I am one of more than 500 veterinary professionals who oppose the proposed EATS Act. Supporting this legislation would violate our oath to prevent animal suffering.
Veterinarians dedicated to the protection of farmed animals encounter multiple challenges as we strive to obey our oath.
Photography courtesy of Crystal Heath.
For too long, the pork industry has been permitted to inflict what amounts to criminal animal cruelty—with the help of billions of dollars in public funding. Approximatelytwo-thirds of mother pigs, weighing 525 to 790 lbs, are trapped within gestation crates for the entirety of their 114-day pregnancy. These stalls, measuring 2.5 feet by 7 feet, cruelly restrict their mobility, permitting only a few steps forward and backward—an experience similar to enduring months of confinement to an airline seat without any cushions. To ward off obesity, producers intentionally subject them to a perpetual state of hunger.
In 2018, voters in California decided they’d had enough and passed Proposition 12. That legislation stipulated that pork entering California’s markets must originate from animals whose mothers were given a minimum of24 square feet of space, freeing hogs from gestation crates.
The law was meant to go into effect last year, but it was blocked by legal challenges from the National Pork Producers Council, which were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court this spring. Prop 12 will take effect December 31, 2023, and when it does, veterinarians like myself will be able to celebrate one small victory against this powerful industry.
However, a new challenge to Prop 12 has emerged: The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act poses yet another barrier to our efforts to alleviate extensive animal suffering. This proposed legislation aims to invalidate more than1,000 state-level laws and guidelines pertaining to both food safety and the protection of animals. Among the signatories of aletter supporting the EATS Act, penned for the U.S. Congressional leaders, is Nebraska Governor Dr. Jim Pillen, a hogproducer and veterinarian, who is also part owner of a slaughterhouse. His signature highlights the way politicians can wield their power to protect their own interests over the interests of the general public.
Veterinarians dedicated to the protection of farmed animals encounter multiple challenges as we strive to obey our oath to work for the “protection of animal health and welfare, the prevention and relief of animal suffering.” The reality of gestation crates isdistressing: During one hour of observation,92.6% of confined pigs exhibited signs of stress. These behaviors, marked by repetitive movements, serve as a mechanism to cope with being trapped in cages. One particularly pervasive stereotype is sham chewing, or repetitive chewing despite no food present in the mouth, which accounts for an astonishing50-75 percent of the waking hours for these confined mother pigs.
The author examines a pig. (Photo courtesy of Crystal Heath)
The ramifications of gestation crates extend beyond animal welfare, threatening our own health. Confined sows have markedlyelevated levels of stress hormones—adrenaline and noradrenaline—compared to their group-housed counterparts. This heightened stress not only renders these animals more vulnerable to infections but also exacerbates thevirulence of pathogens such as salmonella, campylobacter and staphylococcus aureus. Tragically, this susceptibility affects theirpiglets, resulting in suppressed immune function compared to piglets born to group-housed mothers. Piglets often remain infected until they reach slaughter. These infections often go undetected, and when infected pigs are slaughtered and sold, this creates a public health threat. The piglets of group-housed sows have better resistance and resilience and are exposed to fewer pathogens than those of crated sows.
Pork stands as the chief perpetrator of food-borne illnesses, with a staggering787,000 annual cases in the United States alone. The economic toll is substantial, with salmonella infections linked to pork consumption resulting in a$1.9-billion annual cost to Americans. The prevalence of salmonella is pronounced among mother pigs, with60 percent testing positive and10 percent demonstrating resistance to multiple drugs. The consequences are manifold—it’s not just the health and welfare of the confined animals that is compromised; our own health is also put at risk.
In a bid to combat the escalating incidence of disease, producers resort to antibiotics, worsening the crisis of multi-drug-resistant bacteria. Data from 2022, released by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, indicated that a staggering89 percent of studied pork production facilities administered antibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs through feed with27.1 percent of all antibiotics sold in the U.S. going to pork production. According to the World Health Organization, roughly 700,000 deaths annually can be connected to diseases that have become hard to combat due to antibiotic resistance. If this pattern continues, the number could surge to 10,000,000 by 2050.
Agriculture innovations and intensification have perpetuated the suffering of billions of farmed animals while simultaneously jeopardizing the health of our own species. As we look to the future, what will our relationship with other animals look like three decades from now? What health afflictions will plague us? The answers to these questions are contingent upon the policies we choose to enact today. The choices we make have ramifications for future generations, influencing not just the fate of farmed animals but our own species, too.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and are used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies.