Each summer, animal activists travel across the country to meet and discuss the latest topics of the animal rights movement. This year, animal agriculture was once again the focus. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) hosted its annual Taking Action for Animals Conference in Washington, D.C. on July 15-18, and Farm Animal Rights Movement’s Animal Rights 2011 Conference (AR 2011) was held two weeks later on July 21-25 in Los Angeles. Both events claimed to have “record-breaking” attendance, attracting a combined total of more than 1,600 activists from around the world, ranging in age from 20-60 years old.

Securing rights for farm animals and the promotion of a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle to the mainstream public were hot topics at both meetings. Attendees were given tips on how to utilize social media, create “undercover” videos and craft effective messages to share their views with others. Speakers and exhibitors also encouraged aspiring activists to hold demonstrations, signature drives for ballot initiatives and leafleting campaigns.

The largest activist groups attended and sponsored both meetings, although messaging differed between audiences. Nathan Runkle, Executive Director of Mercy For Animals, Erica Meier, Executive Director of Compassion Over Killing, and Gene Baur, President of Farm Sanctuary, spoke at both meetings. They encouraged a more aggressive, physical approach to eliminating animal agriculture at AR 2011, which is seen as the more extremist meeting. For more information about the most active animal rights groups, access the Alliance’s updated activist profile report.

Both conferences discussed a growing embrace of the vegetarian lifestyle in the mainstream media. Speakers used inflated statistics (often citing their own studies) to increase misconceptions about animal agriculture and its effects on the environment and one’s health. The sessions on farm animal rights were the most widely attended at both conferences, with five presentations devoted to the topic including, ”The Global Campaign Against Factory Farming,” “Advances in Farm Animal Protection,” and “Agriculture Campaigns.”

TAFA included a formal vegan banquet with keynote speakers HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle and Congressman Jim Moran (D-Va.). Both speakers stressed the importance of lobbying and having a presence in Washington, D.C. to promote animal rights on Capitol Hill. TAFA and AR 2011 featured an exclusively vegan menu for all guests. It should be noted that, in contrast to the lifestyle choices advocated for by the conference speakers, 97 percent of Americans enjoy meat, milk, and egg products as part of their diet.

Throughout TAFA, HSUS shared examples of celebrities and mainstream media outlets that promote a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. Though HSUS regularly attempts to portray itself as a mainstream organization, many of its conference speakers and attendees strongly advocate for animal rights. At AR 2011, the recommended tactics discussed were more extreme, including use of violence, sabotage to farms and other illegal actions.

Most people are not aware of these animal activist groups’ true motives to end all animal agriculture and rid the human diet of meat, eggs and dairy. For example, the “Meatless Monday” campaign is marketed as a mainstream idea to cut meat out of the diet for one day a week to improve one’s health and the environment. However, this well-funded campaign was founded by the husband of a wealthy, longtime animal rights activist and it actually pushes an extreme animal rights and environmental agenda by promoting false claims about animal agriculture.

“Meatless Monday” was discussed at both TAFA and AR 2011 by HSUS, Compassion Over Killing, and Mercy for Animals, all who referred to the campaign as a start to a vegetarian or vegan outreach lifestyle. Numerous celebrities, school systems, mainstream media and even cities were mentioned as having joined the campaign. Each presenter claimed that at least 51 percent of the American public is familiar with the “Meatless Monday” campaign, and that 18 percent actively participate, though a source for the statistic was not produced. Josh Balk of HSUS discussed the campaign as a way to not only get people to start eating vegetarian, but to “save 1.4 billion farm animals.”

The new agreement between HSUS and United Egg Producers to seek federal legislation for housing standards for egg laying hens was also discussed at both conferences. Audience members seemed upset about the agreement, noting HSUS “caved” by giving up its cage-free campaign. Others were frustrated because they had devoted time and energy to collecting signatures for the ballot. Kitty Jones, a 17-year-old student, was praised for her individual work of collecting more than 10,000 signatures for the proposed Washington state ballot initiative campaign. On the other hand, some of the activist groups viewed the agreement as a “monumental victory” for HSUS, although some attendees were wary of working with the agriculture industry. HSUS staff asserted that the biggest hurdle would be agricultural lawmakers in Congress.

