Welfare and Impacts (Improving Animal and Worker Health and Welfare)
Workshop (January 17, 2013) – 9:00 am to 4:30 pm – Minnesota Humanities Center
Opening and Introductions:
The discussions in Table 8 emphasized the ethics of animals, animal related diseases, the importance of food safety, veterinary medicine, and animal production practices. In general, most of the members of the panel were very knowledgeable in the subject area. Table 8 had seven members including 2 moderators. Scott works as a journal editor in veterinary medicine. Kirk is a specialist in animal related diseases. Jenifer is a dietetics student who currently works for the Beef Council. She was both the youngest and the only woman in our group apart from Sue who was one the moderator. Another member of the group was a professor in a state university. Jeff is a professor of philosophy on food ethics. Among other topics, we discussed about how pigs can be considered pets by some individuals instead of a food source and the special relationship some groups hold with pets in contrast to other farm animals. Finally the table included one of the keynote speakers who works as an administrator for the largest dairy producer in the state of Minnesota. Also being one of the panelists other table members regularly addressed Kevin with questions about Riverview Ltd. Other topics that were discussed in the first section of the forum included the importance of moving from an abstract point of view to a concrete understanding of animal production, and the differences between local production and imported agricultural products.
Part of the initial discussion also included a sharing of experiences with animal production and overall statements regarding their opinion of current practices. Based on his research, Jeff explained how tomatoes from Florida actually have a smaller environmental impact than tomatoes that are grown in Minnesota and other places in with colder climates. There were numerous interesting anecdotes. While both Sue and Alfonso acted as moderators their roles were somewhat different. Sue’s expertise in veterinary medicine allowed her to ask specific questions about animal and human welfare. By having limited prior knowledge of this subject, Alfonso focused on conveying an honest interest in learning more about each individuals’ opinion. Much of the initial discussion centered around tradeoffs. After a friendly conversation, and going over some of the objectives for the day, the forum moved towards “framing the issue”.
Framing the Issue: (The comments made by Kevin Wulf the Human Resources and Social Licensing Director Riverview LLP were of great interest to the members of Table 8. Table 8 was the table where Kevin Wulf seated. Despite our interest in ensuring that everyone shared their opinion during the discussion, and taking step to making this happen, questions were regularly asked to Kevin by different table members. Below are some of the comments and notes from the speaker presentations)
– “Adults are kids in big people bodies”
– Operation includes 45,000 cows
– Raise their own heifer replacements
– The operation is back into beef production
– They currently have around 700 employees (600 hispanics)
– Emphasis in social licensing – promoting community and trust
– Emphasizing worker welfare they have built family houses
– They also held an open house event and invited the community
– The organization retains 1930s values, and culture
– They are currently focused on stewardship and immigration issues
– Discussion on values – We all drive every day even though it is dangerous
– Risk aversion – What level of risk is most appropriate?
– They have implemented a beef safe program to increase safety
– They faced multiple audits including an ICE audit
– Farms growing in size but safety training has sometimes not been adequately implemented
– The extremes are often noticeable on small farms (some treat animals the best, some the worst)
– “When you have a family farm you have the opportunity to do things your way”
– Large Hispanic workforce – Hired an on-staff Spanish teacher
– Additional bilingual people have been added to the staff
– Multiple courses on what is Medicare? What is Social Security?
– Promoting the barefoot doctor model which has been successful with Latinos worldwide
– Beliefs or superstitions can negative influence migrant perceptions
– Importance of balancing positive vs. negative comments (5 to 1 ratio)
– Death of an employee driving a 4 wheeler transformed into a teachable moment
– Dairy farm was fined by OSEA as a result of this fatality
– Safety training is not just about education but also empowerment
– Animals are difficult to handle. Even a new born calf is from 70 to 100 lbs.
– The baby calf is dragged it out of the pen which looks ugly but it helps the workers
– Other animals: Complications of killing a pig and the discomfort of killing it (250 lbs)
What is the most significant challenge with respect to both animal and worker health and welfare?
Challenges:
- How do we deal with “important” diseases (why? How?) with limited resources
- Criticism of traditions in animal treatment vs. Increasing efficiency
- Importance of the Business’ bottom-line vs. Consumers workers & animal welfare
- Who’s voice? Do “they” understand (farmer vs. Non-farmers)
- There are too many assumptions and individuals who don’t understand
- Difficulty deciding how & who comes to the discussion table
- What are ways in which we can overcome pre-conceptions and misconceptions
- Reducing high levels of suspicion between parties (Wisconsin DNR vs. Hunters)
- Increasing interaction and trust – “I don’t see that happening much”
- Finding ways of building trust between opposing viewpoints
- Increasing lack of consequence or personal responsibility in society
- Characterizations and focus on extremes in social media campaigns (online videos)
- Questioning of standard practices and fear of changing them
- Impact of media and the importance of portraying issues “fairly”
- Consumers emphasis in animal welfare vs. Workers welfare
- Shift to animal welfare and lack of concern about the human element
- Contrast between larger vs. smaller organizations
- Smaller organizations feel that large organizations are raising the bar too quickly
What makes these challenges so difficult to resolve?
Difficulties: When thinking of points of controversy and difficulty between groups and how current American culture has been affected by the separation between animal production and the market place, and the perception vs. the reality. While some of the images shared through social media are discomforting, many of these practice have taken place for decades or hundreds of years. In addition, they may not tell the whole story or explain why this practice takes place. While a practice may seem brutal, such as when a piglet is killed by brute force trauma, the shaking observe after the impact may be mostly a reflex. Various table members pointed out how the current systems used are much better than the system that were available before and that there are misconceptions about what animals prefer. How do we know what an animal prefers? Many animals seem to enjoy being in their own stalls even when given the option of a shared space. Pigs for example spend most of their time in their independent stalls, spending only close to 15% of their time in the common spaces. When discussing possible solution our table emphasized the following:
- Starting With Trust
- From individual to individual
- There is a lack of reliance on others
- There is a lack of a sense of community
- Consequences of Affluence
- We increasingly rely less on others
- We could ponder and reflect more
- What Are the Alternatives?
- Are suggested changes sustainable?
- Addressing misunderstanding of why a practice takes place
- Lacking Responsibility
- Seeking balanced information not partial snippets
- Not focusing solely on scandals
Synthesis of Table Discussions:
Following the table conversation, Sue and Alfonso summarized the key elements of the discussion. When thinking of challenges and ways to address them, Table 8 highlighted the importance of increasing trust and communication between individuals. It also highlighted the importance of higher quality media or information but left the responsibility of finding these sources to the individual. While there will always be low quality information a person can chose to read that media or inform themselves through a different news source. Finally, it is important to understand that while we may increasingly trust each other and find better sources of information we are likely to have differences of opinions. Individuals have different sets of values. But while values are different we must all respect other individuals’ rights. Table 8 discussion is summarized in the three bullet points below.
- 1) Trust
- 2) Individual Responsibility
- 3) Value Placement
Polarity Map (Table 8)
|
|
What Do We All Most Want? Respect for Animals Reduced Suffering |
|
|
| My Values (Producer) |
Positive Heritage Identity / Pride in Tradition of Stewardship Providing Wholesome and Safe Food Provider – Feeding the World |
Positive Giving Voice to Animals Respect of Life Questioning The Status Quo Increase Accountability |
Your Values (Animal Rights) |
|
Differing Values (My vs. Your Values) |
|||
|
Negative Lower Level of Compassion for Animals Focus on Profit I’m Right! You are Wrong Mentality Lack of Sensitivity and Overconfidence |
Negative Lower Level of Compassion for People I’m Right! You are Wrong Mentality Famer Out of Business Overly Sensitive |
||
|
What Do We All Most Fear? Animals Caused to Suffer < —– Having No Choice —– > No Able to Eat Meat Again Values Imposed |
Developing Action-Oriented Objectives
In this section we discussed as a group the ways in which to break away from remaining caught up or stuck in the negative quadrants of a polarity. We discussed how values are deeply held attitudes and that without greater openness it would be difficult to find common ground. Part of the problem resulted from misconceptions and individuals campaigns for or against a situation (in this case animal production) of which they have a limited understanding of. Should a person who has never stepped inside a production site be considered when drafting policy, rules or regulations that affect agricultural producers? To some members of the table misinformed and uninformed individuals who have not visited production sites should probably not be a part of the discussion. “They should visit a number of production facilities before having a place in the conversation”. However, perhaps they were being overly judgmental of animal right activists and including them could help producers and activist find places where they can collaborate. The polarity map pointed towards a common goal of treating animals respectfully and reducing their suffering. With a common goal and the appreciation that some changes can be positive and helpful in improving the production system, producers should be more open to a conversation. Before developing the details of the project, table members agreed that an open dialog and an amicable conversation could help start breaking down some of the barriers and misconceptions, and help manage and maintain the polarity within the two positive quadrants.
Project Brainstorm
The Issue: Differing Values
The Objective: Understand Each Other Better and Find Common Ground. Starting a Conversation!
Big Ideas: To hold a series of friendly meetings or conversations, slowly working towards finding common ground between two opposing viewpoints. Hosting events that are similar to the one we are participating in today.
We’ll know we have been successful when….
When there is a greater understanding and less sensationalism. When we discussed the polarity, we noticed that there are positive elements to both viewpoints. Sharing a common ground of helping or wanting the best for society and respecting animals and human life is a position both groups share. While there will likely be individuals in both extremes that will not agree with more moderate positions, there are ways in which by improving communication some of the concerns of both groups can be addressed.
Balancing the Paradox:
|
General Challenges |
Proactive Steps We Could Take To Address Challenges |
|
Downside:
For many years there has been a drain in human capital from rural areas of the country. Producers are stereotypically perceived as dumber or as less intellectual than city residents.
Activists tend to use secret cameras and other hidden and deceitful methods to obtain information, some of which is portrayed in controversial ways. |
Unfortunately, individuals have continuously left rural America. As rural America provides more conveniences in comparison to urban areas more individuals may chose to remain in rural areas. In addition online education can increasingly address this problem.
