United Egg Producer Certified….. For Real?

Warning – Sit back in your chair and grab a beverage, this one is lengthy.

One would think that as many years as I have under my belt in industrial animal production that nothing would surprise me let alone faze me. In other words I’m somewhat jaded.

A friend sent me a link to a video clip on You Tube that left me shaking my head and asking “are you serious”. A slick campaign has been conjured up to convince the general public that The United Egg Producers (UEP) have the “premier animal welfare” for their laying hens with their very own seal of certification.

After watching, I set out to discover exactly what it meant to be UEP certified not realizing what a herculean task this would be or how confused I would become. Like most, I first searched the internet and found web addresses for uepcertified.com, unitedegg.com, and uepcertified.org. Having a suspicious mind when I find that there is a commercial web address (.com) and a non-profit web address (.org) for the same entity, red flags rise up, and it warrants further investigation. I found that all three are one and the same – promoting corporate ag and caged/non-caged egg production in confinement buildings.

Further confusion came when I read the UEP website, unitedegg.com, and I quote, “United Egg Producers (UEP) is a Capper-Volstead cooperative of egg farmers from all across the United States and representing the ownership of approximately 95% of all the nation’s egg-laying hens.” I didn’t realize that independent farmers were producing the majority of the eggs in this country I thought the eggs came from the vertically integrated system whereby a corporation owns everything except the mortgage on the farm they contract with and the manure their animals produce. I warrant that this needs further investigation, but that’s for another time!

Wading through all of the B.S., and I’m being polite here folks, I came out having to go back a second and third time to figure it all out. I printed out the freely available UEP Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg Laying Flocks which was found on both the .com and .org websites thinking that was the best place to start.

The 31 page document begins with a short history of egg laying chickens starting in the 1940’s and stimulates a not so wonderful picture of “small backyard flocks” producing the majority of eggs for our country at that time. It’s all in the wording folks that will lead you to think that industrial production and caged confined conditions that the corporate types now use are the best thing since sliced bread.

The first item that gave me a good chuckle is the claim that “the modern cage system has eliminated most diseases of the 1940’s, provided the hens with protection against the weather (environmental controlled housing) and predators, while also improving food safety, the environment (air and water), and animal welfare”. My perpetual habit of talking to myself left me wondering aloud “are these people for real”?

Most chicken diseases prevalent in the 1940’s have been eliminated, if not eradicated, due to development of vaccines, not cages. Secondly, “environmental controlled housing” is for the purpose of controlling every aspect of the chicken’s short life and wringing the most production out of the chickens. These people don’t give a hoot about protecting the hens the hens need to be protected from their way of thinking!

The insinuation that the modern cage system has improved food safety made me almost hysterical. Not so long ago a huge egg recall occurred because of salmonella and consumers becoming ill. The record speaks for itself. The companies involved are part of this confined housing caged system and UEP links to their website. I’d be willing to bet that the company is a member of UEP!

The claim of the modern caged system being an improvement for the environment “(air and water)” is more than hysterical. I had to stop reading and thinking for a while because I was simply flabbergasted. One of the talking points of federal legislation that UEP is promoting, H.R. 3798 that amends the Egg Products Inspection Act is – prohibition of “excessive ammonia levels in egg-laying henhouses”.

Highly acclaimed benefits of confined caged laying hens is that tens-of-thousands can be raised in a small amount of space (confinement building). Most often the building takes up less than one acre of land. Naturally, the hens excrete waste in the form of manure and an excessive amount of ammonia is produced. Where does everyone think that ammonia goes? For the benefit of those who don’t know – the excessive amounts of ammonia are released from the confinement houses into the air by way of huge exhaust fans. Not only is the ammonia released into the air, it comes back down onto the land and water as nitrogen making it available for excessive amounts of runoff into our waterways.

Secondly, how in the world does UEP think they are going to be able to stop the hens from excreting waste and producing ammonia inside of a confinement building, caged or not? If the theory of giving more space to the hens, which is included in the legislation I’ve mentioned, everyone better think again. This won’t reduce the number of hens inside buildings. Industry will only build the housing larger to accommodate the same number of hens, if not more.

