AVMA Disgraces Itself and its Members With Stance on Humane Farming Initiative
A quote from Albert Camus’ The Fall has haunted me since I first read it years ago. I was tempted to dust off my copy of the book and find the quote for this post, but let’s face it: I am a busy man living in the post-Google world. Thirty seconds after recalling the passage, I had successfully copied it onto my computer’s clipboard.
To be sure, you are not familiar with that dungeon cell that was called the little-ease in the Middle Ages. In general, one was forgotten there for life. That cell was distinguished from others by ingenious dimensions. It was not high enough to stand up in nor yet wide enough to lie down in. One had to take on an awkward manner and live on the diagonal; sleep was a collapse, and waking a squatting. Mon cher, there was genius—and I am weighing my words—in that so simple invention. Every day through the unchanging restriction that stiffened his body, the condemned man learned that he was guilty and that innocence consists in stretching joyously.
–Albert Camus, The Fall
At this point you may be wondering whether the vet blogger has lost his mind. What on earth does existential writing from 1956 have to do with a vet blog?
This topic is about California’s Proposition 2, the Humane Farming Initiative. I have covered Proposition 2 twice on this blog already: here and here.
My favorite summary of Proposition 2 comes directly from the text of the proposition(link is PDF format):
The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.
Current farming practices in California allow the use of sow gestation crates, veal crates, and egg production facilities (employing battery cages) that confine animals in conditions reminiscent of Camus’ “little-ease.” The idea behind Proposition 2 is to eliminate these practices by 2015.
The people who support these practices are not sadists or medieval-style torturers. The farming practices are economically motivated.
But I quote Camus to make a point. It is absolutely obvious–in fact, it is self-evident–that confining anybody or anything in a manner that does not allow it to rest, stand up, turn around or stretch is inhumane.
So when I saw that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the nation’s largest organization of veterinarians, had issued a statement on Proposition 2, I was anxious to read it. Here is an excerpt. (I encourage you to click on the link to the AVMA’s position statement. I find it interesting that the linked page includes a photograph of a free-range chicken farm, rather than a photo of battery cages such as the one at the start of this post. Proposition 2 would eliminate battery cages.)
Although the American Veterinary Medical Association applauds every effort to promote animal welfare, the AVMA is concerned about possible, unintended negative consequences to animal welfare of enacting Proposition 2.
I beg your pardon? Allowing animals to stand up, lie down, turn around, and stretch their limbs may have negative consequences on their welfare? Does the AVMA truly think that anyone will believe such nonsense?
The AVMA is the voice of veterinary medicine in America. The AVMA represents and speaks for all vets in this nation, whether it claims to or not. When the AVMA releases a statement like the one above it damages the credibility of all veterinarians. And I don’t appreciate that.
You have questions. 
I live in a farming community, probably one of the last few in the Charlotte North Carolina area. I am appalled by the forward thinking State of California for passing this proposition. Perhaps if we stuffed legislators in tiny cages restrict their movements and cut off their beaks things would begin to change for farm animals.
I was never more appalled than when I went to a pig farm to pick my daughter up from friends. I rode past the pig barns and there packed into pens, not large enough to turn around in where these beautiful pigs. When I got to the door I was again shaken up by a dog that was chained to a tree out front of the house, which had run a deep circle around the tree he was chained to. I again felt the hot rush of anger run over me. I walked to the dog and unraveled him from the tree, the farmer and the farmers wife came out and told me that is the way farm animals live.
I guess the long and short of the story is… that farmers don’t see the animal any more, they see a source of food, one that can be jammed into a pen with several pigs in it, or in chicken cages with the beaks cut off of the animals so they don’t kill each other in cramped cages (sometimes there are 3 – 4 chickens in a very very small pen. I am looking at my forearm and that is about the size that they are housed in.)
I am perplexed that society does not question the about of antibiotics and growth hormones are given to farm animals. They are feed these cocktails to make them grow fast and meaty for our consumption. From that day forward I have taken a promise to be a vegetarian, not only for my health reasons but also for the health of our planet. If you all really want a wake up call pick up the book A Diet for a New America by John Robbins, this will also be life changing.
I too am saddened and shocked that the AVMA is not supporting Prop 2. I know that nearly 700 California veterinarians and more than 150 California veterinary medical students, the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, the San Diego County Veterinary Medical Association, more than 80 veterinary hospitals and clinics and the CA Veterinary Medical Association all support it.
