result in the adoption of
socially responsible best management practices that reflect pork
producers’ ethical principles.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
 2. Work with the National Pork Producers Council and state pork
organizations to increase awareness and understanding, among key
target audiences, of the pork industry’s stewardship activities and the
value of modern production practices. A benchmark survey will measure
progress annually.
3. Work with the National Pork Producers Council and state pork
organizations to provide pork producers with the tools to assist them in
the development of a favorable business climate within their local
communities.
4. Manage issues to minimize current and emerging threats that endanger
consumer demand and/or producer productivity.

In 2012, the National Pork Board spent $12.7 million to support operational
freedom strategies, $34.8 million to support pork’s image and increase market
demand for pork, and $5.1 million to increase market demand for U.S. pork
globally.

Lobbying
The pork industry’s lobbying effort focused on preventing any new
regulations or laws that would mandate how farmers should take care of their
animals. Its lobbying efforts were guided by the National Pork Producers
Council. This organization is involved in the political process through
PorkPAC, its political action committee. According to the website
OpenSecrets.org, PorkPAC gave $356,993 to federal candidates (32 percent
Democrats and 68 percent Republicans). Such contributions support
candidates that agree with the pork industry on regulatory issues and provide
access and credibility when dealing with members of Congress. PorkPAC
educates and supports candidates at the state and federal levels who support
the U.S. pork industry. The National Pork Producers Council also interacts
with federal agencies such as the Agriculture Department to provide
information and work on mutually beneficial activities.

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Figure 3.6 Ted Rossing from the National Pork Board talks about sow care, including the use of sow
gestation stalls.
Source: http://video.pork.org/
National Pork Board

The National Pork Producers Council trains pork industry business people
and farmers to engage with their own elected public officials and become
grassroots activists. It also supports the Swine Veterinarian Public Policy
Advocate Program, which trains veterinarians to advocate for the pork
industry.

“We Care” Initiative

Another way of helping producers maintain operational freedom involved
doing a better job of projecting a more socially responsible image and actively
telling that story to key stakeholders. The industry’s social responsibility
program, We Care, was a good start to delivering key messages to its public
and building understanding.
The cornerstone of the industry’s safe and humane production practices
and environmentally sound farming methods was its six ethical principles.
Developed in 2008, these principles would guide producers, suppliers, and
sellers. Included was a principle for animal “well-being”:
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Figure 3.7 Answers on the Gestation Stalls website, which was developed by the National Pork Board’s
We Care program to combat criticism of gestation stalls.
Source: www.porkcares.org/
National Pork Board

Produce safe food

Protect and promote animal well-being
Ensure practices to protect public health
Safeguard natural resources
Provide a safe work environment
Contribute to a better quality of life in our communities

“Producers realize that pigs are living beings and, as such, they must receive a
level of care that promotes their well-being,” according to a National Pork
Board publication. Under “animal well-being,” the National Pork Board
described four guiding principles:

Provide feed, water, and an environment that promotes the well-being of

our animals
Provide proper care, handling, and transportation for pigs at each stage
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
 of life
Protect pig health and provide appropriate treatment, including
veterinary care when needed
Use approved practices to euthanize, in a timely manner, those sick or
injured pigs that fail to respond to care and treatment

The We Care program included training programs (Pork Quality Assurance

Plus and Transport Quality Assurance) to support animal well-being, safety,
and quality. These training programs provided the current best practice for
handling animals and ensuring their safety. By the end of 2012, 57,000
individuals had received certification, and 16,487 sites (75 percent of the U.S.
pig inventory) had been assessed.

Third-Party Endorsements
To advance its message, the National Pork Board used respected supporters of
its stand. The AVMA and the American Association of Swine Veterinarians
(AASV) had reviewed the existing scientific literature on gestational sow
housing and published position statements that concluded that both types of
housing (open and confined) have advantages and disadvantages. These
organizations said that the housing system should:

minimize aggression and competition among sows;

protect sows from detrimental effects associated with environmental
extremes, particularly temperature extremes;
reduce exposure to hazards that result in injuries, pain, or disease;
provide every animal with daily access to appropriate food and water;
facilitate observation of individual sow appetite, respiratory rate,
urination and defecation, and reproductive status by caregivers; and
allow sows to express most normal behavior patterns.