The part about improving animal welfare gave me indigestion! No matter which way you spin it, a cage is a cage whether it is conventional, enriched, or cage free confinement buildings. The “enriched cage system” is the crux of the entire campaign and unbelievably “HSUS has embraced this which I wrote about in an earlier post. On the flip side evidently HSUS believes that this system will improve conditions for caged laying hens, making a trade-off that anything is better than nothing!

UEP’s Animal Husbandry Guidelines allow for beak trimming citing advantages that may include, and I underline the word “may”, reduced pecking, reduced feather pulling, reduced cannibalism, better feather condition, less fearfulness, less nervousness, less chronic stress, and decreased mortality. What this means is that beak trimming keeps the hens from picking on one another. If the hens weren’t bored to death being confined in a cage they wouldn’t peck on one another they would have other interests in pecking such as worms, bugs, grasses, or other items in the real natural environment.

The drawbacks of beak trimming cited by UEP guidelines are inability to feed, short term pain, perhaps chronic pain, and acute stress. Obviously and in the mind of UEP, these are all fair tradeoff’s in the welfare of the hens so that long term the hens don’t peck one another to death out of boredom from being caged. Never mind that inability to feed or chronic pain is at issue as well. I don’t suppose the thought that the entire method of raising confined caged hens is not in the best interest to the welfare of the animal.

UEP’s talking points for the proposed federal legislation says that it will provide egg laying hens with “nearly” double the space of current conventional cages and add “”enrichments”” such as perches, nesting boxes, and scratching areas that will allow birds to express natural behaviors.” Sounds good when one looks at the words however the hens will still be in cages!

As I’ve evidenced in my great egg adventure, our hens express natural behaviors by running, jumping, flying, perching, flapping their wings at will, dust bathing and digging holes until they are almost covered, foraging for worms, bugs, and grasses and many other antics they decide to participate in. They also have nesting boxes and are able to run freely inside and outdoors. That my friend’s is expressing “natural behaviors”!

Furthermore, and according to UEP, “Today there are approximately 235 egg farmers with flocks of 75,000 hens or more. These farms care for about 95% of the approximately 290,000,000 laying hens in the United States.” How can there be only 235 farms raising 290,000,000 laying hens in this country? I found it impossible to find the number of acres utilized however I think the numbers above are self-explanatory.

I noticed in the many video clips available from UEP that the hen houses and cages are immaculate and promote thoughts of a sterile environment. Anyone who’s ever raised livestock or has been inside of a barn knows that animals naturally defecate however from what UEP is showing their hens must not do it. Quite frankly the inside of the confinement caged hen houses is cleaner than most human populated houses according to the pictures shown. Maybe we should all go and live in hen houses!

In my wanderings through related info and websites I found that UEP had a contact person from GolinHarris for further info about the legislation I’ve mentioned. My first thought was “what’s a GolinHarris”? I took a peek and found a piece of interesting info and decided to look no further because it was enough to figure out what a GolinHarris is -“For our clients, Communicate to Win is a driving force for building, sustaining and protecting corporate brands and reputations around the world.” Of course there’s a lot more words on the website, enough to make my head spin.

UEP is spending big bucks to drive through legislation that will define labeling allowances for eggs – Require labeling on all egg cartons to inform consumers of the methods used to produce the eggs, such as: “”eggs from caged hens,” “eggs from hens in enriched cages,” eggs from cage-free hens,” and “eggs from free range hens.” Aha! Eggs from hens in enriched cages…….. A little too obvious for me! Why anyone in their right mind would think that defining the type of cage or confinement makes it better for the hen’s welfare is beyond me. Doesn’t congress have better things to do than protect those who would mislead consumers into thinking that eggs from “enriched cages” are somehow better?

Maryland Becomes First State to Ban Arsenic In Poultry Feed

Proponents and advocates of banning the use of arsenic in poultry feed in Maryland are celebrating a hard won victory. On May 22, 2012, Maryland Governor, Martin O’Malley, signed into law, legislation banning arsenic in poultry feed. The bill goes into effect January 23, 2013. Maryland is the first state in the country to pass such a bill.

The legislation is a hard won victory for Environmental, Public Health, and Food Safety advocates and three long years of work is worth a celebration. Organizations such as Food and Water Watch, a Washington DC based non-profit appear to have their sights set on other states as well.

