Inside D.C.

Walmart, welcome to our world

Walmart announced May 22 a “new” position on animal welfare.  Perhaps the position is new to Walmart; it reflects business as usual for U.S. animal agriculture. In any case, I commend the company.  In addition, Walmart publicly stated this week its policy on the use of antibiotics in animal agriculture.  Again, nothing game-changing in the policy because it reflects what farmers and ranchers, in cooperation with FDA, are already doing.

The crux of the company’s animal welfare position is the so-called “five freedoms” – practices put on paper in Great Britain back in 1967 – referred to as the company’s “aspiration for animal welfare in our supply chain.”  It’s good to have goals; it’s even better to have already attained them.

The five freedoms include adequate food and water; appropriate shelter/resting area; protection from injury and disease; expression of “normal” behaviors, and no fear and no distress.  The company talks about seeking change in housing systems that “lack sufficient space, enrichment or socialization,” e.g. sow stalls, veal stalls and laying hen cages, as well as elimination of “painful procedures where avoidable,” e.g. tail docking, de-horning and castration.

I’d argue the five freedoms, as interpreted in the objective world, are standard operating procedure for farmers and ranchers because they reflect the basic ethics of those who choose animal husbandry as a lifestyle, a fact animal rightists and those in fear of the movement’s press machines choose to ignore.  U.S. farmers and ranchers long ago mastered the on-farm mixology of solid science, experience and ethics in husbanding their animals, so the concept of blending the three is not unique to the animal rights movement, to Walmart or other retailers which have made similar public relations pronouncements.

The use of stalls and cages is and will continue to be a legitimate debatable point, with a fundamental question that must be addressed: “At what point does allowing animals to demonstrate ‘natural behaviors,’ e.g. mounting, biting, goring, pecking, bullying, eating of newborns, etc., or that of Mother Nature, e.g. disease vectors, predation, human mischief, trump the ‘enrichment and socialization’ goal?”  The safety of farmers, ranchers and their employees also must be part of the conversations about animal housing.

As to the company’s stated policy on antibiotics, I commend Walmart for recognizing the proactive and collective actions of the animal agriculture industry.  While wading into the murky policy waters of animal agriculture’s use of antibiotics likely wasn’t necessary – and will allow the anti-aggies to throw Walmart’s name with impunity – the stated policy is, in fact, in line with industry actions.

The “new” policy wants producers to use antibiotics “responsibly,” and follow the “Judicious Use Principles of Antimicrobial Use,” adopted by the American Veterinary Medical Assn. (AVMA).  The big box chain wants accurate recordkeeping, veterinary oversight and for producers to limit antimicrobial use to “animals that are ill or at risk.” Done times five, and all in cooperation with the federal government and the animal health industry.

Walmart’s announcement recognizes the evolving and industry-supported professional use of antimicrobials on farm.  National farm and ranch groups already subscribe to AVMA’s judicious use document, having worked with AVMA in the drafting process several years ago.  No antibiotics are to be used for growth promotion or feed efficiency, and all antibiotics used on farm must be used in consultation with the farm/ranch vet, the man or woman who writes a Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD), the vet’s order to use the drugs to only prevent or treat disease.

Walmart, welcome to our world.