Chickens Sue Back, Canada Fumbles, and Cows Are Overheating | Rising Anxieties

Don't forget we're a podcast, we're on YouTube. Please subscribe, hit like wherever you listen, even where you don't listen, and let's get to it.

Our first story I just love. This is from Watt Poultry, and the title is Legal Impact for Chickens File Suit Against Foster Farms. I love that I'm seeing articles about Legal Impact for Chickens, which of course is one of our favorite organizations 'cause they do so much legal work, on behalf of chickens of course.

This is by Roy Graeber, and the subtitle is, "The managing attorney for the organization says the company's actions after 2024 investigation were not enough, and California's Corporations Code gives it grounds to seek further discipline." You know, I'm not sure he even understands what's going on here.

But the fact is, that it's not normally possible for anybody to sue these companies. And Legal Impact for Chickens is coming up with a very good way and, you know, they've been doing a lot of work on this, as have other organizations. So it starts off by saying, "An organization called Legal Impact for Chickens has filed a lawsuit against California-based poultry producer Foster Farms, with the plaintiff alleging the company has a history of animal abuse."

Imagine that. And they're talking about a 2024 undercover investigation where footage showed various instances of animal mistreatment. Apparently, even he admits that there was animal mistreatment. And of course, Foster Farms' reaction to this was the usual. Following the release of the footage, it says here, "Foster Farms released a statement that said it acted immediately when it learned that broiler chicken catchers were mistreating the birds at a facility in Fresno County, California." We're shocked. No, I made that part up. They didn't say that. "Per our zero tolerance policy," they said. This is what they did say, "We immediately terminated those involved."

Yeah, they always fire the workers. Like it's, like, it's so typical that you just wanna scream. "And referred them to Fresno County law enforcement." Oh, good. They're... so they're taking their, their workers who were undoubtedly told to do this and put in a culture where they inevitably would do this, and then they're referring them to law enforcement, "Where they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

Yeah, I'm sure. I'm sure. That's according to Randy Boyce, who's the general counsel for Foster Farms. He also said, "Put simply, the conduct was counter to everything we stand for as a company, and our actions ensure those responsible are held accountable." My God, like, like how do they live with themselves?

So, Drew Givens is the attorney from, Legal Impact for Chickens, and he's the managing attorney there, and he said that those actions taken by the company aren't enough. No kidding. Because in his mind, quote, "There's a culture that tolerates lawbreaking, because that's essentially what this is."

That's very nicely put, Drew Givens. I would've used profanity and that would've sounded bad. In the suit, Legal Impact for Chickens said, based, quote, "upon information and belief, Foster Farms continues to mistreat poultry in the manners it described earlier." Yeah, of course it does.

Like, they don't think that anybody can ever come get them also, Givens said that "California's Corporations Code," this is the key part, "Section 10404, allows societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals to file a complaint for the violation of any law affecting animals." And that's the key thing here, is that Legal Impact for Chickens have gone through the process to have themselves named as a society for the prevention of cruelty to animals in California, which is a reasonably straightforward process, and they did it, and they succeeded, and now they can go out and sue people.

It's really cool. The article goes on to say, "SPCAs that conduct such an undercover investigations often get criticized for witnessing animal cruelty situation that's appearing to not do enough to intervene and stop them from happening. So if an undercover investigation went on for more than a month, would the investigator and the involved investigations also be potential defendants in Section 10404 related lawsuits?"

This is exactly the play, and this is... That was the, author of the article asking that. This is the play that the industry, always likes to make. This is... Missouri has a, an ag-gag law that is based on this kind of idea that, that it's the undercover investigators who are witnessing cruelty and then not immediately that afternoon running to the police and reporting it, when actually they have to be in there for a period of time to collect the evidence in order to bring their complaint.

So they're not reporting it 'cause they're trying to defend Foster Farms' treatment. It's so, offensive. And Givens responded that it would be improper for that to happen. He obviously speaks so much more nicely than I do. "I don't think the intent behind those code sections," this is what Givens said, "or the likely effect of them would be liability for organizations that are trying to document cruelty that corporations are committing against their own animals in order to stop that cruelty. That would be a rather perverse use of laws intended to help animals."

