U.S. Supreme Court Rules "Crush Video" Law is Unconstitutional
Depictions of Acts of Animal Cruelty and Dogfighting Are Now Legal
UPDATE: A bill has been introduced in the U.S. House, HR 5092, to prohibit the sale or distribution of animal crush videos in interstate or foreign commerce. This bill, introduced on April 21 by Representative Gallegly immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court decision was issued, provides a narrow definition of “Animal crush videos” that is tailored to withstand any challenge to its constitutionality based on free speech.
| Contact your U.S. Representative and ask him/her to support this bill. The bill already has 59 cosponsors. |  |
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its long awaited ruling on U.S. v. Stevens, a case charging the seller of dogfighting videos under a 1999 law prohibiting the sale of “crush” videos and other depictions of illegal acts of animal cruelty. On April 20th the Court made its determination, overturning the federal law as unconstitutional.
The federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 48, was enacted in 1999, prohibiting the commercial creation, sale or possession of certain depictions of animal cruelty and making it a crime to engage in any of these acts. The law is specific to the portrayal of acts of cruelty, not the underlying act of harming animals. The law was aimed at stopping the sale of “crush” videos, where helpless animals are killed usually by a woman with bare feet or in high spiked heels. There was international trafficking in these sexual fetish videos, which include a soundtrack but no way to identify the participant’s identity.
Robert Stevens was charged under this Act for selling videos depicting gruesome scenes of animals being killed, including videos from the U.S. and Japan. The district court held that the depictions under this law were like obscenity or child pornography and therefore were not protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. The district court also found that the law was not substantially overbroad because it allowed exceptions for constitutionally protected categories of free speech, such as depictions for the purpose of religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic or artistic purposes. Stevens was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 37 months of imprisonment.
The conviction was appealed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeal. The appeals court vacated the conviction and held that the law was unconstitutional. The court found:
- The law regulates speech that is protected by the First Amendment.
- The statute lacked a compelling government interest.
- The law was not narrowly tailored to prevent animal cruelty.
- The law was not the least restrictive means of preventing animal cruelty.
- There is no reason to recognize a new category of unprotected speech for depictions of animal cruelty.
- There is no validity to a comparison of animal cruelty depictions and child pornography.
This decision was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The government, in support of this case, argued that the banned depictions of animal cruelty, as a class, are unprotected by the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court disagreed. It started with the basic premise that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” However it looked at historical restrictions on the content of speech in a few limited areas, including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct. The government’s position, that depictions of animal cruelty should be added to this list of restrictions, was rejected by the Court. The Court found:
- The government’s application of a balancing test, weighing the value of the speech against its societal cost, is “startling and dangerous.”
- The government’s cost-benefit analysis is a “highly manipulative balancing test.”
- “Depictions of animal cruelty” are not among the categories of speech that have been historically unprotected.
- The law creates “a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.
- The text of the statute’s ban on a “depiction of animal cruelty” nowhere “requires that the depicted conduct be cruel.”
- The law applies to “any…depiction” in which “a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded, or killed.”
- “Wounded” or “killed” do not suggest that cruelty must be involved.
- The text of the law does “require that the conduct be ‘illegal.’”
- The text of the law “draws no distinction based on the reason the intentional killing of an animal is made illegal, and includes, for example, the humane slaughter of a stolen cow.”
- “The demand for hunting depictions exceeds the estimated demand for crush videos or animal fighting depictions by several orders of magnitude.”
- If hunting restrictions made a particular kind of hunting illegal in that state, it would be unlawful to sell a video depiction of the killing of an animal anywhere in the country, even if other states permit that manner of hunting, ie. using a crossbow.
- The differences between states in what is illegal in slaughtering livestock would make it unlawful to sell a video of a slaughter practice that has been banned elsewhere, ie. California’s recent ban on docking the tails of cattle.
- The exceptions clause of this law, which would permit depictions of animal cruelty that have “serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value,” would require an unrealistically broad reading of the exceptions, especially with regard to videos of wildlife that have primarily entertainment value.
- When passed, this law was intended to be applied only to depictions of “wanton cruelty to animals designed to appeal to a prurient interest in sex.”
- This prosecution of a dog fighting depiction shows that prosecutorial discretion in applying this law cannot be trusted.
Finally, the Court determined that this law is “substantially overbroad, and therefore invalid under the First Amendment.” The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision.
