Categories
Opinion Editorial

Emergency planning must include animals

Article originally published in the VHS Newsletter.

In November 2021, flooding and landslides devastated parts of British Columbia. People were forced from their homes, animals had little or no way of escaping, and roads were blocked off or destroyed, slowing rescue efforts and essential supply distribution.

One of the hardest hit was the Sumas Prairie – a once massive lake that was drained a century ago to become a hub for the province’s animal agriculture. Two measures were meant to prevent the Prairie from returning to its watery roots: a dike and a pump station. When the dike was breached and the pump found itself in critical condition, the overflowing Sumas River reached the Prairie’s farms and the hundreds of thousands of animals inside.

The catastrophe killed more than 640,000 animals, including 628,000 chickens and farmed birds, 12,000 pigs, and 420 cows. There is no doubt that those animals died in pain and fear. Others were impacted by ongoing health issues like pneumonia as a result of the being trapped in flood waters.

In the face of unimaginable tragedy, many people shared feelings of helplessness, anger, and above all, grief. On one thing everyone could agree: no one ever wanted to see a crisis like this happen again.
As we recover and rebuild, it is essential that we not return to the way things were. Decision-makers at every level need to take a serious look at their emergency planning and prevention, and account for the safety and well-being of animals – not just their monetary value.

This incredible scale of suffering and loss of life calls for more than just lip service. It calls for concrete steps to consider animal protection in emergency planning, and transparent communication to the public demonstrating how that action will be taken.

To do that, decision-makers need to examine the factors that made this situation so dire.

We know that the flooding is not a one-time event; several atmospheric rivers have moved in on the province since the initial flood, and experts expect these to grow more severe as warming air carries higher concentrations of water vapour. In some regions, the ground was already damaged by wildfires this past summer, resulting in more severe floods and landslides. Scientists predict that these extreme weather events will only grow more frequent in the coming years as temperatures rise. Urgent climate action must be a part of emergency planning.

As part of their plan to reduce the risk of farmed animals perishing in floods or other extreme weather events, like the heat domes we saw last year, decision-makers should consider sustainable regional and local food policies that meet nutrition demands and reduce climate impacts. For instance, incentives could be introduced for farmers who are transitioning to plant-based agriculture, which reduces the number of animals that would need to be evacuated in an emergency and produces food with a far smaller ecological footprint.

In the meantime, some shorter-term changes can be made to prevent another tragedy from occurring. The low-lying Sumas Prairie is home to well over a million farmed animals. When the flooding began, there was no hope of evacuating them all. There were too many animals and not enough vehicles. Each chicken farm in the area houses around 25,000 birds, with some holding more than three times that number. It seems obvious that emergency planning must include a strategy for animal evacuations to prevent the kind of mass suffering we have seen. Equally important is ensuring those evacuations are feasible. This huge volume of animal lives concentrated in such a small area, especially one at risk of flooding, makes moving the animals to a safer location virtually impossible.

For too long, there has been pushback on progress that protects animals, our environment, and even ourselves. The smallest changes, from reducing our carbon emissions to eating more plant-based foods, have been called extreme. What now seems extreme is not the action, but the result of inaction.

The danger is no longer hypothetical. It is here, on our doorsteps. Decision-makers will need to respond with this tragedy. And then, with crisis staring us in the face, they absolutely must prevent the next one.

Categories
News/Blog

Public feedback needed on dairy farm practices

Update

The comment period for the “Dairy Cattle Code of Practice” has now ended. The updated code is set to be released in 2023. Thank you for helping to ensure animals’ well-being is considered in this consultation.

The National Farm Animal Care Council’s (NFACC) “Codes of Practice” serve as guidelines for the care and handling of animals in Canada’s animal agriculture industry. The “Dairy Cattle Code of Practice” was last updated in 2009 and since that time cruelty cases, as recently as late last year at a B.C.-based dairy farm, have demonstrated serious systemic non-compliance in the dairy industry. 

NFACC is considering changes to the Code of Practice and is asking for public feedback. Your input is needed prior to the January 27th deadline to help advocate for stronger protections for cows on dairy farms.

We’ve compiled a summary of 13 key points below – please be sure to submit constructive comments in your own words. Do not copy and paste the key points below, as duplicate comments will not be considered.  

