● "In order to achieve the same outcome for U.S.
pork with the EU that the U.S. has reached with all
other FTA partners – complete open trade –EU
import duties on pork must be eliminated and all
non-tariff barriers, including sanitary and
phytosanitary (SPS) restrictions, must be
removed. Furthermore, U.S. negotiators must
avoid introduction into the negotiations of other
potential non-science based proposals by the EU
that could, if implemented, act as major
impediments to trade (e.g., animal welfare
NPCC Lobby Positions on
Animal Welfare and TTIP
Contradict Its Public
While actively lobbying against the including of animal welfare
standards in free trade agreements, NPCC engated in deceptive PR
campaigns like We Care and Pork Quality Assurance plus designed to
assuage public concerns about hog welfare, leading to a suit against
NPCC by the Huamane Society of the US for FTC Act violations:
“The pork industry spends millions misleading the public about its
animal welfare record, while allowing pigs to be crammed into tiny
gestation crates where they can’t even turn around for months on
end,” says senior vice president for animal protection litigation at The
HSUS. “Rather than investing in real animal welfare reforms, the Pork
Council is betting the farm on a deceptive PR campaign designed to
mislead consumers with false assurances.”
- Jonathan Lovvorn, Humane Society of the United States
Who is NPCC Speaking for?
Not Most US Consumers
Eighty percent (80%) of respondents to a
survey conducted by Consumers Reports
said they want good living conditions for
animals raised for food.
—Bopp S, It’s Only Natural, But What Does That
Mean?, Drovers CattleNetwork, Aug. 27, 2014.
Roughly two-thirds (69%) of a
sample of 1,003 American
adults said they prioritize animal
welfare as a significant factor in
deciding what foods to buy. The
survey was conducted by ORC
International in February 2014
for the 2014 Cone
Communications Food Issues
—Fielding M, Consumers Want
Companies to Provide More
Sustainable Food Options,
Meatingplace, Mar. 17, 2014.
US Pork's Agenda:
The Lowest Standards Possible
US pork's support for
given the opportunity,
the pork industry seeks
environments than the
US standards it claims
The outbreak of
Swine Flu (H1N1) in
the US has been
traced to a hog farm
in Mexico owned by
subsequent to the
passage of NAFTA.
By eliminating agricultural tariffs between Mexico and the US,
NAFTA allowed Smithfield to ship subsidized, untariffed livestock
feed to Mexico and then to export its products back into the US
without tariffs. This allowed Smithfield to lower costs by escaping
US environmental regulations (and by paying workers lower wages).
WWhhyy LLiibbeerraalliizzee AAnniimmaall PPrroodduuccttss??
● - Liberalization benefits agribusiness
multinationals, not family farms.
● - Animal product prices are already distorted
by livestock feed subsidies.
● - Liberalization is intended to drive down
consumer costs, allowing increased
consumption, but the rate of animal
production consumption is already too high
in Europe and the US, driving up healthcare
costs and exacerbating climate change.
Mexican Health && tthhee NNAAFFTTAA EEffffeecctt
“Trade liberalization... plays a huge role in what food is accessible in developing countries.
After NAFTA was implemented in 1994, the number of unhealthy food products from the
United States to Mexico increased substantially. A spike also took place in the amount of raw
soy and corn imports: two products used to make highly processed foods and feed livestock.
In 2011, Mexicans consumed 172 liters per capita of Coke, compared to the 1991 pre-
NAFTA level of 69 liters per capita. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization
(FAO), the consumption of animal fat in Mexico increased from about 34.7 grams per capita
per day in 1991 to 46.9 grams per capita per day in 2009. A recent study linked these and
other resulting dietary changes with an unsettlingly high 12 percent increase in obesity in
Mexico between 2000 and 2006. Though obviously an unintended consequence of NAFTA,
this shows that trade can actually impact public health.”