The use of arsenic in poultry feed has been a practice since the late 1940’s. Its use was intended for killing coccidiosis an intestinal parasite found in chickens. Referred to as “cocci” in the poultry industry the parasite reproduces in the intestinal tract of chickens and interrupts positive feed conversions raising the cost of production. Side benefits discovered by industry were faster weight gain (growth promoter) and added color. Arsenicals became more important for faster growth rather than killing intestinal parasites.

Mostly unknown to the outside world, arsenic is a routine feed additive for industrially produced chickens no matter if cocci is present or not or diagnosed by a veterinarian. Thinking back to my days of industrial chicken production there was a time when the higher ups of the company we contracted with told us we had a cocci problem. This went on for several months until we asked for a visit from the company vet. After having that visit and the company vet telling us we didn’t have a cocci problem feed conversion issues disappeared. Arsenic in the feed delivered by the company didn’t disappear as it continued to arrive in the company feed.

Banning the use of arsenic in poultry feed and specifically mentioning Roxarsone, is a great first step. I worry about this piece of legislation because there are ways around it. Loopholes!

Arsenicals are available in liquid form and can be delivered through the drinking water. Since the Maryland legislation specifies “feed”, industry in its infinite wisdom could use water administration of arsenic.

The legislation also specifies “commercial feed” and one wonders what the definition is for those words. Theoretically, there is no buying or selling of feed within the relationship between a poultry company and the farmers it contracts with. Although feed usage is used in the complicated formula administered by the company to pay farmers at the end of the flock there are no actual cash transactions when the company delivers feed to the farm. Technically, the company owns the feed.

Secondly, feed formulation is a “trade secret” and is proprietary information of the company. How will any government agency have authority to test feed ingredients? Claiming TOP SECRET will be a way out for poultry companies.

I have to applaud Maryland legislators in their efforts. However after the applause dies down, there are issues left in the dust.

I was particularly surprised with concerns listed over the use of arsenic and concerns excluded. The law specifies that it will be “abrogated and of no further force and effect if a specific arsenical additive receives approval by the US Food and Drug Administration if it includes evaluation of human food safety, impact on the environment, safety to animals, effectiveness of drug for its intended use, and chemistry and manufacturing procedures”.

Nowhere is there any mention of the effects on the farmers who are forced to be exposed to arsenic on a daily basis having no choice or say in what the company delivers to the farm. I gave testimony before the Maryland Senate committee hearing asking legislators to pass the bill for the sake of the farmer who has no choice in the matter. Quite frankly, I don’t believe that legislators are informed or had delved into the company/farmer contract relationship or how that system works.

The tangled web of how the poultry industry operates is nearly impossible to figure out unless one has operated within it. I look for future battles over the current law and judiciary proceedings over the loopholes that the Einstein’s within the poultry industry will use.

Independent Contractor – to be or not to be?

My last post about Waterkeeper Alliance vs. Perdue and Allen and Kristin Hudson brought out many issues associated with the case. The saga continues………..

The lawsuit is about pollutants finding their way to drainage ditches surrounding a chicken CAFO owned by the Hudson’s into a tributary of the Pocomoke River and eventually the Chesapeake Bay. It also questions ownership and responsibility of the waste discharged from the farm naming Perdue as the legal owner of the chickens that produce the waste.

On November 17, 2011 both sides in the case filed a motion for summary judgment and in doing so many legal documents in the case were made available to the public. Public perusal of these court records brings to light many other issues.

It’s hard for me to decide which of the other issues to start with.

Independent contractor status is a good place to begin. Contract poultry growers (chicken farmers) are classified as independent contractors by the companies they contract with to raise company owned chickens. The job of the farmer is to receive company chickens and raise them to a marketable age – PERIOD.

Not to put the chicken before the egg we have to look at where these contract chickens originate. It’s a complex web to untangle and there are many company steps involved before ever getting to the chicks placed on farms and grown. What is known is that the company designs, through genetic selection and engineering, what the final chicken will be. When placed on contract farms, the farmer has no choice or idea about the genetics, performance in growing of the chicken, or how much manure that chicken will produce.