Participate in the “Dairy Cattle Code of Practice” public comment period before the January 27th deadline.

Note: If you don’t have time to comment on the specific sections, you can choose to leave general comments by clicking on the “general comments on the code” section, at the end of the survey

13 key points:

  • Section 1: Training – Consider sharing about how previous cruel handling of cows on Canadian dairy farms (e.g. such as kicking, punching, and beating animals, as seen in the following cases: Chilliwack Cattle Sales in 2014, Cedar Valley Farms in 2021) reflects a need for stronger requirements around supervision of staff, animal welfare training, and a process for staff to report concerns that ensures accountability.
A veal calf from the dairy industry chained up during the Quebec winter. Photo: Jo-Anne McArthur \ We Animals Media.
  • Section 2.2.1: Calves (Pre-Weaning) – Currently, calves are commonly kept in individual housing and are only required to be housed in a way that allows them to easily stand up, lie down, turn around and adopt a normal resting posture, with visual contact with other calves. In your comments, ask for a requirement for a full, immediate ban on tethering of calves. There should also be an immediate requirement that calves have access to an area outside of a hutch and are housed in social groups with other calves as young as possible and not later than 3 weeks of age. 
  • Section 2.2.3: Lactating and Dry Cows – Currently, cows can be kept tied in individual stalls and there is no requirement for access to pasture, outdoors or a covered, bedded pen. Share in your own words that tie-stall housing prevents freedom of movement and that a deadline should be set to phase out tie stalls as soon as possible for lactating and dry cows, as well as for heifers. Ask that housing be required to allow daily freedom of movement, exercise and social interactions year-round. Ask that pasture or outdoor access, as weather permits, and daily access to a large, covered bedded pen that allows for exercise, rest, and socialization also be a requirement. 
A calf and mother dairy cow.
A calf and mother at Sanctuaire pour animaux de ferme de l’Estrie in Quebec. Photo: Photo: Jo-Anne McArthur We Animals Media.
  • Section 2.3.1: Calving Areas – Currently, cows can be kept in stalls (including in tie stalls) while giving birth. In your comments, ask that a quicker deadline for calving in loose housed pens or pastures be required. The separation of cows and their calves soon after birth is also not addressed in this section. Separation is distressing for both the cow and calf and research shows health and social benefits when kept together. Research shows that there are active, modern farms using cow-calf systems that allow mothers and young to be together. Share in your own words why the separation of cows and their young is a concern for you as a consumer and that the industry needs to address this issue and move away from this practice.   
  • Section 2.5.1: Electric Trainers – Ask for a requirement that prohibits electric trainers, as using an electric shock device to “train” cows to urinate and defecate outside of the stall bed poses welfare issues.
  • Section 2.8: Bedding Management – In your own words, express your support for the requirement that cattle must have a resting surface with bedding, as research shows that large amounts of bedding is a crucial welfare improvement. Ask that specific bedding depth requirements be added. 
  • Section 2.10: Pasture and Exercise Yards – Currently, there is no requirement that cows have access to pasture or outdoors. Ask that pasture or outdoor access, as weather permits, and daily access to a large, covered bedded pen that allows for exercise, rest, and socialization be a requirement. In your own words, highlight one of more of the following benefits: more freedom of movement; exercise opportunities; ability to socialize and engage in more natural behaviours; reduced risk of lameness and other health problems.  
A flooded dairy farm in Abbotsford BC.
A dairy farm sits just above the floodwaters in Abbotsford, BC. Photo: Nick Schafer \ We Animals Media.
  • Section 2.11: Emergencies and Safety – In 2021, approximately 1.3 million farmed animals in B.C. died during record-breaking heat waves and flooding. This reflects the need for stronger emergency preparedness and plans for farms. Ask for required emergency planning that includes a realistic and achievable strategy to ensure animals can safely be evacuated from farms in an emergency.
  • Section 4.1 Handling, Moving and Restraining Cattle – In your own words, express your support for the requirement that prohibits the use of electric prods.  
  • Section 4.1.1: Additional Considerations when moving or handling down cattle Ask for a requirement that electric prods also be banned for use on “down” cows who appear unable to get up. Instead, assisting a down animal should include the use of more humane tools when appropriate, such as full body slings and transport mats. Express your support for the requirement that prohibits down cattle from being moved by hoisting by chain, dragging or lifting without adequate support. Again, here you can highlight how previous cruelty cases have showcased mistreatment and mishandling of animals and that this requires stronger staff training and supervision related to moving and handling animals. 
  • Section 5.3: Caring for Sick, Injured or Compromised Animals – Express your support for the requirement that cattle in pain (from a condition or procedure) must be provided prompt pain control. Ask that this requirement be elaborated on to include the use of local anesthesia (to prevent acute pain) and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (to reduce longer lasting pain)
A close-up of a dairy cow's eye in a transport truck.
A dairy cow is transported. Photo: Louise Jorgensen / We Animals Media.
  • Section 6.1.1: Fitness for transport – Currently, compromised animals (e.g. those with mild lameness, those who have not fully healed after a procedure) can still be transported. Dairy cows sent to auction or slaughter after their milk production declines are particularly vulnerable during transport. Ask that it be required that unfit and compromised animals are not allowed to be transported, as it poses a serious welfare concern.  
  • 6.1.3: Preparing Cattle for Transportation – Currently, cows are commonly transported while still lactating, putting them at risk for udder issues, including mastitis, due to a change in their milking routine. Ask for a requirement that cows are not lactating at the time of transport.  

