It's past time to return fire

The old conventional wisdom said, “Ignore fringe groups. Their claims are so outlandish, they’ll fall of their own accord.”

For years most executives in the meat and poultry industry heeded that directive and buried their collective heads in the sand, ignoring the usually shrill and ridiculous attacks by groups like PETA and Farm Sanctuary.

Of course, if you’re head is buried in the sand, it leaves your backside high, dry and painfully exposed. It’s an temptingly easy target that fringe groups take delight in attacking with repeated swift kicks.

Continuing to ignore those assaults reminds me of that masochistic old military line, “Thank you sir, may I have another?”

Well, times have changed and the conventional wisdom must be tossed out with extreme prejudice. It’s never been easier for even the most radical fringe groups to spew forth their most bizarre beliefs. And they’ve become so sophisticated at disguising their messages as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth that they can quickly gain the credibility they don’t deserve.

Here’s today’s reality: If an organization issues a statement that you’re a misogynistic, animal abusive monster and repeats it 200 times without a rebuttal from you – you become that monster.

It’s time to return fire. If you or your business is unfairly attacked, immediately retaliate with the truth. Once exposed as preposterous, your attacker will probably go elsewhere. Left alone, he will continue to attack until he wins the war.

So what brought on this diatribe? This recent press release headlined “Farm Sanctuary Releases Report Assessing Farm Animal Welfare Standards in U.S.; Report Released as Government, Agribusiness, Food Retailers, Others Hold Meetings to Develop and Promote 'Humane' Standards”

The first paragraph claims it’s a “thoroughly researched independent report” that’s “being released in conjunction with the USDA's Future Trends in Animal Agriculture Symposium in Washington, D.C.”

Wow (insert dripping sarcasm here)! It must be the truth. After all, it’s an independent report launched in conjunction with an important USDA Symposium. I wonder how closely they worked with the USDA to create this epistle?

Here's the real truth: It isn’t an independent survey. It was bought and paid for by Farm Sanctuary and it is cleverly worded to reflect their prejudices.

More truth: The report has no relationship with the USDA Symposium; it’s just a cleverly borrowed tie-in. “Released in conjunction” means it was released at the same time. Nothing more.

And the most painful truth: This ersatz study will be picked up by a lot of news resources and presented as the sad truth about an industry that doesn’t care enough to respond.

If you see this nonsense presented in your local newspaper or a magazine, you MUST respond. Write a letter clarifying the issue. Follow up with a phone call to the editor. If you don’t know the right name and address, call me or send an email. My email address is crjolley@msn.com. I’ll track down the information for you.

Just so you know what to look for, here’s the release -

Contact: Tricia Ritterbusch of Farm Sanctuary, 607-583-2225 ext. 233, tritterbusch@farmsanctuary.org

WATKINS GLEN, N.Y., Sept. 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Farm Sanctuary, the nation's leading farm animal protection organization, today released "Farm Animal Welfare: An Assessment of Product Labeling Claims, Industry Quality Assurance Guidelines and Third-Party Certification Programs." The first of its kind, this thoroughly researched independent report reviews the current state of farm animal welfare standards in the United States. This report is being released in conjunction with the USDA's Future Trends in Animal Agriculture Symposium in Washington, D.C. which is addressing the current status of farm animal welfare.

In the past five years, more than one dozen farm animal quality assurance schemes have been developed. These include animal industry programs, retail food auditing programs, and third-party organic and humane food certification programs. In addition, developments of government-regulated food labeling and marketing claims relevant to animal welfare are underway.

"The lack of federal and state laws that prevent abusive farming practices has allowed cruel industrialized farms to propagate," said Gene Bauston, president of Farm Sanctuary. "In an attempt to thwart passage of basic humane legislation, agribusiness has produced voluntary quality assurance programs, which erroneously claim to promote animal welfare. These industry schemes are intended to help maintain the status quo, and allow institutionalized animal cruelty to continue."

Factory farms commonly warehouse hundreds or thousands of animals indoors, often in small pens or cages, or outdoors in barren lots. Grazing in open pasture and outdoor access is now the exception rather than the rule. Today, more than 90 percent of egg-laying hens in the U.S. are confined for their entire lives to cages so small the birds can't spread their wings. More than two-thirds of sows in the U.S. are confined for most of their lives to crates that prevent them from even turning around. Dairy cows may be tied indoors inside cement-floored stalls or confined outdoors to barren dirt lots with limited or no access to shade and shelter. Cattle are fattened up in feedlots, virtual cattle cities where up to 100,000 animals are crowded into pens, breathing in noxious fumes and standing or lying in waste. And slaughterhouses have cut costs by increasing production rates, killing at lightning speed up to 400 cows, 1,100 pigs, and 12,000 chickens every hour.

