Compassion has teamed up with creative agency, Elvis Communications, to spread the word about animal welfare.

We’ve taken over a huge digital screen on Eat Street in the Westfield Centre, Shepherd’s Bush, London. A live webcam has been set up on a free-range farm.  We’re inviting shoppers to feed the pigs by donating to Compassion via text and using the accelerometer on their phones to scatter the food. A real feeder on the farm then feeds the pigs!

Pigs are social, curious and intelligent creatures. So it makes sense that the interactive advert is showcasing free-range pigs at a family-run farm in Great Missenden, Buckinghamshire.

The five Tamworth pigs at Collings Hanger Farm are playful and are interested in everything that happens around them. The live webcam gives people the chance to see the different personalities of the pigs; one of them is much less playful than the rest.

There are times when the most effective way to convey the grim realities of factory farming is by using footage or pictures that are deeply disturbing.

But there are other ways as well: seeing pigs in a free-range environment – where they can interact, romp around and socialise with one another, brings home the fact that pigs should live and be reared in just such an environment.

This is the second time we’ve worked with Elvis; previously, it was through an award-winning bus advertisement campaign on live animal exports.

Please take a look at our latest campaign – a real world first! – put together for us by Elvis Communications. If you’re in London in the next two days, why not feed a pig, live, at Westfield from 10am–11am and 2pm-3pm today and on Saturday and support free-range farming.

As important as our victories are in banning veal crates, sow stalls and barren battery cages, and with so much more left to be done generally to improve the lives of farmed animals and their transportation and slaughter, we have yet to face one of our greatest challenges.

In some respects, this imminent threat is not unlike those we have already successfully tackled.

Governments and farming interests persist in failing to address the fundamental problem of using animals intensively to produce food. Instead, they focus on the self-imposed problems they cause. Compassion must challenge simultaneously not only the institution of factory farming but also the attempts made by its defendants to ‘manage’ the animals’ suffering. These measures, as welcome as they are, only go so far and not far enough.

The fundamental problem of using animals intensively to produce food does not go away just because some cages and crates can no longer be used. It has also got to be said that hard-fought victories like these would not have happened if we had not demanded them. History shows us that we cannot wait for governments and farming interests to always act compassionately toward the animals in their care. Or, indeed, in developing agricultural systems that produce humane, healthy and sustainable food for people.

This is the context in which I view our next major challenge – genetic engineering.

Farm animals are being genetically engineered for various purposes. This includes enhanced growth rates, increased disease resistance and altered meat and milk composition. Genetic engineering involves the insertion into an animal of genes from another species or extra genes from the same species. Alternatively it can entail the manipulation, knocking-out or editing of an animal’s own genes.

The genetic modification of farmed animals is hailed as the white hot, high tech innovation to improve animal welfare and food production.

If only it were true. The reality is that GM can entail great animal suffering. Serious deformities of the cranium and jaw, feeding and breathing difficulties and reduced swimming abilities have been documented in some salmon genetically engineered for accelerated growth. What kind of technology is it that can impair the ability of fish to swim, to breathe, to feed?

Some GM purports to tackle problems that can be addressed in much simpler, less invasive ways. Scientists have recently announced that they are to produce GM cattle without horns. Certainly the dehorning of cattle (a frequently performed mutilation) is immensely painful. However, it’s not necessary to use GM to produce hornless cattle as conventional breeding methods could easily breed such animals.

There may be some very exceptional circumstances when genetic engineering may legitimately address animal welfare. Time will tell whether that will be the case. Certainly, we must be sceptical of any talk of GM being a ‘benign way to help animal welfare’.

If we were concerned with GM crops, then, we should be even more concerned with GM animals. In the USA, the US Food and Drug Administration is due shortly to make a decision on whether to allow salmon genetically engineered to grow much faster than normal to become the first GM animal food.

Our position is that, in light of its adverse impact on animal health and welfare, GM should not play any part in farming.

In particular, we call upon the European Union to prohibit the:

• Genetic engineering of animals for food production
• Use of GM animals and their offspring in the EU, which will make it pointless to import semen and embryos of GM animals
• Sale of food from GM animals
• Sale of food from the offspring of GM animals

Click here to read our 4-page report on genetic engineering and cloning.

When I first wrote about bees here in 2009 I said research suggested what was known as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) was linked to the use of a group of pesticides called neonicotinoids.

Neonicotinoids are water soluble, nicotine-like chemicals which, when sprayed onto the ground, are absorbed by the entire plant turning it into what the BBC describes as a ‘poison factory’.  Plants become extremely toxic to insects and, of course, bees.

The recent European vote was a close call. Fifteen out of 27 EU member states voted to suspend the pesticide. Eight, including Britain, voted against. Four abstained. As the vote did not reach the required majority under EU rules, the decision goes to the European Commission, which, fortunately, was already committed to banning neonicotinoids.

Big congratulations to everyone and every organisation who achieved this important success.

It is but one example of the multitude of problems that industrial agriculture – factory farming – with its chemical-soaked fields of monoculture and animal confinement, imposes on animals, people and the planet.  Please join our campaign to expose the raw truth about factory farming; please visit Raw and help us kick-start a food and farming revolution!

Pig in a sow stall

Canada’s largest eight supermarkets, including Walmart Canada and Sainsbury Canada, have committed to sourcing fresh pork products from animals kept in humane alternatives within nine years, according to a statement by the Retail Council of Canada (RCA).

“Increasingly, stakeholder expectations have also been changing and industry is being encouraged to shift towards alternative housing practices”, says the RCA. “The Retail Council of Canada believes that sows should be housed in an environment where their pregnancy, health and well-being are taken into highest consideration”.

The news has been applauded by the Canadian Coalition for Farm Animals (CCFA) and the Humane Society International (HSI).

Highly intensive confinement methods of breeding pigs, such as sow stalls for pregnant sows and farrowing crates for mother pigs, have been widely used in Canada. Sow stalls, also known as gestation crates, are narrow metal crates where the pregnant sow is unable to turn around throughout her four month pregnancy. The system was banned in the UK in 1999 and a partial ban brought in across the EU in 2013.

This announcement of a voluntary move from sow stalls by major retailers is a huge milestone and is greatly welcomed on the world stage. Congratulations to everyone involved for bringing about this major advance for animal welfare.

The first is that the European Commission has decided to take legal action against Greece and Italy to enforce the ban on barren battery cages in those countries. Greece and Italy are the last countries to comply with the law, which came into force over a year ago.

It is testimony to the hard campaigning from you, our wonderful supporters, and our Big Move campaign, that over a dozen non-compliant countries a year ago has been converted into just two. It has also, no doubt, influenced the Commission to lose patience with the remaining pair of nations, serving notice that they’ll be taken to the European Court of Justice.

Many millions of laying hens will be better off as a result of this action.

The second cause to celebrate is over signs of real progress for our RAW campaign to see an end to factory farming altogether. As you’ll appreciate, this is a longer term goal, but one that we have been doggedly pursuing.

We lose no opportunity to point out how factory farming is highly inefficient on precious resources like water and energy. We drive home the reality that factory farms waste food, not make it; for example, squandering enough cereals every year to feed three billion people. We are also leading the way in advocating practical policy measures to see a switch from industrial agriculture to more sustainable, resource-efficient extensive farming methods.

We are delighted therefore that the European Parliament’s Environment Committee has adopted three hugely helpful amendments to a European policy document setting out its direction on the environment for the period to 2020.

These include a recognition that the environment would benefit from a “less intensive approach to livestock production”, reducing pollution and improving soil health and biodiversity.

Another amendment states that feeding food that people could eat, like cereals and soya to industrially reared farm animals is “resource-inefficient as much of their food value is lost during conversion from plant to animal matter”.

We are delighted that these important messages are starting to get through to high-level policy makers, along with increasing acceptance that animal welfare should be seen as integral to sustainable development.

The revised document is expected to now be voted on by the full European Parliament in July.

We’ll keep you posted.

Muck spreading in Maryland, USA

Maryland, USA: A farm tractor clanks along with what looks like thick red smoke belching from the back of a long green trailer and billowing across the adjacent road. Reddish-brown lumps spray out onto the field behind.

This is poultry manure being blown mechanically into the air and spread across the soil. “The stuff along the ditches and field edges; if it rains could run-off and end up in Chesapeake Bay,” warns my companion, local waterkeeper, Kathy Phillips. “The pungent smell of chicken manure being spread is a familiar part of Spring here”.

I’m currently in the US on the trail of mega-chicken farms.  I’m investigating the multi-pronged attack on the world-renowned Chesapeake Bay; pesticides and run-off from the mountains of poultry manure in this area.

I’ve heard how one of the biggest threats to Chesapeake Bay, the largest estuary in United States, is from the waste from vast numbers of chicken produced in its watershed. I began this journey at the childhood homestead of the late Rachel Carson, whose seminal book, Silent Spring, first raised the alarm over the effects of industrial agriculture half a century ago. I wanted to find out how well we heeded Rachel’s warning.