Note: clicking the button below will open the link in a new tab. You can still return to this tab to review the key points.

Categories
News/Blog

Speak up for better protections for farmed animals

Please ask the B.C. government to introduce third party auditing; video monitoring systems; and emergency plans to better protect farmed animals!  

Email the B.C. government now

Recent news coverage shares disturbing footage from an Abbotsford-based dairy, Cedar Valley Farms, showing dairy cows being violently beaten, kicked and dragged. This case is a recent example of long-standing issues within Canada’s animal agriculture system. In the last few years, there have been several high-profile undercover investigations in B.C. alone that have documented egregious animal cruelty. 

Concerningly, rather than addressing the cruelty issues taking place within the industry, governments have begun introducing anti-whistleblower legislation (commonly referred to as ‘ag-gag’ laws) which effectively deters undercover investigations from taking place.

The VHS and other animal protection groups are calling for transparency and accountability within the animal agriculture industry. Specifically, change is needed to have government-mandated and proactively-enforced compliance with the National Farm Animal Care Council Codes of Practice, as well as third party auditing and video surveillance systems on farms across B.C.

In addition, the recent floods, along with the 2021 heat dome and wildfires, reiterate the importance of protections for farmed animals during disasters and emergencies. More than 651,000 farmed animals perished in the heat dome and more than 640,000 more are reported to have died in the recent floods. Emergency planning must include a feasible strategy for urgent animal evacuations to prevent the kind of mass suffering we have seen.

Take action

  1. Please join us in calling on B.C.’s Premier and the Minister of Agriculture to take these important actions to better protect farmed animals from cruelty and suffering.

2. You can raise awareness of this issue by sharing this recent op-ed featured in the Daily Hive.

Content warning: the op-ed contains photos and descriptions of animal cruelty in the dairy industry.

3. You can make personal changes to take a stand against dairy cruelty. The blog linked below highlights a few staff favourite dairy-free tips and products!

4. This t-shirt, which features a half cow and half dog face, reminds us to be kind to every kind. All proceeds go toward creating a kinder world for animals.

With your help, we can see a change for the better for dairy cows and other farmed animals.

Categories
News/Blog

No more delays for full enforcement of farmed animal transport rules

Success!

2579 individuals used the quick action tool to send an email directly to decision-makers. Thanks to this strong push for action, the CFIA announced that enforcement of new regulations will begin on February 20, 2022. VHS will continue to monitor the situation and advocate for more protections for farmed animals.

Tell the federal government to adequately enforce the farmed animal transport regulations

Farmed animals are among the most directly impacted by human activity, with more than 800 million land animals raised and killed for food every year in Canada. Transportation is one of the most stressful activities for farmed animals. Every year in Canada, approximately 14 million animals suffer injuries and 1.6 million die during transport journeys that are often long-distance and in extreme weather conditions.