Prior to chicks being placed on contract farms feed is delivered to the farm. This feed is formulated, mixed and delivered by the company. Feed ingredients are unknown to the famer and are a closely guarded secret claimed by companies to be a “trade secret”. The amount of feed delivered to the farm is unverifiable by the farmer and (s)he has to accept on “good faith” that the feed is what the company says it is. There are no options for contract farmers to acquire feed from another source because the contracts stipulate that feed comes from the company. This feed delivery process continues throughout the entire life cycle of the flock.

I have to insert here a few facts about the feed. Most people don’t understand that feed ingredient’s such as antibiotics/antimicrobials and arsenic isn’t the farmer’s choice to use or not use. This pertains to animal by-products in feed as well. Everything that goes into feed is decided by the chicken company and must be accepted and used by the farmer. Should a farmer decide to acquire feed from another source the farmer’s contract will be terminated.

The chicks delivered to contract farms derive from company owned hatcheries where the eggs are hatched into chicks. During the process at the company hatchery certain procedures could be performed such as in ovo injections of vaccines and antibiotics. In ovo is a process of injecting eggs before hatching and it’s anyone’s guess as to what is injected. Another company secret of which the farmer has no control over!

It could be assumed that the independent contractor, the farmer, comes into play once the chicks are on the farm for growing. That theory might hold water if the company only delivered the chicks and disappeared out of the raising process and returned to pick up the grown chickens for processing.

Throughout the flock company employees routinely come to the farm and manage the methods in which the farmer is raising the chickens. Court documents in the lawsuit revealed a company employee went so far as to leaving written instructions saying “need to work on these things ASAP’ and then listing things to be done. Some “notes” left by Perdue gave deadlines on work to be done and many notes referred to telling the farmer to do “heavy culling” (kill many chickens). If that is not telling the farmer what work to do, I’m at a loss to say what it is!

Other notes revealed that a Perdue employee set or adjusted equipment within the chicken house, moved fans around, culled chickens, and preformed many other tasks required in raising the chickens to a marketable age. These things are the job of the independent contractor not a company employee.

Again, I have to stop here and raise a question. Suppose some disaster should occur inside the chicken house because of the Perdue employee making a mistake in equipment adjustments such as ventilation and all of the chickens die (smother) – who would be responsible for the disaster? It’s my guess the blame would be laid at the farmer’s feet and income loss would be the farmer’s bitter pill to swallow. Having been a contract farmer I say this with ease because everything is always the farmers fault according to the company and there is no recourse for the farmer.

Reading court documents revealed that Perdue routinely performed farm operations inside of the chicken houses. It’s argued that the Perdue employee and Mr. Hudson had an understanding about this. The only time that I’m aware of the company coming on the farm, performing the daily tasks of the farmer, and caring for the flock would be if the company declared that the farmer was not doing his job and that the company was taking over. There is a clause in the contract that says that the company has the right to do that. However there are no supporting documents that say that Perdue made any such declaration or decision to take over the raising of the chickens on the Hudson farm.

Farmers have argued for a very long time that they aren’t independent contractors in their relationship with chicken companies. Independent – somebody or something that is free from control, dependence, or interference. Looking over court documents it’s clear that Perdue has some other definition of “independent”.

I remember a time in the early 1990’s Perdue declared all of its chicken catchers to be independent contractors. In the late 1990’s a lawsuit was filed against the company claiming that the chicken catchers were employees of the company not independent contractors. The lawsuit prevailed and a Federal Court found in favor of the chicken catcher’s. If memory serves me correctly, the court found Perdue willful in dealings with the chicken catchers.

Might Perdue also be willful in dealings with contract farmers?

Relevant legal documents and court pleadings

GIPSA Rule – A Really Bad Joke

I recently had a contract chicken farmer, Craig Watts, ask me for advice after hearing the news that our illustrious politicians had delivered a crippling blow to farmers and consumers.