Today, I took to the air to see for myself the extent to which industrial agriculture has taken hold, a car ride away from Rachel’s former home. I went up in a tiny four-seater chopper, the flight donated by the organisation, Lighthawk. Coming from the UK, I wasn’t prepared for the scale of what I saw.

We flew over the extensive woodlands and rivers at the same height as the Turkey Vultures and a passing Bald Eagle; 500 feet up. As we juddered and floated along the line of the river, the forests quickly began to open and we saw our first chicken factory farm.  “20,000 birds per house down there”, our pilot said into his mouthpiece. Then we saw another factory farm, and another, and another, each with several long, low-slung warehouse-like buildings. Perhaps the most impactful for me was a huge installation with 30 of these huge sheds huddled together; I estimated it must have the capacity to produce over 5 million chickens a year.

It brought home to me the sheer scale of factory farming in this area. I had already heard about it.  Now I knew.  The problems faced by the natural environment here come back to the density of animals being reared; and they are the same as a big cause of animal welfare harm; too many animals in too small a space.

The words of an academic from Johns Hopkins University, just a day before, rang in my mind.  “The growth of the poultry industry is directly responsible for nutrient build-up in Chesapeake Bay.”  Now I have a better appreciation of just what that growth looks like.

Of course, there has been some progress since Rachel Carson first raised the alarm about the overuse of chemical pesticides. But other areas of industrial agriculture have clearly run out of control; and it’s affecting the health of the planet, people and animals everywhere.

We can all help protect natural environments like the Chesapeake by calling for reform of industrial agriculture and a more common sense approach to producing our food. To get involved, see our campaign to expose the RAW truth about factory farming.

Thank you.

Read previous posts from my Rachel Carson inspired journey here: ‘World renowned bay under threat‘, ‘Silent Spring‘ and ‘A Peregrine mystery‘.

I’ve been talking to some leading figures who tell me that the Bay is under threat. One of the biggest culprits is chickens…

There are now nearly as many chickens being produced in the three States surrounding the Bay as there were across the entire country sixty years ago. The vast majority of these are factory farmed. That’s an awful lot of birds in one area.

But how do chickens locked in long, windowless sheds harm something as vast as the 200-mile long Chesapeake Bay?  Through the poultry manure spread on the fields.

I spoke with Bob Martin at the Johns Hopkins Centre for a Livable Future in Baltimore. He told me how enormous quantities of waste are being spread on the surrounding farmland. This leads to nutrient run-off that often ends up in the Bay.

Carole Morison and her pasture poultry

The pollution can have a big affect on the natural life of the Bay, including periodic fish kills involving thousands at a time. It makes it harder for the once abundant oysters to grow. “Things are out of balance”, Bob told me; industrial agriculture is “the significant threat to environmental damage” in this area.

I also met up with Carole Morison, an industrial chicken farmer of 23 years, now much happier rearing laying hens on pasture. Carole was concerned about how farmers were being treated by big chicken companies, and about the environmental effects of intensive production. So she switched to what she calls “happy chickens”. Now, instead of complaints from customers, Carole has people ringing her up to say how great her hens’ eggs taste!

Read more posts from my Rachel Carson inspired journey here: ’Maryland Muck‘, ‘Silent Spring‘ and ‘A Peregrine mystery‘.

Rachel Carson’s childhood homestead, Springdale, USA

I’m looking from the bedroom window of the late Rachel Carson, imagining what childhood eyes of one of the world’s great environmentalists may have seen. Gazing across the Allegheny valley toward the tree-covered hillside beyond, I could see two great chimney stacks reaching up from the coal-fired plants along the river basin. Was it this meeting point between countryside and industrialisation that caused the first awakenings in a young mind that would eventually go on to write a seminal work on the perils of taking an industrial approach to agriculture?

Rachel’s seminal book, Silent Spring, was the first major wake-up call about the perils of toxic pesticides; used in intensive farming to keep down insects, weeds and other pests. It was perhaps the opening salvo in the battle for the countryside; one of the earliest commentaries on industrialisation in food and farming that would lead to animals being incarcerated on factory farms and their feed grown in chemical-soaked fields elsewhere.

I started out in Pittsburgh, USA, on the start of my foray to find out how well we heeded Rachel’s warning.  Later that day, I was in Maryland, standing on the shore of the magnificent Chesapeake Bay, the estuary dwarfing the vast intricate steelwork of the Annapolis bridge that crosses it. As if by arrangement, a spectacular Osprey rose through the sky into sight. Brown turns to white as it banks, hovers briefly before folding wings and a powerful plunge sends droplets raining all around. A momentary pause before broad, fingered wings lift bird and fish from the surface and away with a shake. It’s hard to imagine that this tranquil place for people and animals is under threat.

That evening, I met the executive director of the Maryland Pesticide Network, Ruth Berlin. I wanted to find out what Rachel Carson meant to her and how Chesapeake is fairing today.

Ruth told me she saw Rachel as the ‘mother’ of the modern environmental movement. How her legacy had put the issue of pesticide use in agriculture firmly on the map. But has the problem been solved? “It’s probably a bigger problem now than 50 years ago,” she told me.

I heard how pesticides are being found widely in Chesapeake Bay, but that it’s a problem far from unique to this area. A cocktail of chemical pesticides is seen as contaminating drinking water, affecting wildlife and implicated in serious public health issues.

So Silent Spring brought the issue to the world’s attention. Half a century later, it’s still the subject of furious public debate. My next stop is Johns Hopkins University to learn more.  I’ll keep you posted…

Read previous posts from my Rachel Carson inspired journey here: ‘Maryland Muck‘, ‘World renowned bay under threat‘ and ‘A Peregrine mystery‘.

It was the late 1970s. I was a young teenager reading something that fired my imagination. It led to years of gazing out of windows, a habit that got me into trouble with a string of teachers. It was a sixties classic called, ‘The Peregrine’, by J. A. Baker. I was enthralled, inspired, filled with a sense of nervous wonder. I read his vivid and meticulous descriptions of the falcons he watched near his home in Essex, England. I dreamed of seeing them too. With eyes filled with wonder, I eagerly scrutinized every Kestrel I saw, just in case.

It would be some years before I saw my first one. Majestic, enthralling, and when they close their wings in a stoop, said to be the fastest animal on the planet, hurtling at speeds of 200 kilometres per hour.

I’ve seen many since; in Britain and in many other countries. But that sense of inadequacy has never quite gone away.  You see, after countless encounters, I’ve just not been able to see them so vividly, so close or for so long as Baker did in his book. Was I doing something wrong? For thirty five years, that question has remained unanswered; until this year.

I was on my annual winter trip to North Wales with my wife, Helen. We always call in at the wonderful RSPB reserve at Conwy. Situated on the banks of the estuary, with magnificent views of Snowdonia and Conwy castle, it is a spectacular place to while away an afternoon.

This year’s weather was particularly foul, which meant less time out on the waterfront and more time in the shop surrounded by bird paraphernalia, not least books. As a budding author myself, I scanned the shelves and picked one up by Bloomsbury, my soon-to-be publisher. ‘Silent Spring Revisited’ was the title, by Conor Mark Jameson, exploring the legacy of the environmentalist, Rachel Carson, who raised the alarm over the perils of pesticides sweeping across Britain and America as farming industrialised.

What happened next was like a bolt from the blue…

Standing in the shop, the Prologue enthralled me. “In a book about the dawn chorus, about songbirds and birdsong, the Peregrine Falcon might not be the obvious place to start, but bear with me,” it started. I had to agree. I was intrigued. It turns out the writer and I both had a love affair with that bird and that book by Baker. It spoke glowingly of how both bird and author had achieved “almost mythic, prophet status”.

It brought memories flooding back of how much better, faster, closer the Peregrines looked through the lens of Baker’s eloquent prose. But then a twist. What I hadn’t quite appreciated was that others were quietly questioning what the author really saw.

Through forensic analysis, it was suggested that Baker may not have been looking at wild Peregrines at all! Instead, escaped falconers’ birds, hence why they were so tame. Indeed, in some cases, they may not even have been Peregrines, but some closely related escapee!

Okay, it’s only a theory, but in that moment, decades of inadequate feelings were lifted from my shoulders. The relief was so energising that I shared the moment with anyone nearby that would listen!

Way back in the 1960s, when Baker was writing, Peregrines had pretty much been wiped out in southern Britain. Agrochemical pesticides were widely poisoning wildlife, including birds of prey.

Rachel Carson’s legacy through her own book of that decade, ‘Silent Spring’, is that at least there has been some reform of farming’s chemical age. Buzzards, Sparrowhawks and the like have recovered. The powerful pointed wings and black ‘moustache’ of the Peregrine have once again been restored to the skies over much of Britain.