Key Findings in this report include:

Animal industry quality assurance guidelines are inadequate; they codify inhumane farming systems, fail to prevent suffering and distress, and do not allow for the expression of normal animal behavior.

Food labeling and marketing claims, like "grass fed" and "cage free," are generally subjective and not verified. The regulations of the National Organic Program are vague, non- specific as to species, and inconsistently applied.

Organic egg and dairy producers have been allowed to use loopholes to deprive animals of the opportunity to graze and forage in a natural setting.

Various humane certification and labeling programs have been developed in response to growing popular concerns about the cruel treatment of farm animals, but their impact at improving animal welfare has been minimal. While some humane certification standards may disallow certain cruel practices, significant deficiencies exist in these as well.

Specialty markets, like organic and "humane" foods, may help lessen animal suffering, but they affect only a very small percent, about 2 percent, of the billions of animals exploited for food each year in the U.S, and even animal derived foods produced according to a "humane" program may not meet consumer expectations.

Bauston added, "We have an ethical obligation to treat all animals, including those raised for food, with respect. This research report cuts through the hype of industry quality assurance programs and assesses what these programs really offer animals. Unfortunately, agribusiness' has failed to provide cows, pigs, chickens and other animals with basic humane consideration."

Industry quality assurance and audit programs assessed in this report include: American Meat Institute, American Sheep Industry Association, American Veal Association, Food Marketing Institute- National Council of Chain Restaurants, Milk and Dairy Beef Quality Assurance Center, National Cattlemen's Beef Association, National Chicken Council, National Pork Board, National Turkey Federation and United Egg Producers (Animal Care Certified Program). In addition, the following third-party certification programs are assessed: American Humane Association (Free Farmed Program), Animal Welfare Institute, Humane Farm Animal Care (Certified Humane Program) and the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (National Organic Program). Product labeling and market claims programs from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service and the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service for livestock, meat, poultry and eggs are assessed are also covered in this report.

A 20-page summary booklet, The Facts About Farm Animal Welfare Standards as well as the full 105-page research report Farm Animal Welfare: An Assessment of Product Labeling Claims, Industry Quality Assurance Guidelines and Third-Party Certification Programs is available to the media by contacting media@farmsanctuary.org or by calling 607-583-2225 ext. 233. The summary booklet and report is made available to the public by contacting info@farmsanctuary.org or by calling 607-583-2225. Additional information can be found at http://www.factoryfarming.com.
About Farm Sanctuary

Farm Sanctuary is the nation's leading farm animal protection organization. Since incorporating in 1986, Farm Sanctuary has worked to expose and stop cruel practices of the "food animal" industry through research and investigations, legal and institutional reforms, public awareness projects, youth education, and direct rescue and refuge efforts. Farm Sanctuary shelters in Watkins Glen, NY and Orland, CA provide lifelong care for hundreds of rescued animals, who have become ambassadors for farm animals everywhere by educating visitors about the realities of factory farming. Additional information can be found at http://www.farmsanctuary.org or by calling 607-583-2225.

The evolution of words

Ag-related terminology takes on new meaning with everyday use.
Posted September 01, 2005
By Laura Schafer
Food Systems Insider

England’s potato farmers are angry. They believe that unfair parallels have been made between their product and unhealthy behavior. What has the British Potato Council in an uproar? The phrase “couch potato.” This idiom started as American slang meaning “a person who spends leisure time passively or idly sitting around, especially watching television or video tapes.” The council believes that this unhealthy definition is giving the vegetable a bad image. But even after protests, editors of the Oxford English Dictionary insist that words are rarely taken out of the dictionary, and this is no exception.

Is this an isolated case? Or have words really taken on lives of their own?

Sustainable agriculture
Sustainable agriculture is an approach to farming that allows resources to be renewed and reused over time. Sustainable equals long term, and this is what all producers want their operations to be.

However, the organic movement’s use of this word has made it almost synonymous with organic agriculture. The Organic Consumers Association declares it “promotes organic food and sustainable agriculture.” Sustainable farming does suggest limiting inputs, but as the organic segment grows and uses the word “sustainable,” it has morphed into meaning using only natural inputs, if any.

An article in The Herald Sun of Durham, N.C., quoted a farm-festival organizer: “We’d focus on how things used to be done, and where things are going in the future in relation to sustainable agriculture, i.e. organic, fresh, locally produced.”

