The Case for Humanely Raised Organic Meat

PREFACE

Quick Summary Findings: Humanely Raised Organic Meat is healthier and more environmentally sustainable than meat from factory farms.

Author Note: This is the second in my series supporting a Sustainable Organic lifestyle. To read the first article about Organic Produce, click here: The Case for Organic Produce

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, there has been a growing concern about the impact of factory farming and the inhumane treatment of animals. Factory farming, also known as industrial agriculture, has transformed the way we produce food. While it has increased efficiency and lowered costs, the hidden costs associated with this approach are grave and deserve our attention. In this post, we will delve into the harms of factory farming and shed light on the inhumane treatment animals endure within these systems. We’ll also discuss how this impacts the quality of our food and reflects on sustainability. This is important to help us to decide what to eat.

Previously I thought that organic meat meant the animals were humanely raised. As I have learned, however, our government does not provide enough guidance regarding “humane treatment”, leading to variances in the industry and confusion among consumers.

In this article we address animals raised for meat. Future articles in this series will discuss dairy cows and chickens. Education about these matters is important to begin to take control of our choices.

ORGANIC LIVESTOCK DEFINED

The United States Department of Agriculture sets the standards for products sold to consumers. To obtain the USDA Certified Organic seal with respect to livestock (a/k/s farm animals), a farmer must comply with rigorous guidelines. Livestock must be:

The above standards are similar to other organic products. If you want to read more about the allowed substances, jump over to the first article in this series. Essentially, organic farming does not use toxic pesticides and herbicides. The organic label helps people who are trying to limit their exposure to toxins identify safer food.

Additionally, farmers raising livestock must follow standards that accommodate the health of the animals without the use of antibiotics, and they must allow the animals to be raised according to their natural behaviors. This means following these guidelines:

• Generally, managed organically from the last third of gestation (mammals) or second day of life (poultry);
• Allowed year-round access to the outdoors except under specific conditions (e.g., inclement weather);
• Raised on certified organic land meeting all organic crop production standards;
• Raised per animal health and welfare standards;
• Fed 100 percent certified organic feed, except for trace minerals and vitamins used to meet the animal’s nutritional requirements;
• Managed without antibiotics, added growth hormones, mammalian or avian byproducts,
  or other prohibited feed ingredients (e.g., urea, manure, or arsenic compounds).

https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/Organic%20Livestock%20Requirements.pdf.

The Problem Surrounding the Organic Livestock Standards

In theory, organic animal products seem to equal humanely raised animals. That’s what I thought when I glanced at the above standards too. But then I had questions, such as “what is year-round access?” and “what are the animal health and welfare standards to be followed?”. Delving into these standards reveals that they are unfortunately built on a foundation of sand when it comes to treatment of the animals.

The USDA offers more insight on these standards in its 112 page companion guide to help farmers who desire to apply for the organic label. In reading through the guide it becomes clear that organic certification primarily focuses on the farming methods and inputs used, rather than the specific treatment of animals. https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/GuideForOrganicLivestockProducers.pdf. Thus, what seem to be “standards” put forth by the USDA regarding humane treatment are puzzlingly rendered meaningless.

For instance, the USDA explains that the standard regarding “year-round access to the outdoors” in practice means “120 days during the grazing season”. Their objective is that the animals be allowed direct access to sunlight, fresh air and room for exercise in order to exhibit natural behaviors. However, year-round access does not equate to “daily” access. Rather, an animal’s reality may be only 8 month of daily sunshine and exercise, which would be enough under the organic label.

Moreover, while organic standards aim to promote higher welfare, the USDA refuses to elaborate on what animal welfare protocols organic farmers should follow. In the guide the USDA specifically declines to define “allowable physical alterations”, a big part of animal welfare considerations. Instead, they simply note that “such alterations are allowed as needed”. What does “as needed” mean? That too is left up to the farmer.

Physical alterations are historically performed without pain relief. These procedures (chicken debeaking, cattle dehorning, tail docking) are routinely done on factory farms. If the USDA fails to provide guidance and leaves this major protocol up to the whim of farmers, resulting in wide-spread variations, there is no uniformity in organic standards. This defeats the purpose of government regulations and results in a lack of faith and consistency in the organic label.