Nicely said, Drew Givens. All right, so, the article concludes that these lawsuits seem rare. Well, yeah, right now they're rare. Maybe they're not gonna be so rare now that we've got some serious legal talent. "Obviously," the article goes on, "no agri-food company or affiliated individual should ever create or tolerate a situation that could bring on such a lawsuit."

Ha!

But it should make one wonder if other states have similar laws or precedents to enable similar suits to be filed." Yeah, nobody would ever do it, but we better find out what the laws are that, that would stop you from doing it, just in case, you know? For that reason, producers would be well-served to familiarize themselves with any similar laws in the states where they operate.

Yeah, and try to get them changed. That's what they'll do. The fight is on! The fight is on.

Dairy in schools is pivotal. This is from Hoard's Dairyman by Amy Delisio. She works for the Dairy Council of California. And she's, she, the point she's trying to make here is that, milk is an important part of school meal programs, but more is needed.

"Through school meal programs," she says, "children have consistent access to nutritious foods that support growth, learning, and overall wellbeing. School meals also provide an opportunity to develop healthy eating patterns during the formative years when lifelong habits are established. Milk continues to play an important role on the r- on the lunch tray. Nutrient-dense, calcium, vitamin D," which they add to the milk...

So stupid. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. Like, as if you're gonna die if you don't drink milk. Acc- I'm, getting distracted. Her real point is that, "Access is only part of the solution. Nutrition education helps children understand how food is connected to health and empowers them to make informed choices throughout their lives."

Yes, it would if it were accurate, but, you know, what she really wants to promote is her organization's mobile dairy classroom. Check this out. California's original farm-to-school agricultural literacy program operating since the 1930s. It showcases a live dairy cow and interactive assembly directly to students.

So yeah, they're, they want a lot... This poor cow. Like, talk about propaganda. Oh my God. So they wanna get the milk in the schools, but then they wanna somehow get these kids to believe that milk is just the best thing for them. And of course, they will believe it. You know, everybody believes it. "As National Dairy Month highlights dairy farmers' contributions to healthy communities, it also..."

this is her talking, if that's not obvious. "It also serves as a reminder that building partnerships with schools and community-based organizations remains one of the most powerful ways to support children's health." And to support dairy profits, and really not to support children's health at all, if you're gonna be realistic about it.

Alright, this next article is from our friends at Plant Based News. It's very depressing. Canada. Oh, Canada. We're kind of relying on you to be better than us, and it's always disappointing when you're not. "Canada's $2.1 billion food strategy doesn't mention plant-based proteins once.

Canada's first ever national food security strategy contains animal farming and seafood, but no alternative proteins." Like, what is wrong? It's by Liam Pritchett You know, Canada, they're in love with animal agriculture, I have to say. Or according to an official statement by Mark Carney, who is just really being remarkable on the world stage, like he's keeping hope alive.

He's the Prime Minister of Canada. "This strategy focuses on lowering costs, creating jobs, and building a food system that is more resilient, more competitive, and more our own." A, a constant theme, obviously, for, Canadians at the moment, like stop depending on the US, and that's all great. I'm all for it.

Good for you. But then this... It's a 10-year food strategy. It's the first of its kind. It aims to boost domestic food production, cut red tape, spur grocery store competition, all great ideas. It does ex- want to expand Canada's production of fruits and vegetables, so that's fine. Doesn't talk anything about proteins, though, when they come, when it comes to plant-based proteins.

It, but it does call for lots of protein, expanded animal farming, and seafood production. I mean, Canada is just a perfect place to grow lentils, beans, peas. Like, those are crops that are, that, that are, already... I mean, as this, points out, already, they're already a global leader in producing those proteins.

That's the way the world is moving. This is a 10-year strategy, but they don't have any plant-based strategy. They're really missing the boat here. Just really depressing. They could be total leaders, and they're not even mentioning them. Oh, Canada.

All right, from Meatingplace, this one is gross. I'm, warning you. Precious cargo by Erica... God, how do you pronounce this name? V as in Victor, O-O-G-D, Voogd? I mean, there's possibly a silent letter in there. Anyway, I digress. She is worried about heat, as are we all. I mean, I'm not personally, 'cause it's absolutely beautiful here in Rochester, New York, but, you know, Europe is having some problems.

