ShopKind, Temple Grandin’s PR Spin, and the Industry’s Never-Ending Excuses | Rising Anxieties

I actually love this first story. It's from, it's from Meating Place, uh, by Jack Hubbard, who basically writes about animal activism. Uh, new shopping platform is an anti-meat Trojan horse. And what he's talking about here is the ASPCA, and I don't generally think of the ASPCA as, you know, like a, a vegan organization or, uh...

I mean, I think that they, they have done, uh, many good things. Uh, they've got a lot of money, um, and they're not really a farm animal thing. No shade, I am not... this isn't a criticism, I think. Um, all right. Let me... help me out of this, okay?

But what he's talking about here is, like, some new things they've started, which when you hear about it, you're gonna be like, "Oh my God, that's awful."

But everything that he says about it is so entertaining. All right. They, they launched a consumer guide that is billed as a tool to help shoppers find, quote, "humanely raised food in their communities." According to Jack, in reality, it's a preview of a future legislative and corporate campaign agenda I don't know about that, but, you know, I'm always, I'm always eager to have, be right about how, how successful we're going to be.

And he, he points out that animal rights groups are already moving the goalpost to where even cage-free isn't even good enough. Uh, yeah. They always do this. It, it-- like, they act like we agreed to something, that cage-free would be good enough, and then as soon as they do it, we, quote-unquote, "move the goalpost."

That's their favorite expression for what happens here. Uh, we never-- nobody ever agreed. I mean, even, like, organizations that you don't particularly like, who you think go too easy on animal agriculture, have never, like, said that cage-free was enough. Nobody's ever said that. But that's, that's what they like to pretend and that, and that, and that we're unfair negotiators.

Like we, like we're even negotiating. Like, they just do what they want. All right, so this thing is called ShopKind, and it's an online catalog, and it allows visitors to search for eggs, poultry, beef, and other animal protein, or i.e., dead bodies, that can be purch- or not, I guess eggs are not dead bodies, um... that can be purchased at retailers near them.

This is really interesting because I've always said that, you know, everybody's always claiming that they buy from humane this and that and, and you ask them and th-they, they, like, they know they're not. They don't know what the labels mean. They don't know what anything means. If they do it, it's like once in a while, not all the time.

And it's not like they go to a farm and figure out whether it's okay or not, which you would have to do, 'cause most of the labeling schemes are h- like, just incredibly deceptive. But, um, so the ASPCA is doing this, and he points out the platform recommends against purchasing most animal protein products that are available on the market, which, well, that certainly makes sense if they have any kind of standards.

And do they do inspections? I don't, I don't know. Like, the-- but if they-- like, if they're setting real standards, this is actually pretty useful, even if it is, you know, in some sense annoying. But, um, he points out that shoppers might feel good about choosing to buy a carton of, quote-unquote, "cage-free eggs."

And I agree with him. Shoppers might f- feel good about that because they are, like, going along with being deceived. But for ShopKind, that's not good enough. Animals must be fully pasture-raised in order to get the ASPCA's full blessing. I guess they have gradations. Um, I suppose I should have gone on and examined it, but you know, I love you all, but not that much.

So, um, they, the ASPCA even admits, I like this touch, that almost no animal protein meets its requirements. That should be all, none of it meets the requirements. But, um, it acknowledges that ninety-nine percent of all poultry fails to satisfy the group's standards, um, and blah, blah, blah. And he points out that, uh, the small amount of animal protein, which is what they like to call meat, um, is, uh, on this guide is wildly unaffordable for many cases, uh, for many f- for ma- excuse me, for many families.

Y- yeah, I'm sure it is. As we all know, it costs money to treat animals nicely. Um, and so he, he, he points out that the entire construct highlights how elitist and out of touch the animal rights movement has become because it ignores the harm its policies inflict on low-income communities. Because as we all know, there's no other food other than dead animals.

That's the only food there is, so we really want poor people to starve to death because, uh, you know, that's all there is. That's all there is to eat. The, quote, "The practical result of ShopKind is the promotion of a vegan diet free of any animal protein." I love that. I hope that's true. "Which is by design, as the ASPCA notes. The best way to guarantee that your food involves no potential animal suffering is to eat plant-based."