But the truth is that industrial agriculture still has devastating effects on once common farmland birds. Turtle doves, Skylarks, Corn buntings to name but three have seen their populations crash in Britain over the last 40 years, with little sign of recovery. Sharp declines have occurred on both sides of the Atlantic during periods of rapid farm intensification.

Next week, I visit the US homestead of the late Rachel Carson who sadly died less than 18 months after publication of ‘Silent Spring’ in 1962. It was the book credited with heralding the modern environmental movement. It was a warning of the perils of chemical-soaked industrial agriculture and the factory farming that goes with it. Half a century on, I’ll be asking the question; how well did we heed her call?

Read posts from my Rachel Carson inspired journey here: ‘Maryland Muck‘, ‘World renowned bay under threat‘ and ’Silent Spring‘.

The latest report from the BBC is that at least 16,000 dead pigs have been pulled from the Huangpu River. The river is a major supplier of tap water to Shanghai (population at least 23 million) and the surrounding area in east China.

Also, in what appears to be an unrelated incident, some 1,000 dead ducks were reportedly retrieved from the Nanhe River in the Sichuan province in southwest China.

Added to this, according to The Guardian, at least 20,000 chickens and ducks have been killed in an attempt ‘to halt the spread of an infection (H7N9 avian influenza) that has killed six people’ in Shanghai. The Government also ordered the closure of all live poultry markets in Shanghai.

Although there is reportedly no evidence so far of human-to-human transmission of the virus in this case, it’s a real concern to think that it may only be a matter of time before we see the next influenza pandemic transmitted from animals to humans, caused by the way animals are raised and killed for food.

As China’s population of 1.3 billion continues to grow in size and affluence, the consumption of pork, the nation’s favourite meat, correspondingly increases. ‘The country produces and consumes half the world’s pork, around 50m tonnes in 2011,’ reports The Guardian.

To feed this demand, there is rapid rise in mega-farms; huge factory farms that dwarf anything I’ve seen in Britain or Europe.

The Chinese Government has yet to give an official answer to what has caused so many pigs to die and end up in the Huangpu River. Even the Government-run People’s Daily ran an editorial which called on the governments of Jiaxing and Shanghai to ‘find out the truth’.

The Guardian refers to an environmental protection report from the Zhejiang province published in 2011. The report stated that on ‘average 2% to 4%’ of pigs die before slaughter, which means that in Shaoxing Province ‘between 150,000 and 300,000 corpses need to be disposed of’.

Most likely the pigs dumped in the Huangpu River died prematurely during their intensive confinement. According to Guardian reports, ear tags on the pigs identified them as coming from Jiaxing, in the neighbouring province of Zhejiang. Apparently, as many as 70,000 pigs died because of extreme cold weather this winter.

Disposal of these dead pigs has been thought to include selling them to an illegal meat market. But a recent crackdown by the Government, some suggest, has led farmers to dump dead pigs in the river instead.

Government tests have reportedly found pigs pulled out from the Huangpu River to be infected with porcine circovirus, which is not infectious to humans.

The Government maintains that the quality of the water in the Huangpu River remains unaffected by the dead pigs. But it’s no surprise that increasing numbers of Chinese question whether the water they’re drinking and the pork they’re eating are safe to consume.

But China’s dramatic growth in intensive animal production is a huge cause for concern. I truly hope that China, the most populated country on this planet, will think again before making the same mistakes we made in the West. After all, as I wrote in ‘Food Sense’, factory farming squanders food, rather than makes it; and drives land use, rather than saving it. All at great expense in terms of animal suffering.

Compassion in World Farming will continue to work steadfastly to get across these messages, in China and elsewhere; before it’s too late.

Leopoldine Charbonneaux, Head of CIWF France

Whether its laws and regulations, farming practices and food manufacturing, or factory farming and world hunger, we must expand Compassion’s presence internationally to be effective at the global level, while not forgetting that everything locally also matters.

Our new Strategic Plan for 2013-2017 sets our sights on achieving major impact for animals in Britain, Europe and beyond. In particular, we aim to drive European legislation to achieve better standards of animal welfare through advocacy and campaigning.

The big problem we face now is that the voting numbers are against us.  During the ‘golden age’ of animal welfare reform in Europe during the 1990s, there was a two to one voting majority in favour of better legislation.  Now, the situation has turned on its head, with those countries generally opposed to new reforms being in the majority.  How did this happen?; largely due to EU expansion around the turn of the century.

With its EU-wide bans on barren battery cages, veal crates and the like, Europe is a major influence on global farm animal welfare. We are proud of what we’ve achieved already in Europe, but there is still much more to do.  Achieving new reforms and using this leverage internationally is an important next step.

This is why, in addition to our international head office in Surrey and our branch in the USA, we’ve also set up campaign branches in continental Europe; in the Netherlands, Italy, Poland and France; countries that we believe hold the key to a better future politically.

I am delighted therefore to introduce you to our Head of France, Leopoldine Charbonneaux.

Philip: How did you become involved in animal welfare?

Leopoldine: I was brought up in a family which believed animals were important. Respect for animals was always part of my education. They should be looked after well. We were responsible for the animals we lived with. My father, who wanted to be a farmer all his life, and one of my aunts bred Charolais cattle. But he eventually became an arable farmer. He did not like seeing his cattle go for slaughter. My mother is an artist. Most of her subjects were animals!

Also, another one of my aunts was Princess Elisabeth de Croy. She was a pioneer in animal welfare in France, and very active throughout the world with many organisations, including Compassion. I learned a lot from her. I also volunteered at an animal sanctuary she founded. I was its President and Trustee for several years. I helped with the transition after her death and the development of education programmes that she felt were the way forward. It is called the Refuge de Thiernay, which is near Nevers in central France. So, animals have always been a big part of my life.

Philip: I read Princess Elizabeth’s autobiography, ‘Such a Nuisance to Die’. She says about you on page 204, “Although I am the only person in my family who until recently has followed animal welfare as a career, to my great delight my niece, Leopoldine, the daughter of my sister Mella, now works in animal welfare administration.”

Leopoldine: Yes! She was a formidable lady who worked tirelessly for animals. I remember even at my wedding she was asking me about an animal welfare meeting I had just attended rather than congratulating me on just getting married!

Philip: How did you become involved with Compassion?

Leopoldine: I got a law degree first. Then, I studied law and politics at the Institut d’Etudes politiques de Paris. I majored in international relations. My education was when I first encountered indifference, even scepticism and aggression, toward animal welfare. It was not viewed as a serious subject. I did an internship at World Society for the Protection of Animals in London while I was at school in Paris.

As I wanted to get a broad spectrum of experience in marketing and project management, I worked for various companies and organisations. But it was one job I really disliked, as a marketing manager at a law firm, which made me realise that I wanted to work in a field that I really believed in. It led me back to animal welfare. So, in 2006, I began working for an Italian philanthropist on various projects which included animal welfare. And it was through one of them that we met!

Philip: Yes, I remember it being the inaugural meeting of the World Animal Forum.

Leopoldine: I started at Compassion in 2009 as a consultant to the food business team.

Philip: What do you do now for Compassion?

Leopoldine: I run the French office with a total staff of three plus one more to be hired in the autumn. Our objective is to build awareness and explain what farm animal welfare means. We also address health and food security issues that are close to the heart of the French. We provide information for the general public and organise events to reach out to a wider audience. For example, I recently attended the Salon de l’Agriculture, which is the big annual agricultural exhibition. Compassion has exhibited in the past. But I now feel we can use the funds more cost effectively by exhibiting once every other year. So, I visit the exhibition to research and meet with people involved with food production. I work closely with my colleagues in Britain and throughout Europe.

Philip: What are your hopes and aspirations for animal welfare in France?

Leopoldine: Animal welfare doesn’t have the same profile in France as it does in Britain. My goal is to “catch up” with the UK, and raise the profile of farm animal welfare as an important and science based issue which is intrinsically linked with our lives and the society we live in. Here, it’s mainly thought of as just about cats and dogs, and often seen as a purely emotional subject, considered in a slightly condescending way.

Also, as you know, the French care deeply about the food they eat. But we have an idealistic view of French agriculture. People think it hasn’t changed since the 1950s. You know; animals running around farmyards, that sort of thing. But 95% of pigs in France are intensively raised. A shift is already visible, with the “taboo” of meat consumption and intensive farming practices lifted, and getting more media and consumer attention. We have to build on from there. We need to get more people informed and thinking about animal welfare, and that those who instinctively care about animals, act upon it when they make food choice, towards more welfare for animals. We have to encourage them to take their first steps.

I think mothers are the most receptive. They care about the food their children eat. We need to link their concern to animal welfare. Other target audiences include government ministers, food producers, labour unions….they all need to be made aware of animal welfare. At the moment, they understand it as a restraint. It’s not seen as something positive that can bring benefits. We’re working hard to establish a dialogue with them.