Even more extreme is an editorial from the San Francisco Chronicle arguing against animal agriculture. The writer mentions that “only a plant-based diet is truly sustainable.”

“‘Sustainable’ can be confusing to the public,” says Bill Allen, a professor of agricultural journalism at the University of Missouri who was in the news business for 28 years. “It’s used too loosely. I wonder how many members of the general public know what that means.”

Factory farm
“I think the term ‘factory farm’ might have been originally coined as a pejorative by animal activists,” says Chuck Jolley, who has been involved in the meat and poultry industry for 30 years and is president of Jolley and Associates. What activists call “factory farms” are known more formally as concentrated-animal-feeding operations. These operations use large-scale methods of raising animals for human consumption.

Allen points out that the term “factory farm” leaves a cold and industrial feeling and makes farming feel less personal. “Factory farm” is often used by activists who may describe a CAFO’s method of operations as cruel, inhumane and environmentally irresponsible.

One activist Web site (www.factoryfarming.com) provides its definition: “Factory farming is an attitude that regards animals and the natural world merely as commodities to be exploited for profit. In animal agriculture, this attitude has led to institutionalized animal cruelty, massive environmental destruction and resource depletion, and animal and human health risks.”

“This is a definition loaded with emotional terms and hyperbole,” Allen says. “For example, the word ‘attitude’ is meant to imply ‘meanness.’ ‘Merely’ implies ‘careless inhumanity,’ as does ‘exploited.’ ‘Cruelty’ is an obviously emotional term. ‘Massive’ is a hype term. ‘Health risks’ is a phrase that can be read as scientific (quantitative) or a scare term, depending on the context. Well, given the sentences and phrases that precede the phrase, it reads like a scare term here.”

Family farm
The USDA defines a family farm as one that produces enough agricultural products to be recognized by the community as a farm and not just a rural residence, produces enough income (including off-farm employment) to cover farm expenses, is managed by the operator and involves a substantial amount of work done by family members.

The family farm is something held by many as a sentimental ideal. “The general press uses this term to evoke a Norman Rockwellian image of lush pastures and contented cows,” Jolley says.

An editorial from The New York Times discusses how the image of the family farm can be used politically: “Politics tends to exploit easily romanticized icons, and the family farm has not been spared. … It has been hijacked as an excuse to betray America’s free-market values and hurt developing countries.”The Web site www.sustainabletable.org uses the ideology of the family farm in efforts against corporate agriculture: “Perhaps most importantly, family farmers serve as responsible stewards of the land. Unlike industrial agriculture operations, which contaminate communities with chemical pesticides, noxious fumes and excess manure, small family farmers strive to preserve the surrounding environment for future generations.”

“The family farm is like apple pie, it’s hard to argue against,” Allen says. “The family farm is what made America great.”

Local food
Local food is a branch of sustainability. It is the idea of buying and living off local products when possible. This can mean shopping at local farmers’ markets or buying from a roadside stand.
Buying locally is a growing consumer trend. In August, a group of women declared themselves “locavores” and ate only what could be produced within 100 miles of their homes in San Francisco. Local products are often thought of by consumers to be safer and grown using fewer chemicals and better animal-treatment practices.

“It’s supposed to mean fresh, just-harvested-an-hour-ago and rushed to the farmers’ market located less than 20 miles away,” Jolley says, “probably by the freckle-faced kids running the family farm.”

An article in the Indiana Star Press discussed the possibility of a college campus offering local foods in its cafeterias. The banquet and catering sales and service supervisor was quoted as saying, “And because the food would be local, there’s no doubt it would be better ... It’d taste like real food.”

“In reality, a close definition is ‘picked this week somewhere in the general vicinity,’” Jolley says. “It could be the same kind of wrapped-in-plastic tomato you get year-round at the supermarket.”

Organic and natural
Some consumers see organic as meaning “better for you,” and they are willing to pay higher prices for organic foods. A piece from The Palm Beach Post quotes the executive director of Florida Certified Organic Growers and Consumers Inc. as saying, “For most consumers, buying organic foods -- those produced without the use of synthetic chemicals, antibiotics and hormones -- is all about health.”

“Consumers think of it as free of risk,” Allen says, “whereas it could be just smaller concentrations of chemicals. The implication of ‘organic’ is healthier and more natural.”
Natural products are those that contain no artificial ingredients, coloring ingredients or chemical preservatives, and are minimally processed. Natural meats are often considered to be grass-fed and use no growth hormones.