Standards set by the federal government should have a solid foundation. While there is plenty of information concerning the methods of organic farming, the USDA has taken a backseat to defining humane livestock treatment. The only certainty with the organic label is that consumers will be choosing meat products free from pesticides, growth hormones and routine antibiotics.

HUMANE LIVESTOCK DEFINED

The definition of “humane treatment” of livestock is debatable. It varies by country, culture, geography and society. As I have learned, it also varies according to your industry experience. As shown, not even our government will venture into what constitutes humane treatment. This lends to many different interpretations on the matter that are often created by those with vested interests.

Obviously, people opposed to eating animal meat argue there is no “humane treatment” of livestock. Afterall, the animal will be slaughtered for meat, whether that animal is raised in a pasture setting or a factory farm. Animal welfare is seemingly a very contentious subject.

While the pro-vegan argument has merit, the concept of the humane treatment of animals raised for meat is just as worthy. Since only 1.1% of the world’s population is vegan, (http://www.worldanimalfoundation.org), and over 10 billion farm animals are raised and killed each year in the U.S. alone, discussions regarding how those animals are raised are dire. Moreover, most people, including those that raise animals for meat, are on board with the humane livestock handling.

Dr. Temple Grandin. notable expert on humane livestock handling, has stated, “I think we can eat meat ethically, but we’ve got to give animals a good life.” Dr. Grandin is responsible for wide changes in the industry with her inventions of curved loading chutes and center-track restrainer systems in modern day slaughterhouses.

All animals, no matter the type of animal, feel pain and fear. Not only are there a plethora of studies to support this, but as enlightened humans we must acknowledge this from our own experiences with animals. Whether it is the domesticated animals that live in our homes, or the wild ones we observe in our back yards, most people understand that all animals are capable of suffering.

With this in mind, advocates for the humane treatment of livestock argue that treating livestock animals humanely means to “work with animals to minimize their distress during human interactions.” But just as the definition of “humane treatment” is subjective, so is how to achieve it.

What is a good life for an animal, particularly, one slated for slaughter? Notably, distress for such an animal will never be abated. The animal begins life in captivity and will eventually end it a short time later on a slaughter line.

As a person who thinks more about food, it is important to do this through objective eyes. No matter what side of the fence your beliefs fall on, the only way to be objective is to evaluate a situation based on facts, not personal opinions. To accomplish this, you start with the animal, not your personal opinion of what the animal’s life “should” be.

In fact, when designing her inventions at cattle processing plants, Dr. Grandin laid down in muddy corrals, crawled through metal chutes and stood in stun boxes where slaughterhouse workers delivered fatal blows. She has spent decades looking through the eyes of cows. It’s certainly rare to find such objectivity in a world filled with people quick to express their personal opinions as gold standards. But it’s exactly what’s needed for meaningful changes of the type that people like Dr. Grandin have achieved.

While most of us don’t have the opportunity to look through a farm animal’s eyes, or even understand what such animal sees or feels, I think there is another way to achieve objectivity: knowledge and compassion.

Humane Farm Animal Care

In 2003 Adele Douglass, the founder of Humane Farm Animal Care, created the Certified Humane Label. Douglass founded the organization because as someone who worked in Congress, she didn’t believe that legislation was the answer. “I know how it works. Once it’s law, how can it change? Besides, there’s not enough enforcement. . .” http://certifiedhumane.org.

Douglass worked with leading veterinarians, scientists and producers to develop the Animal Care Standards for humane animal farming. Her non-profit organization requires farmers and processors to comply with precise, objective standards for the humane treatment of farm animals. The Certified Humane seal ensures consumers that the animal ingredients are from animals which were raised and handled in compliance with HFAC’s animal welfare standards from birth through slaughter, and further processed in compliance with HFAC’s strict traceability requirements.

So exactly what are HFAC’s animal welfare standards? They are an extensive collection of protocols developed by a committee of experts around the world and based on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals guidelines. You can read the guidelines for each farm animal category on the Certified Humane website. The crux of the guidelines is as follows:

“Animal welfare is improved when livestock managers adhere to the following:
 Access to wholesome and nutritious feed;
 Appropriate environmental design;
 Caring and responsible planning and management;
 Skilled, knowledgeable, and conscientious animal care;
 Considerate handling, transport, and slaughter”. http://certifiedhumane.org

Interestingly, there are a number of factory farms that actually meet the above standards.

