What about farm animals in general? Especially the horrific treatment of farm animals in factory farms? I don't get why governments have allowed this nightmare for the animals to go on all these many decades. Why is money and greed more important then the lives of the farm animals. It seems to me like people are given the freedom to make money any way they want regardless of it causing pain and suffering to animals (farm animals included), humans and our environment. I think this world we live in allows for very evil things to happen and it makes life very frightening and unhappy.
Thank you NYT for putting the research into this subject. I only hope lawmakers can act quickly to stop the needless suffering of these animals.
This is a good first step, but we have a long, long way to go.
Thank you, New York Times. I was very impressed with your research and article and am happy to see that the federal government may take action.
4
Thank you NYT for this expose! I was truly horrified and affected by your article leading me to start my own petition on Change.org as well as sign and support other petitions posted on that site. It really is encouraging to know that there are people in gov't agencies who still have a conscience and are willing to make big changes in Animal Welfare laws. I will keep track of any progress on this matter. This goes to show that if we come together and become the voice of those who are unable to defend/speak for themselves positive results are accomplished. This is a great start!
5
Not only should the innocent animal victims be protected in these"research" facilities but also in the factory "farms" for which they and their unlucky offspring are intended.
While we are at it, we should abolish the factory "farm" hell-holes as well. if they are needed to feed humanity, as their profiteering owners claim, then such a cruel species as "humanity" is not worth it.
While we are at it, we should abolish the factory "farm" hell-holes as well. if they are needed to feed humanity, as their profiteering owners claim, then such a cruel species as "humanity" is not worth it.
7
Excellent work Mr. Moss. Thank you.
5
We no longer need animals for Medical Research, we have sophisticated computer models that do the job better than the 'live subjects'. This research continues not because it is needed, but because the pockets of the Researchers, the Facility whether or not it is a Private facility or a University or the NIH must be filled. It is all about money and people trading on the lives of all manner of animals for useless research. Physicians for Responsible Medicine is a great organization and they work tirelessly to stop the Medical Schools and other places to stop using animals.
USDA does nothing good for animals, in fact the USDA started Puppy Mills in the Dust Bowl areas of the Country in the 1940's so that the farmers would have something to sell. To this day the same families have these Puppy Mills and USDA has THREE Vets to check on thousands of Puppies. These Mills are horrific and the USDA takes zero responsibility.
USDA does nothing good for animals, in fact the USDA started Puppy Mills in the Dust Bowl areas of the Country in the 1940's so that the farmers would have something to sell. To this day the same families have these Puppy Mills and USDA has THREE Vets to check on thousands of Puppies. These Mills are horrific and the USDA takes zero responsibility.
6
And their vets are worthless! They care about paychecks and bureaucracy, not animals. No mormal, ethical vet would ber party to such widespread abuse. All of APHIS has to go, from Chester A. Gipson, a vet by school only, not heart, right down to what must be the sociopathic inpsectors, who turn a blind eye to Michael Vick level abuse every day.
I am a cancer researcher who sits on our center's Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. We carefully review proposed experiments to make sure the animals are protected, pain and suffering is relieved, and their treatment is humane. This includes animals from small fish to mice to sheep and pigs. We are stringently reviewed by several bodies, the toughest of which (you guessed it) is the USDA. It is deeply dismaying that that USDA doesn't come close to holding themselves to the same standard that they hold everyone else who does animal research.
The rules are complex and sometimes onerous, but this article shows why they are necessary.
The rules are complex and sometimes onerous, but this article shows why they are necessary.
9
Thank you Steve for your comments. I am encouraged to hear that animals in our country's research centers are at least made comfortable. I wish no animal had to suffer on our behalf. It is shocking to me that the USDA has been allowed to operate in this manner for so long. I only hope this exposure will change those animals lives for the better.
Thank you New York Times for exposing this hellhole and its atrocious practices with animals.
6
Two fine articles about the very disturbing activities of a government agency. The animals suffered at the hands of those who seemed to almost randomly interfere with best practices for raising healthy, sturdy animals. Their interest seemed only to be in animals as food and the whole thing went downhill from there I hope the bill gets through Congress and the Executive in short order and that the spotlight remains trained on the U.S Meat Animal Research Center until this agency is eliminated.