Ni- nice line. Nice line. Um- All right. So "zooming out, he says the ASPCA's guide reveals the broader playbook for the animal activist class." We're a class. "It shows they plan to continue moving the goalpost to drive up costs for commerce, farmers that are passed on to consumers."

Yes. "Farmer, policymakers and food executives should see this group for who they really are, a group of extravagantly paid NGO executives" - their, their chief executive really does make a fortune - um, "seeking to control America's diet, drive up the cost of American farm-raised protein." Yes. Uh, I wish that were even truer than, than he thinks it is.

I love that. There's a lot there to love. Even if, you know, there's some things there to be annoyed about, there's a lot there to love. Really somebody doing the work to point out what these labels actually mean and how much it costs to comply with them. It's about time somebody did that, and so thank you, ASPCA.

Um, all right. From one of your favorite people, Dr. Temple Grandin. Oh my God, the heroine of, uh, of the animal abuse industries. They just love her, and so does everybody else. They think she's just great. Anyway, she wrote this article for Meat and Poultry, and her point is that, that when you, um, when, when you're evaluating about how animals are treated on, quote-unquote farms, leaders set the tone, or in slaughterhouses, um, which is, you know, her personal, uh, area of expertise.

Leaders set the tone. Culture is what happens when nobody is watching. These are quotes from other people, and she, she totally agrees with this. "This is absolutely true. During the last year, I have visited two new beef plants and have served," that's their word for slaughterhouses, of course, "and have served as a professional animal auditor certification instructor."

Wow, fancy. "I can attest that culture has definitely improved." Oh, good for you, Temple. "Rough handling and yelling and screaming at animals did not occur during my visits to those plants. This is a positive change of culture." All right, there's a, there's a number of things really problematic here. Um, in the first place, maybe the rough handling and yelling and screaming didn't occur because she was there.

Like, that seems possible. I mean, I don't know, maybe she was undercover or something. I don't actually know. But, uh, but that does seem like a possibility that we should take into account. Aside from that, uh, culture is what happens. Uh, leaders set the tone. Uh, culture is what happens when nobody is watching.

Well, why is nobody watching? The p- her whole point here is that the way animals treat, are treated on the farm depends on the leadership, the people who run that, quote-unquote, plant, the, the, the people in the industry who care about this. Well, there ain't no such people who care about this in the industry, and we shouldn't be leaving it up to them.

Her-- She's actually admitting here that the whole thing depends on the people in the industry. Like, nobody else is watching. Nobody else is watching. The USDA is not watching. I mean, that's basically what she's saying here, that it all depends on, on your boss. Uh, if your boss doesn't care, then you don't care either, which, you know, it seems highly likely that that is the case.

She does point out that even though leaders are now, like, on the job and really care about the animals -- that's, that's my words, not hers -- she does think there's still a great need to instruct people who are new to the industry on basic principles of han- animal handling. Uh, yeah, aside from the fact that they have to not be psychopaths, they have to, uh, like, know what they're doing.

This is the, her example: "A common mistake when moving cattle through a single file chute is to stand in front of the animal's head and tap it on the butt with a flag." What? Like, how, wouldn't the cow... If the cow moved forward and you were in front of their head, wouldn't they just walk on top of you? Like, of course that doesn't make any sense.

How idiotic are these people? Uh, she also talks a lot about, you know, other... Well, I won't go into it. Timing, grouping, all these things that people should be taught. Of course they should be taught this. You think, like, getting cows to do what you want them to do is easy when you're driving them to their death? Sorry.

A colostrum conundrum is being talked about on Hoard's Dairyman. It's by Jessica Miller, and this is a new product they have managed to squeeze out of cows. It, it- they're just never-ending, you know? They're still now selling the methane in order to power data centers and, um, and, uh, the manure is producing methane and, and, uh, they just keep thinking up... but colostrum is the new one.

Recent news coverage has underscored a building consumer trend as social media influencers and product labels tout bovine colostrum's superpowers. And she agree- basically agrees. She said the research hasn't been done yet, but she's almost sure the research is gonna bear out that this is- this stuff is great for you.