Dissent:
In his dissenting opinion from the majority, Justice Alito argues that:
- The Court should not have applied the doctrine that overbroad statutes should be struck down because it should have looked at this option only as a last resort.
- The Court should have determined whether “the videos that [Stevens] sold are constitutionally protected.”
- The Court’s determination that hunting videos could be included in the construction of the statute was flawed because hunting is lawful in all 50 states and the statute should be construed to avoid constitutional problems.
- The law specifically targets depictions of “animal cruelty” which is clearly defined by every state to exclude the practice of hunting, which is neither under law—or historically—regarded as an act of cruelty.
- The Court has a duty to interpret the law so as to avoid constitutional concerns and it has failed to do so.
- The prosecution of the creators of crush videos was virtually impossible before the passage of this bill, but the distribution of such videos all but died after the passage of the law.
- “Crush videos present a highly unusual free speech issue because they are so closely linked with violent criminal conduct. The videos record the commission of violent criminal acts, and it appears that these crimes are committed for the sole purpose of creating the videos.”
- The only way to prevent these crimes was to target the sale of the videos.
- The Court should have extended the Ferber reasoning regarding child pornography to reach the same conclusion for a law prohibiting crush videos:
- The conduct is illegal in every state;
- The criminal acts shown on crush videos cannot be prevented without targeting the creation, sale, or possession of videos intended for commercial purposes;
- The harm caused by the underlying crimes vastly outweighs any minimal value that the depictions otherwise would possess.
- “Preventing the abuse of children is certainly more important than preventing the torture of the animals used in crush videos.”
- “But while protecting children is unquestionable more important than protecting animals, the Government also has a compelling interest in preventing the torture depicted in crush videos.”
- The commercial trade in dogfights can also not be addressed without restricting the sale of such videos for commercial purposes.
- There is a compelling governmental interest in effectively enforcing the nation’s laws and preventing criminals from profiting from their illegal activities.
Justice Alito would reject Steven’s claim that the law was unconstitutional.
Final Comment
The effect of this decision, which freed Stevens and rendered the entire law invalid, may be to open new avenues of commercial enterprises to individuals with video cameras and a criminal lack of conscience. It will certainly limit the efforts of any state law to regulate videos depicting any type of animal cruelty.
Gladiators Were Vegan
John McDougall MD describes a recent archeological discovery in Turkey where researchers concluded Roman gladiators ate a vegan diet.
This is a short excerpt from Dr. McDougall’s fascinating talk THE STARCH SOLUTION at the Healthy Lifestyle Expo 2009.
In his talk, Dr. McDougall gives example after example from the historical record showing that all successful cultures thrived by subsiting on a largely starch-based diet. And he presents the biological case that humans evolved to live on starchy foods for optimal health .
They defend animal cruelty – don't let them win!
I’ve written before about the phony Center for Consumer Freedom
(CCF).
In its early years, CCF made money as a front group for Big Tobacco,
the alcohol industry, and other corporations working against public
health. In recent years, CCF has expanded its business model to
represent factory farmers, seal clubbers, cockfighters, and puppy
millers.
The Humane Society of the United States is now CCF’s number one
target. A couple weeks ago, CCF assailed our humanitarian relief
mission in Haiti, despite the remarkable work of our people on the
ground. Now, these animal cruelty apologists say they will step up
their attacks on us this week.
Will you make a special gift today and show CCF that those who care
about animals won’t back down?
The shills at CCF have one thing right: The HSUS is indeed the
largest, toughest, and most effective animal protection organization,
and we have the power, like no other group does, to effect major
changes for animals. Just listen to how our opponents talk about us:
“HSUS is clearly the nine-million-pound gorilla. They are
powerful, sophisticated and rich and they are good at what they do.