Global Animal Partnership

There are some other organizations that also set standards for the humane treatment of animals. The Global Animal Partnership was started by John Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods. His concept was to institute change in farm animal welfare by setting standards for farmers. Since 2008 they have been setting standards and creating change for cattle, chickens, pigs, and even farmed salmon. http://www.globalanimalpartnership.org.

The GAP uses a tiered labeling system that indicates to consumers how the animals are raised:

• 1 Base Certification
• 2 Enriched Environment
• 3 Outdoor Access
• 4 Pasture Raised
• 5 Animal Centered
• 5+ Entire Life on Farm

GAP’s Animal Welfare Standards are set by a team of experts with high credentials and experience. They define Animal Welfare as follows:

• Raising animals so they are healthy and productive with good quality feed, water and shelter, and free of disease, illness and injury;
• Raising animals in environments that allow them to express their natural behaviors effectively – both indoors and outdoors;
• Raising animals in environments that provide them the ability to be inquisitive and playful and minimize restlessness, frustration, stress and pain, as much as possible. https://globalanimalpartnership.org/program/.

The GAP standards consider the animals access to their natural environment and behavior, something not mentioned in the Humane Farm Animal Care standards.

A Greener World

The gold standard for farm animal welfare is the label administered by A Greener World. The Animal Welfare Approved label is touted by Consumer Reports as the “only highly meaningful” food label for farm animal welfare, outdoor access and sustainability. AGW is a nonprofit organization that sets standards to guarantee that farm animals are raised on pasture or range for their entire lives (while the others set standards for number of days). They allege to have the most rigorous standards for farm animal welfare and environmental sustainability in the world.

“The basic premise of all our standards is that animals must be able to behave naturally and be in a state of physical and psychological well-being, and that the way we raise our animals, the nutritional quality of the food they produce, and the impact of the farming system on the environment are all intrinsically linked.” http://agreenerworld.org

The AGW standards were developed in collaboration with scientists, veterinarians, researchers and farmers across the globe to maximize practicable, high-welfare farm management, and are publicly available online. https://agreenerworld.org/certifications/animal-welfare-approved. Their labels include the following:

• Certified Animal Welfare Approved by AWG
• Certified Grass-fed by AWG
• Certified Non-GMO by AWG
• Certified Organic by AWG
• Certified Regenerative by AWG
• Processors and Distributors by AWG

For instance, the Certified Animal Welfare label:

• requires that animals be raised on pasture or range
• Awards approval only to independent farmers
• Incorporates the most comprehensive standards for high welfare farming

The requirement of pasture-raised or free-range makes AGW unique. Also unique to AWG is audited slaughter. While the other organizations set standards for humane slaughter, typically they rely on other organizations to conduct the audits. Audited slaughters affirm a commitment to animal welfare and promulgated standards. Organizations that set standards should go to great lengths to see those standards are carried out.

FACTORY FARMING DEFINED

Factory Farming is the well-known term for the modern day Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO’s) that raise livestock (farm animals) for commercial meat purposes. As with all commercial operations, its goal is to maximize profits using minimal resources. It does this by raising a large amount of animals in a small amount of space; feeding those animals cheaply; and getting them to slaughter as quickly as possible.

Factory Farms that raise animals for meat are notoriously considered inhumane by most standards. Often the subject of undercover videos shot by animal activists, these farms historically employ people that bully and abuse animals. However, let’s objectively examine the problems inherent in these type of operations.

Overcrowding and Confinement

One of the major issues with factory farming is the severe overcrowding and confinement of animals. Cattle, pigs, chickens, and other livestock are often crammed into small and unsanitary spaces, with little room to move or engage in natural behaviors. Typical factory farms raise thousands upon thousands of animals at a time at just one location.

