Michigan Passes Its Version of Factory Farm Reform

November 10th, 2009

Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm has signed a bill into law that phases out veal crates for calves within three years, and battery cages for laying hens and gestation crates for breeding sows within ten years.

The law prohibits a farm operator or owner from tethering or confining gestating sows, calves raised for veal or egg laying hen for more than a majority of a day in a manner that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs or turning around freely.

Critics of the law voice concern about the “majority of a day” language fearing that hens will still spend just under half of the day confined to small battery cages. But maintaining two systems for different parts of the day would be cost prohibitive on any farm.

Critics also feel that permitting veal crates and tethering until October of 2012, and battery cages and pig gestation crates until October of 2019 perpetuates animal suffering for much too long a time. Farming methodologies exist now to do away with these extreme confinement methods and the long time frame for enforcement was likely a compromise to the animal industry.

Michigan has more than ten million laying hens, approximately 100,000 breeding pigs and is a top veal-producing state. View Michigan’s enacted law at: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/publicact/htm/2009-PA-0117.htm. The law passed the Michigan Senate 36-0 and the House 87-20.

A similar law proposed in New York State (Assembly Bill 8163) provides for criminal penalties and fines, in addition to injunctive relief. Michigan’s law provides that hens have access to at least one square foot of usable floor space per hen. New York’s proposed law does not set a minimum floor area. Michigan defines “turning around freely” as turning in a complete circle without touching the side of an enclosure or another animal. New York only prohibits touching the side of an enclosure when turning. Michigan’s exceptions include examination, testing, treatment of operation for veterinary purposes by licensed veterinarians. New York’s exception for veterinary care is not limited to licensed veterinarians.

View New York’s proposed law at: http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A08163&sh=t

Federal Funds Support New York CAFOs

November 5th, 2009

Dollars flow from federal coffers to support the largest of New York’s dairy, poultry and pig CAFOs. A review of public records from 1995 through 2006 show that New York’s CAFOs have been receiving generous public support while maintaining extreme confinement methods for animals housed on their facilities.

Confinement crates and cages deprives calves, pigs and chickens of the ability to engage in natural behavior. Animals confined in such circumstances experience extensive and significant physical and psychological trauma.

Gestation crates board pregnant pigs for nearly their entire four-month pregnancies.  These metal crates are not large enough for the pig to perform natural behaviors such as cleaning themselves or simply turning around. New York’s CAFOs house about 60,000 pigs.

Battery cages used to confine hens make it impossible for them to spread their wings or turn around. This severely restricts the hen’s ability to engage in basic natural activities. Cage-free systems would enable hens to lay their eggs in nests, walk, and spread their wings, all of which would significantly reduce the suffering, stress and injuries associated with severe crowding in cages. In New York there are about 4,000,000 egg laying hens, the vast majority of which are confined in battery cages. Most hens spend their entire lives in a space about the size of a sheet of copy paper.

Aside from these confinment practices, CAFOs also contribute to environmental issues related to the ground application of untreated manure.  Waterborne chemical contaminants associated with factory farm facilities include pesticides, heavy metals, and antibiotics and hormones. Antibiotics are used not only to prevent and treat bacterial infections for animals held in close quarters, but also as growth promoters. Pharmaceuticals, such as tylosin, a macrolide antibiotic widely used for therapeutics (disease treatment) and growth promotion in swine, beef cattle, and poultry, persists in surface waters of agricultural watersheds.

The government supports these practices by subsidizing CAFOS.

Chaffee Dairy Farms in Barker, NY received a $54,426 dairy subsidy in 2006, $108,566 in total subsidies in 2006, and from 1995 to 2006, Chaffee received a total of $1,121,838 in payments from the USDA. Chafee is a registered CAFO with about 1,335 mature dairy cows and heifers.

Barbland Farms of Fabius, NY received a $48,090 dairy subsidy in 2006, $98,942 in total subsidies in 2006, and from 1995 to 2006, Barbland received a total of $701,795 in payments from the USDA. Barbland is a registered CAFO with about 1,700 mature dairy cows and heifers.

Marks Farms of Lowville, NY received a $34,354 dairy subsidy in 2006, $119,723 in total subsidies in 2006, and from 1995 to 2006, Marks received a total of $1,413,607 in payments from the USDA. Marks is a registered CAFO with about 8,600 mature dairy cows and heifers.

Adirondack Farm of Peru, NY received a $34,354 dairy subsidy in 2006, $87,176 in total subsidies in 2006, and from 1995 to 2006, Adirondack received a total of $792,890 in payments from the USDA. Adirondack is a registered CAFO with about 1,950 mature dairy cows and heifers.

Lamb Farms of Oakfield, NY received a $34,354 dairy subsidy in 2006, $90,317 in total subsidies in 2006, and from 1995 to 2006, Lamb received a total of $992,000 in payments from the USDA. Lamb is a registered CAFO with about 8,600 mature dairy cows and heifers.

Dairy CAFOs aren’t the only ones benefitting from government largess.

Kreher’s Poultry received USDA subsidies in 2006 totaling $120,161, and from 1995 to 2006, Kreher collected $1,056,536. Kreher’s is a registered CAFO housing about 500,000 laying hens.

Giroux Poultry of Chazy, NY received USDA subsidies in 2006 totaling $93,311, and from 1995 to 2006, Giroux collected $757,900. Giroux is a registered CAFO housing about 1,500,000 laying hens.

Willow Ridge Farms of Alexander, NY received subsidies in 2006 totaling $33,645, and from 1995 to 2006, Willow Ridge collected $448,269. Willow Ridge is a registered CAFO housing about 6,700 pigs.

For more information, visit: www.ab8163.com

Some New York “PHARMS” Serve Up Adulterated Meat

October 16th, 2009

Last January, Papas Dairy in North Bangor, New York received a letter from the Public Health Service of the Food and Drug Administration’s New York District Office in Buffalo, New York. Papas Dairy is a dairy CAFO, registered with New York State’s DEC that maintains about 2,600 dairy cows.

A month later, Roes Haven Farm in Carthage, New York also heard from the FDA. And, later in the year, the FDA contacted Doug Richards about his farm in Rome, NY. All had offered up cows for slaughter that were adulterated with excess residues of antibiotics or other pharmaceuticals.

In Mr. Richards’ case, an analysis of the tissues from his lactating dairy cow showed sulfamethazine at 9.58 parts per million (ppm) in liver tissue and 8.79 ppm in muscle tissue. The FDA has not established any permissible residue for sulfamethazine in lactating dairy cows. The labels for the Sulfa-Max III Calf Bolus used by Mr. Richards specifically states that treated animals must not be slaughtered for food for at least 12 days after the last dosage, and it specifically prohibits the use in female dairy cattle 20 months of age or older. The FDA also found that the conditions on Mr. Richards’ farm were so inadequate that medicated animals bearing potentially harmful drug residues were “likely” to enter the food supply.

Sulfamethazine is primarily used as a veterinary antibacterial drug in food animals and has been detected in airborne dust collected from pig fattening facilities.

Mr. Roes’ cow tested 8,888 parts per billion (ppb) of phenylbutazone in its kidney tissues. Phenylbutazone is usually used in horses for relief from painful inflammation. The FDA has no established permissible residue levels for phenylbutazone in the edible tissues of cattle. There is a zero tolerance level in meat, milk or eggs intended for human consumption.

The FDA also found that Mr. Roes lacked an adequate system to ensure that animals medicated on his farm were withheld from slaughter for appropriate periods of time to permit the depletion of potentially hazardous drug residues from edible tissues. He failed to follow label directions and improperly used drugs in manners not in accordance with their approved labels. He failed to maintain treatment records, and the conditions under which he maintained his animals were likely to cause medicated animals to enter the food supply.

Papas had offered a cow for slaughter, and an analysis of tissue samples collected from the cow identified the presence of .60 parts per million (ppm) of sulfadimethoxine in liver tissue and .41 ppm of sulfadimethoxine in muscle tissue. The FDA has established a tolerance of .1 ppm of sulfadimethoxine in the uncooked edible tissues of cattle. These residues were up to six times the permissible amount under federal law. Like the others, Papas also held animals under conditions that were likely to cause medicated animals to enter the food supply, and failed to maintain complete treatment records. Papas also administered IBA Penicillin G Procaine to cows on the farm without following dosage levels, routes of administration, duration of treatment as approved, and did so without the supervision of a licensed veterinarian.

Scientific studies confirm that the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agricultural animals contributes to the development on antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections in people. Not only are some of New York’s cattlemen serving up tainted meat, but they are recklessly poisoning our environment with excess antibiotics and aggravating the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria through improper administration and overuse of pharmaceuticals.

Assembly Agriculture Chairman Magee A Bit Too Cozy with New York Farm Bureau

October 6th, 2009

Magee Staffing the New York Farm Bureau Booth

What would you think if you saw the Chairman of your State Assembly Agricultural Committee staffing the trade fair booth for Monsanto or Dow Chemical or a big pharmaceutical firm that made antibiotics used for growth promotants on factory farms? Would it give you pause if he were handing out literature for one of the largest agribusiness lobbyist firms in the state capital?  And, what if this agribusiness entity or lobbying firm had business pending before the Assembly Agriculture Committee?