Farmers and ranchers should educate themselves on the threat these groups represent. Unfortunately, most people are not aware of these extremists groups’ true agenda against animal agriculture. TAFA and AR 2011 showcased animal activists’ real beliefs that are often hidden behind emotionally appealing and celebrity funded public relations campaigns. It is critical that all stakeholders correct the misinformation presented by these activist groups, showcase the wonderful families and businesses involved in farming, ranching and food production and share with the public your commitment to your animals, the environment, food safety and continuous improvement. The Alliance will continue to work to bridge the gap between farmers and consumers to show that while today’s agriculture industry has evolved to meet the needs of society, the same core values remain.

ORRVILLE, Ohio - The J.M. Smucker Co. perked up coffee-lovers by announcing that after four straight price hikes in little over a year, the company was cutting prices by an average of 6 percent.

The Orrville food company, which is holding its annual shareholders meeting today, said Tuesday's news applies to the prices on a majority of its coffee products sold in the U.S., including top-selling Folgers Coffee, Folgers Gourmet Selections and Dunkin' Donuts packaged coffee sold in supermarkets.

Smucker cut prices in response to declines in the price of raw green coffee futures, which slipped to $2.10 per pound in July, down 9 percent from a 34-year-high of $2.31 per pound in April.

That's still 65 percent higher than the $1.27-per-pound price in April 2010, but represents the third-straight monthly decline after more than a year of steadily climbing prices, according to the International Coffee Organization.

Those rising prices, on top of higher fuel and other production costs, prompted Smucker to increase its own coffee prices four times:

• 4 percent on May 18, 2010;

• 9 percent on Aug. 3, 2010;

• 10 percent on Feb. 8, 2011;

• and 11 percent on May 24.

Smucker's rivals, including Starbucks, Maxwell House, Peet's Coffee & Tea and Green Mountain Coffee have raised their coffee prices over the past year, too, but have not yet responded to Tuesday's announcement.

Dominic Caruso, vice president of Caruso's Coffee Inc., a specialty coffee roaster in Brecksville, said that while prices for some kinds of raw beans have fallen, they remain significantly higher than they were a year ago.

He said that while mass-produced coffee blends like Folgers and Dunkin' Donuts can compensate for more expensive beans by increasing the amount of cheaper robusta beans, coffee houses that specialize in premium beans or single-source coffees have less wiggle room to lower prices.

"On certain coffees, like breakfast blends and doughnut shop blends, we're going to try to pass along that savings to the customer," he said. "But on other coffees, like African coffees or Indonesian Sumatras and Javas, we're stuck" with higher prices.

Caruso doesn't expect many coffee house regulars to switch to brewing at home, however, because coffee is still an affordable indulgence. "The customer who's going to the coffee shop is going there for a lot of reasons besides price," he said.

The price cut news also came a day before Smucker's annual shareholders meeting, where two shareholder groups that advise investors on responsible and sustainable companies are seeking more information about the company's long-term coffee strategy.

Calvert Investment Management Inc. of Bethesda, Md., and Trillium Asset Management LLC of Boston want shareholders to approve their Proposal 5, requiring Smucker to provide a report to shareholders about how the company plans to deal with possible climate changes and threats to family coffee farms within six months of the annual meeting.

Because coffee makes up 40 percent of Smucker's net sales and 48.6 percent of its profit, the groups wrote a letter to shareholders saying that they want to know how the company plans to respond to climate changes like global warming, changes in rainfall patterns, and its "responsibility for its impact on the coffee farming families in its supply chain."

Rebecca Henson, Calvert's sustainability analyst, said: "The proposal is meant to encourage the company to take more meaningful steps" to protect shareholders, because so much of its business depends on coffee. "We just think there's more they can do to manage this risk."

Calvert, a mutual fund which offers advice to more than 400,000 individual and institutional investors, owns 4,269 shares of Smucker stock.

Trillium, the oldest and largest independent adviser devoted exclusively to sustainable and responsible investing, advises several hundred clients who own about 90,000 shares of Smucker.

Both groups say Smucker has provided "woefully inadequate" guidance on these topics and that it "lags significantly behind" its global peers Nestle, Sara Lee and Kraft in providing that information.

Sara Lee, for example, aims to have 20 percent of its coffee volume certified sustainable by 2015, while Nescafe will distribute 220 million disease-resistant coffee plantlets to coffee farmers around the world by 2020.

Smucker declined to answer questions Tuesday about the price cut or Proposal 5, saying that it was in its quiet period prior to Thursday's earnings conference call.

In an Aug. 9 letter to shareholders, however, Co-Chief Executives Tim and Richard Smucker responded that the company had already answered those requests.

They said that "in making the decision and expending time and resources to voluntarily publish a corporate responsibility report, it has taken appropriate action to address shareholder concerns" and that adopting Proposal 5 would be "unnecessary, duplicative and inappropriate."

Read the original article here.

By Jerilyn Klein Bier

Whether or not you’ve got environmentally conscious clients, it pays to know the financial and public health risks associated with a corporation’s toxic chemical policies. And one of the better go-to places for that information is the Investor Environmental Health Network (www.iehn.org).

IEHN is a collaborative partnership of different investment organizations that in aggregate manage more than $30 billion in assets. Its goal is to encourage companies to adopt policies that reduce and/or eliminate toxic chemicals in their products and operations.

IEHN’s operating principle is that safer chemical policies can help companies anticipate and avoid “toxic lockout” from the marketplace in the form of government bans or restrictions on products. In turn, that can reduce reputational and legal risks, as well as enhance brands and create greater long-term shareholder value.

“We needed to move beyond the chemical to chemical and look at the larger picture of what companies are doing,” says IEHN executive director Richard Liroff, who founded the network in 2004. “We’re trying to change the underlying ground rules that apply to all companies worldwide.”

IEHN’s members include Calvert Investments, Domini Social Investments, Parnassus Investments, As You Sow Foundation, First Affirmative Financial Network, faith-based institutional investors and other leaders in sustainable and socially responsible investing. The network is advised by scientific, policy and technical experts from roughly a dozen environmental health organizations.

Liroff, who spent more than two decades directing projects on toxic chemicals and other issues at the World Wildlife Fund, serves as a technical resource for IEHN and has helped develop the rationale for resolutions and written letters to companies.

Body Of Work

IEHN, which analyzes corporate, government and scientific data, gets most of its funding through smaller philanthropic organizations concerned about environmental health. In addition to working on environmental issues involving corporations, the organization does outreach and develops tools such as reports and fiduciary guides for pension plans and other investors.

Among its activities, IEHN has pressed regulators to close corporate liability accounting loopholes that enable companies to conceal damaging scientific findings and their full potential liabilities associated with toxic chemicals. It has also provided suggestions to the Global Reporting Initiative on how it can better address toxic chemicals in its upcoming guidelines.

IEHN’s résumé includes tackling issues such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates used in plastic products, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) in packaging, pesticides in food, and nanomaterials in cosmetics.

One of the coalition’s pressing tasks of late has been calling out energy companies on the environmental and business risks of hydraulic fracturing technology used in oil and natural gas drilling. And IEHN member Domini filed resolutions with Coca Cola in 2010 and 2011 asking it to disclose how it’s responding to safety concerns about BPA used in its can linings.

IEHN members have been the lead filers on two-thirds of the 103 shareholder resolutions on toxic chemicals filed by investors since 2006. Of the 44 resolutions that were voted on during that period (many others were withdrawn due to favorable company responses), two dozen received more than 20% of shareholder votes.

“That’s a significant enough number to get a company’s attention,” says Larisa Ruoff, the director of shareholder advocacy at Green Century Capital Management in Boston, one of IEHN’s partner organizations.

For broader context, a first-year resolution filed with a company needs to get at least 3% of the vote in order to be refiled the following year.

Solutions, Not Just Talk

Roger McFadden, a senior scientist with Staples Advantage, the business-to-business division of Staples Inc., circulates IEHN information with the office supply retailer’s key decision makers. “I view IEHN as a credible and relevant information resource to identify chemicals of high concern, but more importantly, to identify safer alternatives,” he says
As a result of talks with IEHN, Staples has eliminated endocrine-disrupting nonylphenol ethoxylates from its own brand cleaning supplies; stopped using thermal register receipts coated in BPA; and now uses PVC-free packaging materials for its own brands.

IEHN has helped oil and gas exploration company Apache Corp. identify important questions regarding hydraulic fracturing. “While other people spend time preaching to their own choirs and valuing opinion over fact, Rich spends time crunching numbers, reading footnotes, reaching out to new people from across the spectrum, and forging doable-but-meaningful deals,” says Sarah Teslik, Apache’s senior vice president of policy and governance.

Liroff encourages financial advisors to use information resources on IEHN’s web site, including case studies, reports and articles. IEHN staff also provides fee-based services for people who want to dive deeper into these issues.

In addition, Liroff recommends checking out the SIN (Substitute It Now!) List developed by the nonprofit International Chemical Secretariat, or ChemSec. It includes 378 substances identified as very high concern under REACH, the European Community Regulation on chemicals and their safe use.

Down the road, Liroff expects companies will talk more about their toxic footprints like they’ve begun to do with their carbon and water footprints. IEHN’s partner organizations believe that’ll help achieve the trifecta of improved corporate operations, public health and shareholder value.

The animal welfare community and the animal-food-producing industry have never been great friends. In fact, bitter enemies would be closer to the truth.

So it came as quite a shock when, on July 10, 2011, the Humane Society of the United States and the United Egg Producers (a voluntary federation of egg-producers in the United States) entered into a landmark agreement to begin to improve the lives of egg-producing chickens.

With Humane Society President and Chief Executive Officer Wayne Pacelle in the lead, the United Egg Producers agreed to some incremental and long ranging changes in the way egg-producing hens are treated.

Currently the least protected of farm animals, chickens are not covered by any Animal Welfare Acts and also are exempt from individual state laws prohibiting cruelty to animals and the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.

As such, chickens are open “game” with regard to their treatment by the egg producing industry. More than 90-percent of egg-laying hens in the United States are housed for life in battery cages. These wire cages only allow approximately 67 square inches of space for several hens packed into the same space.

The failure to provide adequate space prohibits all instinctive or natural behaviors including roosting, dust bathing and, in particular, nesting. Hens instinctively search for private space to lay eggs often crawling under other hens in a valiant search for privacy.

Now, according to a press release from the HSUS, the HSUS and the United Egg Producers will “work together toward the enactment of comprehensive new federal legislation for all 280 million hens involved in U.S. egg production.”

For instance, the proposed legislation will:

· require battery cages be replaced through an ample phase-in period, with new, enriched housing systems that will provide each hen nearly double the amount of space they’re currently allotted. Egg producers will invest an additional $4 billion over the next 15 years to effect this industry-wide make-over;

· require that all egg-laying hens be provided, through the new enriched housing system, with environments that will allow hens to express natural behaviors, such as perches, nesting boxes, and scratching areas;

· mandate labeling on all egg cartons nationwide to inform consumers of the method used to produce the eggs, such as “eggs from caged hens,” “eggs from hens in enriched cages,” “eggs from cage-free hens,” and “eggs from free-range hens”;

· prohibit feed or water-withholding molting to extend the laying cycle, a practice already prohibited by the United Egg Producers Certified program adhered to by a majority of egg farmers;

Although the new agreement may not provide chickens with the ultimate in much-needed expanded space, it “could set a precedent for the cattle/pig/lamb/calf, etc. farmers to follow suit and improve the quality of life of their livestock," according to Newtown resident Susan Kososka, owner of a small chicken flock. "It also helps to elevate the status of food animals and that's good for the general public to see in that they may start to see animals in general in a different light. All my chickens are pets. Around here, if I have my own way, they will all die of old age.”

This agreement also will give consumers a clearer understanding of the confusing labeling now found on commercially packaged eggs. Currently, there are so many different labels on packaged egg cartons it’s almost impossible to determine what they mean.

Here’s where it stands right now:

Certified Humane: The Humane Farm Animal Care (HFAC) is a non-profit organization that certifies the humane treatment of animals raised by meat, poultry, egg or dairy producers. There are only a few egg producers (about 1-percent) who are certified to carry their label.

The label indicates “no cages” and with hens having at least 1.5 square feet of floor space with outside access. Doors to the outside "must allow more than one hen at a time to exit". Forced molting, where hens nearly at the end of their laying are deprived to food, water, and light for days to weeks to produce one more bout of egg-laying is prohibited.

Cage free: This doesn’t necessarily mean that the quality of life for hens is perfect. They can be packed into massive sheds with only a tiny opening to the outdoors. There are no regulations about space requirements inside or out.