• Chickens are crammed four to a battery cage. They are unable to even spread their wings and peck at each other incessantly. To prevent pecking, they are often painfully debeaked by burning or searing off part of their beak. Chickens raised for meat are fed growth hormones and their bodies quickly outgrow their organs, leading to a painful existence. They are kept in a lighted room 24 hours a day to encourage growth, and they never get restful sleep in darkness.
• Pregnant sows are confined to gestation crates, metal enclosures so small they cannot move or turn around. They suffer from health issues related to immobility. Growing pigs get concrete floors as their prison. They never get to feel the earth under their feet or root for bugs. Pigs have curious natures and this forced inhumane prison causes them to bite each other and suffer disease. They are subjected to painful tail docking and teeth clipping in their first weeks of life to prevent biting. These procedures are done without pain relief and often result in infection.
• Cattle, sheep and goats are raised indoors on concrete or dirt surfaces in small individual stalls, never feeling the sky overheard or the grass beneath their feet. They suffer painful dehorning via chemicals or hot iron. Despite the pain involved in this procedure, they are offered no pain relief, and their wounds often become infected.

The forced confinement and unnatural way of life of these animals leads to chronic stress, increased susceptibility to disease, and physical discomfort. Factory farming in this manner is the epitome of animal suffering.

Routine Use of Antibiotics

Factory farming relies heavily on the routine use of antibiotics to prevent the outbreak of diseases in overcrowded and unhygienic conditions, as well as the painful procedures to which the animals are subjected. Since the 1940’s these farms have been adding antibiotics to animal feed to also encourage growth.

The overuse of antibiotics contributes to the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and the creation of “super-bugs” that pose a serious threat to human health. Furthermore, the consumption of meat from animals treated with antibiotics can also have other adverse effects on human health. Research demonstrates that antibiotic residue in meat causes allergies, as well as a negative impact on the liver, kidneys, immune system and even the reproductive system.

Experts allege that products containing antibiotic residue do not enter the food chain. The USDA monitors for antibiotic residue in food via the National Residue Program. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/node/1982. Also, the FDA sets specific regulations for usage.

Despite these regulations, however, the use of antibiotics is a concern because over time the antibiotics become ineffective to treat disease. Animals carrying bacteria resistant to the antibiotics can cause disease to humans who eat the meat. Even if you don’t eat meat you can incur illness from crops sprayed with diseased animal manure. Such bacteria is common in supermarket meat. Drug resistant bacteria can be dangerous to humans, causing illness and death, as well as stay in the human gut for a long time causing a host of other problems.

Environmental Impact

Factory farming has a significant environmental impact. The immense concentration of animals in confined spaces results in large quantities of waste, which is often disposed of in unsustainable ways. In fact, the amount of waste each year is about 300 tons. This waste releases harmful pollutants, including ammonia and methane, into the air and water, contributing to air and water pollution, as well as climate change.

The above is a photograph of a typical factory farm lay-out. The massive farms are comprised of steel buildings that hold the animals. The lagoons hold animal waste. In China they have created skyscraper factory farms as well.

Animal Welfare and Ethical Concerns

The inhumane treatment of animals in factory farms raises ethical concerns. Animals are treated as commodities rather than sentient beings capable of suffering and experiencing pain. Bullies employed at these establishments often yank and throw the animals. The painful practices of debeaking, tail docking and dehorning performed due to overcrowding (noted above) are done without proper pain relief. Additionally, animals often suffer from neglect, stress-induced behaviors, and are subjected to unnatural growth practices to maximize production. All of these things foster questions concerning these animals unethical treatment at the hands of humans.

ALTERNATIVES TO FACTORY FARMING

There are alternatives to factory farming that prioritize animal welfare and sustainable practices. Organic farming (without pesticides) that idealizes humane treatment, pasture-based systems that prioritize natural behaviors, and regenerative agriculture that focus on rotation and soil health, offer more humane and environmentally friendly methods of producing food. These systems allow animals access to the outdoors so they can engage in natural species behaviors, including rooting for food, sleeping under the sky, breathing fresh air, exercising and socializing. Moreover, such animals are raised without the routine use of antibiotics and growth hormones. In most cases of this type of farming, animals are fed a better diet of non-GMO and/or organic feed, supplemented with food more akin to their natural diets.