In February 2019, the federal government announced updates to the farmed animal transport regulations, set to come into force a year later in February 2020. Unfortunately, the new regulations were hardly an improvement on the previous ones that had been in place since 1977. For example, only minor amendments were made to the food, water and rest (FWR) intervals for animals during transport.

Also concerning was the announcement that there would be a two-year delay (until February 2022) for full enforcement of the updated FWR intervals, including issuing large-scale fines, which is known to be the most effective form of enforcement when it comes to changing the actions of companies. This decision was intended to give the industry more time to adjust the shorter FWR intervals and to implement changes to infrastructure and marketing practices needed to meet the requirements. During this time, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) took a soft approach, focusing on educating people about the new requirements.

As the deadline for this two-year delay in full enforcement approaches, it is possible that further delays are being considered. Please join the VHS and other animal protection organizations and advocates in calling on the federal government to prioritize full enforcement of the farmed animal transport rules.

Take action

Please tell the Minister of Agriculture; the Minister of Health; and the President of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to fully enforce the Transport of Animals regulations, including issuing appropriately sized fines.

This action has now ended

2579 people used this tool to send an email to decision-makers. Thank you for taking action!

Categories
Opinion Editorial

It’s time to boycott the dairy industry

Article originally published on Daily Hive.

The clock has been ticking in the dairy industry for a while, and a recent public scandal may be the time bomb that draws the dairy milk era to a close.

Footage leaked by Animal Justice shows cows being ruthlessly beaten and tormented allegedly at Cedar Valley Farms, a dairy farm in Abbotsford.

In the heartbreaking video, workers hit cornered cows in the face with canes; mother cows wail hauntingly and are kicked in the face by employees as their babies are roughly grabbed by their fragile legs, tossed into wheelbarrows, and rolled away to the slaughterhouse or to be raised for the same cruel fate.

While this blatant cruelty is the worst I have seen, it’s unfortunately nothing new. Animal abuse and suffering are endemic in the dairy industry. To fully understand why that is, we need to go back to the last headline-making video leak from a BC dairy farm.

In 2014, hidden cameras at Canada’s largest dairy farm in Chilliwack revealed horrific abuses. Video footage showed cows being punched, kicked, and beaten with chains and rakes; left to suffer with open wounds and without desperately needed veterinary care; and lifted up by their necks using chains and tractors.

In the ensuing public outcry, the eight employees involved were fired and many faced animal cruelty charges.

The incident prompted a more in-depth look into the dairy industry as a whole. Soon after, the National Farm Animal Care Council’s (NFACC) Code of Practice, which outlines appropriate treatment of the animals used on farms, was incorporated into legislation in BC. The industry also implemented a system of inspections to ensure farmers were complying with the regulations.

In droves, they weren’t.

Within the first 18 months of the new system being implemented, 27 percent of farms failed the inspections and required corrective action; 10 percent were still deemed non-compliant upon their follow-up inspection. Findings described farms with inadequate space for cows, including during the stressful birthing process; extremely limited access to feed troughs; wet and dirty pens; and cows showing such severe signs of lameness that they had to be euthanized.

At the time, industry leaders placated questioning consumers with supposed reasons for the non-compliance: farm owners simply didn’t know about the regulations or new methods. They floated goals of improved education, spot checks, and the ever-effective “peer pressure” to improve conditions.

It has been seven years since the dairy industry began conducting inspections with the goal of improving consumers’ confidence in the food they purchase. By now, the typical dairy buyer would expect the industry to have ironed out any kinks in their system. The most recent video leak has thrown a wrench directly into that carefully curated trust.

This year’s footage from Cedar Valley Farms is yet another reminder of what happens when sentient animals are treated as commodities for profit – “cash cows” in the most literal sense of the word.

It has revealed to consumers that cruelty is still rampant, that an organic label on an animal-based product doesn’t necessarily indicate an ethical purchase, and that ultimately the dairy industry cannot be trusted to self-regulate.

Consumer trust is hard to build when you can’t know if the animals whose bodies produced the milk were treated with respect. The milk used for commercial dairy products is typically “pooled” in BC, meaning if you purchase products like cheese, yogurt, ice cream, sour cream, or butter from the grocery store, it’s virtually impossible to tell which farm they came from.

