SPRINGDALE — Arkansas Farm Bureau’s animalcare committee has suggested a policy statement change to clarify the bureau’s willingness to work within groups or boards considering animal-care standards, officials said Tuesday.
The current statement stresses that no state group or board should dictate standards for farm animal care, said Tom Jones, the state bureau’s secretary and treasurer.
“We believe that agriculture speaks best for agriculture,” Jones said.
The organization met in the Holiday Inn for the annual Officers and Leaders Conference on Monday and Tuesday. Attendees are encouraged to return to their local-level groups and share the discussions and information, said Steve Highnight, field coordinator for Northwest Arkansas.
Jones said the Farm Bureau has seen that other states, driven by ballot initiatives sponsored by animal-welfare organizations and other groups, can restrict farming groups from participating in setting those standards.
In California in 2008, voters approved Proposition 2, which prohibits the confinement of certain farm animals that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs. The measure deals with veal crates, battery cages and sow gestation crates.
“We want to clear up our stance on participating in those groups,” Jones said. He said the animal-care committee is mulling over participation in any group or board given the power to set animal-care standards in the state.
A workshop offered Tuesday featured David Martosko, the creator of HumaneWatch. com, a group dedicated to exposing the agenda and tactics of the Humane Society of the United States, he said.
The Humane Society of the United States is not an umbrella group over local humane societies or animal shelters, Martosko said, but is actually a well-funded lobby group challenging any use of animals by humans. “At the end of the day, you can decide to set the direction for animal agriculture, or you can let someone else do it. The ones you let do it don’t want you to stay in business,” Martosko said.
Martosko is also the research director for the Center for Consumer Freedom, a nonprofit organization that promotes personal responsibility and protecting consumer choices and is supported by restaurants, food companies and individual consumers, according to itswebsite.
The Humane Society of the United States, on its website, lists the Center for Consumer Freedom and HumaneWatch as two of the “shadowy nonprofit organizations or webbased campaigns” acting as fronts for corporations trying to thwart animal-welfare policy changes.
“This is not a consumer protection organization, but just the opposite. Three ‘freedoms’ the Center for Consumer Freedom seeks to protect are the freedom to abuse animals, jeopardize public health and safety, and despoil the environment,” said Martin Montorfano, the Humane Society of the United States’ public-relations manager, in an e-mailed statement Tuesday.
To contact this reporter:
Business, Pages 19 on 07/21/2010