And, heat mitigation is going to be one of the best methods to optimize cattle welfare. It's an interesting way to put it, isn't it? To optimize cattle welfare. To prevent... It's more like to prevent horrifying cattle, cruelty. But also cattle welfare, meat quality, and profits this summer.

And as we will see, the latter two are really the focus here. Every load of cattle... I would like to be part of a load. Every load of cattle heading to market is considered, quote, "precious cargo." And if you're wondering whether precious there means, oh, we love our cows so much, that ain't what they're talking about.

Heat stress in cattle can be extra costly this summer. Yeah, I mean, I don't even... Like, heat is gonna destroy this industry, probably before we can. First, shade during production increases carcass quality and profit. Cattle that were provided shade spend more time feeding and drinking. They can't even say eating.

They have to f- they feed and drink. Now, th- you're wondering, like, what kind of heat are we talking about? So why should they, why do they need shade? Ground temperature in the unshaded pens was dramatically higher. it was less than 90 degrees Fahrenheit in the shaded pens versus 110 to 130 degrees in the unshaded pens. And they don't put shade over all of them.

I mean, she's trying to make the point it's gonna cost them money, which I guess that's the only thing that could make them do it. Heat mitigation during transport is crucial. She talks about this time, that she did some advising about welfare in Parma in Italy, and she points out, quote, "The ham was quite valuable on these pigs, so care was taken to keep them cool during transport."

Ham is something that's on pigs? Like, is that a f- Sorry. Alright, never mind. Shade at slaughter plant aids welfare and meat quality. In the peak of summer with temperatures as high as 110 degrees Fahrenheit, if you are taking your cold dairy or... I'll, add 43 degrees centigrade. if you are taking your cold dairy or beef cows to market and the slaughter plant does not provide measures to control heat stress, it can be a gamble.

Well, you wouldn't wanna take a gamble. Shade is money in the bank. The meat science tells us that these animals begin to use up muscle glycogen and may become dark cutters if left in this, this condition in the heat. The resulting meat is downgraded, and it's not conducive to use in beef roasts because it is tough and does not change color when cooked.

Well, God forbid. It also- they also shed more Salmonella in the warmer months, and a recall costs much more than a shade tarp. Why overheat a perfectly good animal and take a chance that it won't survive? Eww. Like, they're talking, well, as you know, they're talking about living creatures, and this is all, this is

It's just so sordid. All right, finally, this is a stupid one. Well, it's not that stupid. This is from Watt Poultry. "Paperwork, not quality, endangers Brazil's poultry exports. Stricter EU antibiotic requirements is a tough hurdle for the Brazilian poultry exporter." Now, what they're talking about here is that the EU has some, some regulations, and, they're, actually changing some of their regulations on animal protein.

And they have been banning Brazil's animal protein. And according to the Brazilian Association of Animal Protein, the current difficulty lies not with the industry itself, but with official oversight. It's not like we're doing anything wrong. They're just, like, they need too much paperwork. It's just annoying.

All right. The, ban, which is, it hasn't been put in place, it's looming, around antibio- it's around antibiotics used for growth promotion or for human health. And according to Ricardo Santin, these products are, who's the Brazilian Association of Animal Protein president, these products are simply not used in poultry or beef production destined for export, and they offer full traceability.

Like, the article doesn't explain exactly what that means, and all the EU is asking for is that it be monitored by the government and not just by the industry. But that's just crazy apparently, according to this article. Brazil doesn't have a national system for monitoring antimicrobial use in animals, so how can we do it i- what can we do?

Like, they just don't have the program, and you know, of course, the meat industry has no control over the Brazilian government and what they do, and they couldn't possibly, like, encourage them to put that into place. "Policy frameworks do exist," the authors note, "but enforcement is limited." Unbelievable. It's just unbelievable.

And that's it, I guess. That's all I've got. Did I give you enough to worry about? Maybe there w- I think there were, there was... Well, yeah, the Legal Impact for Chickens article was kind of hopeful, wasn't it? God. That is a, lawsuit to keep an eye on. I guess that's it for this week's Rising Anxieties and, don't forget to tune in.

Thank you for tuning in today. Subscribe, like, and comment everywhere, both, and listen to The Hen Report and the Our Hen House interview, and you can donate and become a flock member at ourhenhouse.org/support, and we love you guys. Thanks for tuning in.