They are good at building the agenda, good at framing issues, they
know how to talk about issues, which is why they are effective.” – Wes Jamison, Meatingplace.com
“Fifteen years ago we were confronted by about 150 animal rights
organizations, subject to infighting and competition. Today, the
movement is defined by the Humane Society of the U.S.” – Steve
Kopperud, Cattle Network
“With the passage of California’s Proposition 2, more
people have come to realize the evolving threat of the power,
influence, and growing wealth of the Humane Society of the United
States (HSUS). Ballot initiatives and legislation similar to Prop. 2
will soon be introduced in more states. HSUS’s massive budget,
unwarranted positive public reputation, and deep-pocketed Hollywood
friends will only become a greater threat to industry in a
post-Proposition 2 business environment. It is crucial that a key
broad cross-section of agriculture leaders start managing this
nationwide threat now, before it is too late or too expensive to match
HSUS dollar for dollar.” – Rick Berman, CCF
If you don’t recognize the name of Rick Berman, let me provide a
proper introduction. He’s the type of individual — I know
you’ve heard of them before — who will literally do anything
for money. Back in the days when the tobacco lobby was still denying
that smoking caused lung cancer, men like Rick Berman attacked doctors
and other anti-smoking advocates who had the courage to speak the
truth. For his ultimately unsuccessful efforts, Rick Berman grabbed a
first fistful of cash (about $600,000 for starting the precursor to
CCF), and learned he could build a business by attacking
“do-gooders” and acting as hit man.
Right now, Berman is making the circuit of businesses and
organizations that profit from the status quo in the treatment of
animals, promising them they can dry up public support for our work
and pledging to step up assaults against The HSUS beginning this
week.
He will not slow us down. But here is something he will do. Beginning
now and for the first time in his public life, Rick Berman is going to
start helping animals. We’re going to see to it — you and I.
In response to CCF’s new mudslinging campaign, I’m asking
you to join with me, in raising $200,000 — $100,000 to help feed and
care for animals at the network of five animal care centers The HSUS
owns and operates, and $100,000 to add to our campaign to take on
factory farming.
Please make a special gift today to support our
animal care work and our campaigns against factory farms:
Here’s why I’ve chosen these two programs. We provide
permanent homes to 1,572 animals and treat another 14,000-plus injured
animals each year — the largest such sanctuary system in the United
States (and that’s just one small part of our direct-care
portfolio). Yet, Berman and company say we don’t do enough
hands-on care, and I want to underscore how painfully wrong he is by
allowing him to help us pay for the feeding and vet care of these
creatures for just a few days.
And second, we want to raise additional funds to fight factory farming
because it’s that type of work (whether passing
California’s successful Proposition 2 or shutting down
slaughterhouses violating the law with our undercover investigations)
that CCF and its corporate backers really want us to stop.
They’d love it if we spent all of our money on direct animal
care, and never addressed the causes of large-scale, institutionalized
cruelty and how animals get into a crisis situation to begin with.
As a reminder, we’ve employed this “counterpunch”
strategy once before. When the extremist U.S. Sportsmen’s
Alliance (USSA) worked to nix a $5,000 corporate gift to The HSUS for
our emergency grants to help pets affected by the foreclosure crisis,
we asked you to show the USSA that its activism against The HSUS would
backfire. We tried to raise more than USSA’s campaign cost us –
and we’d apply half of the money for our pet foreclosure fund
and our other efforts to protect pets, and the other half for the
programs that drive the USSA crazy, such as our anti-bear baiting or
anti-canned or captive hunts campaigns. It worked. We raised $170,000,
and sent the group a message that whenever they attack, we’ll
engage in a form of political jujitsu and flip the fundraising
equation on them.
Today, in our new counterpunch campaign, I’ll start with a
personal donation of $1,000. I hope you’ll make a contribution
today and show Rick Berman and the shadowy corporate interests that
line his pockets that any time they attack The HSUS, our supporters
will rise to the occasion to make sure our critical work to protect
animals not only continues, but is enhanced:
When we hit our goal, I’ll notify you and explain how
we’ll spend the money. Also, as we allow from time to time, the
donor who raises the most in this campaign gets naming rights to one
of our animals at the Cleveland Amory Black Beauty Ranch. The winner
can pick, of course. But it’s my fond hope to be greeted by a
wild ass (actually, a donkey, but allow me this embellishment this
time) named “Rick Berman” next time I visit the ranch. It
will be a reminder in the winter of 2010 of the good he finally did
for someone other than himself.
Sincerely,
Wayne Pacelle
President & CEO
The Humane Society of the United States
Tell IHOP to move away from cruel battery cages!
Tell IHOP to move away from cruel battery cages!
Major restaurant chains are already beginning to switch their eggs to cage-free. But IHOP is refusing to take this modest step, instead exclusively using eggs from hens cruelly confined in barren battery cages so small they can barely move their entire lives. We need your help to move IHOP in the right direction.
And now, an undercover investigation has revealed shocking abuses at IHOP’s egg supplier. As you can see, the footage reveals filthy conditions, sick and injured hens, and birds forced to live in cages with the decomposing corpses of other birds.
TAKE ACTION
Tell IHOP to follow its competitors’ lead and start switching away from battery-cage eggs.
Call IHOP headquarters right now at 1-866-444-5144 and ask it to at least meet its competitors’ commitments regarding battery-cage eggs.
Tell USDA to Protect Veal Calves from Abuse
An HSUS investigation at a slaughter facility in Vermont shows stomach-turning cruelty to veal calves.
As you can see in this video, the plant’s co-owner and other workers abused animals too weak to stand in order to get them to their feet — including in front of a USDA inspector who watched but failed to stop the abuse. In one case, a partially decapitated calf appeared to be still conscious. Another scene shows a calf who appears to be conscious while skinned alive. Watch the video. (WARNING: Graphic Images. Video will not play automatically.)
The people responsible for this sickening abuse must be held accountable. But we also must examine the broader agricultural policies and enforcement problems that lead to the mistreatment of young calves, many of whom are too weak to stand and walk to their own slaughter. For example, a regulatory loophole that allows downed veal calves to go to slaughter provides a financial incentive for producers to abuse these infant animals.
TAKE ACTION
Please ask the U.S. Department of Agriculture to take prompt action to prevent this kind of abuse from ever happening again.
Click here to automatically send a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack about the inhumane treatment of calves at slaughter plants.
With your help, the USDA will take action on its policies and procedures to give these helpless animals better protection against abuse.
Thank you for all you do for animals.
Sincerely,
Mike Markarian
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
The Humane Society of the United States
P.S. Please share this message with your friends and family, and spread the word on your social networks:
Share on Facebook 
Share on Twitter
Big Bird’s Betrayal
By Casey
No sunny days to sweep the clouds away for these hens
Times are tough for the egg industry. The Food and Drug Administration is implementing costly regulations in an effort to keep consumers from getting sick. U.S. per capita consumption has been declining since 2005. More and more states are considering legislation to ban cruel battery cages in the wake of a landmark ballot initiative last year in California. And, worst of all, animal advocates keep exposing them for their undeniably cruel treatment of animals. It’s hard to say what Americans find more disgusting, the mutilation of day-old chicks recently exposed in the media or leaving dead hens to rot inside their filthy cages with surviving cagemates.
Since the egg industry can’t stop abusing animals, its only alternative is to launch a new marketing campaign aimed at giving it a more warm and fuzzy image. You’ve heard of greenwashing? Well, meet warm-fuzzy-washing. Earlier this month, the American Egg Board (AEB) launched its “Good Egg Project,” which invites people to take a pledge to “Eat good. Do good everyday.” For every person that takes this nebulous pledge, the AEB will donate one egg to food pantries, up to a million eggs. Of course, the egg industry extorts more than 90 billion eggs from miserable caged hens every year. If you put those eggs in cartons laid end to end, they would circle the Earth’s equator 57 times! In contrast one million eggs in cartons laid end to end wouldn’t even get you from Brooklyn to Yonkers.
But the warm-fuzzy-washing doesn’t stop there. To make things even more repugnant, they are partnering up with the producers of “Sesame Street,” helping to underwrite the show’s 40th season in exchange for photo ops with Cookie Monster and, undoubtedly, plenty of pro-egg messages that will be spoon-fed to millions of hapless youngsters. With McDonald’s already in the show’s stable of corporate sponsors, I guess it must have seemed like a good fit. Of course, “Sesame Street” wouldn’t dare tell kids the truth about eggs or the tortured lives of farm animals. Everyone knows that honesty is the best policy, except when talking to children, in which case you should just keep your mouth shut and take that big fat corporate check to the bank.
What’s an animal activist to do? Here are some suggestions:
- Tell the folks at “Sesame Street” what you think of their new sponsor.
- Give children in your life a real lesson in compassion by reading to them from an animal friendly book, like Ruby Roth’s That’s Why We Don’t Eat Animals. We know reading to kids does far more for their development (and yours) than plopping them down in front of a television anyway.
- If you’re an educator, consider adding our Cultivating Compassion series to your curriculum.
- Join our Advocacy Campaign Team as we fight to ban battery cages and spread the vegan message.
- Learn about the joys of egg-free cookery during the Vegan Month of Food (Vegan MoFo), also known as October.
