News
Vilsack expands on ‘egg bill’ remarks
In his much-analyzed December speech at a Farm Journal forum, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said agriculture needs to be more strategic about the fights that it picks—because, in his words,” those fights are often misinterpreted in some corners”.
Vilsack cited, as an example, opposition from livestock groups to the so-called egg bill in Congress—legislation that would set federal standards for cages housing egg-laying hens.
Vilsack tells Brownfield that kind of in-fighting is hurting rural America at a time when it badly needs to build alliances and expand opportunity.
“We shouldn’t discourage that kind of conversation because that creates the kinds of alliances and friendships and relationships that will allow us—eventually—to get enough votes in Congress to pass legislation that we need to make sure that we’ve got rural opportunity,” Vilsack says.
Cattle and hog groups are concerned that the egg bill could open the door to the creation of federal production standards for other segments of animal agriculture. But Vilsack argues the egg producers had legitimate reasons for negotiating with the Humane Society of the United States—mainly to avoid having different rules for egg production in each state.
“If someone is concerned about the impact that that might have on their type of agriculture, then there ought to be conversations and engagement in the process–as opposed to criticisms of those who have been engaged–because there may be ways in which you can learn from that process,” Vilsack says.
“I’m not being critical of anybody. I’m just pointing out the obvious, which is we didn’t get a farm bill through and we’ve had increased numbers of these referendums. So it’s wake-up call—it’s a suggestion that we’ve got to think differently here.”
Tags: animal welfare, Cattle/Beef, Congress, Eggs, Hogs/Pork, HSUS, Livestock, Tom Vilsack, Vilsack
-
-
Egg Farmers of America (EFA) have taken exception to Secretary Vilsack’s comments. EFA is an ad-hoc association of egg farmers, some of whom are also members of UEP, but they do not support the agreement nor the proposed legislation; HR 3798 or S3239, The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012. EFA opposes the UEP/HSUS agreement/legislation for three reasons; 1) The costs to implement will actually put smaller family farms out of business, 2) The science to support the agreement/legislation is lacking, 3) it is prejudicial and punitive in its treatment of egg farmers in your home state of Iowa and other states in the North.
The costs to implement will actually put smaller family farms out of business. If codified into law, this agreement/legislation will mandate new production systems with capital costs to U.S. egg farmers estimated between $26-$40 per chicken, depending on changes required to the barns for housing those chickens. Several egg farmers in your home state of Iowa have stated to Members of Congress they will be forced out of business as a result. A similar experience occurred this year in Europe when regulations required the European egg farmers to implement a conversion to a similar cage system. Business Week (AP) reported March 30 “European Egg Processors Association says the EU-wide production of eggs since the Jan. 1 legislative change has dropped by 10-15%, or about 200 million eggs a week.” The smaller farmers could not afford the conversion to the newer cage design and simply left the business resulting in significant decreases in production and availability of shell eggs to customers. In the U.S. the United Soybean Board did an economic impact showing the cost of eggs increasing as a result of this legislation by $2.66 billion. At a time when the nation’s economy is suffering, enacting legislation that will increase the cost of food is not in the nation’s best interest.
The science to support the agreement/legislation is lacking. The UEP/HSUS agreement is not based on sound science. USDA’s research from the Egg Laying Hen Welfare
released in the Summer of 2011 which states: “Hens can experience stress in all housing types, and no single housing system gets high scores on all welfare parameters. Like-wise, no single breed of laying hen is perfectly adapted to all types of housing systems. Additionally, management of each system has a profound impact on the welfare of the birds in that system, thus even a housing system that is considered to be superior relative to hen welfare, can have a
negative impact on welfare if poorly managed.” – -Laying Hen Welfare Fact Sheet, USDA-ARS-MWA, Livestock Behavior Research Unit, Summer 2011Feedstuffs magazine recently published some of the conclusions from the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply (CSES). The scientists participating noted that the enhanced colony cage increases capital costs and the chickens sustained more leg and wing injuries. What egg farmer supports spending more money that leads to less animal welfare? Dr. Joy Mench, co-scientific director and director of the University of California Center for Animal Welfare, said each housing system indicated its own advantages and disadvantages in providing for the health and wellbeing of the hens housed. Hens in enriched colonies experienced increased leg and wing fractures. Dr. Daniel Sumner, an agricultural economics professor at the University of California and director of the University’s California Agricultural Issues Center, said “real cost differences” are being found. On a cost-per-dozen basis, overall costs are highest for aviaries, followed by colonies and then by conventional cages. Capital costs were “much higher” for aviaries and colonies.