6
Journalism at it's best. Thank you NYT!
10
The only way to make the changes proposed is like any other project: Implement changes/improvements THEN CONTINUALLY MONITOR for compliance!!
Hopefully too,going back as far as is possible-instigators of such inhumane practices will be rooted out and prosecuted!
Hopefully too,going back as far as is possible-instigators of such inhumane practices will be rooted out and prosecuted!
5
Thank you NYT for your investigative reporting on this matter. I was horrified by the article. I emailed the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center protesting the use of tax dollars to support the facility and requsted a reply- I heard nothing. Please keep shining a light on this sorry excuse for a government agency.
8
While they are at it how about outlawing gestation crates and similar cruelties, including overcrowding.
11
This USDA meat lab needs to be SHUT DOWN! We do not need to be using taxpayer dollars to figure out how we can make the meat/dairy industry more money. We need to use tax dollars to figure out how to encourage people to eat more fruits, vegetables, nuts and grains. We are in the throes of an obesity and heart disease crisis! This is as a result of our meat/dairy based (SAD) Standard American Diet of cheeseburgers and milkshakes, etc. SHUT IT DOWN! And, while we're at it, let's arrest the sadists conducting these hideously cruel experiments on helpless cows, sheep and pigs and put them on trial! Oh, and when the agents of this monstrosity claim that they take this issue "very seriously" perhaps we should ask them: where have you been while all this torture has been going on for decades?
12
My thoughts exactly. Thank you for your post. I have signed every petition that I could find, asking for the U.S. Meat Animal Research Center to be shut down, and written my senators and representatives in Congress expressing my outrage that this has been going on for decades. I just hope they listen.
2
Ms. Velez-Mitchell, thank you. I find the idea that any portion of my tax dollars goes towards making pigs suffer by having more babies, or cows or any other animal experienced something unnatural, truly disgusting.
What's wrong with this is the same thing that's wrong with EVERYTHING. At the bottom is: "how can corporations make more profits?" Money, the god of America, is always taking us away from what is moral and right and what is expedient for those who own the businesses.
It would be much better for our government to use the research money to find out what happens if we feed animals untainted food, raise them in comfortable circumstances, let them live without stress and kill them humanely. As someone who hasn't eaten meat in 35 years, it seems the least we can do.
What's wrong with this is the same thing that's wrong with EVERYTHING. At the bottom is: "how can corporations make more profits?" Money, the god of America, is always taking us away from what is moral and right and what is expedient for those who own the businesses.
It would be much better for our government to use the research money to find out what happens if we feed animals untainted food, raise them in comfortable circumstances, let them live without stress and kill them humanely. As someone who hasn't eaten meat in 35 years, it seems the least we can do.
2
The U.S. Meat Animal Research Center is yet another retrograde sop to industry by the US government. This time, it's in support of an international enterprise that hardly needs taxpayer support, namely agribusiness. And, per the usual bureaucratic response, "Center officials have defended their work, saying they keep animal welfare in mind" (whatever that means).
Chavonda Jacobs-Young and her minions at the Center ought to be disgusted by their actions and forthright in repudiating them, rather than engaging in meaningless "bureau-speak". If experience is any indicator, that sort of equivocation and vaporizing portends much more of the same.
Chavonda Jacobs-Young and her minions at the Center ought to be disgusted by their actions and forthright in repudiating them, rather than engaging in meaningless "bureau-speak". If experience is any indicator, that sort of equivocation and vaporizing portends much more of the same.
10
As usual, we go at problems backwards. The answer to the atrocities committed by factory farming livestock is to eat less (far less) meat. As far as world hunger goes, it is not going to be solved by producing more meat. Consuming less meat would have some positive impact. Producing fewer people would have a much greater impact.
11
"Center officials have defended their work, saying they keep animal welfare in mind as they strive to better feed a growing world population."
That's really their excuse? I got the impression that their main purpose was to maximize profits for meat producers. I'm not saying that's not a worthy goal, but it doesn't sound nearly as heartwarming. Feeding a growing world population would be better done with more plant and less animal protein anyway.