The pork industry noted that support for both open and confined housing
systems from these veterinarian organizations was further evidence that the
industry was operating within socially responsible parameters.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Activism
Authentic voices supporting the pork industry were available for no cost.
Open house kits were available for farmers to host their own open house and
interact with community members. The kit included newspaper
advertisements, a sample agenda, sample press release, and other tools to
promote the open house. Farmers could tell their own story about raising
healthy and well-cared-for animals. Another outreach program designed for
producers and other industry volunteers was Operation Main Street. This
educational program provided materials and talking points for small and large
group presentations about where food comes from and how modern
agriculture is meeting consumer demand responsibly. So far, more than 5,000
presentations have been made to consumers with a total audience reach of 24
million.

Research
Which housing system is best for sows is still a matter of evolving science.
The pork industry’s review of the available science has determined “that both
individual and group housing systems are acceptable for providing for the
well-being of the sow. Regardless of the system used, the caretaker’s
husbandry skills and ability to provide good care most influences the well-
being of the sow.”
The AVMA’s Task Force on the Housing of Pregnant Sows conducted a
thorough and objective review of the scientific evidence, including peer-
reviewed science, relating to the impact on the health and welfare of keeping
breeding sows. Entitled “A Comprehensive Review of Housing for Pregnant
Sows,” the 2005 report concluded:
Considering all factors, all sow housing systems in current use have advantages and disadvantages
for animal welfare. Current group systems allow freedom of movement and social interaction.
However, these same systems, when they fail to work well, lead to problems, especially in the areas of
aggression, injury and uneven body condition. When they lack manipulable material, sows in group
systems are also unable to forage. Current stall systems minimize aggression and injury, reduce
competition, allow individual feeding, and assist in control of body condition. Stalls, however, also
restrict movement, exercise, foraging behavior, and social interaction. Because the advantages and

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

 disadvantages of housing systems are qualitatively different, there is no simple or objective way to
rank systems for overall welfare. There is no scientific way, for example, to say how much freedom of
movement is equal to how much freedom from aggression or how many scratches are equal to how
much frustration. In such cases, science can identify problems and find solutions but cannot calculate
and compare overall welfare in very different systems. Ideally, sow housing systems should do the
following:

Minimize aggression and competition among sows.

Protect sows from detrimental effects associated with environmental extremes, particularly
temperature extremes.
Reduce exposure to hazards that result in injuries, pain, or disease.
Provide every animal with daily access to appropriate amounts and types of food and water.
Facilitate observation of individual sow appetite, respirator rate, urination and defecation, and
reproductive status by caretakers.
Allow sows to express most normal patterns of behavior.

A 2004 study conducted meta-analyses of existing scientific data on housing

systems for gestating sows (McGlone et al.) and found that sows’ stress levels
measured by blood cortisol, productivity, and behaviors were similar for stalls
and group pens.
The pork industry cautioned in one of its publications, “Swine Facts on
Animal Welfare,” “Because animal welfare can easily become an emotional
issue, it’s important to base decisions around sound science. Otherwise,
changing the dynamics of the farm may impair rather than enhance welfare.”
The pork industry created the Animal Welfare Committee more than 20
years ago to review the science of animal welfare to inform production
practices on the farm. It approved this resolution in 2002:
Animal welfare guidelines developed without a sound scientific basis put the welfare of the animal
and the sustainability of the producer’s operation at risk. Therefore, the National Pork Board
continues to support sound science as the only basis for animal welfare guideline decision-making.

The Swine Welfare Assurance Program (SWAP) was created by the

National Pork Board. It maintained and promoted scientifically sound animal
care practices; the “Swine Care Handbook” was published in 2003 based on
current scientific research. Elements of SWAP were later incorporated into the
Pork Quality Assurance Plus program.
Investment in sow housing research became the industry’s top research
priority, with $367,794 funding research projects in 2012. Between 2002 and
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
2012, $1.8 million was invested in sow housing research. The National Pork
Board’s website provides written summaries and other publications.