It is prejudicial and punitive in its treatment of egg farmers in your home state of Iowa and other states in the North. The legislation proposes ammonia restrictions at 25 ppm without any mitigating recourse other than to discard those eggs. Egg Farmers of America expressed concerns about the ammonia level specified in the proposed UEP/HSUS legislation because we saw how it hurt egg farmers in your home state of Iowa and other small farmers. The proposed legislation states that once the ammonia level reached 25 ppm, those eggs could not be sold, exported, or transported. While we do not disagree that 25 ppm is the preferred level, occasionally the 25 ppm level would be reached in Iowa and other small farmers during the winter months when the ventilation systems close to prevent the cold air chilling the chickens. We are not disputing the scientists concerns over sustained levels of ammonia, but the chickens are not exposed to 25 ppm for 7 days a week, 52 weeks of the year, just occasionally. Yet the agreement/legislation proposes no other option than to discard those eggs.
Federalizing livestock farming, inch per cubic inch, contravenes comments we seem to recall you made while Governor supporting the prerogative of states to know best how to regulate agriculture as well as other industries
Ken Klippen
Spokesman for Egg Farmers of America -
Would Sec. Vilsack have even given the time of day to HSUS had the organizatioin not contributed nearly $1 million to his wife’s failed congressional campaign? Chickens don’t engage foxes in disussions about eliminating predation. So why should livestock and poultry farmers engage HSUS?
BTW, good comments Ken and Marcy.
-
For all of us, our goal is to reduce the greatest amount of suffering for the greatest number of animals. We don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed. But when we’re talking about numbers like “one million slaughtered in the U.S. in a single hour,” or “48 billion killed every year around the world,” unfortunately we don’t have the luxury of waiting until we have the opportunity to get rid of the entire industry.
And so because of that, a number of organizations including the Humane Society of the United States, we work on promoting veganism, and encouraging people to make daily choices that will positively impact the welfare of animals, and at the same time to reduce the greatest amount of suffering for these animals.
We have a very active cage-free campaign. Are we saying that cage-free eggs are the way to go? No, that’s not what we’re saying. But we’re saying it’s a step in the right direction, getting these birds out of cages so that maybe they can actually spread their wings.
Miyan Park former HSUS employewhat part of “get rid of the entire industry’ does Mr Vilsak not understand?
-
Clearly one can see that this new religion ignores the fact that human beings require active VB12 for their brains to work. These radical groups are putting your food sources for high quality protein out of reach simply because they have this belief that animals are sentient beings. Well what they have forgotten is that does not matter when it comes to nutrition and food requirements. Human beings require essential nutrients that only come from meat and to push a belief system that we can survive without meat protein is dangerous to all human beings. These radicals have no science other than their lies behind this belief system. In fact strict vegan diets cause all sorts of problems such as irrational thinking and overly emotional responses. 16 Infants died from malnutrition of vegan diets imposed upon them by their parents. This lie has got to stop now. We are not herbivores, but omnivores which means we require food from both sources. Anyone who tells you that you can survive without meat protein is a liar. The tell tale sign you are dealing with a cult is when they remove meat from your diet because without you become irrational over time. These radicals should not be given any attention and they should be ignore when it comes to policies. This is not science but a backward belief system based upon mental incompetence and greed.
(1) The federal government has long been usurping regulations that should be reserved for the states, so yet another proposed federal regulation is not going over well with Americans (and yes, farmers are equal Americans to town folk).
(2) No animal enterprise should partner with an “animal rights” organization such as the H$U$. They are NOT stakeholders, but rather like foxes guarding the hen house.
(3) If our *elected* officials would sit down with true animal industry stakeholders (and NOT any of the “animal rights” groups), discussion could be productive.
(4) The divide-and-conquer tactics are those used by H$U$, et al, to make it seem that animal industries are not cooperating, when the truth is that animal industries resist anything concerning partnership with an “animal rights” organization because they *know* that the H$U$ is NOT the animal expert and is undermining animal enterprises however it can.