That's really their excuse? I got the impression that their main purpose was to maximize profits for meat producers. I'm not saying that's not a worthy goal, but it doesn't sound nearly as heartwarming. Feeding a growing world population would be better done with more plant and less animal protein anyway.
9
I believe, esteemed Congressmen, that what is needed now is to fire those uncaring researchers out in Nebraska. Without consequences, evil simply moves on to a new location.
10
Just maybe, we should look at our love affair with meat. I little less may be in order so we don't have to grow cows and chickens that are gargantuan. Livestock abuse is sickening and now that I know more I only buy humanely raised meats. Moreover I check into their slaughter methods and contact the company and ask question. Too often meat producers rely on our ignorance to do what ever they want, a lot of citizen watchdogs can change the industry.I love chicken and I eat about 4 ethically raise chickens a year. Taking one chicken and turning it into lots of meals.
I never touch factory farmed pork as the cruelty of way they are raised and slaughtered is heartbreaking. If enough of us do this,then when we open the paper we won't be confronted with more stories about the horrific animal abuse we allow in the name of cheap meat products.
I never touch factory farmed pork as the cruelty of way they are raised and slaughtered is heartbreaking. If enough of us do this,then when we open the paper we won't be confronted with more stories about the horrific animal abuse we allow in the name of cheap meat products.
7
Now, please, will Congress turn its attention to the animals who live out their lives in CAFOs. I am particularly thinking of cattle, chickens and pigs (although pigs' treatment has improved a bit recently.)
And for heaven's sake, will someone please find a way to make the ag-gag laws illegal!!
And for heaven's sake, will someone please find a way to make the ag-gag laws illegal!!
10
These animals are just one more set of victims of America's relentless search for cheap stuff. We look the other way when animals are abused because we are happy to have "affordable" (read cheap) hamburger and pork so that we can overeat without paying much for it We ship jobs to China so we can have cheap clothes and cheap products of every sort.
If we paid a fair amount for our food, farmers wouldn't have to be constantly engineering pigs that have more piglets or sheep that deliver their babies to die in the snow. But paying more might require us to eat less meat. Is that really a problem? Many commenters here have said that it is not.
When will we realize that our whole system of consumption of cheap food and stuff is killing us--and undermining our culture? A bit of respect for the animals will be great. How about a bit of respect for our farming neighbors who could use a living wage rather than being forced to accept whatever crumbs Wal-Mart will pay them for the fruits of their labors? "Always low prices" means someone else is taking a hit so you can save money--and it isn't the Walton family.
If we paid a fair amount for our food, farmers wouldn't have to be constantly engineering pigs that have more piglets or sheep that deliver their babies to die in the snow. But paying more might require us to eat less meat. Is that really a problem? Many commenters here have said that it is not.
When will we realize that our whole system of consumption of cheap food and stuff is killing us--and undermining our culture? A bit of respect for the animals will be great. How about a bit of respect for our farming neighbors who could use a living wage rather than being forced to accept whatever crumbs Wal-Mart will pay them for the fruits of their labors? "Always low prices" means someone else is taking a hit so you can save money--and it isn't the Walton family.
8
Protect them further by not breeding them by the billions for our enjoyment and exploitation.
7
Hopefully, and not soon enough, some vigilante hacker group will start amassing the names of all animal abusers and then make their live at least as miserable as the animals they abused!
11
It's about time!!!
3
Since the 1/19 NYT article, which contained information on horrible animal cruelty associated with factory farms of pigs, dairy and beef cows, chickens and sheep, I have been buying ONLY certified Humanely Raised meat and eggs, from local growers. I have also cut back drastically on meat consumption, and purchase only organic products. Hopefully prices will come down as these farmers are supported by more purchases, getting better economy of scale. Until then, however, I feel so much better about what my family eats.
9
Look for the Animal Welfare Label, the most stringent of the different certification groups. We have a 28 page list of standards we have to follow, including environmental. Great organization , and I'm proud to be certified by them.
8
Better yet, refuse to have anything to do with cruelty toward animals by switching to a plant-based diet. Even so-called "humane meat" comes from an animal that was slaughtered at a very young age.
