US food firms continue movement toward cage-free egg supply

Posted January 19, 2016

On Monday, ConAgra Foods joined dozens of other food companies and restaurants committed to sourcing only cage-free eggs. The company announced it would complete the change by 2025.

"This decision is part of ConAgra's ongoing commitment to the humane and safe treatment of animals," said Chris Stockwell, Senior Vice President and Chief Procurement Officer, ConAgra Foods.

In addition, the company encouraged all of its suppliers to purchase only from farms that comply with industry guidelines, including those established by the USDA and the Food Marketing Institute. ConAgra made the move as part of its efforts to ensure "appropriate animal care" under its Supplier Quality Program.

ConAgra is the latest in a number of food firms making the pledge to go cage-free in their US egg supply. Last week snack maker Mondelez International said it would move to cage-free eggs in the US and Canada by 2020. Similarly, last month Nestle pledged to move to cage-free eggs in the US by 2020. Other cmpanies that have set a 2025 deadline include General Mills, who announced the target for its US business in November, and cereal and snack maker Kellogg, who also set out its own targets last year.

The decision comes as the food industry is under pressure from groups such as the Humane Society of the United States, Mercy for Animals and World Animal Protection, which have successfully lobbied many companies to adopt animal welfare practices.

Fast-food companies have made similar announcements. In September 2015, McDonald's Corp said its 16,000 U.S. and Canadian restaurants would serve only eggs laid by cage-free chicken within 10 years, while Burger King is committed to using such eggs by 2017. 

Read more here.

(Photo courtesy Kevin Quinn, University of Arkansas System Division)

Groups sue over North Carolina’s ag-gag law claiming it violates Constitution

Posted January 19, 2016

A coalition of animal activist groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a North Carolina "ag-gag" law designed to deter undercover investigators from publicizing information about corporate misconduct. 
 

North Carolina is one of seven states with enforceable “ag-gag” laws that criminalize data collection from private property. Most of the laws concern the agriculture industry, and attempt to keep employees or outside groups from photographing or videotaping animal abuse at large farming operations. Animal rights groups rely on these investigations to bring abuses to light. Published videos can lead to charges against the abusers and encourage policy changes. In 2008, for example, undercover video exposed the issue of “downer” cows, which can’t stand on their own but, at that time, were still being used for beef. That video led to the largest meat recall in U.S. history.

The North Carolina state law, which went into effect January 1, makes undercover videos punishable by law. The Property Protection Act became law after legislators voted to override the governor's veto of the bill.

According to the complaint filed January 13, the law's purpose is to punish those “who set out to investigate employers and property owners' conduct because they believe there is value in exposing employers and property owners' unethical or illegal behavior to the disinfecting sunlight of public scrutiny.”

The plaintiffs, including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Center for Food Safety, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Farm Sanctuary, Food & Water Watch and Government Accountability Project, believe North Carolina's law violates the Equal Protection Clause and their rights to free speech and to a free press. 

The legal challenge is the first in the nation to make claims under both the U.S. Constitution and a state constitution. Last year, a federal court overturned Idaho's ag-gag law contending it violated the First and 14th amendments. Last December, a federal judge ruled that a challenge to Wyoming's law must go forward, citing “serious concerns” about the law's constitutionality.

More information on the lawsuit is available here.

(Photo courtesy Dirk Phillip, U of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture)