Inside D.C.

MARC potentially endangered by rash Hill actions

A single New York Times article alleging animal mishandling at the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center (MARC) in Clay Center, Nebraska, continues to threaten the future of invaluable U.S. meat research.   Inspired by the allegations of a disgruntled former researcher, and despite a USDA third-party independent committee finding of no animal mistreatment, there are those in Congress pushing to punish MARC today for sins which may never have been committed or were committed so long ago as to be anecdotal.

The congressional zeal is incited by two sets of circumstances.  First, the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), the American Society for the Protection of Animals (ASPCA) and others in the animal rights cabal see the MARC story as a gift from the vegan gods to further undermine consumer and lawmaker confidence in the meat industry per se and animal agriculture broadly.  They’re been lobbying their supporters on the Hill, browbeating USDA and talking to the press about how MARC is the smoking gun of “taxpayer-funded animal abuse,” an extension of their drumbeat of the culture of abuse they insist exists in animal agriculture.

Second, USDA is handling this issue oddly.  Instead of letting its in-house scientists and experts push back hard against the media and animal rights world, citing existing standards, practices, etc., it cranked out press releases talking about its animal welfare priority, named a third party review team and halted all new MARC research projects nearly three months ago.   Now the USDA Inspector General is in the mix, but her report isn’t expected for months.  Folks on the Hill who value MARC and seek information from USDA get less-than-satisfying responses.  All of this is significant overreaction to a single newspaper article of questionable veracity.  Advice to USDA:  There are much bigger public relations headaches than disgruntled animal rights groups.

It’s reminiscent of the days when animal rights folks broke into research laboratories around the country to “liberate” animals, destroy equipment and records, etc.  USDA’s attitude then was that the lab, not the animal rights criminal, was the guilty party until it could prove itself innocent.  The targeted lab – routinely inspected by USDA under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) – was subjected to multiple “inspections” post-break in, adding regulatory trauma to physical and emotional victimhood.

Animal agriculture in Washington, DC, has been playing “nice” on this issue, not wanting to make USDA’s life difficult nor complicating the efforts of those on the Hill who approach the MARC issue more realistically.  However, if lawmakers with only an HSUS/ASPCA script start calling loudly for blood and punishment, that “nice” will disappear quickly.

Given the MARC situation is what it is or what it isn’t, depending on whom you believe, those on the Hill who dance to the HSUS tune are advised to let the process play out.  Research has been suspended and the Inspector General is turning over rocks to see what she finds.  Reasonable folks would want the facts before they act.

Let’s not judge MARC before all of the evidence is in.  To move hastily is to potentially lose an incredible asset to meat and poultry processing, with the ultimate losers being consumers.

 

 

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!