7
We as a culture have decided that the taste in our mouths is more important to us then the suffering and pain of non human animals. There is no need in human nutrition to consume non human animals to live a long and healthy life in the western developed world. Non human animals have identical central nervous systems to the human primate thus experience pain in the same manner as humans. Most people never think of this and if they do, consider it too inconvenient requiring change they will not consider. Ghandi said, "the way you can judge a nation is the way it treats it's animals".
Are we so arrogant to think we are civilized ?
Are we so arrogant to think we are civilized ?
25
The U.S. government sees animal protectionists as terrorists and any intent/attempt to bring the institutionalized torture of animals in all its government-sanctioned, tax-supported forms open to public view will continue to be squelched; the protectionists' actions threatened with prosecution and criminalization. Any pretense at reform is a ruse used to distract and suppress the outrage of the compassionate public while the machine continues its rampant pace.
16
The ED's comments about conflicts of interest are beyond disingenuous. Finally, it seems that the Legislature and the public may be on to this fact. And it appears the public is also on to the horrific treatment of animals raised for food, in addition to those subjected to the research that is the subject of the Times' expose. More and more people are getting it--as well as the fact that the advocates for this research and industrial farming practices offer nothing more than self-serving non-arguments in support of their practices. Kudos to the sponsors of this reform legislation. Let's hope they move on to address the animals suffering in factory farms.
28
Thank you again Mr. Moss and NYT. This is why I support The Times. Keep it up!
40
I am so happy that your article resulted in changes. Thank you NYT and Michael Moss.
35
" Tell me how you treat your elders and your animals and I will tell you how civilized you are. "13th century physician and great scholar, Maimonides. That also includes how we treat our prisoners of war.
44
This is not about Capitalism since horrors like these happen around the world. This is about mindfulness, are you conscious about what you are eating and how it came to be on your plate. Most people don't want to know. If they viewed the slaughtering and butchering process in person their stomachs would turn pretty fast and so we prefer to think that our steak came from a grocery store not a cow.
There is no excuse for cruelty to the animals we choose to eat, from their first day to their last we should be mindful of their fate because its a reflection on us as a society.
There is no excuse for cruelty to the animals we choose to eat, from their first day to their last we should be mindful of their fate because its a reflection on us as a society.
28
Of course it's about capitalism. They have that around the world as well as cruelty to animals.
1
This whole thing about leaner pigs and bigger lamp chops is a confusing oxymoron to me. If you want a bigger lamp chop - eat a steak. Lamb chops are not supposed to be big. The fattier your pig is- the better the pork. By breeding for profit (and subsequently: cruelty), you breed out the taste. If anyone from the government is reading this: For my money (and since the US Meat Animal Research Center is funded with taxpayer dollars it is MY MONEY), I'd rather eat less meat that's better tasting and humanely raised than cheap meat that caused no end of suffering. The minute I see disturbingly large chicken breasts I don't go "ooo! More meat for my dollar!"; I turn to the zucchini instead.
32
I commend the NYTimes for bringing this situation to the public's attention, and for all the other investigative articles they print that result in action. They are a true " public citizen" when they do this.
33
Is it crazy for the federal government to finance inhumane animal experiments at the US Meat Animal Center which would be outlawed by the Animal Welfare Act if applied in the general farm animal populatons?
Mark Muhich
Jackson MI
Mark Muhich
Jackson MI
11
I agree that farm animals should be protected from illness and pain. How about protecting humans from illness and pain? Why can't we see a bipartisan effort to prevent and treat contagious and chronic diseases? Why can't we see a bipartisan effort for access to medical treatment? It looks as if the GOP values animals more than humans when they try to repeal OBAMAcare rather than improving it for the people.
5
Many of the diseases you reference come from eating factory farmed animals with full oversight of the USDA & FDA.
Do your homework then stop eating adulterated dead flesh and other non-foods which promote poor health a, catalysts for disease. Remember, there's lots of profit in both the factory farming of animals and treating the disease they cause!
Do your homework then stop eating adulterated dead flesh and other non-foods which promote poor health a, catalysts for disease. Remember, there's lots of profit in both the factory farming of animals and treating the disease they cause!