What’s not to support? Who doesn’t want more humane treatment for these animals?
On Nov. 4, I’ll proudly cast my Yes vote for Prop 2.
Yes, it is sickening. AVMA…you are just showing yourselves to not be pro animal but pro animal agriculture. Gross.
Prop. 2 is the sort of reasonable reform that the vast majority of veterinarians support. The AVMA, however, is known for taking positions more out of deference to the representatives of industry who serve on their boards than out of interest in animal welfare, as counterintuitive as this seems.
The AVMA’s position won’t suprise anyone who is familiar with the group. For example, the AVMA until 2004 condoned withdrawal food and water as part of the forced molting of hens (the withdrawal of nutrition stresses hens into another egg cycle, a process which causes the their feathers to fall out, hence “molting”). Why was it humane to starve hens before 2004 and inhumane after? This is just one example of many.
Yes, I agree, they sound more like an agribusiness industry mouthpiece than an organization dedicated to animal welfare. However, I hardly expected anything different from them. It’s still the bottom line that is important, not humane treatment of animals.
I, too, was saddened by the AVMA’s statement. Especially when the CVMA had already endorsed the Proposition. It just doesn’t make sense to me. I know they care about Animals…and I know that they agree the Animals should be afforded the right to be able to lie down, turn around and stretch their limbs. I hate to think that someone with dollars might have been of some influence in their decision.
Hopefully the people of California with show their compassion and VOTE YES on PROP 2. I know I will!
Thank you for discussing this very important topic.
Best,
Larry
It is appalling that the AVMA will not support the elimination of the most cruel and inhumane treatment of factory farmed animals. Do members of the AVMA force their pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for the majority of their lives? All animals, including those raised for food, deserve humane treatment. Yes! on Prop 2 improves animal welfare by reducing the hens’, pigs; and calves; stress, pain and suffering emotionally and physically. Yes! on Prop 2 will improve our health and safetly. Yes! on Prop 2 protects our natural resources and helps stop some of the worst abuses to animals and the environment. It seems the AVMA is in favor of factory farms putting profits ahead of animal welfare and our health. Yes! on Prop 2 is a reasonable and common-sense reform allowing factory farms until 2015 to shift to more humane practices. Where does the AVMA get the absurd notion that there will be unintended negative consequences to animal welfare? Obviously they are either ignorant or misinformed. I am convinced that the passing of Prop 2 will yield many positive reforms and results. The AVMA should re-evaluate its position on this measure. Voting Yes! on Prop 2 is the right thing to do.
[...] cat declaws and cat-bite absesses. … Dr. Eric Barchas, Dogster’s vet blogger, takes the AVMA to task over factory farming. The California VMA supports California’s Prop. 2, the Humane Faming Act (as do I), but the [...]
Torturing animals in any way shape or form is not okay. AVMA just stated that they agree with animal torture. Obviously the AVMA has a monetary relationship with factory farm agribusiness. Obviously there is a lot of anger and hate in this world, people not seeing that animals feel pain and suffering. Thank GOD for all of us posting on this blog that are kind gentle compassion humans. We are the people of the future. We are the strength of goodness.
All living beings should be treated humanely, just as God intended.
VOTE YES ON PROP 2 in November !!!!!!!!!!
Animals, even though raised for food, should be allowed to stand up, turn around, and spread their limbs and wings.
Common sense.
[...] cat declaws and cat-bite absesses. … Dr. Eric Barchas, Dogster’s vet blogger, takes the AVMA to task over factory farming. The California VMA supports California’s Prop. 2, the Humane Faming Act (as do I), but the [...]
I appreciate the opportunity that blogs provide to discuss issues of importance to veterinary medicine. What’s wonderful about being part of a large, multi-experiential organization like the AVMA is that we have the ability to consider issues from a variety of perspectives.
As Director of the AVMA’s Animal Welfare Division, it seems appropriate to clarify what appears to be a misperception about the AVMA’s position on Proposition 2. If you read the statement from the AVMA it says (in part): “The American Veterinary Medical Association believes Proposition 2, ‘Standards for Confining Farm Animals,’ is admirable in its goal to improve the welfare of production farm animals; however, it ignores critical aspects of animal welfare that ultimately would threaten the well-being of the very animals it strives to protect….Proposition 2 would clearly provide greater freedom of movement, but would likely compromise several of the other factors necessary to ensure the overall welfare of the animals, especially with regard to protection from disease and injury.”
