Farm industry challenges animal welfare labelling survey

Thursday, December 5, 2013

Caring properly for animals is clearly important, say industry players. Labelling food about it, well not so much

by JOE CALLAHAN

Caring properly for animals is important, but labelling food about how they were raised is not.

That's the reaction from industry analysts, farm organizations and farmers to a study released this fall suggesting that Canadians are unhappy with current food labelling practices as they relates to animals and how they have been raised.

The online survey, conducted by Environics Research Group in September and commissioned by the Humane Society International/Canada, asked three questions of 1,007 adult Canadians. Two questions asked respondents about the housing of hens. The third question asked respondents whether they wanted "clearer labels on meat, dairy and egg products indicating how animals are treated." Eighty-two per cent of respondents replied yes.

Veteran pork producer Doug Farrell says that he is in favour of responsible animal management practices, but that policy development requires extensive consultation with all the stakeholders. Farrell uses the example of the update of a Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs that is currently being spearheaded by the National Farm Animal Care Council. The code, expected to be released by the end of this year or in 2014, replaces one published in 1993.

"You can't be in this business if you're abusing your animals," says Farrell. "What bothers me is it (concern from Humane Society International/Canada) comes from people who don't have a clue about pig behaviour."

Al Mussell, senior research Associate at the George Morris Centre, an independent, not-for-profit economic research institute focused exclusively on the agriculture and food industry, calls the study "a nested red herring." He says the survey's questions "have been cleverly concocted with a particular outcome in mind."

Gerald Poechman, who has been selling certified organically grown eggs from free-range chickens for roughly 20 years and was Ontario's first commercial certified organic egg producer in 1994, is equally direct. Poechman says consumers should be more concerned about the Canadian content of the food they purchase and its source rather than what food labels indicate about how the animals have been raised.

"People should not be buying stuff off store shelves assuming that 'Canada #1' means that it's a Canadian product. (It's) very misleading," says Poechman. "That is a much, much bigger issue for agriculture, for local food and for Canadian agriculture as a whole than this whole notion of somebody passing judgment on whether cages or crates are right or wrong."

LeaAnne Wuermli, communications manager for the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, says that, while she wouldn't comment directly on the Humane Society's study, it's in the beef farmers' best interest for their bottom line to make sure that their animals are healthy, safe and well managed.

"Our industry adheres to science-based guidelines and standards for cattle production practices, which we recently demonstrated when we updated our Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Beef Cattle," says Wuermli, referring to the September release of the new National Farm Animal Care Council code developed by industry participants, including animal welfare representatives. The previous code was published in 1991.

"It serves as our national understanding for animal care requirements. We want Canadians to understand that our farmers work hard every day . . . and our industry is proud that Canadians have the choice when it comes to beef purchases," says Wuermli. "We hope that consumers use all the resources to make sure that they get real value" from them.

Canadian Food Inspection Agency spokesperson Guy Gravelle indicated in an email that labelling related to the care of animals is not high on the agency's agenda in connection with its food labelling modernization initiative.

"There are no specific regulations on using claims on food that describe how animals were raised," says Gravelle in the email. "It is voluntary for producers of animal products to label their products with claims about the treatment of the animal which produced that product."

The Humane Society acknowledges that Internet panels are "non-probability samples," which means "a margin of sampling error cannot be cited." In a news release announcing the survey, it notes that measures were taken "to ensure the final sample was representative of the Canadian population." BF