So, we must make people see and the authorities understand that farm animal welfare is a serious issue. We must make as much of a difference for as many animals as we can.

Philip: What does animal welfare personally mean to you?

Leopoldine: Respect. Give them the best life they can have, corresponding to their behavioural needs. Not a painful or stressful death. We live with one dog, two cats, two horses!

Philip at home with ex-battery hen, Huckle

Easter Bank Holiday Weekend is a meaningful time of the year for me.

Not only is it an important moment in the Christian calendar with the Resurrection, but it also marks the end of winter, and the clocks moving forward to British Summer Time.

Notwithstanding the persistent current spell of bitterly cold weather, spring is on its way! The daffodils in our village tell me so, with yellow peaking through.

In cultures throughout the world, eggs often represent spring, fertility, and new beginnings. Of course, we have our own tradition of chocolate Easter eggs.

But how eggs are produced and how chickens are treated in today’s agriculture is something far from deserving celebration.

Please spare a moment this weekend to think about the plight of chickens. 

More than 50 billion chickens throughout the world are reared annually, mostly in intensive farms, as a source of food, for both their meat and their eggs.

Chickens naturally live for 6 years or more.

But chickens intensively farmed for their meat live for six weeks or less before they’re slaughtered.

And egg-laying chickens, who lay around 300 eggs a year, are killed when their productivity declines, which is usually after 12 months or so of laying.

So, this Easter weekend, our rescued hens at home will enjoy a special treat from my wife, Helen, and me.

We will also take a moment to reflect upon the plight of chickens everywhere.

We won’t rest — as I know, you won’t too — until every chicken can enjoy their own new beginning.

Thank you for everything you do to help chickens everywhere.

But what sort of ideas does Gates have in mind? He talks about re-inventing the meat market with technological inventions that look and taste like meat and eggs, but aren’t. He cites two companies, Beyond Meat and Hampton Creek Foods, as being amongst those developing plant-protein sources for the mass market. “I couldn’t taste the difference between Beyond Meat and real chicken”, he writes before exploring the science behind these coming innovations.

Best-selling author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan, explains three good reasons why reducing meat consumption is a good idea – health, environment and animal welfare. On the latter, he goes on to say, “the animal factories that produce most of our meat and milk are brutal places where animals suffer needlessly”.

It’s great to see someone as influential as Bill Gates getting stuck into how we can broaden our food horizons in a way that serves the future. Over the past year or so, during the course of writing a book on the global food system, I’ve been talking to others with ideas worth listening to.  For example, researchers at Wageningen University in the Netherlands are developing ways of producing food and fuel on a grand scale from humble algae and seaweed. Algae protein could be used to feed pigs, poultry or farmed fish currently fed on soya or fishmeal.  It’s already happening on an experimental basis. It could also be a high-protein ingredient for people too.

Similarly, seaweed offers huge potential.  A fairly modest area of the world’s ocean, equivalent to four times the size of Portugal, could produce enough seaweed to satisfy the protein needs of 10 billion people.

Yet the current meat industry seems stuck in the rut of factory farming; perhaps the most supremely wasteful way of producing food so far invented. Two thirds of the world’s farm animals are factory farmed; fed vast quantities of cereals, soya and fish that could otherwise be fed to people. Yet most of the food calories and protein are wasted; for example, 100 calories of crops fed to livestock yields just 30 calories in the form of meat. My own calculation estimates that the cereals fed to industrially reared farm animals alone could feed three billion people.

That is why Compassion is calling for Food Sense: a common sense approach to feeding the world. Instead of squandering the produce of precious arable land on factory farmed animals, would it not be better to save it for food we eat directly? Instead of cages and crowded sheds, would farm animals not serve us better out on pasture and marginal lands, which cover so much of the Earth’s land surface, or foraging in woodlands? Here, they can convert food that people can’t eat into things which they can; and why not feed pigs and poultry on the mountains of food waste that we currently dispose of in landfill? Avoiding over-eating meat through other sources of protein – fake meat or not – as Michael Pollan points out, would also take the pressure off hard-pressed environments and have health benefits too.

None of this is new to Compassion. It was very much the vision of the organisation’s founder and former dairy farmer, Peter Roberts. In the late 1960s, Peter outlined his thinking on how global agriculture could provide for the world’s hungry in an article central to understanding his ethos. In ‘The Earth Can Feed Us’, Peter denounced the prevailing wisdom that the solution to the world’s food problem was to adopt continuous corn growing and factory farming. He reported on the development in many countries of new methods of feeding human beings direct from plants, and called for more plant-based foods to be developed “fast” to avoid famine.

Half a century later, it is heartening to see modern-day heavy-weights getting behind visionary food messages. It’s great to hear the growing chorus of voices behind diversifying our food choices; in favour of developing more sustainable diets; eating better meat and avoiding over-consuming it. The task ahead of us is to turn around the factory farming oil-tanker before it trashes the planet and adds to global hunger, not to mention wreaking untold misery on billions of farm animals.

It’s no small task, and one that I know Compassion supporters the world over are behind. It is also one we can all help with, not least through our food choices.  Thankfully, we have the chance to make a world of difference three times a day.

Only a week ago (March 11), The Guardian reported the number to be nearly 6,000. Talking today with Jeff Zhou, Compassion’s representative in China, I learned that the official number of dead pigs found in the river had reached nearly 10,000.

With no end in sight, it’s horrifying to think of how many more will be found in China’s river of dead pigs.

Pig carcasses are supposed to be disposed of by burying.  However, land is limited. It’s not unusual for farmers to dump unwanted dead animals into rivers. One Chinese news source states the “dumping of dead pigs in rivers is common among Jiaxing villagers due to over expansion of the hog industry and a lack of burial sites”.  

According to local officials, “the reason for the pigs’ death is the cold weather but many don’t believe this,” Jeff told me. “If the pigs can still be sold to market, it doesn’t make sense for farmers to dump them into the river for nothing”.

A press report stated that “unscrupulous farmers and animal control officials sold problematic carcasses to slaughterhouses, with the pork ending up in markets”.  It referred to an unnamed villager saying: “Ever since the police stepped up efforts to crack down on the illicit market of sick pigs since last year, no one has come here to buy dead pigs, and the problem of pig dumping is worse than ever this year”.

But dumping 10,000 plus pigs into the Huangpu River is unprecedented. Moreover, what is killing the pigs? We still don’t know.

Jeff has been looking into it on our behalf; studying microblogs – new-style media sites less controlled by the government – in an attempt to unearth clues. According to some of these sources, there are suggestions that pigs may have died from being given organo-arsenic before being sold. The chemical helps to make the pigs look healthy, but severely harms their organs and some do not survive or cannot be kept for long. Amid this speculation, there is still no official explanation.

Some experts are saying the use of organo-arsenic will cause serious problems to the quality of earth and water. 23 million people rely on the river for their drinking water. Shanghai authorities say water quality has not been affected.  

It is presumed the pigs are dead before they are dumped into the river; however, from studying photographs and videos online I cannot see any evidence of the pigs’ bodies being damaged by knives, captive bolt or guns.

Press reports say some of the pigs have ear tags indicating they came from Jiaxing in the neighbouring province of Zhejiang. But there are no signs of an epidemic. At least one dead pig is reported to have been tested positive with the porcine circovirus, which, officials say is “widespread in pigs but doesn’t affect other livestock or humans”. 

Clearly, we are a long way from knowing the truth about this unfolding tragedy. We will continue to be vigilant and will bring our influence to bear wherever we can to protect the welfare of pigs in China and beyond.

In the mid-1990s, for example, investigators from Compassion filmed appalling treatment meted out to animals exported from the UK to Europe. These video images made a tremendous impact. They helped galvanise a mass movement against live exports. More recently, our investigations have revealed the shocking truth about how farm animals are often treated throughout Europe.

We also rely on researchers, some of whom use the Freedom of Information Act, to track trends, follow key developments and obtain data. Then, we are in touch with whistleblowers; insiders with access to information and stories to tell, who alert us to practices that wouldn’t otherwise come to light.

Blowing the whistle in any way, shape or form is essential in a free society. Many farmers, are open about what they do and work with us to improve animal welfare. But, sadly, others don’t want the public to know what goes on, especially on factory farms.

This is why our office in the USA has signed onto an important initiative opposing what are called Ag-Gag Laws.

Ag-Gag Laws are legislative proposals designed to stop people like us from finding out what’s going on. They seek to criminalise investigations of farms that reveal critical information about animal production. They make illegal, for example, photography and filming without the farmers’ consent.

These bills threaten to perpetuate animal abuse on industrial farms. They could also threaten workers’ rights, consumer health and safety, law enforcement investigations and the freedom of journalists, employees and the public at large to share information about something as fundamental as our food supply.

The coalition that we are working with is vigorously opposing Ag-Gag Laws.  It includes about 40 organisations, ranging from Best Friends Animal Society to Earth Save and the National Freedom of Information Coalition. Every group in the coalition questions the constitutionality of Ag-Gag Laws as infringing First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of the press.