There is also increasing awareness about the suffering inherent in the production of dairy. Cows don’t produce milk all the time; they produce it for their young, like humans and any other mammal. In order to ensure a consistent milk supply, the dairy industry repeatedly impregnates cows and removes their calves as early as just after birth. Calves reared without their mothers experience unnatural behavioural changes and drink far less milk from a bottle than they would otherwise. Their mothers experience an increased risk of mastitis when suckling is not allowed. Then, when the cows are no longer productive, they are typically sent to be slaughtered for meat between two and six years old. Their life expectancy outside of the industry is 15 to 20 years.

The dairy industry has been given endless chances to change for the better, and they have failed to do so again and again. Of course they have – there is money to be made in the status quo.

What this industry fails to realize is that humans do not need animal-based dairy. It is not a necessary part of the human diet, and all the nutrients it provides are found in other foods. With the increasing shift toward plant-based eating, there is a wider variety of delicious animal-free alternatives than ever.

Time is up for the dairy industry’s endless journey of supposed self-improvement. In a consumer society, only consumer action will spark a change. Only when people start reaching for oat milk instead of 2% or canola oil instead of butter will we see a breakthrough in the treatment of farmed animals. It’s time to vote with our wallets. It’s time to boycott animal-based dairy products.

Categories
animal welfare compassion Dairy Food and Drink News/Blog plant-based diet Promoted vegan vegetarianism

A chance to speak up for farm animals

 

cow-istock-2

The federal, provincial and territorial governments are asking for comments on plans for the future of agriculture in Canada, providing an opportunity to raise issues about the treatment of farm animals.

Phase 2 of the consultation is open until November 30 and includes options to fill in an online questionnaire, email your comments or write a letter. Please take the time to contribute your views about animal welfare and the future of animal agriculture.

The consultation refers to the government’s plan, called The Calgary Statement – the Next Policy Framework, which sets out several Priority Areas:

Markets and trade
Science, research and innovation
Risk management
Environmental sustainability and climate change
Value-added agriculture and agri-food processing
Public Trust

Following are some key points from our submission to the consultation (full submission here):

Markets and Trade

Canada should develop markets for plant-based protein instead of animal-based protein, which contributes to environmental degradation, is resource-intensive and is dependent on inhumane confinement systems.

Science, research and innovation

Canada should invest in research and development of plant-based protein, especially the production and processing of pulse crops.  In contrast to animal protein production, pulses have been shown to be environmentally beneficial (requiring relatively little water and fertilizer), healthy and sustainable.  A number of innovative plant-based industries have emerged in recent years, attracting investment and consumer interest.

Risk management

The livestock sector has a number of inherent risks, including:

– negative environmental impacts (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions)
– zoonotic disease outbreaks (e.g. avian flu, listeria, e. coli)
– consumer rejection of inhumane, intensive confinement systems (e.g. battery cages for laying hens) and other animal welfare concerns
– consumer health concerns over meat consumption (e.g. cancer risk of red and processed meats)
– rise of antbiotic resistance due to overuse of antibiotics in livestock

Environmental sustainability and climate change

Globally, the meat and livestock sector contributes 14.5% of all greenhouse gases, which is more than the transportation sector.  It is also resource-intensive – it is the world’s largest user of agricultural land, through grazing and the use of feed crops. The sector is also a major contributor to water pollution and loss of biodiversity.

Public Trust

Canadian consumers have many concerns about animal agriculture.

Currently, animal agriculture in Canada involves the confinement and suffering of millions of animals.  Animal welfare should be a top priority in the development of agricultural policy. Currently, there are no mandatory animal welfare standards in Canada, only voluntary Codes of Practice.  These should be replaced with mandatory standards enforced by independent, third-party inspections.

The meat and livestock sector is dependent on intensive confinement systems (factory farms) that compromise animal welfare and degrade the environment. In addition, the overconsumption of meat has been shown to be harmful to human health.  Consequently, this sector is unsustainable.  Consumers will lose faith in agriculture if these problems persist.

Resources should be shifted to the development of a plant-based protein sector, including more support for Canada’s production, processing and marketing of pulses (peas, beans, lentils). Plant-based diets should be promoted through public information programs and support for initiatives like Meatless Monday.

Such initiatives would earn public trust, as they benefit the environment, public health and animal welfare.

Your participation in this consultation will ensure that animals are not forgotten in the development of Canada’s agricultural policies.