“Both (organic and natural) have been so overused and interchangeable in the public eye that they have little real value other than to evoke a marketing image of something more wholesome than what can be produced on a factory farm,” Jolley says.

These examples aren’t as extreme as England’s “couch potato” conundrum, but the misuse and misinterpretation of these words is a battle that those in the agriculture industry must face. It’s important to realize how these words are being used by consumers, activists and the media, and to know how to clarify their true, original meanings.

© 2005 Vance Publishing Corp.

KFC bets on a chicken dip

KFC (AKA Kitchen Fresh Chicken and Kentucky Fried Chicken) has decided to fire back at those burger chain wolves trying to steal from their hen house. They want to do it with pre-dipped chicken pieces and parts using a delivery system they’ve coined the “Flavor Station.” The pre-dipping takes place just before the product is handed to the customer (sorry, the “guest” – gotta get with the politically correct terminology) who chooses wings with or without bones, popcorn chicken or strips and then requests the meal be dipped in a honey barbecue, fiery buffalo or sweet and spicy sauce. It’s a full immersion process, by the way, so don’t expect to nibble on these tasty little nuggets of goodness while driving down the interstate. This is not a product designed for dashboard dining. Unless you like wearing your food on your pants.

Scott Bergren, KFC’s Chief Marketing Officer, said that Flavor Station gives their lunch items an edge over the new poultry products sold by the burger boys down the street. McD’s, Wendy’s and Burger King all sell strips of chicken with dipping sauce on the side. KFC evidently believes the idea that customers should do the “dipping” themselves is asking way too much of the limited mental abilities of some of their late night drive-through customers.

Flavor Station is supposed to appeal to the core of the fast food business - men between the ages of 18 and 34. It was the target for their 99 cent Snacker which was wildly successful, probably because it could be eaten with one hand while driving down the interstate. The price didn’t hurt, either. Bergren thinks Flavor Station has greater potential, though, because it "brings product news and flavor to multiple favorite items on the menu. And it allows us to take people McDonald's and Wendy's have converted and provide them with a unique way of eating."

I don’t think so. They need to count out the lunch time drive-through business. Wearing the remnants of one’s lunch on the job all afternoon is still not a good idea no matter what color your collar or how casual the Friday dress code. The crowd that still comes in and bellies up to the order counter might be prospects for a dripping mess of a lunch time treat.

Hardee's builds a better burger

Let’s be honest – most fast food burgers rely on the fixin’s to deliver some taste bud payoff. The “special sauce” is the real hero. I mean you can measure the thickness of the meat patty at between an eighth and a quarter of an inch – thinner than the sliced tomato and only slightly thicker than the lettuce. If these things had to be labeled, government regulations would mandate something like bread product with lettuce, tomato, pickles and. . .meat. I think the realization that the “meat of the matter” really is the meat drove a few QSR’s to offer doubles and triples.

Hardee’s, on the other hand, decided to get thick. Thickburgers, to be precise. It was a decision made in 2003 that was assailed by food Nazis as irresponsible and the culinary equivalent of porn. Customers (or guests as Hardee’s management likes to call them) elbowed such nonsense aside and grabbed the new, improved burgers by the truck load. They created a sales improvement that was measured in double digits.

Eric Peterson, R&D Director at Hardee’s knew the burger chain was in trouble several years ago. “Perception of our burgers had slipped so far, people were as likely to think of us for our (Roy Rogers) fried chicken as they were for our burgers.”

Realizing that Hardee’s was still a burger chain, not KFC, he made some serious menu changes. Basically, he tossed out the existing menu and started from scratch.

Peterson changed everything from the bun to the bacon. The beef was the biggest improvement, though, as he demanded the non-descript quarter-pounder that was going down the drain for them be left to some other well-known competitor. Hardee’s would bulk up to premium Angus third-pound and half-pound patties. The phrase “low fat,” which has become code for “no taste” for many people, was banished from the menu and their advertising.

What Peterson and the rest of the foodies at Hardee’s were doing was catering to their core audience – single, male and hungry. Let the tree-hugging lettuce eaters go elsewhere. This was a place for manly men; the sports-loving, beer-drinking, burger-chomping hard hats that do blue collar labor and are damn proud of it.

Hardee’s wasn’t worried about the veto vote – the ability of a dieting woman to nix a trip to their restaurant because there wasn’t a salad with lo cal dressing on the menu or a child to demand someplace with a kids meal. They understood market segmentation better than most and grabbed an under-served chunk of the fast food business with very little competition. It was a highly bankable decision.