Just this month, Compassion USA, along with six other like-minded organisations, came together to oppose the introduction of an Ag-Gag bill in New Hampshire.  Previous investigations into farming practices in California led to the largest meat recall in the nation’s history. The investigation revealed horrific animal abuse.

No wonder the authorities in some US states want to stop people knowing the truth. They really do have something to hide. That is why we and others won’t rest until the truth is out and factory farming is brought to an end for good.

Everyone can play a part in making sure the spotlight is shone on farmed animal abuse. Please click here to learn what you can do.

Thank you!

When I’m talking to governments, food companies or producers along the way, I proudly talk about the reforms that have been brought in to protect the welfare of pigs in Europe.  Legislation that outlaws the prolonged use of sow stalls in Europe, where pregnant pigs can’t turn around for months at a time – banned in Britain in 1999 but not in the EU until January this year. I also talk about the European law that prevents pigs having their tails routinely cut off and requires that they must be provided with basic material such as straw, rather than totally barren pens such as is the norm on factory farms.

It was a real bone-shaker then, to find that hard-won reforms are being widely flouted in Europe.  Compassion’s latest investigation lifts the lid on pig farms in Spain and found upsetting scenes including:

• No straw or other enrichment, causing pigs to frantically chew at the bars of their barren pen out of frustration;
• Severely ‘docked’ tails – cut-off to control biting amongst bored pigs;
• Overcrowded and lame pigs;
• Pigs having to stand in flooded waste and lying in their own excrement;
• ‘Pig bins’ outside farms filled with maggot-ridden dead pigs.

Our investigators uncovered pitiful scenes.

We found many pigs existing in deplorable living conditions

What’s scandalous is that all these situations contravene European law.

Injured pig cowering in a corner

All of this underscores our campaign to ensure that pigs are treated as sentient beings, capable of feeling pain, suffering and joy. We are stepping up our campaign; pressing governments and the European Commission to take swift action against those who ignore the law.  Action is needed for the pigs’ sake and for those producers who have switched to doing the right thing and are being undermined in the marketplace by those who haven’t.

Amongst the countries we are focusing on is France.  I am so looking forward to soon sharing with you an interview with the person leading the charge for us in Paris, Leopoldine Charbonneaux.

Before that, I would like to share some encouraging news of how concern at the growth of industrial farming is genuinely spreading far and wide.  Last Sunday, Leopoldine and her colleagues at CIWF France, joined people from across the nation in a demonstration against factory farming. 

It was initiated by a local citizens group, Novissen, fighting a mega dairy project in the north of France. They are concerned for the potential impact on the landscape, on health, on the environment, on farmers and the animals.  CIWF France was proud to join them and over 40 organisations in opposing a backward step for the French countryside.

Whereas pig and poultry farming in France is already appallingly intensive, the average dairy herd is still around 50 cows, often with good access to pasture. The projected dairy farm in the North of France was originally looking for planning permission to build a zero grazing unit, whereby 1,000 dairy cows would be permanently housed. Public pressure has succeeded in limiting permission to 500 cows instead of 1000.

Compassion’s new voice in Paris will continue to join those opposing mega-dairies and similar developments. We are leading new campaigns to inform the general public and authorities on the many damaging effects of intensive farming: on animals, on the environment, on farmers’ livelihoods, public health, and food quality. By raising the issues, we hope to stop French dairy farming from intensifying and following the road taken for pigs and poultry. 

I look forward to sharing more news and insights into Compassion’s efforts to bring the Government in Paris on side. Look out for the in-depth interview with Leopoldine, posting soon.

Thank you as ever for your support. Together, we will continue putting the ‘world’ into Compassion in World Farming.

These simple questions are uppermost in my mind as the international scandal in horsemeat continues to unfold.

People have a right to know the facts about the food they buy.

With the urgent need to rebuild consumer trust in their food, there has never been a better time to introduce better labelling. And by that I mean food labelling that serves the consumer – you and me – not just the interests of government and food producers.

Yes, there are various labelling terms already used, including free-range and organic.

But the vast majority of meat and dairy on supermarket shelves is produced from animals raised in intensive factory-farmed systems. But you wouldn’t know it from the labels.

Slogans such as “Farm Fresh” and “All Natural,” which are all too often prominently displayed alongside cute drawings of animals roaming in fields and farm yards, beckon us to believe something far removed from how today’s industrialised food is really produced. 

The truth is that unless a label says free-range or organic, or is food produced by an accredited Freedom Food-type scheme in a particular country, it’s likely to be factory farmed. And if it is, shouldn’t we be told?

The principle of a better way has already been accepted. European law requires battery cage eggs to be labelled “eggs from caged hens”. Good honest labelling. But the question hangs unanswered; why not the same for meat and dairy products? Why not ensure that meat from confined animals is labelled compulsorily as “meat from intensively raised animals” or the like. 

Method of production labelling would go a long way to providing consumers with the basic information about how our food is produced.

The good news is that this consumer right-to-know proposal is in keeping with the EU’s Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015. Within its legalistic pages, it states:

“Animal welfare is a societal concern that appeals to a wide public”. So far, so good. It goes on to say, “Animal welfare is also a consumer concern” and that “consumers are concerned about the way animals have been treated”. It acknowledges that “consumers in general are not empowered to respond to higher animal welfare standards”, in other words they don’t have the information on labels and such like to truly know what they are buying. 

Encouragingly, the EU’s strategy document concludes that “It is therefore relevant to inform EU consumers about …food producing animals and to ensure that they are not deceived by misleading animal welfare claims”. Exactly.

Disappointing then that despite these fine words, the European Commission seems hell-bent on making sure consumers are denied the labelling tools needed to really make a choice.

As my colleague, Peter Stevenson, told me, “The European Commission talks about ‘empowering consumers’ but in reality is absolutely determined that they should not be told how the animal that provided the meat or milk was reared. In this, the Commission is supported by the meat industry and many countries including the UK. The Commission and the industry stress that consumers can play a key role in improving animal welfare and food quality through their shopping choices. But they also insist that consumers must be blindfolded while making those choices”.

It seems the EU is determined to keep consumers in the dark. Compassion is standing up for consumers. We are standing up for your right to know what’s in your food, how it is produced and where it comes from.

That consumer trust is built on integrity and the right to know what’s in our food is surely one of the fundamental lessons of the horsemeat scandal. It also serves to underline how much people really do care about how their food is produced.

Has there ever been a more urgent need for Europe to act? The widespread betrayal of consumer trust surely demands that the right to choose is truly delivered; that they tell it like it is, where it’s needed most; on the label.

There were five burly security guards blocking the entrance to the port. My taxi driver pulled up. “Is the cattle ship down here?” I asked. “Yes.” “Can I go down and see it?” I requested politely. “No you can’t,” their leader said firmly.

I couldn’t ask the taxi driver to risk his vehicle. I’d just seen a police car drive down ahead of us to the quayside. They’d be notified if we tried to go further. Reluctantly, we turned and drove back up the hill.

My willing taxi driver kindly sidetracked into a large grain store yard where we thought I might get a vantage point to take a photo of the cattle ship. I got out and trekked down behind the buildings, but security fencing and trees blocked my view.

There was no way I was going to be able to witness the loading of 2,900 cattle destined for Libya on to the “Al Mahmoud” at the docks in Waterford.

Protests

Later that evening I joined a group of around 20 protesters from various Irish “animal” groups and we held a candlelit vigil near the docks. Their resolve to highlight this trade in animal misery was heart-warming.

It was a bitter mid-February night. One elderly lady had come down on a minibus from Dublin and was using her umbrella to steady herself on the uneven and soggy turf. Others had made hard-hitting banners and placards.

Press interest

I was interviewed by a journalist from the local radio station. I said how sad it was that these cattle – who had known nothing but the gentle green of Ireland’s pastures – were now facing 10 days on a turbulent sea and on arrival, further transport probably in poor quality trucks and rough, possibly horrendous and unregulated slaughter at the end.

I mentioned the terrible scenes we’d seen on film from Egyptian slaughterhouses.

“Shouldn’t you have compassion for Irish farmers too?” she asked me – a question echoed by another journalist who writes a farming column for a national newspaper.

“Of course, but why don’t the farmers press the Irish government to sit down with them and the slaughter industry and work out how they can get a fair price for their cattle in Ireland and export the meat, not the live animals, to Libya?” I asked.

Thanks to the efforts of our Compassion media team and the Irish campaigners, the scandalous story of the resumption – after a 17-year gap – of Irish cattle exports to Libya made the national media in Ireland. Let’s hope it inspires outrage and more pressure on the government and farmers to find a more humane way forward.

Meanwhile Compassion believes that the Irish Agriculture Minister, Simon Coveney, should relinquish his current role as president of the Agriculture Council whenever the Agriculture Ministers of the EU are discussing farm animal welfare issues.

