North
Carolinians should be concerned about SB 648 which is currently in the House
Rules committee.
S.B. 648 would create two new offenses in state law. The
first would prohibit lying or failing to disclose information on a job
application to gain access to a business for the purpose of taking photographs,
videos or audio, or to remove records from a business. The second offense would require someone who
obtains those recordings or records under that guise to give them to police
within 24 hours. Violations for both offenses would be punishable by fines of
$10,000 for a first offense and $50,000 for subsequent offenses.
Supporters of SB648 (some of
whom have ties to NC Farm Bureau, Monsanto, Wendell Murphy, Smithfield PAC, family
members of the Clinton pork and turkey producers Prestage Farms and other
agribusiness companies), as well as the NC Chamber of Commerce, who is driving
the bill, have presented this issue as merely a “transparency in employment
law.” SB648 is not designed to
accomplish transparency in employment, but to prevent transparency of
operations in large agribusiness.
If
SB648 had been law in 2011, the abuse of turkeys at a Hoke county farm that
grew under contract for Butterball would never have been prosecuted. We know from the Butterball case that law
enforcement and government officials cannot always be trusted to properly
investigate a proposed animal cruelty or food safety problem. Dr. Sarah Mason, director of animal health
programs in the NCDA’s Poultry Division at the time of the investigation,
contacted Dr. Eric Gonder, a veterinarian for Butterball, to relay that a Hoke county
farm was being investigated for animal cruelty.
She was later charged and found guilty of obstruction of justice and resisting, delaying or obstructing
officers. This type of “cronyism”
demonstrates the difficulty that can arise in determining who to trust when
turning over evidence of such abuses. It
may well take more than 24 hours to determine who can be trusted to conduct a
professional investigation.
Agriculture
classes that I took in the 1980’s still taught animal husbandry. The physical abuse that took place at the
Hoke county farm raising turkeys for Butterball was an egregious act of poor
animal husbandry. Ag classes now focus
on animal science and livestock production.
I contend that this change has brought a focus in agriculture on
increasing profits, sometimes to the detriment of the animals involved. A farmer employing traditional, sustainable
agricultural practices does not have thousands of poultry or hogs on his
farm. He knows his animals and goes into
the pasture to check on them. Their
welfare is his primary concern. I
contend that CAFO’s (Concentrated Animal Feeding Outfits) have so many animals
that the animals become almost an inanimate object and are seen merely as a
resource that can be replaced. This sort
of attitude can easily lead to animal cruelty.
As
an independent farmer, I am required byUSDA to transport my animals to the
processing facility in a humane manner.
The USDA inspector on site has the authority to turn away from the
facility any animal delivered in a manner that constitutes poor animal welfare. For example, I can be turned away from the
plant for transporting livestock in an un-ventilated livestock trailer when it
is hot or for using an electric shock stick to get my animals to exit the
trailer into the facility. Ultimately,
the welfare of the animal overrides my rights as the owner of the animal. Should this not be the same with any animal
cruelty discovered by an employee, no matter what the circumstances of
employment of that individual? Should
the company’s rights to ownership of that animal give them the right to abuse
the animal without impunity? It doesn’t
for the independent, sustainable farmer.
Why should the rules be any different for agribusinesses such as
Butterball, Smithfield Foods, Prestage, or any other company? It is my contention and that of many
consumers that the humane treatment of animals and consumer food safety are
more important than “transparency in employment.”
Smithfield
Foods, was purchased by China’s largest pork producer, Shuangui International ,
last week. China has a spotty record on
food safety. In recent years, the
country has dealt with numerous food scandals, involving toxic baby formula,
tainted pork products, rice contaminated with heavy metals and pet deaths in
North America from Melamine in the pet food.
The Chinese also have a spotty record on human rights. Now, Shuangui International will control the
operational procedures of Smithfield Foods.
Many American consumers are questioning the long-term ramifications of
this to the welfare of the animals and the safety of the food produced by
Smithfield Foods.
The passage of SB648 will
provide a legal avenue to protect the “rights” of large companies no matter how
many animals are treated cruelly nor if there are food safety issues. It will however serve as a serious
catalyst within NC and other states for the growth in sales of meat from
sustainably and humanely raised livestock.
However, with much of the CAFO pork produced in NC currently being
exported to China, a decrease in sales in the US market may pale in comparison
to the money to be made in meat exports.
Will the NC Chamber of Commerce, our NC Legislators, Farm
Bureau and Big-Ag ensure the welfare of the livestock raised in NC and the
safety of our food supply? Will they
bear the responsibility? I doubt
it. It appears that their primary concern
is to keep the foreign money flowing.
Please contact your legislators today and tell them to vote against SB 648.
Thanks,
Sandra Genell Pridgen
9th generation
family farmer
Rainbow Meadow Farms