4
Bravo to the legislature! Let's have some swift reform and perhaps criminal charges where warranted. There must be a penalty to this kind of behavior.
22
Thank you, New York Times for investigating and reporting on this tax payer funded abuse of animals.
37
The only problem with Michael Moss's great investigative piece on farm animal research is that it implies several times that the other 100 million animals used in public and private laboratories in America, have it better because the animal welfare act is more rigorously enforced. Nothing could be further from the truth. This weak federal legislation does not stop relevant university committees (IACUC'S) from approving protocols in which thousands of monkeys are given simian AIDS (SIV), ripped away from their mothers for maternal deprivation experiments, and forced to self-administer heroin (baboons). None of these animals volunteered for these protocols or ever signed consent forms.
30
Could you please get a legitimate animal advocate to interview for an article like this. Temple Grandin's big contribution to animal agriculture is to make it easier, faster, and more profitable for corporations to slaughter. This is NOT animal advocacy!
14
Not quite. Temple Grandin's point was to make their deaths less hideous. That is animal advocacy from a realist who realizes that she can't single handedly stop the practices of the meat industry.
If you were a cow wouldn't you be grateful for what she has accomplished? What is that saying? Something like "don't let the best be the enemy of the better."
If you were a cow wouldn't you be grateful for what she has accomplished? What is that saying? Something like "don't let the best be the enemy of the better."
3
Thanks for investigative journalism! Thanks for the New York Times!
Thank you Michael Moss for your incredible work on this issue! Our tax dollars should not be paying for seemingly endless degenerate forms of animal research in this country.
If you have any heart left to give for the animals, you might want to look at The Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York. It is a federal research facility for the study of animal diseases. It is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
More to do.
Thank you Michael Moss for your incredible work on this issue! Our tax dollars should not be paying for seemingly endless degenerate forms of animal research in this country.
If you have any heart left to give for the animals, you might want to look at The Plum Island Animal Disease Center in New York. It is a federal research facility for the study of animal diseases. It is part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
More to do.
18
You can get triplets out of sheep. But they will have to be bigger sheep with old size lambs. It can be done. But not crudely, by selecting for multiples but not size. If your sow doesn't have enough teats then she can't feed more piglets. It has always taken a certain amount of human labor to raise animal. But it provides employment for humans and what is so wrong with that? Plants are easier to raise but not so nutrient rich. As for what Temple Grandin says, she's right, the raising of animals should be gentle and low stress. They are killed for food but there is no reason to make their lives hard. Pigs are generally slaughtered at six months, before they have time to grow up and be bored. The breeder sows deserve a better life though. Same with chickens. Cage free in a barn is better for the chicken than small cages. Cattle shouldn't be left out to freeze. And while we want easy labor, easy delivery animals the penalty for failure should be not being bred again and an earlier trip to the slaughter house. Not dying in the field. As for increasing the fertility of the bulls, it's not how soon the bull is ready to mount again, it's what is the quality of the sperm on the second try. In humans it takes hours to days to create highly fertile sperm again. With a bull and cow there is more chance of injury so you want to make every covering count.
8
Why not just become a vegan, for goodness sake? If enough of us did it would stop this horror dead in its tracks without bothering to wrestle with corporations, politicians or the people who try to make animal activism a criminal offense.
3
Here is a cognitive dissonance test:
Consider a food commercial in which you see vegetables such as onions, tomatoes, lettuce, etc. being pulled from ground or plucked, sent to a conveyor belt in which they are washed/processed and then put on the kitchen table on which they are chopped/minced/purred in preparation for cooking.
Consider another food commercial in which you see animals being led to slaughter, shocked/paralyzed using bolt guns or electric prods, have their throat slit, hung from hooks alive so that their hearts can pump blood out of the slit throat, and then skinned either alive or dead, depending on how much life is left in them, chopped/sliced into pieces, and then put on the kitchen table to be prepared for cooking.
Which commercial would you show your guests or children? If you refuse to show the animal slaughter commercial, then perhaps your cognitive dissonance/conscience is telling you to go to a cruelty-free, plant-based diet.