By having greater respect for one another and being aware of how hidden cameras and other deceitful tactics can be counter-productive. The solution is not to increase surveillance but for activist to consider changing some of their tactics. Activist should focus more on human welfare issues not only animal concerns.
|
|
Who Might Object and Why?
Because of the negative media, and the confrontational position taken by some animal rights activists, many producers are unwilling to work together with animal right advocates. |
While activist tactics have not been effective in changing the perspective of most producers in a positive way, they have frightened and, at times, misinformed consumers. It is likely that many animal right advocates will support deceitful tactics as they have been moderately effective with certain audiences.
|
|
What Could Derail This Effort?
Despite the best interests of some individuals, many will be hesitant to join this type of activity. If the first event were to be poor in results or unable to bring about a fruitful conversation others may decide to not participate in future events. There is currently very little trust and building this trust is a difficult and major objective. |
Moving too fast when starting the conversation could be detrimental. The conversation may be too polarized to start with a common ground forum (although we are currently in one). Including parties in the conversation that are unwilling to have a friendly dialog. However, it is also important to reach out. Having a meeting between consumers and producers may not be extending far enough. Reaching out to activists and animal right advocates but starting small may be the best way to address this charged debate. Starting small, perhaps with a meeting of only eight people over dinner where maybe they can purposely avoid talking about the animal production and animal rights but instead learn of each other as people may be a good way to start. |
Built Commitment:
|
Who Are the Major Stakeholders? |
What Support Could They Provide? |
|
Producers |
Some producers must have the willingness to open their businesses to other stakeholders and by doing so build goodwill, openness, and a holistic sense of community |
|
Consumers |
Consumers dictate some of the changes in production through market behavior. If consumer preferences change, producers will adapt their business to meet the changing demands and fulfill the needs of consumers. |
|
Activist |
By acknowledging positive changes, addressing issues holistically, and pointing to abuses but not making generalization based on a few cases they could help improve production practices in places were abuses are taking place while increasing consumer trust in producers who are treating animals respectfully. |
|
Media |
Media outlets could reduce their focus on sensationalism and increasing their coverage of positive changes and developments. Well researched documentaries and other balanced media productions could be developed to help inform all other stakeholders of what is happening in different places and types of production. |
|
Government |
Too often has government policy and red tape been enacted and increased as a reaction to events that are not representative of the actions of most producers. It is important for the government to trust businesses and not audit them regularly especially if they have a positive track record. While some companies have lost the trust of consumers, not all have. Government can sponsor conversations. |
|
Facilitators |
Some discussions can be difficult to have without a neutral party. Facilitators are generally neutral and also encourage individuals in the table to speak their minds openly. Training facilitators in polarization management techniques can help reduce some of the conflict and the fear that is likely to be present in the discussion. |
Teach and Learn:
What do we need to know more about?
It will be important to find activists and animal right advocates who are willing to have this conversation. Kevin, an employee for a major producer, explained how he currently participates in water management board that focuses on improving the environment. Like him, many individuals have a diverse number of interests. It will be helpful to find advocates and activist that understand the importance of finding common ground and who can see producers as complex individuals that may only be acting based on what they consider to be best practices.
Who has further information that would be useful?
The Center for Integrative Leadership and similar initiatives provide others with valuable information in how to best communicate and address polarized topics. Having more stakeholders participate in this type of events would be a positive step in improving the relationship. Logistically it will also be helpful to identify which groups are geographically nearby so that it is easier to facilitate these conversations.
What additional support is needed to make this project successful? Who can provide that support?
Some producers will be more interested in this discussion than others. For example, Riverview holds an open house where community members and other interested individuals can visit their production facilities. Organized visits can be scheduled. Likewise, it is important to identify some activist and advocates that are nearby who are more interested in a conciliatory approach than others. Identifying the parties to join this initial get together and obtaining the funding to make this event a possibility would be helpful.
Final Comments:
Facilitating this event was an interesting and fulfilling experience. I greatly enjoyed participating and I hope I am able to join a future event. On the positive side, the dialog was action oriented and participants interacted extensively. Apart from the youngest member of the table, most participants shared their opinion regularly. All members were asked often for their opinions. What could have been better would have been for the group to have been larger. While some tables had eight to ten members, after one of the members left, Table 8 had only six participants. One of the participants did not share her opinions often for most of the event and having two facilitators, towards the end of the event there were formally only three participants sharing their opinions. Moreover, they had similar viewpoints. When building the project, we decided to finish the group early and disband so that members could join other groups as we could not move the project into implementation. We lacked an animal right advocate in our table. Yet, the most positive memory from the afternoon session was when Kevin met with a lawyer who is also an animal right activist in a different table and they agree to meet for dinner following the conditions that had been outlined in Table 8 a few minutes earlier. It was great to see the transition from an open forum discussion where everyone had different viewpoints to an action-oriented conclusion where a polarity is mapped and a group of individuals decides to address the concerns that were discussed earlier in the day. It was a positive ending to a very educational and fruitful experience.
