Inside D.C.

Corporate welfare “standards” are naive and anything but standard

Starbucks, the omnipresent coffee purveyor, is the latest multinational corporation to enter an unholy alliance with an animal rights group – in this case, the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) – publicly saying it has a “commitment to social responsibility standards with animal welfare as primary focus…we’re committed to working with and buying from suppliers who share our commitment to humane practices throughout an animal’s lifecycle.”

The coffee company joins Nestle SA, Unilever (both European companies), Panera Bread and Chipotle, along with U.S. fast food companies and others in food retail in making similar pronouncements.  It’s safe to assume some things:  The companies all “partnered” with animal rights groups in reaching their decisions; they didn’t confer with national or even local producer organizations; there’s not much science and a whole lot of public relations angst involved, and that no two sets of “animal welfare standards” are identical, or likely in most cases, even similar.

Complicating this standards stand-off are these realities:  Every national animal ag and meat/poultry processing organization has detailed member animal welfare programs, most of which require certification; the OIE (World Animal Health Organization) has crafted for years specie-specific recommendations on animal welfare; the International Standards Organization (ISO), under pressure from the corporate Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI, www.mygfsi.com/), wants OIE to come up with a new global welfare program to facilitate multinational meat/dairy/poultry sourcing.  Add to this list various and sundry “humane certification” programs offered by various and sundry animal rights/welfare/foodie groups all with different “standards” – Animal Welfare Institute (AWI), Humane Farm Animal Care, the Humane Eating Project, the Global Animal Partnership (Whole Foods), World Animal Production (WAP, European), American Humane Assn. (AHA) – and it’s apparent there’s no standard to the standards.

The question begged is why do food makers believe they must dictate “welfare” when it comes to animal husbandry?  There’s corporate groupthink, as in “if our competitor is doing it, we have to.”  Without first-hand research, they fear what animal rights groups tell them is true, namely the public is crying out for change, demanding companies act.

One food company rep confessed to me:  “We don’t know anything about raising animals,” explaining the animal rights group with which it works “is our expert partner.”  Another reason is the rise of the socially responsible investment company, representing investors who want to be assured of all those warm, fuzzy things Starbucks talks about – “no-guilt farming,” says one group’s website.  No publicly traded company wants to offend any gang with money to invest.  There’s the media and its lopsided reporting, stories and TV news segments only about the latest undercover video showing abuse, never a story about the positive and proactive; a press chasing consistently the “man-bites-dog” story and further impressing the notion of broad malfeasance by farmers and ranchers.

Most companies slot animal welfare within the portfolio of the marketing/advertising/PR department, that company part which exists solely to protect the brand and promote the image.  If the company can head off threatened negative media campaigns/boycotts by partnering with groups promising to say nice things about it once the prescribed “welfare” announcement is made, simple-minded corporate thinking makes a simple choice with no downside.

This all feeds into the legislative dreams of groups like HSUS and PETA.  Show enough multinational companies denouncing modern production practices as “inhumane and unethical,” and perhaps it’s time to congressionally mandate how all producers produce.  It’s happened in Europe, it can happen here.  I have no confidence members of Congress are doing any more research or consulting with farmers and ranchers than the general population.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) joined last week with Sen. Cory Booker (D, NJ) questioning USDA label claims on meat/poultry, particularly when it comes to “humaneness.”  They don’t want any company labeling a product as humanely raised unless “there is evidence that animal welfare standards set by an independent third party (emphasis added), and which significantly exceed standard industry practices, are being met.”  And who exactly would those “independent third parties” be?

The letter does surprise as Feinstein’s state continues to wrestle with comfy housing for egg laying chickens, and cosigner Booker is described by PETA this way:   “New Jersey just elected Newark mayor and PETA Sexiest Vegetarian Celebrity nominee Cory Booker to the Senate! We’re betting that on Cory’s watch, special interests such as big ag are going to have a hard time getting bills pushed through that allow animals to be abused.”

Rep. Tim Ryan (D, OH), representing a northeastern Ohio district near Akron, wrote a book entitled, “The Real Food Revolution: Healthy Eating, Green Groceries, and the Return of the American Family Farm.” A spokesman describes the book as a “manifesto” detailing Ryan’s concerns about “genetically modified foods, antibiotics and overly-processed foods (sic), and what’s right and wrong with agriculture.”  Ryan has spent his entire career in politics and not-for-profit organizations.

In the Obama White House, the President and First Lady leaned heavily on Sam Kass, an assistant chef and family friend, giving him a “senior advisor on nutrition” title, and naming to head up the First Lady’s “Let’s Move!” campaign on children’s’ obesity and reinventing the federal school lunch program menu.  Kass just departed to live in New York City, but named as his replacement is Debra Eschmeyer, co-founder of FoodCorps (www.foodcorps.org). You can get a sense of the person here: www.ethicurean.com/about/deb/.

Purdue University published a September, 2014, study (www.journalofanimalscience.org) showing nearly 60% of the American public “do not have a primary source for animal welfare information; those who identified a primary information source most commonly used information provided by…the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).”  Why should it be any different for corporate America, Congress or the media if no one else is talking?

For those perusing this blog, some clarification is needed.  World Animal Protection (WAP), headquartered in London, wound up lumped in with HSUS and PETA when I wrote about companies which work with animal rights groups.  WAP is an animal welfare or protection group, one which works with companies and others wishing to develop standards. It does does not have a certification program.  Fair is fair. 

Steve Kopperud

PDI

 

 

 

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published.


 

Stay Up to Date

Subscribe for our newsletter today and receive relevant news straight to your inbox!