We need your help.  Please take action and join us in calling on the Irish Government to 1. Stop the trade immediately, or 2. Step aside from its role as President of the EU Agriculture Council when animal welfare is being discussed.  Thank you!

The latest community to embrace that idea today was the investment community.  At lunchtime, we launched a ground-breaking report revealing the true extent to which farm animal welfare is being managed and reported on by the food industry.

It showed that, out of 68 global companies surveyed, less than half have a formal policy on farm animal welfare and just 26% set targets and objectives. The Co-operative, Unilever and Noble Foods were found clear leaders by the study, whilst Burger King, Heinz and Wal-Mart were amongst those in the bottom tier of the study.

All in all, animal welfare is receiving “nothing like the attention that other corporate responsibility issues are receiving” says Nicky Amos who manages the project.

My task today was to open the launch event, and the Business Benchmark report, on behalf of the sponsors, Compassion in World Farming and WSPA. The day started superbly with coverage on the front page of the Financial Times as well as other media. It is the latest step in our long-term strategy to encourage the corporate sector to embrace animal welfare as a business opportunity. 

Two years ago, I and colleagues at Compassion recognised that investors have a big role to play in creating change in the way our food is produced. After all, companies thrive on investment money. What we realised was that investors themselves are likely to welcome a light-touch tool that helped to show which companies were managing animal welfare business risks, and which weren’t. 

It was a logical next step.  Particularly after more than a decade of working directly with the corporate world; encouraging companies like Unilever, Sainsbury’s and McDonald’s to make sweeping policy changes like going cage-free on the eggs they use and sell. 

We could see a tipping point. There was an increasing body of legislation in Europe addressing the worst excesses of factory farming; veal crates, sow stalls and barren battery cages. At the same time, leaders in the corporate world were forging ahead with animal friendly policies; actively choosing to source only higher welfare across entire product ranges. And then there was heightened media interest in companies and their handling of issues in supply chains, especially when they go wrong. Of course, examples here come none more spectacular than the current horsemeat scandal.

Today’s Business Benchmark report gives companies a good idea of where they rank against their peers on animal welfare. It also gives investors important information on who is best managing the risks around not addressing animal welfare as part of food chain integrity.

It was great to hear Abigail Herron from Cooperative Asset Management describe the report as giving her a “rich seam of questions” in her engagement with companies. 

Drew Fryer, senior analyst for MSCI ESG Research commented on how it will enable a “more credible engagement by investors in the companies they’re investing in”.

From the retail sector, Steve McLean of Marks & Spencer reaffirmed his view that “animal welfare is a key part of doing the right thing”.

I am proud of the vision and innovation of my team in developing this new approach; and am delighted to be sponsoring its roll-out. It is the latest evolutionary step in transforming food quality through better farm animal welfare.  Doing the right thing is a simple but powerful idea whose time has come. The Business Benchmark project is our latest tool to help amplify that idea and hasten that change.

Take, for example, my interview here with Graham Harvey. He was a correspondent for Farmers Weekly and writer and editor for BBC’s The Archers. Currently, he is involved with Pasture Promise TV, which explores in short documentary films different aspects of pasture farming.

John Meadley of Pasture Fed Livestock Association

Graham works closely with John Meadley. John is founding chairman of the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association, a grassroots community interest company, whose supporters includes farmers, academics and others involved with pasture or pastoral farming in the UK. PFLA promotes and validates the production of pasture-fed meat from such ruminant animals as cows and sheep.

Notwithstanding our different roles — we campaign to end factory farming and PFLA promotes pastoral farming — we’re clearly like-minded organisations, forging a path toward the objective of feeding people without factory farming, which Peter and Anna originally envisaged in the 1960s.

I couldn’t agree more with PFLA when it states on its website:

The solution to meeting the challenge of tomorrow’s food production would therefore seem to be right under our noses, or at least those of our cows and sheep. We use the ability of ruminant cattle and sheep to make the best potential use out of grassland and use good productive arable land to grow crops such as cereals and soya, not as cattle feed with all of its associated inefficiencies, but for direct human consumption.

Recently, I had the opportunity to meet up with John. Here’s what he told me:  

Philip: How did you become involved with farming?

John: As a young man aged 15 I was studying classics at school when we moved as a family to Derbyshire where my father became the principal of a college. Attached to the college was a 150-acre hill farm that I fell in love with. I was happy working with animals and ploughing alone with the tractor. I worked on the farm every hour during my vacations.

When I was 16 I saw on television Prime Minister Harold Macmillan’s ‘Wind of Change’ speech, highlighting the need to grant independence to African countries held then as British colonies. Suddenly I had the idea of working in agriculture in the developing world. So, I made a fundamental shift. I learnt basic science, did a degree in agriculture at Durham University and completed a postgraduate degree at Wye College. My first job was teaching crop production at the University of Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland.

Philip: Having worked in many countries across the world, what are the most worrisome global trends you have observed in farming over the years?

John: The increased use of chemicals and the loss of recognition of the importance of soil biology, which results in increasing sterilisation of the soil.

The rise in the industrial raising of livestock is disturbing too, being largely dependent upon feeding grains that could be eaten by people.

Quite extraordinary also is the continuing huge losses of resources in food production, highlighted in recent reports, due to inefficiencies in the field, processing, transportation, retailing and in the home. It must make more sense to first reduce those staggering losses before trying to increase productivity by further stressing soil and animals, when under present circumstance much of that additional produce will be wasted.

Philip: Why is it that some don’t see the inefficiencies inherent in intensive farming?

John: Intensive farming appears to be profitable in monetary terms but not in terms of the efficient use of natural resources.

Profit is measured on individual operations. An individual farm may be profitable and “efficient” but the global farming system overall is inefficient (e.g. the high levels of wastage referred to earlier). What is most profitable is not necessarily the best way to produce food for the world. If I’m a farmer feeding imported grain (e.g. maize, soya) to my animals, I might make my individual farm in Europe more profitable, but I’m not actually increasing world food production. All I’m doing is renting acres from another farmer in another country and using his produce to increase the profit on my own farm.

Changing the whole system requires political will. As long as the current system exists, individual businesses will, understandably, seek to maximise their profits without seeing themselves as part of a bigger system that is creaking at the seams.

Philip: What led you to launch the Pasture-Fed Livestock Organisation? 

John: In the 1970s I was appointed advisor to the Thai government on the annual export of 6.5 million tonnes of cassava chips to the EU to feed Europe’s pigs. It wasn’t long before the forest in N E Thailand was destroyed and much of the natural fertility in the soil had been exported to Europe in these chips. The pigs ate the chips and their waste became an environmental slurry problem. It was and remains a completely unsustainable system. This led to my interest in sustainable farming systems.

Jumping forward to 2009, I was at a transition farming conference when I met a couple of farmers raising cattle wholly on pasture. We formed a Google group, which became lively. We called a meeting of interested farmers in Cheltenham in 2010. From there, we began to think of how we could create an identity for produce raised wholly on pasture. To do that, we developed a trademark (PASTORAL – pasture-fed for life), which somebody has to own. So, we set up the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association as a grassroots community interest company.

Philip: Why pasture fed?

John: In the UK, 68% of farmland is pasture and much of it is under-utilised. Pasture is a natural food for ruminants, which produce meat and milk with recognised health benefits for humans (e.g. low saturated fats). Animals raised on pasture experience less stress. Low-input pasture-fed systems (with clover) have the potential to greatly reduce reliance on artificial fertilisers and have a significantly lower carbon footprint (use less fossil fuel) than intensive systems.

With mixed farming, you can use the pasture to control weeds and rebuild soil fertility. Ruminant animals did not evolve to eat grain, which can be used to feed people; and grain is expensive because it is dependent upon petrochemicals (e.g. fertilisers, pesticides, fuel for cultivation), making it vulnerable to the volatility of international markets.

Philip: Is pasture-fed farming organic and sustainable farming?

John: Pasture-fed produce is not necessarily certified as organic, although we do have organic farmers within PFLA.

Philip: What do you think about animal welfare? 

John: Animal welfare is fundamental. It’s vital. Animals are sentient beings. We believe the pasture fed system, by default, is concerned about animal welfare. It is not intensive. The animals are not enclosed. They’re not fed grain or concentrates. They’re in their natural environment. They eat their natural diet. They do not experience the kind of stress associated with intensive production. Generally, they require less veterinary care because the animals are healthy.

We are grateful to Compassion, because when we were a very small group of people, you helped to fund the costs of developing our website. We share common interests in animal welfare and see Compassion as a strategic partner.

But recent revelations about horse meat in beef ready meals, pork in beef pies, and now even suspicions of donkey meat labelled as beef on supermarket shelves, show that we can’t trust what food labels tell us. Compassion has a simple solution; join us in calling for food labels that tell the whole truth.

The recent scandals are revealing the true nature of the cheap meat production system, and it isn’t a pretty picture. The corruption and contamination issues are just the tip of the iceberg.  The scale and complexity of the food chain are not just bad news for consumers, they are also a disaster for animal welfare.

With more than 80% of the EU’s farm animals being factory farmed in inhumane conditions; confined, overcrowded, unable to express natural behaviours, pumped full of antibiotics, undertaking long journeys or suffering painful mutilations – the animals that go into many meat products are likely to have endured a great deal of suffering in their short lives.

It doesn’t have to be this way.

We know that consumers are interested in animal welfare. We know that clear labelling leads to an increase in sales of higher welfare animal products. We need labels that tell us the truth about what is in our food, and how it was produced.

The whole truth; so consumers can exercise their right to choose higher welfare products and know what they are eating. We are calling for true transparency in food labelling, including country of origin and mandatory method of production labelling. Please join us.

Thank you for your support.

The scandal has been met by popular outrage. The serious debate has focused on how a profusion of horsemeat got into the food chain and who’s to blame. But in all of the debate, it seems we’ve forgotten the welfare of horses themselves.

I fear for them. How were they treated? How did they die?

These horses are often not bred for food. They are mostly surplus animals who end up as meat. Their lives often start out as pets, or as working animals on a farm, or as race horses. When they become unwanted and unloved, their financial value drops and their meagre worth is determined by how much profit can be extracted from their carcasses.

We know that even in the best regulated slaughterhouses, cows, pigs, sheep and chickens are likely to suffer fear and anxiety. Horses too can suffer terribly during the slaughter process. Their future is now as cheap meat. Let’s look at what we know.

There’s an international trade in horses and horse meat that is worth millions. Huge quantities of horse meat are routinely imported into the European Union. The Humane Society International recently investigated the international trade in horses. They found that this trade is not just in the EU but also Canada, the USA, Mexico, and some South American countries, including Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay.

Presently, Canada is the largest exporter of horse meat to Europe. But most of the horses slaughtered in Canada and Mexico are born and raised in the USA and are forced to endure massive journeys to Canadian and Mexican slaughterhouses. An international trade in horses in North and Central America such as this raises important questions about the welfare of horses in long distance transportation and slaughter worldwide.

For example, within the EU, horses, along with sheep, cattle and pigs, are transported from Spain to Italy for slaughter. This is a journey of some 2000-2500 km lasting about 35 hours or more. The animals can suffer from hunger, dehydration and exhaustion, as well as heat stress, injuries and death, if they’re not provided with adequate food, water and rest. There may be overcrowding in the vehicles, which do not always provide sufficient headroom for horses.

Our investigators followed a truck transporting horses from Romania to Italy. They found the drivers broke an important EU regulation by not providing these animals with water. Every year more than 30,000 horses are transported from Central and Eastern Europe to Italy for slaughter. Just imagine being pushed and pulled into a truck, standing for hours on end, without water or a chance to rest. It is proven that horse welfare deteriorates after 8-12 hours of transport. Yet, in our investigation, the horses loaded first onto the truck endured a horrific ordeal of more than 26 hours.

The horse meat scandal gives a glimpse into an under-regulated and out of control industry. What else don’t we know about our food? I shudder to think how the horses were killed. I cannot help asking, why is no one talking about their welfare?

We need an urgent inquiry together to halt the widespread haemorrhaging of the food system. Proper traceability, transparency and enforcement of rules could have prevented this problem. The horse meat scandal exposes wrongdoing in our food system. Compassion consistently exposes the fact that animal welfare laws are routinely ignored across Europe.

For how much longer will our political leaders allow this to happen?  It’s time to fix the broken food system, and fast; for the sake of the food on our plates, the safety of our society and for the welfare of the horses killed behind closed doors.

You can help make a difference for these horses today!

How do we know that meat from religiously slaughtered animals – their throats often cut whilst fully conscious – isn’t getting into the wider food chain?

How do we know that pig meat isn’t getting into non-pork products; something that would be of real concern to some religious communities?

How do we know that pork produced using cruel sow stalls, banned in Britain and partially so in Europe, isn’t being stocked on some supermarket shelves?

How do we know that meat from the offspring of cloned animals isn’t once again in the British food chain, as it was in 2010?  After all, there is no requirement to label meat and milk from the offspring of clones.  What’s more, the UK government leads the way in opposing any effective European restrictions on cloning.

What we do know is that much of the meat on many supermarket shelves is from factory farmed animals, but consumers are denied real power of choice because it isn’t labelled to say how it was produced.

And there’s another question that no one seems to be asking.  The horses that found their way into British burgers and ready meals; how were they killed? Did they end their lives in a state of fear, pain and misery?  I suspect we’ll never know.  After all, if their meat can slip into our food so widely without us knowing, how will we ever find out how they died?

The scandal raises more questions than answers.  What I do know is that urgent action is needed, not least by Government, to start rebuilding public confidence.  An obvious first measure would be to introduce compulsory labelling telling consumers how their food was produced.  By my reckoning, it’s the least they should do.

Consumers feel betrayed.

Do we really know how our food is produced? Can we ever know what is in the food we eat? Are farmers and food producers to be trusted?

Today’s scandal of horse meat in beef products is likely the tip of the iceberg.  There are real and deep-rooted problems sitting below the surface of our broken food system. And the bottom line is that we clearly, all too often, just don’t know what’s in our food or how it’s produced. 

Beef lasagne products removed from supermarket shelves have been found to be almost entirely horse meat. The Food Standards Agency reports the product was produced by a French supplier.

Catherine Brown, chief executive of the Food Standards Agency, told BBC News: “This is an appalling situation. I have to say that the two cases of gross contamination that we see here indicates that it is highly likely there has been criminal and fraudulent activity involved”.

She added: “We are demanding that food businesses conduct authenticity tests on all beef products, such as beef burgers, meatballs and lasagne, and provide the results to the FSA. The tests will be for the presence of significant levels of horse meat”.

You’ve got to wonder why companies didn’t make damned sure the beef in their products wasn’t anything other than beef. And you’ve also got to wonder why they didn’t make sure horse meat wasn’t included in a product destined for the UK market. It’s breathtaking how Britain’s cultural taboo of eating horse meat has been held with such apparent contempt.

Over the last 18 months, I have been writing a book on industrial meat production with Sunday Times journalist, Isabel Oakeshott. We explored the tentacles that reach out across the world and affect the food on our plate. I discovered that there is just so much that goes on that we’re just not told about.

Regardless of what anyone eats, there is now a very serious need for real transparency in how our food is produced.

Compassion believes our food system must have real integrity. We need to absolutely know what it is that we are eating and how it was produced. And I don’t just mean for higher quality food products. We must value food quality over industrialised products, or at least be given the information to make a choice.

That is why we need to urgently revisit the issue of labelling.  We’re calling for labelling on all animal produce and ingredients in the European Union. We want the labels to be simple and clear in conveying how the food was produced. Without it, there is little chance of consumers being able to properly exercise their right to choose; and very little hope of getting true transparency in our food system.

On a snowy evening in late January, I joined a great crowd of committed individuals at Somerset House in London. What brought us together was…IF. 

IF…The Enough Food for Everyone Campaign…is an exciting new coalition of more than 100 organisations.

I was proud to represent Compassion. It was right to be there.

Our organisation was founded on two interrelated beliefs: That cruelty to farm animals and world famine are wrong and must end.

It’s really that simple.

If we want to end world famine, we must stop farming animals intensively and grow food to feed people directly.

Factory farming consumes so much more than it produces. It’s a protein factory in reverse. A third of the world’s cereal harvest feeds farm animals. Much of the world’s soya harvest and a significant chunk of its fish catch feeds animals incarcerated in factory farms. It’s far better to raise animals on the world’s vast pasture lands and on mixed rotational farms rather than squander precious arable land for animal feed. The grain that is fed to farmed animals could feed three billion people.

 And, of course, factory farming is animal cruelty.

So, it’s really important for us to stand shoulder to shoulder with other like-minded people; and to share our message that there is enough food for everyone.

Sharing the message is what IF is all about. And, in particular, telling the world’s most powerful leaders when they meet as the G8 in the UK in June.

The UK government has promised to provide 0.7% of national income for aid and to host a Hunger Summit. We must make sure they keep these promises. Nearly one billion people go to bed hungry every night. Two million children die from malnutrition every year. All around the world, even in the UK, people are struggling to feed their families.

It was great to see IF so well received, including messages of support from Bill Gates and a wonderfully motivational speech from the actor Bill Nighy.

IF is a really important campaign. Please join me in support. Start now by clicking here!

I’m no politician. I recognise that The UUU Food Tax doesn’t exactly trip off the tongue. It doesn’t leave a pleasant taste in the mouth either. It won’t get me elected. But it’s time we had a serious conversation about something like The UUU Food Tax. You see, time isn’t necessarily on our side. Besides, appeals to people to voluntarily change their behaviour appear to work for some but not all. Taxing the food industry, in just proportion to the damage it causes to animals, the environment and people, is legitimate public policy.

