This is a public relations case study about the HSUS and pork industry animal rights debate/

1. FOOD FOR THOUGHT: PIG STALLS
BECOME FOCAL POINT OF ANIMAL
RIGHTS DEBATE
Emily Morris
Senior Seminar

2. THE BACKGROUND
• Most Americans know very little about where their food comes from. They have a
pleasant image of a small farm, with happy animals, living on a large field
• In reality, factory farms are actually large facilities built for efficiency.
• During this case study, it was described that Animal Welfare proponents believe that
animals are creatures that can feel, perceive, be conscious, and have subjective
experiences.
• On the other hand, pig farmers say to meet the growing demand for meat products
nationally and globally and to stay in business, farmers must be efficient and use factory
farming methods.

3. GESTATION STALLS
• In 2001, Florida voted to ban the use of gestation
stalls because they saw how mentally unstable pigs
are because of it. Following this vote, multiple
factory farms promised to phase out gestation
crates.
• This was soon found out it to be false

4. GESTATION STALLS

5. HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES
UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATIONS
• In 2010, three major undercover investigations were conducted by The
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) about the sow gestation
at large.
• During these undercover investigations, investigators found pigs with
open wounds that were becoming infected, workers using gate rods to
make the pigs move, piglets falling through floor slats and falling into
manure pits, dead pigs in stalls, and also workers physically beating the
pigs.

6. HSUS FILES A COMPLAINT
• In 2012, HSUS filed a complaint to the pork industry’s and Pork Producers
Council’s about the public welfare commitments stating they were
misleading (“We Care” and “Pork Quality Assurance Plus”)
• HSUS also filed a complaint with Federal Trade Commission stating that
the company’s “Sustainability and Stewardship Report” contained false
accusations

7. THE OBJECTIVES
• HSUS: to show awareness of the mistreatment
factory farms are giving pigs, and to emphasize
that the use of gestation crates is inhumane
• They wanted factory farms to end the use of
gestation crates, and treat their animals with more
care

8. THE OBJECTIVES
• The National Pork Boards objectives were to capture opportunity,
address challenges, and satisfy customers
• Factory farms sought to rely heavily on current science and experts in
the industry to tell its story
• Their main objective was to explain to the public the benefits of
gestation crates, and to ensure the public that they are professional
farmers who care about their animals, their consumers, and the safety
of their products.

9. STRATEGIES/ TACTICS FOR HSUS
• HSUS: to report and file complaints about the negative safety and environment these sows live in.
• To undergo undercover investigations exposing factory farms and how the sows are really being
treated while in their facilities.
• to generate awareness to this inhumane act, which was then shown in the New York Times.
• the use of third-party expert sources to support its goals. HSUS also purchased shares in various
companies to raise awareness and pressure companies to change their practices. By purchasing
shares, they were able to obtain the rights to vote on issues that affect their cooperation’s, as well
as having the right to speak at annual meetings.
• An important study that was promoted by the HSUS and undertaken by the Pew Commission on
Industrial Farm Animal Production was called “Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal
Production in America.” This study recommended abolishing gestation stalls.

10. STRATEGIES/ TACTICS FOR FACTORY
FARMS
• To team up with the National Pork Producers Council to increase awareness
to their target audience and develop favorable business with local
communities
• They also made a VNR to have their social responsibility management
practices shown, along with creating a “We Care” program website.
• The industry’s social responsibility program, We Care, was a good start to
delivering key messages to its public and building understanding.

11. WE CARE STRATEGY/ TACTIC
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mj5_dFeDfyo

12. EVALUATION
• The HSUS efforts made a huge impact. Their undercover
investigation efforts made the public more informed about
the mistreatment of sows in factory farms.
• Their efforts encouraged big corporations to take initiative,
such as McDonalds and Sonic.
• Their complaints that were filed got public attention and
forced factory farms to come forward with solutions to
their concerns.

13. EVALUATION
• The “We Care” program worked for factory farms because it got
veterinarians to advocate for the pork industry.
• After taking all initiatives, third party endorsements ended up
confirming the advantages and disadvantages of gestation
crates, stating that the animals being confined in the cages are
safe from injury, disease, and solitary feeding environment
versus roaming freely and being prone to injury and other
concerns

14. EVALUATION
• Factory farms use of VNR’s helped show the public how they take care of
their sows.
• In terms of addressing the undercover videos taken by HSUS, they never
touched base on how their sows were treated prior to the release of the
videos, which is something that should have been addressed.
• Instead of addressing the issue and apologizing for their actions, they
chose to respond in a defensive way.
• Although the “We Care” program was their solution to the negative
videos, it still seems like they were trying to ignore the evidence that was
displayed to the public.

15. MY THOUGHTS
• Personally, I think the Human Society of the United States ran a very successful
campaign
• . They did a very good job at publicizing their issues, and getting other big names on
board with them. I think this is an important thing to do from a public relations
standpoint, because it is utilizing a framing theory, which is that the media focuses
attention on certain events and then places them within a field of meaning. In this
case, the media focused on the videos taken by HSUS, and spread this content out into
the public with the intentions of raising awareness about the issue that was going on.
• HSUS put up a strong fight, and I don’t think I would have done much differently if I
was in their position. They presented their concerns, took action against the factory
farms, and didn’t stop until they got the support they needed and the response from
the industry that they were targeting.

16. MY THOUGHTS
• The pork industry used its marketing communication and lobbying resources to
advocate for their industries priorities.
• By launching the “We Care” program, it helped producers maintain operational
freedom and involved doing a better job of projecting a more socially responsible
image by actively telling their story to key stakeholders. This program was a decent
start to providing key messages to its public and building understanding. This program
also included training programs to support animal well-being, safety, and quality. I
think this approach was very beneficial for their campaign, but it still does not resolve
the issue about the videos that were taken by HSUS.
• If I was in charge of this campaign, the first thing I would have suggested would have
been to issue a press release apologizing for the actions taken place it he videos, and
ensuing the public that those individuals were fired, and do not reflect the pork
industry in any way.

17. CONCLUSION
• Overall, I think all organizations ran a pretty good campaign
• As stated before, some changes could have been made, but in the end
both sides managed to succeed in one way or another.
• For HSUS, they are continuing to pressure the pork industry to stop the
use of gestation crates.
• The pork industry is starting to make more and more changes and
keeping the public more informed of their practices and why they do
what they do.

18. DISCUSSIONS
• After learning about this and the information, what side would you
be on?
• If you were apart of the National Pork Board, what would you have
done in this situation?
• Do you think there should have been more PR done on either side?
Which one and give example