At this year’s New York State Fair (August 27-September 9th) in Syracuse, NY, Agriculture Committee Chairman William Magee was photographed manning the booth for the New York Farm Bureau, an organization that lobbies the state legislature on virtually every bill that affects the profits of New York’s large farms and CAFOs.

The New York Farm Bureau (NYFB) is no small organization. It has a $22 million dollar war chest (mostly in Treasury bonds and securities), and millions of dollars in annual member dues and other income. It uses those funds to advance the interests of New York’s large CAFOs and factory farms.

A bill pending before the State Assembly (A.08163) was referred to Mr. Magee’s Agriculture Committee this past May where it has sat ever since. The bill would ban the use of hen battery cages, veal crates and pig gestation crates in New York State by the end of 2014. It is similar to California’s Proposition 2 from last year. (Read more about it at www.ab8163.com) While California permits statewide initiatives and propositions, New York does not. The bill must work its way through the legislature, and that means through Mr. Magee’s Agriculture Committee.

The New York Farm Bureau vocally opposes this bill. It has printed its opposition over and over again in its Grassroots newsletter and it is lobbying the Agriculture Committee to solidify opposition to the bill.

According to the New York Farm Bureau, it believes that Magee will not support the legislation. New York Farm Bureau Government Relations Director Julie Suarez says, “New York agricultural producers shouldn’t be too worried.” And according to Farm & Dairy News, with Magee in charge of the Agriculture Committee, New York farmers may “breathe a sigh of relief.”

It is no wonder that factory farms and big agribusiness think that they can relax and let Magee take care of them. Agribusiness has taken care of Magee for many years. The New York Farm Bureau has been paying thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to the “Friends of Bill Magee.” Magee has  taken money from Monsanto. Magee is happy to take money, lots of money, from a New York Law firm named Bond, Schoeneck & King. The firm boasts twelve attorneys in its Agribusiness Department and is a registered lobbyist for companies involved in livestock waste management, seed distribution, and big dairy.

Environmental, animal rights, public health and other groups have been working to support passage of Assembly Bill 8163. With William Magee in charge of the Agriculture Committee, proponents of the bill face an uphill battle. Most proponents believe that the bill will die in Magee’s Committee and never reach the full Assembly where passage may be likely. The bill has vast public support. In a way, William Magee stands between the activists’ efforts to reform factory farming in New York and the Farm Bureau’s efforts to preserve the profits of big agriculture.

So, why is Mr. Magee working at the New York Farm Bureau booth so disturbing?  New York has a funny thing called a Legislative Ethics Commission. The Commission’s duties include the investigation and enforcement of various provisions of the Public Officers Law.

Section 74 is called the Code of Ethics. Section 74(3)(f) precludes a member of the legislature from acting in a manner that would give the impression that any person or entity unduly enjoys the legislator’s favor in the performance of his official duties. Section 74(3)(h) precludes a member of the legislature from purusing conduct that gives rise to suspicion among the public that he is likely to be engaged in acts in violation of his public trust.

So, think about it. If Magee sat at Monsanto’s booth at a trade show and handed out Monsanto literature, and if Monsanto was lobbying Mr. Magee’s Agriculture Committee on pending litigation involving let’s say — genetically modified seeds, it would be a clear violation of the Code of Ethics. Fact is, in New York, the New York Farm Bureau’s influence dwarfs the influence of Monsanto many times over. In fact, the former chief lobbyist (Patrick Hooker) for the New York Farm Bureau was recently elevated to head the New York State Agricultural Commission.  

To those working for passage of Assembly Bill 8163, Mr. Magee’s “working” the NYFB booth at the state fair certainly gave both the “impression” and the “suspicion” that the NYFB unduly enjoyed the benefits of Mr. Magee’s status as Agriculture Chairman in a manner that is violative of New York’s Legislative Code of Ethics.

Animal Pharm – Antibiotic Farming In America

October 5th, 2009

An estimated 70% of the antibiotics and other microbial drugs used in the United States are fed to farm animals for non-therapeutic purposes, including (i) growth promotion; and (ii) compensation for crowded, unsanitary, and stressful farming and transportation conditions. Unlike human use of antibiotics, these non-therapeutic uses in animals typically do not require a prescription. To prevent disease outbreaks (and to stimulate faster growth), the hog industry alone adds more than 10 million pounds of antibiotics to its feed, the Union of Concerned Scientists estimates.