Consider a food commercial in which you see vegetables such as onions, tomatoes, lettuce, etc. being pulled from ground or plucked, sent to a conveyor belt in which they are washed/processed and then put on the kitchen table on which they are chopped/minced/purred in preparation for cooking.
Consider another food commercial in which you see animals being led to slaughter, shocked/paralyzed using bolt guns or electric prods, have their throat slit, hung from hooks alive so that their hearts can pump blood out of the slit throat, and then skinned either alive or dead, depending on how much life is left in them, chopped/sliced into pieces, and then put on the kitchen table to be prepared for cooking.
Which commercial would you show your guests or children? If you refuse to show the animal slaughter commercial, then perhaps your cognitive dissonance/conscience is telling you to go to a cruelty-free, plant-based diet.
22
I think someone quite important said that you can judge a civilization by the way it treats its animals. Even if this is simply in my imagination, I stand by the thought! It's high time that tight regulations were enforced and also that experiments on live animals stopped forever.
11
Thank you, Michael Moss for writing this and NY Times, for publishing it. Hope to see a follow-up article in a year or so.
23
I recently stopped receiving diseased tissue from pig models of muscular dystrophy from the Nebraska Center because of the original NYTimes articles. This animal model for human muscular dystrophy may well have been authentic but I could not rule out that the pig's pathology could easily be attributed to confinement and possible abuse.
Aside from my strong conviction against any form of animal abuse, I am very grateful to the NYTimes.
Paul Anziano, PhD
Mitergy, LLC
Aside from my strong conviction against any form of animal abuse, I am very grateful to the NYTimes.
Paul Anziano, PhD
Mitergy, LLC
32
The very system of capitalism puts private profits above people, all life on Earth and the Earth itself. It is a system that perpetuates inequality; rewarding those at the top at the expense of everyone and everything else. "Imagine all the people sharing all the world...." It's our only road to the survival of the human race and the planet we all inhabit together. It will allow us to make democratic and rational decisions based upon want and need and not upon the perpetuation of private profits for the wealthy few commanders of capital at the very top. Barbarism is the alternative.
19
I have been thinking about the original article, which contained horrifying revelations, and wondering whether anyone in Congress was at all moved to address the cruelty described. It's encouraging to know that at least some in government recognize that what's happening at animal research farms is unconscionable, and are at least beginning to deal with the issue. There's just no excuse for this barbarism, and the fact that government officials charged with the care of these animals try to justify the cruelty is appalling.
47
Weaning pigs at 10 days doesn't happen just at the research facilities.
It is the standard for the integrated, pork "industry." They call it "early weaning."
One of the "advantages" is to reduce the time the piglets are exposed to diseases the sows may harbor (without actually suffering from the disease) and be placed on "preventative" antibiotics. Thus, the piglet has more energy to grow, rather than use energy for staying healthy.
This also benefits big pharma. They sell antibiotics, rather than allowing the piglet to depend upon natural immunity provided by the mother's milk.
Don't even get me started on the factors of contributing to antibiotic resistance in both the animals and in our environment.
It is the standard for the integrated, pork "industry." They call it "early weaning."
One of the "advantages" is to reduce the time the piglets are exposed to diseases the sows may harbor (without actually suffering from the disease) and be placed on "preventative" antibiotics. Thus, the piglet has more energy to grow, rather than use energy for staying healthy.
This also benefits big pharma. They sell antibiotics, rather than allowing the piglet to depend upon natural immunity provided by the mother's milk.
Don't even get me started on the factors of contributing to antibiotic resistance in both the animals and in our environment.
" Researchers and producers should open their operations to full transparency, including videotaping their activities." Absolutely.
47
Please note that it is not the entire Dept of Ag that is exempt from the Animal Welfare Act and it is not just the Dept of Ag that is exempt under the statutory definition of "animal" as covered under the law. Rather, it is an express exemption for ANY research involving "(3) other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber."
The Forest Service, the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), and other agencies under the Dept of Ag are all subject to the law. The NWRC is a model of superb animal care and ethical conduct, not only due to compliance with the law but also due to the integrity of leadership.
Please do not make the mistake of thinking that all Dept of Ag research is like that described in the original article.
