Matt Prescott’s full title better explains what he does: Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) Food Policy Director for Farm Animal Protection. He joined HSUS three years ago after a stint as shareholder-campaign manager and head of corporate affairs at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). People in Animal Ag would charitably describe his work experience as proof of a “checkered past.”
Although HSUS had been following a similar shareholder tactic for years, he brought his PETA experience with him to help further their Gestation Crate campaign. He explainedit to the Boston Globe while he was still with PETA. "We purchase small amounts of stock and begin to attend their annual meetings. When we come up with a shareholder resolution, the company has to print up our message and send it to every investor. So everybody reads what we've written -- usually a statement about the graphic ways that the company is abusing animals."
Just so you know what an inventive activist he is - he purchased a plot in the cemetery where Kentucky Fried Chicken founder Col. Harland Sanders is buried. The epitaph on the gravestone reads "KFC Tortures Birds." Cemetery officials say they were tricked by PETA into placing the gravestone near the tomb where Sanders is interred.
So let me say this to people who scorn the initiatives taken by HSUS and might hope the whole thing will go away. They are a smart, dedicated group who are well-organized and certainly well-financed. And like them or not, they are very professional in their pursuit of their goal.
The proof is in their remarkable record of moving their gestation crate initiative forward. It’s been there for a long time, a decade or so, but without much notice until recently. This year, it seems another major corporation is signing on the dotted line every week. Their tactics are working and I have no doubt that they’ll soon mark this up in their ‘win’ column and focus more strongly on the next animal in animal ag. With pigs and chickens well in hand, bovines will certainly be next.
To gain a better understanding of what’s going on at HSUS HQ, I tossed a few questions at Mr. Prescott. Here’s what he said:
A. It certainly has been the case that the list of food retailers with policies to eliminate gestation crates from their supply chains continues growing each week. This week alone, two major food companies joined the list: Subway and Harris Teeter Supermarkets. Subway has more locations than any other restaurant in the world, and Harris Teeter has more than 200 grocery store locations throughout the southeast; both are major pork buyers.
The entire list of companies looks like a “who’s who” of the food industry, including: McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Denny’s, Safeway, Kroger, Costco, Oscar Mayer, Cracker Barrel, Sonic Drive-In, Carl’s Jr., Hardee’s, Baja Fresh, La Salsa Mexican Grill, Sodexo, Heinz, Kmart, Sysco, TrustHouse food services, Campbell Soup and ARAMARK.
And while most of these companies are household names, some of the biggest pork buyers are companies which Americans might not be as familiar with as, say, McDonald’s. Sodexo, ARAMARK and Compass Group – for example – are the nation’s three largest foodservice companies, serving, combined, tens of millions of meals every single day. And Sysco is the world’s largest food distributor, providing pork and other products to restaurants and other dining facilities everywhere.
When combined, these companies’ policies amount to a virtual ban on gestation crates by the food industry, and will necessitate a significant transformation in production.
Q. Would you outline your reasons for calling for an end to gestation crates?
A. The HSUS agrees with experts like Dr. Temple Grandin and countless Americans who know that virtualimmobilization in gestation crates simply cannot provide adequate welfare for animals. Preventing an animal from even turning around – a modest freedom, by all accounts – for nearly her entire life results in perhaps more animal welfare problems than in any other agricultural system. Americans know that locking a 500-pound, social, intelligent animal in a crate where she can barely move an inch 24/7, and then lining hundreds of them up like parked cars, is both inhumane and unnecessary. As Dr. Grandin states, “Confining an animal for most of its life in a box in which it is not able to turn around does not provide a decent life.”
Additionally, we know that the alternative system – group housing – is feasible within a largescale, modern food system, and provides greater opportunities for improved animal welfare. So this is a problem with a viable solution that farmers can implement, to the betterment of animals, and that will do a better job of addressing both the public and food companies’ demands: it’s a real win-win.
Q. I think any business that pledges to get rid of gestation crates does so out of a variety of reasons, personal and professional. Would you recap some of the top reasons that you've seen?
A. The American consumer has changed, and is more interested in the origins of their food than ever before. On this issue particularly, Americans are concerned. A poll by the food industry consulting group, Technomic, found that animal welfare is the third most-important social issue to American restaurant patrons, outranking even the environment. Food retailers and some large pork producers – like Smithfield – recognize that fact and are changing their supply chains and practices to more closely align with people’s values on how animals ought to be treated. And virtually nowhere is the gap between what happens to animals and what consumers want for animals greater seen than with gestation crate confinement.
Additionally, food retailers now need to be able to back up their supply chains with scientific evidence supporting the practices they choose to utilize. On this issue, the science very clearly stacks up in favor of at least allowing animals the ability to turn around, which essentially means a transition to group housing.
Q. The pushback from the pork industry has been severe. How are you responding to their challenges?
A. Some of the largest pork producers are moving toward a future where sows are housed in well-managed groups instead of crates. Smithfield, Hormel, Cargill, Maple Leaf Foods – these are just some of the major producers moving in this direction. And there are countless individual pig farmers who have either never used gestation crates, or are also moving away from them.
What pushback exists seems to be coming from pork industry officials, such as the National Pork Producers Council, which, oddly, has given farmers poor business advice to stay the course with gestation crates, despite the food industries massive and always-growing demand for a shift away from this system.
Unlike the NPPC though, The HSUS knows that farmers are innovative, and that many are indeed willing to move toward a gestation crate-free future. These farmers know that simply because something may have been done one way for decades, it doesn’t mean that it must be done that same way always. As all good businesspeople, they too want to strive for continuous improvement.
Q. Let's talk tactics. From my perspective, it didn't look like your initiative had gained any traction until just a year or two ago and now it seems to have reached a critical mass. How have you managed to move it forward so effectively?
A. This issue has been growing steadily for more than ten years.
The European Union passed legislation to outlaw gestation crates in 2001; that law goes into effect just three months from now. Then in 2002 – a decade ago – Florida became the first U.S. state to adopt a similar. Since that time, eight other states have outlawed gestation crate production.
Also in 2002, Chipotle became the first food retailer to prohibit gestation crates in its pork supply chain. In 2003, Whole Foods followed suit. Four years later, in 2007, Smithfield and Maple Leaf Foods announced that they would eliminate gestation crates from their company-owned operations by 2017. Later that year, Burger King announced that it would begin utilizing some gestation crate-free pork in its products.
The rapid-fire announcement we’re now seeing is simply the result of this decade-old movement toward better animal welfare reaching a tipping point.
Q. You've announced a broader perspective, buying stock in financial services companies that in turn own stock in pork businesses. This is a step 'upstream' so to speak. How will that help achieve your goal (and what is your goal)?
A. We purchased stock in four investment firms this week – JP Morgan, BlackRock, Prudential and Ameriprise – in an effort to work with those firms to drive improvements in the pork industry, in which they invest hundreds of millions of dollars. Each of these firms is a top investor of Tyson Foods and/or Seaboard Farms— two companies which continue defending gestation crates and seemingly refuse to adopt a pathway toward progress. Given the food industry’s demand for change, we view Tyson’s and Seaboard’s inaction as big financial risk to those companies, and ultimately, to their investors, which we plan to highlight with these financial firms.
Comments (11) Leave a comment