Um, she points out that, in fact, at least one university researcher, though he also owns a colostrum production and distribution company, has called the research promising. I bet he has. I really bet he has. Um, and they're th- they're calling it liquid gold, and there are superpowers, and it's both for your health and, and to make you beautiful.

Um, and a Yahoo Health article in late 2025 projected the colostrum supplement market to reflect $2.4 billion by 2030. The article does complete, it end by pointing out that they, they... dairy farms actually use the colostrum, and they, they have to give it to the calves. I mean, of course, they don't let the calf get it from the mother, but they do collect it and give it to the calves, and they get really sick if they don't have it, my understanding is.

This doesn't seem to be a major concern of this article, but, um, according to some, uh, dairy farmer, um, "We are just hoping the colostrum shows up. My livelihood, the well-being of my animals, and my customers depend on" Like, what are they planning on doing here by- after they've squeezed? They'll come up, they'll come up with some crap, probably make it out of manure or something, so they can feed these babies. 'Cause that's the kind of thing they do.

All right, I don't know whether they're gonna make it out of manure. That might be an exaggeration. All right. No, farmers aren't getting rich off of government subsidies. This is by Michelle Miller, Farm Babe, on Ag- Ag Daily. "Odds are," she says, "you've heard the public talk about how farmers couldn't survive without government handouts, and my tax dollars pay farmers to do nothing, or even farmers get rich from government subsidies."

Yeah, I do hear that a lot actually. "Sadly, it's a pretty common media myth that farmers are given unfettered handouts in the form of subsidies. It's the kind of clickbait headlines that make any farmer's head spin." I bet it does because they would really prefer to keep this all a secret. Now, I admit, I usually talk about animal agriculture, and I'm talking about commodity farmers here, but they're the ones who raise the feed.

I mean, one of the reasons that, one of the major ways in which animal protein is subsidized, quote unquote, protein. Animal dead bodies are subsidized. Is, is by subsidizing the, the people who raise the feed, and sometimes they're the same people, sometimes they're not. Um, all right, so, uh, she's gonna te- she's gonna correct this misimpression that farmers make money, and that the US government shouldn't be helping them in this way.

They some- "the US government does sometimes provide a fi- financial assistance or cost-share programs to farmers and agricultural businesses." What's the difference between financial assistance and cost-share programs? They sound pretty similar to me. "These are subsidies that can be monetary payments." Oh, that's, that sounds like money.

"And other types of support. Subsidies can be given to support specific practices, support disaster aid, marketing to mitigate risks, or other things." That s- pretty much covers the waterfront, doesn't it? Um, "they first appeared in the first farm bill in 1933." She does point out that was when the Great Depression was on, and, uh, you know, and the Dust Bowl, and farmers really were in trouble then.

She doesn't go into that things that might have changed. Uh, alright she lists the most common types of subsidies. Price loss coverage. Well, you wouldn't want to lose money if your prices go down. That would, that would be unfair, wouldn't it? I mean, nobody would want to call this socialism, would they?

"Agriculture risk coverage." Well, you wouldn't want to take any risks. "Emergency Commodity Assistance Program." Well, you know, emergencies. "Marketing loan programs." We have to sell the stuff. "Conservation programs." Yeah, well, you know, if you're gonna wreck the c- the, the environment, you should get payment if you, if you don't "Not all farms get subsidies," she points out.

"Not even close. Uh, uh, uh, only one-third receive government subsidies. Many farms, especially those producing specialty crops, don't have access to subsidies." Are you aware that when they talk about specialty crops, they're talking about fruits and vegetables? You know, the stuff that people eat, stuff that's healthy for you.

No, they don't get subsidies. We're talking about commodities here. Um, and they... She points out they don't automatically get free subsidies. They have to enroll in programs. Oh my God, the paperwork, it's just... Like how... They have to meet all the requirements. She actually says that. Uh, "the bureaucrats don't make it easy."

Are they supposed to make it easy when they're giving your tax money to, uh, people who don't deserve it? Um, they, uh... "it's not to guarantee a profit. She wants to make that clear. It's to manage risk." Isn't that how you guarantee a profit? I mean, isn't the risk that you won't make a profit? "What about big ag?

