IN-Humane Society?

On February 17th, in my blog post about the Hallmark/Westland meat recall, I asked the following question.

"Why did the Humane Society wait until January 30th before releasing the results of their undercover investigation?"

Now I have my answer. Meatingplace.com reported this morning that the Humane Society has admitted having deliberately kept the results of its undercover investigation from the USDA for five weeks in order to "...build public outrage." Wayne Pacelle (the president of the Humane Society) told Janie Gabbett of Meatingplace.com in a telephone interview,

"We specifically did not give this information much in advance to the USDA... If it had been given to USDA in advance and they excused the behavior and shut them down for a half a day or a day … that would have been an unacceptable outcome."

Pacelle went on to dispute the February 29th statement issued by the San Bernardino County's District Attorney that his office encouraged the Humane Society to bring USDA into the picture. But Pacelle indicated that he might contact USDA sooner next time.

Remind me, please. Is the Humane Society's primary objective to promote animal welfare, or to promote itself?

HSUS vs. USDA – A "Downer" Of A Story

With the Hallmark/Westland story getting more complicated every day, I decided it would be worthwhile to generate a time-line.

• December 23, 2003: A USDA lab diagnoses mad cow disease in the brain of a slaughtered "downer" cow. Eventually, the cow is discovered to have been imported from Canada (but that's another story).
• January 12, 2004: In response to the December mad cow discovery, USDA issues an Interim Final Rule that, among other things, bans the slaughter of "non-ambulatory" cattle for human consumption. This Interim rule is destined to remain in effect for 3 1/2 years.
• July 12, 2007: The Humane Society, in praising USDA's announcement of a permanent ban on the slaughter of most "downer" cows, expresses reservations about an amendment that opens a loophole. The Society's press release states:

  "A complete “no downer” policy encourages better treatment of animals on the farm and during transportation to slaughter to avoid preventable injuries."

• July 13, 2007: USDA issues an "Affirmed Final Rule", which leaves in place most of the provisions of the Interim Final Rule, but which amends the total ban on "downer" slaughter. The amendment provides

  "... that non-ambulatory disabled cattle that are offered for slaughter must be condemned but that FSIS inspection personnel will determine on a case-by-case basis the disposition of cattle that become nonambulatory after they have passed antemortem inspection."

• August 31, 2007: The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) issues Notice #56-07, advising its inspection staff of the Affirmed Final Rule and instructing inspectors to meet with meat establishment personnel in order to acquaint them with the provisions of the Affirmed Final Rule.
• October/November, 2007: The Humane Society of the United States carries out an undercover investigation at the Hallmark Meat Company and Westland Meat Company in Chino, CA, and provides the evidence to California law enforcement officials, but not to USDA.
• January 30, 2008: The Humane Society releases a videotape resulting from its investigation of Hallmark/Westland. The tape shows workers using a variety of inhumane actions to prod "downer" cattle back onto their feet.
• January 30, 2008: In response to the videotape, USDA suspends Hallmark/Westland Meat as a supplier to various federal food programs, including the School Lunch Program, and announces that it is opening an immediate investigation in to the company's actions. At the same time, the agency expresses regret that the Humane Society delayed releasing the results of its investigation to USDA.
• February 4, 2008: FSIS withdraws its inspectors from Hallmark/Westland Meat, effectively shutting them down.
• February 6, 2008: The Humane Society praises USDA's shutdown of Hallmark/Westland.
• February 15, 2008: The state of California files animal cruelty charges against two employees of Hallmark/Westland.
• February 17, 2008: USDA announces a 143 million pound recall of meat produced by Hallmark/Westland over a two-year period.
• February 22, 2008:Secretary of Agriculture Schafer criticizes the Humane Society for "sitting on" the incriminating videotape.
• February 27, 2008: The Humane Society initiates a lawsuit against USDA and FSIS.
• February 29, 2008: Contradicting the Humane Society's reasons for not informing USDA of its investigation sooner, District Attorney of San Bernardino County, stated in a telephone interview with Meatingplace.com that his office had not asked the Humane Society to withhold the information from USDA. On the contrary, he is quoted by Meatingplace.com as saying, "We recommended that they speak to USDA."

It seems from my vantage point that there is a lot of "gamesmanship" going on. The money that will be spent on this lawsuit would be put to much better use ensuring the safety of our food supply and promoting the humane treatment of animals.

Would You Like Hormones With Your Hamburger?

Recently, I was reading a couple of research reports on a new E. coli O157:H7 cattle vaccine. The vaccine, which is meant to reduce the incidence of the microbe in feedlot cattle, has not yet been approved for use in the United States and has “investigational” status in Canada.

What caught my eye in these reports was the mention of the use of growth implants. These are pellets which are placed under the skin of the ear and slowly release growth hormones into the animal’s bloodstream. The hormones help the cattle “bulk up” more rapidly - just like athletes on anabolic steroids.

Growth promoting implants have been used by beef producers for more than 30 years. There are hundreds of articles in the scientific and technical literature touting the economic benefits of various growth-promoting hormones. I decided to check whether anyone had thought to investigate whether the use of these hormones might have an impact on the susceptibility of cattle to become colonized with E. coli O157:H7.

As far as I can tell, only one study has addressed this issue. A group of Canadian researchers systematically tested the effects of a growth promoting implant and the use of antibiotic feeding supplements on the presence or absence of E. coli O157 in cattle feces. In this study, some of the cattle (the control group) received neither hormones nor antibiotics; the others received a hormone implant, an antibiotic supplement, or both. At various times during the course of the 165-day experiment, feces from all of the cattle were tested for E. coli O157.

At no time during the entire study was E. coli O157 found in the feces of the “control” group - the cattle that received no hormones and no antibiotics. In contrast, more than half (54%) of the treated animals were positive for E. coli O157 at least once. The authors of the report (published in the Journal of Food Protection in November 2006) concluded that “...the high prevalence of E. coli O157 we observed may have been caused by the administration of growth-promoting agents...”

The authors went on to note that the differences between the treated and untreated cattle were not statistically significant. This was likely due, at least in part, to the small size of their experiment (only 80 animals in total). They went on to suggest that a larger study would allow more conclusive results to emerge. While we’re waiting, anyone for a hamburger?