Organic certified: Usually means that the hens have access to the outdoors, are fed organic feed with no antibiotics.

Free-range: This means the chickens are allowed to roam outdoors. However, detractors point out that in many instances the doors to the hen sheds are kept closed until the chicks reach an age where they would not choose to go out on their own.

Organic eggs: There are federal regulations governing organic labels. The chickens must be fed organic feed (grown without commercial fertilizers or pesticides), and are not given hormones or antibiotics. However, this label has nothing to do with how the animals are kept.

Confused? So am I. But we live in area where we can do something about this. You can buy a flock of chickens or, easier still, stop on the side of the road in any of several spots in town and buy eggs direct from the local farms.

Not only are they fresh, but you’ll be supporting the local farmers, who treat their chickens well, like Kokoska says, they are “living, breathing beings and as such, deserve as good a quality of life as we can give them.”

Read more here.

United Egg Producers (UEP) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) came to an agreement to work together toward the enactment of comprehensive new federal legislation for all 280 million hens involved in U.S. egg production.

The proposed standards advocated by UEP and HSUS, if enacted, would be the first federal law addressing the treatment of animals on farms.

The proposed legislation would:

• require conventional cages (currently used by more than 90 percent of the egg industry) to be replaced, through an ample phase-in period, with new, enriched housing systems that provide each hen nearly double the amount of space they’re currently allotted. Egg producers will invest an additional $4 billion over the next decade and a half to effect this industry-wide make-over;

• require that all egg-laying hens be provided, through the new enriched housing system, with environments that will allow hens to express natural behaviors, such as perches, nesting boxes, and scratching areas;

• mandate labeling on all egg cartons nationwide to inform consumers of the method used to produce the eggs, such as “eggs from caged hens,” “eggs from hens in enriched cages,” “eggs from cage-free hens,” and “eggs from free-range hens”;

• prohibit feed- or water-withholding molting to extend the laying cycle, a practice already prohibited by the United Egg Producers Certified program adhered to by a majority of egg farmers;

• require standards approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association for euthanasia for egg laying hens;

• prohibit excessive ammonia levels in henhouses;

• prohibit the sale of eggs and egg products nationwide that don’t meet these requirements.

The two groups will jointly ask Congress for federal legislation which would require egg producers to increase space per bird in a tiered phase in, with the amount of space birds are given increasing, in intervals, over the next 15 to 18 years. Currently, the majority of birds are each provided 67 square inches of space, with roughly 50 million receiving 48 square inches. The proposed phase-in would culminate with hens nationwide being provided a minimum of 124 - 144 square inches of space, along with the other improvements noted.

“America’s egg producers have continually worked to improve animal welfare, and we strongly believe our commitment to a national standard for hen welfare is in the best interest of our animals, customers and consumers,” said Bob Krouse, chairman of UEP and an Indiana egg farmer. “We are committed to working together for the good of the hens in our care and believe a national standard is far superior than a patchwork of state laws and regulations that would be cumbersome for our customers and confusing to consumers.”

“Passing this bill would be an historic improvement for hundreds of millions of animals per year,” stated Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. “It is always our greatest hope to find common ground and to forge solutions, even with traditional adversaries. We are excited about a new and better pathway forward, and hope the Congress seizes the opportunity to embrace this sort of collaboration and mutual understanding. We extend our thanks to the producers within the industry for agreeing to make the needed investments to upgrade their housing and to improve animal welfare in a meaningful way.”

If passed by Congress, the legislation would supersede state laws including those that have been passed in Arizona, California, Michigan and Ohio. In recognition of ballot Proposition 2 passed by voters in that California in 2008, UEP and HSUS will ask Congress to require California egg producers – with nearly 20 million laying hens – to eliminate conventional cages by 2015 (the date Prop 2 is scheduled to go into effect), and provide all hens with the space and environmental enrichments that the rest of the egg industry will be phasing in over the next 15 to 18 years. These requirements will also apply to the sale of all eggs and egg products in California under the proposed federal legislation.

This agreement to pass comprehensive federal legislation for standards of egg production puts a hold on planned ballot measures related to egg-laying hens in both Washington and Oregon.

Related websites:

United Egg Producers
Humane Society of the United States