Specifically, the farmer was referring to the gutting of the USDA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards (GIPSA) Final Rule which would have dealt with many of the abuses contract farmers face. Known as the GIPSA Rule and something that I’ve opined about many times, House Republicans and Mealy Mouthed Democrats allowed language in a budget bill that defunded the GIPSA Rule which would have provided “commonsense protections that allow small livestock producers to compete and check the abusive practices of the poultry industry” says Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food and Water Watch. House Republicans Drive More Nails Into Livestock Rule Coffin

I had no good advice to give Craig and I fear for his livelihood. He has been one of the most outspoken contract chicken farmers about the GIPSA Rule and took a public stand against the abusive practices towards farmers in the poultry industry. Although no laughing matter, my first thought was to tell Craig to cover his head and duck.

On a serious note I told him to prepare for contract termination because he will be retaliated against for speaking out. One way or another, Craig will be paid back and or illustrious politicians, who claim that they support the farmer, have assured that he has no protection. Over the past twenty years or more, I’ve seen this happen many times to farmers.

It further worries me that farmers were led down a path of destruction by our government. I’ve had my doubts from the very beginning of the latest attempt by farmers to reign in Big Ag from the monopolization of food production and the anti-competitive nature of contract farming.

USDA and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) held field hearings all over the country and encouraged farmers to speak out. Farmers believed in this process especially since they had the DOJ covering their backs……. many spoke. Even still, with the mighty DOJ at their backs, some farmers gave private testimony. A statement in itself about the fear farmer’s harbor!

When USDA finally proposed the GIPSA Rule and opened a public comment period over 60,000 comments were received by the agency and the majority was in favor of the rule. At this juncture of the game some farmers were still fearful and submitted unsigned comments so that they could not be identified by Big Ag.

Farmers have written letters and spoken in person to USDA and their illustrious politicians who supposedly represent them and have put their selves in a precarious position. Anyone who really knows me also knows that I hold no faith in our elected officials whether they are Republican, Democrat, Tea Partier, or Independent.

My cynical view overwhelms me when I travel to our Nation’s Capital because I get the feeling that our illustrious politicians are doing nothing more than paying “lip service” to their constituents. They tell you what you want to hear and send you on your way. They then turn around and “toe the line” from wherever the most power, money, and influence come from. It’s cronyism at its best!

Personally, I have no faith in our government to do what is right for the majority. I don’t think that I’m alone in my cynicism about our elected officials. On occasion I think there are some people who run for public office with good intentions toward doing the right thing. When they reach the destination of being elected to office they quickly learn that their ideals have no place in the political machine that runs our country.

In this particular situation, the GIPSA Rule, is a really bad joke that has been played on farmers and Big Ag is laughing all the way to the bank! I hope our illustrious politicians and government agencies feel good about selling out the American farmer and leaving them to suffer the tyranny of Big Ag.

Poultry Industry Fighting Hard to Kill the Proposed GIPSA Rule

Company dealings with farmers they contract with in the poultry industry has been at issue for at least the past twenty years. It’s been a long hard battle for contract farmers to try to gain any fairness and personally I can’t count the times in those twenty years that I’ve traveled to Washington DC to speak with our illustrious politicians about the issue.

USDA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) has the authority to write and publish rules without any approval from congress. With visions of campaign contributions dancing in their heads the House caved in to corporate agriculture’s power and influence and stopped the USDA GIPSA Proposed Rule from being written and published. They’ve used the next best thing and cut funding in the House Ag Appropriations for the rule to be written and published.

No additional funding was required for the rule to be written and published. The House cut USDA funding specifically for writing and publishing the GISA Rule.

The Senate Ag Appropriation Committee is a different story. The GIPSA rule came out of committee intact. It now goes to the Senate floor and insiders are saying that we can expect an amendment from the Senate floor to be introduced to kill the bill.

It’s no secret that contract poultry farmers are afraid to speak out about the issue for fear of having their contract terminated. To further back this up anonymous calls and letters have been excepted by USDA GIPSA and now Senate offices. One would think that this is enough to convince our illustrious politicians that there is definitely a problem.

What confounds me even more is that fear of speaking out goes on unchecked in this country. We have no problem sending our young men and women to war in other countries because of tyranny yet we have tyrants bullying farmers by holding a contract over their heads. Furthermore, most of our enlisted troops come from rural America and many come from farms where their parents are afraid to speak out. That is just plain WRONG!