I’m inspired by how taxes and other public policy initiatives have significantly impacted the consumption of tobacco. According to the NHS, the percentage of people smoking in England has dropped from 39 in 1980 to 21 in 2009.  Given the serious impact tobacco has on human health, including the financial, human and other resources needed to pay for care and treatment, one in five people smoking today, is not only an individual tragedy for everyone concerned, but also an enormous demand on society.

If taxing tobacco can help change people’s behaviour for their own well being and for the good of society, why can’t we tax unkind, unsustainable and unhealthy foods, like cheap meat, eggs and dairy?

There is, of course, no such thing as cheap meat, eggs and dairy. They may be cheap to buy in the supermarket. But, like tobacco, their full price is elsewhere. The costs inherent within cheap food are born by us, as consumers and tax payers, but as importantly, the animals and the environment. Of course, no one wants to pay more taxes. But if it means we change our individual behaviour so that we eat healthier by eating much less animal-produced foods as well as protecting the environment, well, who could argue with that? 

Well, a lot of people did argue with that. In November, the Danish government abolished an unpopular tax on food products containing more than 2.3 per cent of saturated fat it had imposed about a year earlier. Saturated fats are found in meat, eggs and dairy as well as other foods like potato crisps and margarine.

One unintended consequence of the Danish fat tax was that it caused Danes to go to such neighbouring countries as Sweden and Germany to avoid the levy. This is, of course, understandable. But it highlights the need, if it is going to make any meaningful impact, for international action on food tax.

As with tobacco taxes which were unimaginable not that long ago, we may well be seeing the beginning of fat taxes. Just in January, Sweden’s Board of Agriculture called for an EU-wide tax on meat.

“I believe meat will become more expensive,” said Marit Paulsen, a Swedish MEP who is vice president of the European Parliament’s agriculture committee. “I don’t know how, but if we have to add an emission tax, then let it be, but let us for God’s sake now start a proper discussion with the knowledge we have which includes the fact that we can’t afford to use so much money producing meat.”

Developments in Denmark and Sweden and elsewhere to tax food are needed to reverse the ‘cheap meat’ culture causing so much damage. Current policies in food subsidies have driven us down the dangerous road to high fat foods. We should be making sure our food is healthy for all regardless of income.

I am firmly behind such measures as food taxes. From making bad food cost a bit more to investing in subsidies for good food to ensure its affordability, financially and ethically, seems to me to be a good idea everyone can agree with. Bringing better balance into the food system, as well as reducing cruelty to animals and improving public health; a real win-win situation.

All of this leads me to announce Compassion’s support for a new campaign by Sustain, the Alliance for better food and farming, launched with a new report, A Children’s Future Fund. We lend our particular support for the long-term objective of developing food duties on unsustainable food, taking into account environmental, animal welfare and health attributes. 

The campaign makes the case for taxes as a cost-effective way to make our food system healthier, more sustainable and fairer. A Children’s Future Fund should be created to pay for policies to improve children’s health and their future wellbeing. Already, 18 public interest organisations have signed up to support the campaign. They include Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, Friends of the Earth, UNISON, Royal Society for Public Health and Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

I recall it was a similar broad consensus of organisations which tackled the social problem of tobacco. I believe the challenge to making agriculture and food production more humane, nutritious and sustainable is that bit more within reach!

This is why I urge you to support Sustain’s campaign today! And visit Compassion’s own site to learn more about how we work with food producers.

‘Plenty more fish in the sea’ is an old saying that is rapidly losing currency. Some now pin their hopes on aquaculture (fish farming) as a way of keeping fish on the world’s dining tables. 

Fish farming is the fastest growing form of livestock production, according to one of the event speakers. The idea that farmed fish is necessarily the sustainable replacement for plundered seas, however, seems highly questionable. 

I recognise that some extensively farmed fish, like carp and tilapia, can be argued to be sustainable. However, the increasing trend toward feeding industrial compound feeds to the likes of salmon and trout is an entirely different proposition. It’s a practice that is literally putting farmed fish in competition with people for food. Up to 30% of the fish scooped out of the seas never reaches a human mouth; much of it going for fishmeal to feed farmed fish and other livestock. It takes up to 5 kilograms of wild fish to produce one kilogram of farmed salmon.  Without the demands of aquaculture (fish for fish feed), the world could reduce the amount of wild fish needed to be caught by around a fifth.

Fishmeal and fish oil are mainly the product of small pelagic forage fish, caught for the purpose.  These are mainly anchoveta (Peruvian anchovy) of the southeastern Pacific Ocean, and other similar fish types include certain herring, mackerel, anchovy and sprat species.²  The popular belief is that low value small pelagic fish aren’t useful for feeding directly to people. However, it’s estimated these types of fish contribute more than 50% of the total food fish supply in more than 36 countries in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.³

And there are serious animal welfare issues too for the fish all too often crowded in their tens of thousands in sea cages or land-based ponds. As ever, Compassion’s own site provides good information on both the issues and the solution for those looking to buy welfare-friendly fish.

Industrial fish farming, like its land-based factory farming cousin, brings with it serious environmental, social and animal welfare issues. Before we go too far down the industrial route, we should take serious stock and ensure that any aquaculture venture is truly humane and sustainable.

It has been a pleasure to be in the company of so many like-minded business people today, concerned about the world’s fish and how to source sustainably. Their work and leadership is vitally important.

Restaurants, caterers and those concerned can sign up to the Sustainable Fish City pledge; to source fish from sustainable sources, be they wild or farmed. And the handy website offers lots of help and advice on how to get started. 

References:

1   Source: http://www.fao.org/fishery/fishcode-stf/activities/ssf/en

2   A G J Tacon and M Metian (2009) Fishing for feed or fishing for food: increasing global competition for small pelagic forage fish.  Ambio 38(6):294-302

3   Lenfest Ocean Program (2009) Summary: Important protein source for the world’s impoverished in competition with aquaculture and animal feed.  Lenfest, September 2009 www.lenfestocean.org/publication/important-protein-source-world%E2%80%99s-impoverished-competition-aquaculture-and-animal-feed

The report begs the question how much do we really know about our food?

Not as much as we should.

And what we do know is enough to cause anyone indigestion.

For example, we know that half of the world’s antibiotics are fed to farmed animals.

We also know the sour truth that milk isn’t as sweet as we would like it to be. Our investigators found in European farms cows kept in cramped and squalid conditions. Many cows were tethered all year round and never felt the sun on their backs. Many more were found to be suffering from exhaustion, painful lameness, sores and mastitis.

And, of course, I could go on about super-fast-growing chickens, so-called ‘enriched’ cages, pig crates, live exports, etc..

There is no such thing as cheap meat, eggs and dairy. Its true cost is paid for by public health, environment degradation and animal cruelty.

So, I’m not surprised with today’s news. Analysis of 27 burger products revealed 10 contained traces of horse DNA and 23 had pig DNA. The latter is, of course, particularly disturbing for Muslims and those who shun pork products.

Today’s news highlights the need for greater transparency in how our food is produced.

Please click here to learn how we work with the food industry to improve animal welfare standards.

I’ve met many government ministers throughout my career, in London and around the world. I always sit with my team well ahead of the meeting and prepare in detail what we’re going to cover. I’ve found that you very seldom get long to put your point across. Preparation and brevity are key to making points successfully.  As we waited to go in, I felt my usual nervous tension; I’m always keenly aware of carrying the case for animals.

We were greeted warmly by the Minister and launched into our two-pointed agenda; better labelling and live animal exports. We were accompanied at the start of the meeting by 9-year old Ayrton Cable, grandson of the Minister’s cabinet colleague, Business Secretary, Vince Cable.  Ayrton is youth ambassador for the Labelling Matters campaign,  a joint initiative with the RSPCA, Soil Association and WSPA. He produced a film making the case for meat and milk to carry labels telling consumers how the food was produced. Ayrton’s presence helped diffuse the opening mood of the meeting, with the Minister suggesting he had sympathy for our case on labelling. 
When it came to live exports, we had an open discussion.  I pressed the Minister to do all he can to bring an end to a cruel and unnecessary trade.  My team and I pointed out how the general public, the majority of whom are firmly opposed to live exports, are effectively forced to subsidise the trade through the costs incurred by Government in administering it. We drew attention to the horrendously long journeys – British calves travelling as long as 90 hours or more to veal farms in Spain. However, I think it’s fair to paraphrase the Minister’s response as saying he’s doing all he can on the subject and his hands are tied in taking it further by EU legal considerations.

If I wasn’t clear before, I am now; to win the battle against live exports, we will need to step things up.  And that is exactly what we’ll be doing over the coming months and your support will be vital. Please stay tuned here for the latest ideas on how to take effective action. Together, we can consign this vile trade to history.