More info:

CBC News story

Facebook

Twitter: #agnpf

 

 

Categories
animal welfare cruelty News/Blog Promoted

Is the end in sight for battery cages?

IMG_0480
Change is coming but more than 90 per cent of eggs in Canada still come from hens in battery cages.

 

.

 

It looks like egg farmers are finally getting the message that consumers don’t want eggs from hens kept in crowded, cruel battery cages.

Their apparent conversion to the concept of cage-free egg production emerged in recent local media reports.  One farmer told the Abbotsford News: “I realized that’s the way of the future so I needed to personally change to meet the needs of our customers.”

His views were echoed by Brad Bond, chairman of the BC Egg Marketing Board, who told the Vancouver Sun: “This trend is going to continue and we are well-positioned to meet the demand… We know that animal welfare is top of mind for the hospitality industry and consumers alike.”

This welcome change comes after years of pressure by animal welfare groups that has educated consumers and retailers about the inherent cruelty of battery cages.  The recent decision by MacDonald’s Restaurants to phase out the use of eggs from caged hens may be the nail in the coffin for battery systems.  This follows similar decisions by big food companies such as Starbucks, General Mills, Sodexo, Aramark and Compass Group.

Here in British Columbia, VHS has led the fight against battery cages with our ChickenOUT! campaign – and we know it’s had an impact. It’s no accident that in B.C. nearly 17 per cent of eggs come from cage-free systems, compared to about three per cent in the rest of Canada.

But with more than 90 per cent of Canada’s eggs still coming from caged hens, there is a long way to go. And there are many problems to overcome.  Some farmers may switch to “enriched cages,” which provide a bit more space but still deny vital natural behaviours. Others may only go as far as switching to free-run or free-range, without moving to certified organic production, which has the highest welfare standards and is inspected by independent, third-party auditors to ensure operations are truly free-range.

VHS executive director Debra Probert expressed such concerns to the Vancouver Sun: “It’s a progressive move and those birds will be out of cages, but the public should know this is not the highest welfare system for laying hens…It remains to be seen how this free-run industry will function.” Nevertheless, the direction away from cages is clear.

While VHS welcomes the reduction in animal suffering that comes with the elimination of battery cages, we are well aware that the egg industry will still have inherent welfare problems, such as the killing of unwanted male chicks and inhumane transportation and slaughter, which all chickens endure.

That’s why VHS urges consumers to try making the switch to a plant-based diet.  Reducing or eliminating eggs from your diet are the best ways to help end the suffering of laying hens.  The good news is that new alternatives to eggs and egg products are emerging.

While victory over battery cage operations cannot yet be declared, their end is in sight.  Perhaps more importantly, the campaigns against them have shown that educating consumers and pressuring producers and retailers does work.  This bodes well for the fight against other cruel factory farm practices.  VHS is committed to being a part of that fight.  We hope you will join us.

 

 

 

Categories
animal welfare Dairy News/Blog Promoted

Still no charges in dairy cruelty case

It has now been one year since the BC SPCA recommended criminal animal cruelty charges against eight employees at Chilliwack Cattle Sales, Canada’s largest dairy producer, and many months since provincial animal cruelty charges were recommended against the company itself. Yet, Crown prosecutors have still yet to come to a decision about laying charges.

For its part, the BC SPCA responded quickly, conducting a raid on the facility and recommending animal cruelty charges within days of receiving video and written evidence covertly obtained by an employee over the course of four weeks last spring.

The delay is unusual and concerning. Prosecutors have been presented with incontrovertible evidence of animals being routinely whipped, kicked, and punched in their faces, bodies, and testicles. Still more animals were documented on video suffering from untreated gruesome injuries and infections.

Internationally respected bovine expert and veterinarian Dr. James Reynolds commented that the video depicted “the most severe cases of animal abuse I have ever seen in 32 years.”

Worse, the company itself appears to have been complicit in the abuse and neglect, despite attempting to distance itself from the employees during the public outcry that followed the footage’s release. The whistleblower stated that he repeatedly brought his concerns to management, which failed to act; several more fired employees came forward to say that they were unfairly taking the fall for a company that created and condoned the apparent widespread culture of cruelty.