The Forest Service, the National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC), and other agencies under the Dept of Ag are all subject to the law. The NWRC is a model of superb animal care and ethical conduct, not only due to compliance with the law but also due to the integrity of leadership.
Please do not make the mistake of thinking that all Dept of Ag research is like that described in the original article.
10
Incremental improvements in how farm animals are kept, so as to make their lives somewhat less trouble-filled, are always welcome. And of course it's a praiseworthy act of journalism that shines a light on the confusion, nontransparency and hypocrisy of the USDA.
But let's not be deceived. In the larger view here, which encompasses the enslavement, exploitation and killing of countless fellow sentient creatures, both birds and mammals, these improvements are but a wee bit of moral progress. So long as these animals are primarily and unapologetically thought of as means to bring profit to human masters, the relationship is corrupt and unwholesome, the animals will never receive what they deserve, and the human beings, the "livestock producers," will continue to wrap about themselves the chains of injustice and woe.
But let's not be deceived. In the larger view here, which encompasses the enslavement, exploitation and killing of countless fellow sentient creatures, both birds and mammals, these improvements are but a wee bit of moral progress. So long as these animals are primarily and unapologetically thought of as means to bring profit to human masters, the relationship is corrupt and unwholesome, the animals will never receive what they deserve, and the human beings, the "livestock producers," will continue to wrap about themselves the chains of injustice and woe.
68
Am I the only one is seeing an irony in the "would you show this to your wedding guests" test. Every animal is herded in a line, shot with a bolt through the head (or hung on a converyor and has their head chopped off, in the case of chickens), then drained of blood and hacked apart. Later they appear on the wedding dinner menu. Surely, agricultural animals have already failed this test.
Much work in animals is to keep them healthy, to protect humans from diseases originating in animals, and as models for human disease. Merely eating them seems a much worse thing to do than research for improvements in their health or the health of humans. I expect all this good research will be made more difficult, while sticky traps that let mice die of thirst, and let rodents die of internal bleeding over many hours, and pate de fois gras, are all openly sold for the convenience of consumers. There is simply no sense of proportion in this debate.
Much work in animals is to keep them healthy, to protect humans from diseases originating in animals, and as models for human disease. Merely eating them seems a much worse thing to do than research for improvements in their health or the health of humans. I expect all this good research will be made more difficult, while sticky traps that let mice die of thirst, and let rodents die of internal bleeding over many hours, and pate de fois gras, are all openly sold for the convenience of consumers. There is simply no sense of proportion in this debate.
29
Yes, but we can't accomplish every thing at once. Step by step is realism and worthwhile.
Yes, sticky traps are truly evil. The mice die of thirst after hours and hours of screaming and terror. It's almost impossible to free them. I've tried.
Yes, sticky traps are truly evil. The mice die of thirst after hours and hours of screaming and terror. It's almost impossible to free them. I've tried.
Finally, Tom Vilsack is forced to respond to something! The internal ombudsman is a waste. We have been begging for puppy mill reform for years while the USDA's APHIS department supports Michael Vick level animal cruelty at their licensed "breeding facilities." This is no joke. The inspection reports are free online and sickening. The Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation also has a lot online, including the latest APHIS directive, which instructs inspectors NOT to write up violations, including those that cause direct harm to animals. This in the face of the many recent bans and regulations by local municipalities to stem the tide of puppy mill puppies in their communities. Chester A. Gipson, chief enforcement officer, is protecting bad breeders. Despite the OIG concluding in five reports since 1992 that the USDA "cannot guarantee the humane treatment of the animals in its program," APHIS and these inhumane "breeders" seem untouchable. Thank you NYT for getting Sec. Vilsack's attention. I certainly hope he will help the suffering dogs now, too. The Animal Welfare Act has become the Bad Breeder Protection Act and the USDA is the biggest animal cruelty ring in the country.
70
And don't forget such Congressional gems as the "Animal Enterprise Protection Act" (which essentially brands animal rights advocates who attempt to document gross infractions by filming inside industrial farms) as "eco-terrorists". Cargill, Monsanto and the like have invested wisely in purchasing US and State legislators: the returns have been handsome, indeed.
4
Why is it so hard to practice kindness? We need to legislate it? Each person consuming the products of cruelty should look to themselves for the answer.