Maintaining good welfare within housing systems involves trade-offs. For example, housing systems that allow hens to perform more natural behaviors (e.g., nest building for laying hens) often present more challenges for disease and injury control. Conversely, improving disease and injury control by more intensively confining hens can limit the hens’ freedom of movement and ability to engage in normal behaviors.
On its Website, the AVMA has posted a chart (see: http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/cage_noncage_systems.asp) showing the welfare advantages and disadvantages of various housing systems for laying hens. The list of welfare indicators in the chart isn’t exhaustive. The chart simply makes the point that ensuring good welfare in housing systems is not as simple as providing more space.
The comparison presented in the chart is consistent with the results of another comprehensive analysis of the scientific literature completed a few years ago by a group of well-respected animal welfare scientists who looked at how and what additional space provided welfare benefits for laying hens. They found the “benefits” curve was actually bell-shaped. In other words, increasing space from A to B accrued welfare benefits; however, once you got beyond a certain space allocation (i.e., increased space from B to C), other factors kicked in and providing additional space negatively, rather than positively, impacted the birds.
The AVMA acknowledges and agrees that the behavioral needs Proposition 2 attempts to address are important, but we also recognize that other needs of animals must be considered in parallel. To protect animal welfare you need to establish guidelines for housing animals that take ALL factors into account. Unfortunately, Proposition 2 doesn’t do that. In addition, depending on how its language is ultimately interpreted, Proposition 2 could potentially prohibit the adoption of housing systems that might represent the best presently available solution to fulfilling a range of criteria for good animal welfare. For example, it is not clear whether use of enriched cages would be permissible under Proposition 2—such systems are showing promise both in research and in practical application.
To address another issue raised by posts in this blog, try as some might to call attention to the perceived conflict between the AVMA and the CVMA, the statements by both are actually closely aligned. Both the AVMA and the CVMA have emphasized the importance of evaluating all relevant factors affecting the welfare of animals potentially affected by Proposition 2. And, both underscore the need for the involvement of qualified veterinarians when developing standards of care for animals. Where we differ is that the AVMA chose not to recommend endorsement of Proposition 2 because of concerns that it doesn’t fully address all aspects of animal welfare. However, AVMA also chose not to oppose Proposition 2. Instead, we are advising our members to evaluate proposals like Proposition 2 carefully and not be swayed by the thirty-second sound bite—no matter how logical it sounds or where it might come from.
Finally, the AVMA is in no one’s “pocket” when it comes to decision-making. We look carefully at the science, as well as its practical application, and let the chips fall where they may. In this case, the chips fell in a question mark regarding Proposition 2.
I appreciate your consideration of my comments,
Gail C. Golab, PhD, DVM, MACVSc (Animal Welfare)
Director, Animal Welfare Division
American Veterinary Medical Association
I appreciate Dr. Golab’s rebuttal. Though I am a staunch opponent of current factory farming practices, I am not outraged by the AVMA’s position. Not that I would have agreed with its take on Prop 2–but I do understand where my profession’s organization is coming from in its opposition.
At issue is the incompleteness of Prop 2. It isn’t the revolutionary bit of legislation we all wish it were. Sure, it sounds great on the surface. Who wants animals confined in cramped quarters?
Problem is, it really doesn’t do much to solve the problems many producers will run into if they don’t also act carefully to limit aggressive interactions between animals housed in larger pens, if they don’t actually provide MUCH larger spaces so animals won’t hurt themselves.
Prop 2 doesn’t address these unintended consequences. And I don’t trust factory farm producers to spend the MUCH higher dollars on doing the right thing for the animals.
While I have misgivings about Prop 2 (along the lines of the AVMA’s), 2015 is still a long time away. I’m in support of Prop 2 in the hopes that it will give rise to further industry changes as this legislation’s limitations become more well understood.
I wonder how many of you “compassionate” people who are clearly outraged by the AVMA’s position still eat meat and dairy?
I also have serious doubts about Prop 2. Unfortunately, I do not live in CA or I’d vote on it. Now, before getting your pants in a wad, I strongly encourage you to go to http://www.abolitionistapproach.com for some very clear reasoning on this subject. I have nothing to do with the web site, other than I read it. The latest blog post of Prof Gary Francione lays out very clearly why he, I and everyone who believes that animals should not just have larger cages, but that they should NOT BE in cages in the first place – including the laughable farce that is “humanely raised” meat – think that laws like Prop 2 is not the answer.
