Activists Call Animal-Care Rules Too Lax
NEW JERSEY - The castration issue is central to a debate over New Jersey‘s first-in-the-nation standards for humane care of farm animals. While farming experts defend the standards, animal rights activists say the rules actually do more to protect farmers than their livestock.
17 October 2007
2 minute read
The debate will be decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which will hear an appeal from animal rights groups who sued the state Department of Agriculture over its regulations.
Animal rights activists say they fear other states will look at New Jersey‘s guidelines as they adopt their own farm animal standards.
Larry Katz, chair of Rutger University Department of Animal Sciences, defends the standards. He said the guidelines are minimums — not recommended best practices — to give animal cruelty officers firm, science-based guidelines on who should be prosecuted in animal abuse cases.
Dr. Nancy Halpern, the state veterinarian, said many of the practices in question are rare or never used in New Jersey and some are in decline everywhere. She said the goal was to be comprehensive — and to stop animal rights activists from "harassing" farmers over practices that don‘t harm animals.
Farming industry experts say there are good reasons for practices like this, including boosting productivity, holding down costs, protecting animals from predators, ensuring each gets adequate food and improving sanitation.
Animal rights groups point out that most of the consumer‘s food costs go for packaging, transportation and marketing, while the farmer receives 25 percent of the price or less. According to a 2005 report in the Journal of Animal Science, changes the United Kingdom required in housing for chickens and pregnant pigs only increased production costs about five percent.
Source: Prescott Herald