46
Well done, legislators and NY Times.
59
Thanks NY Times, and thanks Cory Book and Mike Fitzpatrick. Just how can it be that people can be around animals suffering and not care--see them scream out, see them die, see them beg for help--and just let it happen? That they come to work every day and do this and then go home? What does it say about them as human beings. How do they treat their children? Their pets?
86
I have been wondering about this ever since I started reading USDA inspection reports of puppy mills. Inspectors write up everything from dogs with missing limbs and eyeballs to those that were drowned for not producing large litters to dogs literally driven mad by confinement exhibiting obsessive behavior. They do not remove animals in imminent danger or pain, just write them up (maybe) and go to the next house of horrors. We rightly vilify dog fighters and others who abuse animals, why not the possibly mentally ill mill owners and inspectors? They are all abusing animals for profit and without remorse.
52
Whenever the government exempts itself from its own regulations, as was the Dept. of Agriculture, is nothing but a fraud - and the NY Times excellent investigation proves the point.
46
Mr. Moss your previous article on Jan. 19th literally broke my heart. Thank you so much for your initial expose and now this welcome follow up article. May this bill move swiftly forward.
59
Boycott cruelty. Eat plants.
75
Scott, I have become a vegetarian a year ago specifically because of the disgusting way, farm animals are treated it is of very small price to pay to feel a lot better.
9
Good for the bill's sponsors. If the meat industry doesn't straighten up and become transparent more and more people will oppose them and become vegetarians. I did, 42 years ago and have never regreted it.
43
Bravo to the NY Times for bringing this matter to the public's attention. This is a very fast legislative response. The Times has run some excellent investigative journalism articles recently - very glad to see this trend.
109
Legislating against abuse of research animals is just like sprinkling fairy dust in our eyes to blind us to the crimes against animals perpetrated by the incomparably larger agro-industrial animal husbandry complex. It's no wonder the lawmakers seized so rapidly on the idea of punishing a few research labs - how better to make it look as if they are doing something, while actually obfuscating the real extent of the problem. It would be a lot more impressive if the legislators would tackle the industry, but, heck, corporations are people too, you know...
It is shocking that we see so many stories of cruelty - in producing our food, in developing our medicines, in breeding pets. And do these people go home to their Labradors and not see the discrepancy? I am not yet a vegetarian but certainly close since no ewe should watch her lambs die, no primate be enclosed in a small cage and turn to self harm, no dog breed over and over and never walk on grass.
64
I don't disagree with you, but the truth is that animals used in medical research are carefully regulated regarding their care (outside of the experiments themselves, of course.) I understand your leaning toward vegetarianism, particularly because the production of meat is the largest the cause of animal cruelty by far. But would you refuse a lifesaving drug treatment because it was developed using animal testing? Would you refuse to give it to your child? I'm not criticizing your point of view, simply pointing out that this issue, like most, is not black and white.
2
Ghandi's wife refused a lifesaving drug because it was developed using animal testing and she died.
However, just because we can't all rise to heroism doesn't disqualify our less than perfect attempts to reduce pain, terror and despair for other sentient beings. Most of us can't be perfect but we can be good.
However, just because we can't all rise to heroism doesn't disqualify our less than perfect attempts to reduce pain, terror and despair for other sentient beings. Most of us can't be perfect but we can be good.
8
Lisa Wesel I have a life threatening illness and do not want any benefit to me as a result of pain and suffering of non human animals.
or any fellow human primate.. We humans seem to be able to justify suffering if it somehow is thought to benefit humans.
or any fellow human primate.. We humans seem to be able to justify suffering if it somehow is thought to benefit humans.
1
Bipartisanship?!! On an issue like this?! Is there actually hope for us?!!
52
OK, this is a first step. But let's move it forward for the Animal Welfare Act to address ALL animals in the meat/poultry production chain -- and whoops, let's not forget that horseowners in the US are sending their horses to Canada and Mexico for slaughter under really inhumane conditions. The European Union needs to get onboard with not permitting horsemeat into the EU countriues (the French and Italians still eat horseflesh) unless it has some sort of humanely slaughtered practice behind it.
76