Go there and read it and think about why supporting this might just not be a good idea. The AVMA does sound like it is a mouthpiece for the industry. I however, certainly am not.
[...] post, research (supported by the American Veterinary Medical Association–I occasionally have my differences with the organization, but I should emphasize that it also does a tremendous amount of good work) concluded that animals [...]
Thank you, Dr. Golab, for taking the time to respond to my post. Prior to endorsing Proposition 2, I investigated and considered the many trade-offs that you mention.
I easily came to the conclusion that the proposition’s benefits to animal welfare are decisive.
Nonetheless, your thoughts and comments are welcome and appreciated.
I honestly think the AMVA has a tough position in matters like this. They are in the difficult place of trying to draw the line between animal welfare and animal rights. And not many people know the difference, but it’s really important for people to become educated about the huge difference in the terms.
The HSUS was able to pass a law in Florida banning the use of gestation crates and look where Florida is now. It wasn’t possible for some farmers to keep their farms going and now they’re looking at a taxpayer bailout. How many people who are outraged at the AMVA’s stance are willing to pay much more for the meats and products that come from this and support the farmers who could be forced to comply?
No one wants to see any animal suffer, but this is not a nation of vegeteraians. Are the folks who are so beside themselves with anger over the AMVA’s position all going to be willing to pay double for the products that come from California if this is passed? Are they going to be willing to seek them out? Or will they clap and pat themselves on the back because California passed a humane law and still purchase cheaper meats from other states which will put California farmers in the same position as Florida?
It’s an uncomfortable place to be and I can see both points of view, but what really needs to be looked at is what’s behind this. Is this being pushed through by PeTA and HSUS at the backdoor? If so then it needs to be squashed in its tracks. Those organizations do no good for anyone, human or animal. Are the products being produced dangerous to humans? What are the real pros and cons? The AMVA’s position and the Prop 2 position, which is really better for all involved? Whenever I hear of something like this, it automatically makes me suspicious because of the animal rights agenda that wants to abolish all meat, all dairy, all pets, all zoos, supports BSL and MSN, wants all research halted even if it saves lives and thinks no human should ever, for any reason, touch or have any contact with an animal. Even though Ingrid from PeTA uses insulin. They are hypoctical at best and dangerous at worst.
Personally, I buy all my meat and dairy from farmer’s markets where I’m familiar with the way the animals are raised, how they’re fed, etc. I feed my dogs raw, though I am a vegetarian, and it’s very important for me to know the meat they’re consuming is safe for them. I can’t stand the idea of any animal being made to suffer, but I also know that it’s not nearly this easy to fix. This is what the animal rights groups want. They want to pass legislation that drives farmers out of business. If this happens state by state then soon meat will be too expensive for anyone to raise and we won’t have a choice. I’ve made my choice to be a vegetarian, but I do not think the entire country should be forced into a vegan existence just to satisfy the maniacal ravings of a fringe minority.
So before we all jump on the wagon and condemn the AMVA, why don’t look at what we’re saying. If you eat meat, then how humane are your actions, really? I’m willing to accpet that some animals will suffer for me to feed my dogs. If you wear leather, wear wool, eat pork, beef, dairy . . . are you willing to go out of your way to purchase products made only from animals who are treated humanely? And pay much higher prices? And how is killing ever humane? For any reason? I certainly don’t have all the answers, but before we all start waving the animal rights flags, we should at least look into these things and make decisions based on what we need and are comfortable with in our own lives and then we can go from there. Unless, of course, we’re all ready to become a nation of petless vegans.
if people won’t go vegetarian then at least they won’t suffer as much with proposition 2. people think you need meat to survive and its hard to counteract that.
hey lizzy, how are things over at center for consumer freedom?
Oh, how I love when people can’t come up with anything other than little passive aggressive remarks that make no sense. Matt, your ignorance is noted.
The New York Times editorial staff today endorsed Prop. 2! I am so so happy. It has always been my favorite paper; it so well written, and now they show they have heart.
Basically Prop 2 is common sense. It is just plain mean and hatefully to confine animals in dank dark prisons the size of their body.
VOTE YES ON PROP 2.