CONCLUSION: HUMANELY RAISED ORGANIC MEAT IS BETTER

Satisfying the Ethical Dilemma

I was raised in a small farming community. My grandparents were farmers and raised cattle. I recall the sight of their cows grazing in the pasture on spring days when the grasses were shamrock green as a result of the rain that always blessed us. As I drove to their farm I took notice of similar views from neighboring farms. Everyday normal for us was cows out in the pasture, lounging under trees or wading gently in the creek. If you looked out into the horizon you could see the cows that had wandered off from the herd. Possibly in search of sweeter grass or maybe just some alone time.

That sight brought with it a sense of rightness. I suppose from the cow’s perspective it felt the way a free person feels. They were uninhibited to graze, socialize and exercise at will in nature. They possibly never even realized a fence somewhere restricted their access to the rest of the world. These animals that coexisted with us may not have technically been free, but from their perspective, they were.

I now know that I was raised in a special place and time, never having to think about the fact that the meat I was eating was unhealthy or raised inhumanely. What was normal then is certainly not the norm now. Now, the norm is to take away a farm animal’s sweet feeling of freedom in nature and train them to be “content” with steel and sand. Animals raised in factory farms don’t know the pasture as home, rather it’s a stall in a ventilated structure. As if an open window could mimic the sun and the moon, or straw if ever provided could replicate the earth and grass. It’s also the norm to take these animals away from their natural behaviors and replace them with new ones. Saying that cows are “excited” to line up just doesn’t provide the same feeling of happiness as when one sees a cow slowly walking across a creek in search of that afternoon’s adventure. Do they really enjoy the TMR (total mix ration) fed to them, or do they eat it merely because they are hungry?

In asking others what they think about humane livestock treatment, the consensus is the pasture raised model too. Therefore, people by definition seem to equate inhumane treatment with confinement similar to factory farms.

The other side argues that that they are trying to create food in abundance to feed the people of the world. But is this true?

Also, is it necessary to treat animals inhumanely to feed the world?

Most of the factory farms in existence aren’t in existence to meet a social purpose. It’s not about feeding the world or growing food in abundance. It’s about money. The grass is greener on one side of the fence, and it’s the side the animals are not on.

It is not necessary to treat animals inhumanely to create food in abundance.

Prioritizing Health

Axiomatically, the meat from factory farmed animals is as unhealthy as their treatment unjust. For who could think that animals grown in such a fashion could render food to nourish a body? In fact, Dr. Grandin’s research showed that animals stressed right before slaughter resulted in tougher meat products due to the hormones released by the animal.

I grew up next to the Rock River and we often fished in its waters. I actually came to dislike eating fish because the fish tasted like the river, and I didn’t like that taste. Just as the fish tasted like the river, I suppose meat from animals raised on factory farms taste like their environment as well.

When we eat meat from factory farmed animals, we don’t eat animals that feed on fresh spring grasses or apples that fall from pasture trees. Instead, we eat farm animals that are fed animal by-products and antibiotics. These animals wouldn’t normally eat TMR from GMO corn and soy. They prefer pasture grasses, hay and alfalfa. But a business set up with the goal of making as much money as possible wants to control expenses. For factory farms, cheap feed is they way.

When we consume animal products from factory farms we eat the stress, fear and unhealthy existence of those animals.

We Can Start With One

These factory farms are big billion dollar businesses and often it’s hard to think that one person deciding to not eat meat they raise will make a difference. But change has to start somewhere.

As consumers, we have the power to drive that change. By making informed choices and supporting ethical and sustainable farming practices based on compassion, we can encourage a shift away from factory farming. Opting for meat from certified organic or pasture-raised sources, then combining that with farms committed to real animal welfare models, is the way to begin. Also, we can begin embracing good plant-based alternatives to reduce the demand for products derived from inhumane farming practices.

This doesn’t mean you have to give up eating meat, just that you become more aware of your purchases.

Factory farming and the inhumane treatment of animals have far-reaching consequences for animals, the environment, and human health. By raising awareness about these issues, supporting ethical alternatives, and making conscious consumer choices, we can work towards a more compassionate and sustainable food system. It is essential that we recognize the hidden costs of factory farming and strive for a future where the well-being of animals is prioritized and respected.