Large-scale voluntary surveys by the Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service over a period of seven years revealed that between 83 and 84 percent of swine farms, cattle feedlots and sheep farms administer antimicrobials in the feed or water for health or growth promotion reasons, and that many of the antimicrobials identified are identical or closely related to drugs used in human medicine, including tetracyclines, macrolides, bacitracin, penicillins and sulfonamides.

Scientific studies confirm that the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in agricultural animals contributes to the development on antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections in people.

The United States Geological Survey reports that: (a) antibiotics were present in 48% of the streams tested nationwide; and (b) almost half of the tested streams were downstream from agricultural operations.

The American Medical Association, the American Public Health Association, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture are among the more than 300 organizations representing health, consumer, agricultural, environmental, humane, and other interests that support phasing out non-therapeutic use in farm animals of medically important antibiotics.

Two million Americans acquire bacterial infections during their hospital stays every year, and 70% of their infections will be resistant to the drugs commonly used to treat them. According to the Infectious Disease Society of America, 90,000 people die each year of hospital acquired infectious disease. Children and infants are particularly susceptible to infections cause by antibiotic resistant bacteria. Over 1/3 of the 1.4 million illnesses caused by Salmonella every year occur in children under the age of 10. Infants under the age of one are ten times more likely that the general population to acquire a Salmonella infection. 19% of Salmonella strains were found to be multi-drug resistant.

Seven classes of antibiotics certified by the FDA as “highly” or “critically” important in human medicine are used in agriculture as animal feed additives. Among them are penicillin, tetracyclines, macrolides, lincosamides, streptogramins, aminoglycosides and sulfonamides. These classes of antibiotics are among the most critically important in our arsenal of defense against potentially fatal human diseases.

A New England Journal of Medicine study conducted in Washington, DC found that 20% of meat sampled was contaminated with Salmonella and that 84% of those bacteria were resistant to the antibiotics used in human medicine and animal agriculture.

In another study, poultry workers were found to have 32 times the likelihood of carrying a gentamicin-resistant E. coli compared to the community at large. These same workers were also at significantly increased risk of carrying multidrug resistant E. coli. These workers may provide an easy route for entry for antimicrobial-resistant E. coli into their community.

The scale of the problem is staggering. In a survey of members of the Animal Health Institute (AHI), consisting of companies that make medicines for farm animals, the total active antibacterial ingredients sold by all AHI members was 21,761,128 pounds in 2004. By 2006, that amount increased to 26,454,107 pounds, a 21.5% increase. Specifically sales of tetracyclines increased from 6,486,207 pounds to 9,281,703 pounds, a 43% increase.

Other estimates from a group called “Keep Antibiotics Working” (KAW) – a coalition of health, consumer, agricultural, environmental, humane and other advocacy groups with more than 10 million members estimates that animal agriculture uses 13 million pounds of antibiotics each year, about 70% of the total used in the United States. The AHI actual sales figure dwarf this estimate. According to KAW, the majority of the antibiotics are used for growth promotion and disease prevention, and are not used for treating sick animals.

The AHI asserts that only 5%of all antimicrobials sold for food animlas are used for non-therapeutic use to increase weight gain or decrease food consumption, and that the rest are sold to “prevent, control and treat” animal diseases. These differences between KAW and AHI likely relate to definitions of therapeutic vs. non-therapeutic, prevention, and treatment.

Poultry insider Spangler Klopp, DVM, corporate veterinarian for Townsends Poultry and a spokeperson for the National Chicken Council notes that industry grows about 9 billion chickens a year on about 34,000 facilities. In the early 70s, a chicken would reach 4 pounds in 56 days. Today, with growth promoters, chickens reach 5-1/2 pounds in 50 days. In the early 80s 93.5% (livability percentage) of chickens made it day-old chicks to slaughter. Today, 95.6% make it to slaughter. Dr. Klopp also believes that if chickens are permitted to poke at the ground (as chickens tend to do), they are prone to development of diseases of the gastrointestinal track. The conditions in which chickens are kept necessitates the antibiotics to prevent diseases related to their confinement.

The interests of industry groups are largely economic. According to the National Pork Producers Council, a ban on antibiotic use would increase the cost of pork production by $4.50 per pig in the first year, with a 10-year cumulative cost of $700 million. The National Turkey Federation (NTF) notes that industry raises 260 million turkeys at an average weight of 28 pounds. Before widespread use of anitmicrobials, average weight was only 17 pounds. According to the NTF retail turkey prices for birds produced without antibiotics is $1.00 more per pound than those produced with antibiotics. The National Chicken Council represents that broilers raised without antibiotics are 2.91% less likely to make it to slaughter (under current conditions), gain weight more slowly, and are only suited for a niche market catering to consumers who can afford to pay higher prices for chickens.