Yet, Chilliwack Cattle Sales continues to operate with impunity, milking a staggering 3500 cows three times each day.

It did not take long for the BC Milk Marketing Board to act. By last September, the regulator had made the standards in the national dairy code of practice mandatory, effective virtually immediately. Such actions by provincial regulators are all the more important in Canada’s supply-managed dairy industry, where milk is pooled and dairy processors cannot set animal welfare standards for their suppliers—a tactic commonly used in other countries.

This case presented a unique opportunity for prosecutors to take farmed animal cruelty as seriously as it ought to be. We killed 740 million animals for food in 2014, making farmed animals by far the largest population of animals under human care (by contrast, there are about 15 million pets in Canada). However, these pigs, chickens, turkeys, and cows are kept largely in windowless sheds on private property, entirely shielded from the scrutiny of law enforcement, which is unable to inspect farms without first receiving a complaint from the public.

Unsurprisingly, on the rare occasion that complaints about farmed animal cruelty are received, they come from neighbours concerned about neglect on small operations, where animals may be visible. Employees at factory farms are unlikely to report abuse when their livelihood is at stake, or when they may be reporting on their friends—or themselves.

In the case of Chilliwack Cattle Sales, however, not only was an employee able to obtain evidence of illegal animal cruelty, he was able to actually document malicious abuses while they were being committed, rather than simply after-the-fact conditions of neglect.

Although animal cruelty laws in this country are regularly criticized for being weak, the reality is that provincial and federal law are clear that animal abuse and neglect are illegal. National codes of practice, created with government funding, set standards of care that arguably form a part of the law.

However, these laws are meaningless without adequate enforcement. Barriers to enforcement admittedly do exist—farmed animals are out of sight, law enforcement only acts in response to public complaints, and cruelty laws are mostly enforced by private bodies that are underfunded (the BC SPCA, for example, receives no government funding and must fundraise for all of its operating expenses, from sheltering animals to investigating cruelty).

But when a robust file of evidence virtually falls into prosecutors’ laps along with charge recommendations from law enforcement, farmed animals at last have an opportunity for swift justice.

Let’s hope the concerning one-year delay ultimately results in meaningful prosecutorial action against Chilliwack Cattle Sales. Anything less sends the message that illegal animal cruelty is a permitted ingredient in Canada’s food supply.

Categories
News/Blog Uncategorized

Canada’s factory farms exposed

VHS’s contribution to the report concerns Canada’s supply management system and cruelty to caged hens like these ones on an Ontario battery farm.

Report is a must read

The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) has released some alarming findings about the impacts of Canada’s animal agriculture practices.

What’s On Your Plate? The Hidden Costs of Industrial Animal Agriculture exposes the destructive impacts of intensive livestock operations on our health, the environment, animal welfare and rural Canada.

The report also exposes the real costs of our food, including tax-funded subsidies to agriculture, and the costs borne by our health care system for public safety and food borne illnesses. Our “cheap” food isn’t so cheap after all!

VHS co-wrote a section on supply management and Canada’s egg industry (pages 101-105). Read the report here and take action to help address the issue.

Categories
News/Blog Uncategorized

Red meat is bad, but don’t switch to chicken or fish

Eating red meat increases the risk of premature death says a major new report by the Harvard School of Public Health.

This latest study showing that red meat consumption is a health hazard will likely be welcomed by opponents of factory farming. After all, anything that potentially reduces the demand for meat should be good news for animal welfare, the environment and human health. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Like many studies showing the health risks associated with eating red meat, this one recommends switching to alternatives such as fish or poultry – options that are fraught with environmental, sustainability and animal welfare problems.

VHS launched an Eat Less Chicken project specifically to counter suggestions that chicken is a more acceptable choice than red meat. In terms of pound-for-pound animal suffering, eating poultry is among the worst options, as billions of chickens are inhumanely raised and slaughtered to provide relatively small amounts of meat. While poultry production is not as environmentally damaging as, say, intensive pig farming it still has considerable negative impacts.

If substantial numbers of people were to start replacing red meat with fish, it would likely further devastate global fish stocks, three quarters of which are already either fully or over exploited.

The simple truth is that moving toward a plant-based diet is the best way to reduce our impact on the environment, improve our health and prevent animal suffering.

For more information see our Eat Less Meat webpage.