- Mexico: Public Health, Rising Obesity and the NAFTA Effect
by Judy Bankman, MPH, New York University, writing at civileats.com
IIPPCCCC FFiifftthh AAsssseessssmmeenntt RReeppoorrtt
RReeccoommmmeennddss LLeessss AAnniimmaall
“GHG emissions may be reduced through changes
in food demand without jeopardizing health and
well‐being by (1) reducing losses and wastes of
food in the supply chain as well as during final
consumption; (2) changing diets towards less
GHG‐intensive food, e.g., substitution of animal
products with plant‐based food, while quantitatively
and qualitatively maintaining adequate protein
content, in regions with high animal product
consumption; and (3) reduction of
overconsumption in regions where this is
IPCC 5th Assessment Report "Climate Change
2014: Mitigation of Climate Change' – Working
Group III Report - Chapter 11: Agriculture, Forestry
and Other Land Use (AFOLU)
WWTTOO BBlloocckkss HHoorrmmoonnee BBaann
- The WTO ruled
against a 1989 EU
health ban on
- The EU has been
paying trade ban
concessions to the
US rather than
harm the heath of
Another WWTTOO CChhaalllleennggee PPuuttss FFoooodd
SSaaffeettyy aatt RRiisskk
- In 1997, the EU banned US poultry, because US
poultry producers wash chickens in low-concentration
chlorine before selling them.
- The US brought a WTO challenge against the ban.
TThhee CCaassee ffoorr UUppwwaarrdd
● Corporate animal producers with a demonstrated history of cutting
corners on safety, treatment of workers, welfare of animals, and
environmental impacts should not be deciding how it is regulated.
● The lobbying power of animal industries have kept them
underregulated, despite strong public support for tighter regulation.
● When given the opportunity via ballot measures, US voters have
chosen to ban agricultural practices that cause animal suffering,
despite massive advertising campaigns from industry aimed at
convincing consumers that regulation will increase consumer price.
FFaarrmmeedd AAnniimmaall WWeellffaarree:: GGrroossssllyy
UUnnddeerrrreegguullaatteedd iinn tthhee UUSS
“As the name implies, the Humane Slaughter Act only pertains to the treatment of
animals before and during slaughter. In fact, there is no federal law that regulates
the treatment of food animal while they are living on the farm. It is necessary to
look to the individual states for possible protections. Every state has an animal
anti-cruelty statute. Thirty of these statutes exempt all or some customary farm
practices form regulation; twenty-five states exempt all customary farming
practices. This ensures that in twenty-five states, animals raised for food while on
the farm are generally without protection. Many customary farming practices are
cruel and painful to animals and without these exemptions, the practices would be
violations of cruelty statutes.”
- Paige M. Tomaselli, Detailed Discussion of International Comparative
Animal Cruelty Laws, Animal Legal and Historical Center, Michigan
State University College of Law
TTTTIIPP:: AAnn OOppppoorrttuunniittyy
ttoo PPrrootteecctt FFaarrmmeedd AAnniimmaallss
Strong federal legislation protecting farmed animals is LONG overdue in the US.
● Birds, by far the animals killed in the greatest numbers in US slaughterhouses, are
exempted from the Humane Slaughter Act.
● Animals deserve protection for their full lives, not just at the moment of slaughter.
● The US should use TTIP as an opportunity to adopt Europe's higher standards,
including the 5 freedoms principle and such specific measures as a ban on ow tethers
and gestation crates, a ban on tethers and isolated housing for veal calves, a ban on
the introduction of new battery cage, space requirements for hens in current battery
operations, and bans on the use of growth hormones and milk boosting hormones
(rBST). Instead of pressuring Europe to accept meat from animals fed Ractopamine,
the US should join the 160 natons that have banned this dangerous drug!
EEUU''ss 55 FFrreeeeddoommss
CChhaalllleennggee SSttaannddaarrdd UUSS
● Freedom from hunger and thirst
● Freedom from discomfort
● Freedom from pain, injury and disease
● Freedom to behave normally
● Freedom from fear and distress
High Standards Trade Deal...
or NAFTA on Steroids?
Defending animals; the environment; safe, just, and
sustainable food, and the human rights of environmental
defenders in the global economy.