Big ag is not a real thing." That is a literal quote. "When most people think of it, they really mean the seed companies, food manufacturers, process"- No, I... That's not who I think of. "Processors, commodity groups, or large corporate-owned farms." No, I think of large farms like Taylor Farms, that huge, huge, huge outfit that just caused the cyclospora, Cyclospora outbreak, uh, which is owned by one guy.

Like, he has a family, too, so it kinda makes it a family farm. I mean, it's actually named for his family

Like not all big farms, not all huge farms, not all, uh, farms that are getting enormous subsidies are owned by corporations. In fact, they're mostly owned by individuals, families who have owned them for a long time and have a stranglehold of... Alright, I'm sorry. Um, "the ag industry is very capital intensive, so any subsidy payments are just going to offset the costs of inputs, not becoming free profit."

So the subsidies are used to pay their expenses. They don't get to just pocket them. Oh, that makes it okay. No, 'cause they have expenses. "Agriculture is not like other industries. Food production is strategically important to every nation and person." Yes, indeed it is. Yes, indeed it is, and fruits and vegetables are, too, so maybe we should give them subsidies, too.

Like, like, the, the money should go to these people. It shouldn't go to us to like, uh, you know, help us buy their products. These people are unbelievable. Unbelievable.

All right, I just have a few other little things. Those were my main articles. One, they're still talking tr- they're still trying to save the Save Our Bacon Act.

Um, perspective, the Save Our Bacon Act has a bumpy road ahead. Yes, it has, by Marky Haggeman-Jones on Ag Daily, and, uh, she goes through the whole thing about what it is. But I just thought I'd catch you up, um, because she's upset that the Senate draft text glaringly excluded the act when it was released in June, arguing that overturning Prop 12 could come as a...

Which, you know, of course is it's to overcome Prop 12, which is the law in California that, like, puts tiny regulations on what you can do to farm animals, including on the food sold in California. All right. Glaringly excluded the act when it was released in June, arguing that overturning Prop 12 could come as a detriment to independent producers and to animal welfare.

Yeah, no shit, it could. Um, and she's upset about it because pork producers are suffering from Prop 12. California doesn't produce the majority of pork it consumes, so it take, it, it has to buy pork from other places. So the law affects hog farmers who are not in the state and increases the cost of production.

Because they want to sell their food in California. I know I've said this 10 billion times, but it just still, like... They believe this Um, she does think that, uh... She doesn't think it's happening anytime soon. She thinks that, um, could potentially delay the, the farm bill even further than it has already been delayed. So we're still keeping an eye on it, but that fight ain't over, that's for sure.

And other disappointing news, um, IP 28 in Oregon, which was the, um, proposal to ban, basically ban animal, animal agriculture, but also hunting and fishing. Um, this is from OPB: Proposal to ban hunting, fishing in Oregon doesn't make November ballot. They didn't get the signatures. I mean, they did hand in, um, uh, I think over 140,000 signatures, um, that th-they, they were-- After they were counted by the election officials, they said that it, it only contained 104,000, and they needed 117,000 and change.

Nobody seems to be arguing that the officials might have, like, done a sleight of hand here, so I'm not gonna be the one to say it. Um, but you know, this is a long-term project, and every time they do it, it gets more and more attention, and they get angrier and angrier. And really, the goal of the people behind this was to start this conversation, and boy, have they ever.

So from David Michelson, who of course was on the, um, podcast a couple years ago when they were first doing this, um, he said, "We want to start advocating for these legal protections specifically in the hopes that over time we will be able to both build a stronger base of supporters, but also start to shift public opinion closer in this direction."

So God love 'em. God love all the people who are, who are, who are working on this 'cause they're g- they're gonna keep doing it, I'm sure, and I think it's unbelievably valuable. And at some point they're gonna get on the ballot. They really are, and I can't wait. That's all I got. That was kind of a lot. Um, thank you for being here.

Um, don't forget to subscribe, like and comment. Don't forget to, um, listen to the Hen Report and the Our Hen House interview. Last week's, um, interview was the Animal Law Podcast interview, and it was so good. It was-- It wasn't about a case. It was all about how people can actually make money doing animal law.

So if you're a lawyer, if you know a lawyer, you're just interested, give it a listen. It was with Cheryl Leahy. She was just terrific. And, um, I'll see you next time.