Turn Over a New Leaf: Take the Leap to Cruelty-Free Products!
 |
Fall is a season of change, and there is no better time of year to turn over a new leaf by taking the Leaping Bunny Cruelty-Free Pledge.By purchasing only products that have not been tested on animals, you will help save animal lives!The Leaping Bunny Program certifies companies that commit to no new animal testing at any stage of product and development, and publishes a list of these companies in its Compassionate Shopping Guide, so you can be 100% confident about your cruelty-free choices.It’s never been easier to Take the Leap to cruelty-free products. Voice your commitment by taking the Leaping Bunny Cruelty-Free Pledge. By doing so, you’ll be part of the cruelty-free movement that has already saved the lives of tens of thousands of animals. You will also have access to exclusive Leaping Bunny merchandise and a free, downloadable screen saver to show others you care about animals and have taken the Leap to cruelty-free products.Click here to Take the Leap!
|
Take Action for Turkeys
Of the 10 billion land animals killed for food each year in this country, more than nine billon of them are birds. What’s worse is 
that these birds also have no leg to stand on, as they are not protected by the federal Animal Welfare Act or the Humane Slaughter Act, and the sparse state cruelty laws pertaining to birds that do exist are rarely enforced. Thanksgiving is an excellent time to educate others about the horrors of turkey production. Not only can this make a difference for turkeys – 46 million of whom are killed each Thanksgiving – but this type of advocacy is also an effective tool for keeping your sanity and surviving the holidays as a vegan! (Read our Holiday Survival Guide here.)
The millions of turkeys who are exploited for food are depending on us to speak up for them. When it comes to animal advocacy, everyone can get involved using their own special skill sets and interests, so read on for some ways to get started:
Raise awareness in your community by leafleting with our Thanksgiving’s Toll on Turkeys flier. You can also ask friendly establishments if they will display Adopt-A-Turkey brochures. Leafleting is a simple way to educate thousands of people on a variety of issues – from the cruelties of turkey production to the reasons to start a new Thanksgiving tradition.
Fliers Are for the Birds
- Order your free Adopt-A-Turkey Project literature here.
- Don’t forget to drop off literature at your doctor’s office, dentist’s office, veterinarian, auto repair shop, or anyone with a waiting room. Many health food stores, cafes, restaurants, and book stores also have an area where you can leave literature. These are great places to leave Adopt-A-Turkey literature.
- Read on for more tips on establishment outreach.
- Leafleting is a numbers game. If you leaflet 100 people with compassionate messages, you will reach several who will learn about the cruelty involved in “food animal” production for the first time. The knowledge one leaflet can provide has the power to change a life forever.
- Read on for some more tips on leafleting.
Table for Turkeys in Your Community
Set up a turkey table at a well traveled location in your community. Encourage your neighbors to adopt a turkey and dine with compassion this holiday with our Adopt-A-Turkey and Compassionate Thanksgiving Recipes brochures. This is an effective way to teach people about farm animal abuse and what they can do to stop it. Most people simply don’t know how turkeys and other animals used for food production are treated. Recent polls have demonstrated that when people do learn how farm animals are raised, most are against it.
- Tabling is extra-fun and effective around the holidays! Check out our tips on tabling.
- Every person you reach and teach is one more person who can save hundreds of animals in his or her lifetime by making cruelty-free choices.
- Order your free tabling materials here.
Letters Needed in Support of a Compassionate Thanksgiving
Submit a letter to the editor about Thanksgiving’s toll on turkeys and encourage readers to adopt new traditions for the holiday. Use words of compassion to encourage a circle of thanks that extends out to our feathered friends.
- Writing a letter to the editor (LTE) is perfect for the armchair activist.
- Remember, any subject can be brought back to animal protection. You just need to find the right angle. Finding an angle for a letter around the holidays is easy! For example, if there is an article in your paper about “free-range” or “organic” turkeys then write an LTE to inform others about the Truth Behind Labels.
- The LTE section of your paper is the most read section, aside from the front page. Check out our tips on writing LTEs.
- For your LTE, please be sure to visit our Talking Points page.
Take to the Air(ways) for Turkeys with a Public Service Announcement (PSA)
Air a PSA on your local television station. Farm Sanctuary has two Tom-terrific Thanksgiving announcements: “Give a Turkey a Reason to be Thankful” with actress Persia White and “Save a Turkey” featuring actor Corey Feldman.
- PSAs are easier than you might think to get on the air! We have a thorough guide to airing a PSA for your reference.
- Take a look at and listen to our Thanksgiving PSAs!