Public Relations and Marketing

The National Pork Board monitored and evaluated traditional as well as social
media sites for issues management activity. Its communication staff worked
with news media requests and reached out to specific reporters influential to
the national debate. The board relied on current science and experts in the
industry to tell its story.
The pork industry’s main consumer site is PorkBeInspired.com, which
contains thousands of recipes and information about the nutritional benefits
of pork.
A site called PorkCares.org is the industry’s social responsibility site and
features its We Care initiatives. It features an industry progress report,
“Responsible Farming: Our Heritage, Our Future,” created in 2012 as a
response to growing public interest in modern-day farming. It tracks We Care
initiatives in areas such as food safety, animal well-being, environmental
stewardship, and worker safety. The site hosts many videos focusing on
farmers and We Care principles: “Doing What’s Right: A Long-Term
Commitment,” “Food Safety: The Highest Priority,” “Today’s Hog Farmers
Provide Better Animal Care and Food Safety,” and “Benefits of Modern
Farming: A Largely Untold Story.”

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Figure 3.8 The National Pork Board’s We Care program created a corporate social responsibility report
in 2012 to show the industry’s progress on social and animal welfare issues.
Source: www.porkcares.org/
National Pork Board

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

 Dr. Paul Sundberg, vice president of science and technology, said on
framing the discussion about sow gestation crates:
We rely on the best measurements of animal welfare that we have—an evaluation of the sow’s
production, physiology and behavior. Any attempt to evaluate welfare status without considering all
three together can be misleading because the scientific consensus is that all three considerations must
be taken into account. Trying to put forth one as a credible assessment of welfare is misleading.

Some key talking points that the Pork Board used to build understanding
included:

Today’s pigs are raised by farmers who have dedicated their life to
providing for the best in health, well-being and safety of their animals
and about the safety of the food they produce.
Pork producers also recognize that today’s consumers are asking more
questions about where their food comes from and how it is raised. That’s
why we welcome every chance we get to talk to people about modern pork
production.
Modern pork production facilities of all sizes provide animals with an
environment designed especially for them to keep them safe, healthy and
comfortable. This means they don’t get chilled in harsh winter weather or
swelter during hot summers, which can predispose them to disease.
Pork producers believe in continuous improvement. If we can improve
their product, or the way we raise our pigs or the things we do to keep the
environment safe for our families and our neighbors, we do it.
Pork producers are like the vast majority of all Americans. When it comes
to managing our farms, we do the right thing for the right reasons. When
mistakes are made, we fix them immediately.
As a pork producer, I am committed to producing safe, wholesome pork in
a socially responsible way. No one cares more than I do, as a U.S. pork
producer, about producing high-quality products, taking care of their
animals and natural resources, and contributing to their communities.
Pork producers have adopted a Statement of Ethical Principles that guides
their everyday actions. So consumers know we share their values when it
comes to food safety, animal well-being, participating in the life of our
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
 communities, and protecting both the environment and public health.

Another website developed by the National Pork Board

(http://video.pork.org/default.aspxNational Pork Board) included videos of
various industry representatives, with many farmers describing their farming
practices in detail. The videos sought to build understanding about modern
farming and demonstrate the industry’s commitment to animal welfare, the
environment, health and safety, and the community. One video featured Neil
Dierks, CEO of the National Pork Producers Council:

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Figure 3.9 The National Pork Board’s We Care program website stressed its socially responsible animal
welfare principles.
Source: www.porkcares.org/
National Pork Board

Pork producers take their role very seriously. In fact, nobody cares more and nobody has more on the
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
 line when it comes to food safety, health, animal care, the environment, and being responsible
citizens. After all, pork producers’ very existence depends on these things.

Social media efforts include farm bloggers such as the moms and pork
producers Heather Hill (ThreeKidsandlotsofPigs.com and @ProudPorkMom)
and Jo Windmann (TheBaconBlogger.blogspot.com and @JoWindmann) who
live by the We Care principles, a Twitter account (#porkcares) that discusses
socially responsible farming practices, and a Facebook page that features
farmers and pork industry news and supports its We Care efforts.
The National Pork Board and the National Pork Producers Council’s
websites were geared toward producers’ needs.

McDonald’s Works With Suppliers to Phase Out Stalls

While pork producers and suppliers were pressured to change their ways, the
news media attention was minimal. That wasn’t the case with companies
farther along the food chain: those that dealt directly with consumers. With
millions of dollars spent annually to promote their companies’ socially
responsible actions and in the glare of the media spotlight, restaurants and
other food service companies were monitoring the sow gestation stall issue.
Without a doubt, reputational risks were evaluated with an eye toward a
greater commitment to animal welfare. In 2011, Hormel Foods, the maker of
Spam, and Sonic Corporation, owner of the largest chain of drive-in
restaurants in the U.S., announced policies to move away from extreme
confinement of farm animals. McDonald’s, the nation’s largest restaurant
chain, issued a joint announcement with the HSUS on February 13, 2012, that
it would require its U.S. pork suppliers to phase out the use of sow gestation
stalls.
“We are beginning an assessment with our U.S. suppliers to determine how
to build on the work already underway to reach that goal,” said Dan Grosky,
senior vice president of McDonald’s North America Supply Chain
Management. “In May, after receiving our suppliers’ plans, we’ll share results
from the assessment and our next steps.” The McDonald’s–HSUS
announcement included an endorsement from renowned scientist Dr. Temple

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Grandin: “Moving away from gestation stalls to better alternatives will
improve the welfare of sows and I’m pleased to see McDonald’s working with
suppliers toward that end.”
Within hours, the National Pork Board responded, noting
there are numerous ways, including sow gestation stalls, to provide proper care for sows. Each
housing system, including gestation stalls, open pens, free-access stalls and pastures, has welfare
advantages and disadvantages that must be considered by an individual famer.

Its position, the National Pork Board said, was supported by the available
science. The AVMA and the AASV also based their positions on the available
scientific evidence, which concluded that both systems were acceptable.

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Figure 3.10 McDonald’s announced its intention to discontinue buying from suppliers who used sow
gestation crates jointly with the Humane Society of the United States.
Source: www.humanesociety.org/
The Humane Society of the United States

Less than a month later, Bon Appétit Management Company and Wendy’s
made an announcement similar to McDonald’s, followed by Burger King and
others. Compass Group, the largest food service company in the world, also
announced a new policy that would phase out the use of gestation crates.
******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******
Questions for Discussion
1. What is factory farming? What do critics say about this type of farming?
2. What is the difference between animal welfare and animal rights
advocates?
3. What was the goal of the HSUS regarding the issue with pig stalls?
4. Describe and explain the tactics of the pork industry regarding the pig
stall issue. In your opinion, how effective were these strategies and
tactics?
5. Describe and explain the tactics of the HSUS regarding the pig stall issue.
In your opinion, how effective were these strategies and tactics?
6. What do you think is the role of the National Pork Producers Council in
establishing ethical business practices?
7. What led to the response of some restaurant companies to move away
from the use of sow gestation stalls?
8. What do you think are the effective elements of the pork industry’s We
Care campaign?
9. After seeing the HSUS undercover investigation video at Smithfield
Foods (see the video Undercover at Smithfield Foods on the HSUS website
and the textbook’s companion website), how do you think it supported
the case against sow gestation crates?
10. How did the HSUS use the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal
Production report and other scientific reports as a pressure tactic?

Dig Deeper
Read the pork industry’s social responsibility report, “Responsible Farming,”
available on the textbook’s companion website. Explain how the industry is
responsible, professional, and caring. Review the pork industry’s video,
entitled Life in Confinement, available on the textbook’s companion website.
What arguments does the pig farmer make for raising pigs in confined spaces?
The HSUS produced two graphic undercover videos on the mistreatment of
pigs in large-scale farms. Review Shocking Animal Cruelty at Tyson Foods

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******

Supplier or Undercover Video Documents Abuse of Pigs at Okla. Factory
Farms, available on the textbook’s companion website, and explain how these
videos can harm the pork industry’s reputation. How should the pork industry
respond to these types of videos?

******ebook converter DEMO Watermarks*******