I received an email (below) from a friend asking for calls from constituents to be made to Senate offices . It’s apparent that a hand full of corporate types have more voice than thousands of farmers. We need to stop just writing history about the GIPSA Rule and get it done. Farmers needed this rule in place twenty years ago. Please take the time to call your Senators and tell them to take a stand for farmers and oppose any amendment that would delay or kill the GIPSA rule. Many voices will over ride the hand full of corporate type voices.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

The meat and poultry industry is fighting hard against the proposed USDA GIPSA rule, which would protect contract farmers from unfair treatment. The House of Representatives has already passed legislation that would kill the rule. Now, we have to be sure that the Senate doesn’t pass similar legislation.

In the beginning of September, we made it through the Senate Appropriations Committee meeting without any bad amendments being offered to kill or delay the rule. That is really good news. This historic rule will protect farmers’ investments and end many unfair practices in the poultry, hog and livestock industries.

But we are not out of the woods yet. Senators can still offer an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations bill on the Senate floor that would kill the GIPSA rule.

Please call both of your senators this week and ask them to oppose any amendments to stop or delay the GIPSA rule. You can reach your senators at (202) 224-3121. Ask to speak with the agriculture legislative assistant. Here is a sample message to use:

I am a constituent who strongly supports the proposed USDA rule on poultry and livestock. The rule will level the playing field for growers and correct many of the abuses that they are facing. Will the Senator stand up for farmers and oppose any amendments to the appropriations bill that would stop or delay USDA from writing a final rule? Please call me at ______ to let me know where the Senator stands on this important issue.

P.S. Some senators are on the fence on this issue. Calls are best way to make sure they know that they should support farmers. Please take a minute to call (202) 224-3121 and ask your Senators to protect farm jobs and farm families.

Congresswoman Kaptur Stands up for Farmers!

Over the last few months I’ve witnessed a 3 ring circus going on in the US House of Representatives and if ever there were a time that faith in our government was at an all time low, it is at this moment in time.

Despite the expressed majority in favor of the USDA Grain Inspection Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) Proposed Rule change relating to fairness in the livestock and poultry industry, the House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee mark up of their appropriations bill yesterday included a provision to stop USDA from implementing a Final Rule.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition reports  that Representative Kaptur (OH) spoke out against the provision saying the bill would prevent USDA from implementing the rule even though the 2008 Farm Bill explicitly directs USDA to do so.  Kaptur has been a long time proponent for family farms.

I’ve written several posts relating to the Proposed Rule and the issue has become larger than life. Many contract poultry growers have come out of hiding from the fear of losing their contract for speaking out about the many problems within the poultry industry. It’s a big no, no as was revealed in Food INC.

Through contracts to raise livestock and poultry, corporations cohabiting in farmer’s neck of the woods have absolute control over the farms and farmers they contract with. The USDA GIPSA Proposed Rule would go a long way in ensuring fairness and level the playing field for farmers in their contract relations with corporate agribusinesses. Self described by farmers as being “serfs on their own land” has no place in today’s world.

One of the major players lobbying in opposition to a Final Rule implementation, the National Chicken Council (NCC), representing industrial chicken companies says that the proposed competitive market rule by USDA GIPSA “will fundamentally change how chicken companies operate especially with contract growers”.

Intimation from industry has been that companies would no longer contract with farmers they would own the farms that produce chickens for them. For those of us who are familiar with poultry industry maneuvering, subtle and indirect hints of putting farmers out of business is nothing new. Intimidation/coercion is what we call it! I wouldn’t be surprised to hear about subtle hints that the chicken industry will move operations to a foreign country being used while lobbying congress!

The one thing that both sides of the issue agree on is that the Proposed Rule will bring fundamental change. From the farmer standpoint the change would be a positive step forward however industry is adamant that this change will not happen.

What comes to mind is the question that if everything is wonderful and we don’t need change, why is this issue being vigorously debated? Why did farmers decide “contract termination be damned” and come out of hiding to support the Proposed Rule Change?

One thing certain about the issue is that corporate agribusiness has shown its hand and can no longer say that they support their partners the farm families they contract with. Farmers want and need the fundamental change that the Proposed Rule would bring and their partners in the chicken industry are fighting against them.