A Turkey Will Thank YOU for Placing a Newspaper Ad
Sponsor a happy and healthy Thanksgiving advertisement in your local newspaper.
- Learn more about how to run Farm Sanctuary’s “Give a turkey something to be thankful for” ad in time for the holiday.
Share a Compassionate Thanksgiving Feast
Thanksgiving’s focus on food provides many opportunities for farm animal advocates. Not only do you have a platform to talk about turkeys, you can also share terrific turkey-free meals with your family, friends and neighbors.
- Learn more about attending or hosting a dinner FOR the turkeys.
More Resources
- Join Farm Sanctuary’s Advocacy Campaign Team
- Joining Farm Sanctuary’s Advocacy Campaign Team is a perfect way to stay on top of our national campaigns, local volunteer opportunities and inspiring activist stories. Whether it’s Thanksgiving, Halloween or Earth Day, we often encourage holiday-specific activism, and we work alongside you to ensure that your efforts successful and fun. Find out more and sign up today.
- Take Advantage of Our Tools & Resources
- We have a thorough and constantly-growing guide to community outreach. Check it out often!
- Make Hay With Us!
- Farm Sanctuary’s Advocacy Campaign Team blog, “Making Hay,” is a go-to place for all things activism-related! So add it to your own personal blogroll, and sign up for our RSS feed to automatically get our updates. (Note: You can – and should! – also sign up for our RSS feed for our action alerts!
If you need additional support for your turkey activism, or if you have any questions about how to get more involved, let us know!
Tell the USDA That Factory Farming Isn’t “Natural”
Farm Sanctuary spoke up, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is listening. In 2007, we formally petitioned the USDA to consider the treatment and living conditions of farm animals when creating rules allowing producers to label food made from their flesh as “natural.” As we explained in our petition to the agency, the term “natural” should reflect what consumers understand to be “natural” conditions, and a nationwide survey reveals that 73 percent of consumers think it is inappropriate to label as “natural” meat from animals who are constantly kept indoors, confined in crowded cages, and forced to stand all day, every day on metal and concrete floors.
It took two years for the USDA to respond, but the agency has now officially acknowledged the petition and is requesting public comments on the issue of whether “natural” labeling standards should encompass the conditions under which animals are raised. But the USDA is only accepting these comments until November 13, so please take action today.
Using the link below, please take a moment now to submit comments to the USDA expressing your concern about this important issue. We have included some sample comments below, but remember to personalize them with your own words to make a stronger impact.
After you submit your comments, please send this link to all your friends, co-workers and family members, urging them to submit comments too. If we are to hold producers accountable for their marketing claims, it’s essential that the USDA hear from as many people who are concerned about this issue as possible. Don’t let the USDA condone animal cruelty in this way. Speak up today, and ask everyone you know to do the same!
Click here to submit your comments, using the sample comments below as a model. NOTE: The online form provided by the USDA has several information fields (text boxes) that you can fill in. However, the only required fields are “First Name,” “Last Name,” and the comment field iteslf. If you are unable to submit comments using the form, the Web page includes a link for “Alternate Ways to Comment” near the top of the page.
Sample Comments
I am writing to request that you explicitly address the treatment and living conditions of animals who are raised for food when determining whether producers can label a meat or poultry product as “natural.”
Although the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has traditionally viewed the claim “natural” as relating only to finished products regardless of how those products were made, this is inconsistent with the view held by the vast majority of consumers, who believe that labeling a meat or poultry product with the term “natural” indicates something significant about how the animals these products came from were raised. The results of a nationwide survey showing that 73 percent of consumers think it is inappropriate to label products from animals who are constantly kept indoors, confined in crowded cages, and forced to stand on metal and concrete floors as “natural” provide concrete evidence of this popular public attitude. Because of this widely-held view, failure to address the issues of animal treatment and living conditions is likely to result in unnecessary consumer confusion and deception that contradict the laws governing the USDA’s actions.
Accordingly, the agency should prohibit use of the term “natural” on any products derived from animals who were raised in conditions that prevented the expression of behaviors innate to the species, forced to consume diets inconsistent with the animals’ natural biological functions, given sub-therapeutic antibiotics, or given hormones to promote growth.
In addition, rather than relying on different standards (which only compound consumer confusion), FSIS should work with the Agricultural Marketing Service to develop a singular labeling claim – “natural” or “naturally raised” – that attends to the issues discussed above.
Polls
Loading ...Product Specials
Latest Products
Advertisement
English