A growing body of science indicates that mink on fur farms incubate respiratory diseases that can be passed to humans. The crowded conditions on fur farms, where wire cages are packed together and the mink are highly stressed, heighten the risk of disease spread. Please urge your representative to cosponsor the Mink VIRUS Act (H.R. 2185) to protect both mink and human health. This legislation would phase out mink farming in the United States over one year and establish a grant program to reimburse mink farmers for the full value of their farm so that they’re able to transition to another industry.
Archive: Farmed Animals
Mink VIRUS Act
Mink on fur farms incubate diseases such as COVID-19 and avian influenza, creating the perfect conditions for new variants to jump to humans—with potentially devastating results. Mink farms risk worsening the current pandemic and ushering in the next one.
In addition, taxpayer dollars are being used to prop up mink farms, subsidizing an industry that was already in decline before the COVID-19 pandemic. To eliminate a severe public health threat and end this financial waste, there is a solution that would benefit all:
The bipartisan “Mink: Vectors for Infection Risk in the United States Act” (Mink VIRUS Act) would
- end the farming of mink for fur, after a one-year phase-out period, and
- establish a USDA grant program to reimburse mink farmers for the full value of their farm.
Mink Farms: A Public Health Risk
Mink pose a high risk to humans because their upper respiratory tract is physiologically similar to ours, which means they can become infected by—and potentially transmit to people—some of the same respiratory viruses. Mink’s susceptibility to acquiring and spreading both human and animal respiratory viruses render them potentially potent “mixing vessels” for generating novel pandemic viruses.1
In 2023, infectious disease experts at Imperial College London, in a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concluded that mink farming poses a high risk for future viral pandemics.2 They “strongly urge[d] governments to … consider the mounting evidence suggesting that fur farming, particularly mink, be eliminated in the interest of pandemic preparedness.”
Fur farms house mink in crowded environments that create an ideal setting for pathogens to circulate among and across species.3 Wire cages are packed together and often stacked on top of one another so that waste falls on the animals below. The confined conditions cause caged mink to become highly stressed and thus immune-compromised, making them even more susceptible to infection. The absence of legal requirements for veterinary care only compounds the problem.
Avian Flu in Mink
A deadly avian influenza virus (H5N1), which has a 52% mortality rate in humans,4 has infected tens of thousands of mink on dozens of fur farms since 2022. During an October 2022 outbreak on a mink farm in Spain, the virus gained at least one mutation that favors mammal-to-mammal spread, allowing it to spread from mink to mink.5 Before this outbreak, the virus spread primarily through contact with infected birds, not between mammals. Scientists sounded the alarm on this H5N1 mink farm outbreak, calling it a “clear mechanism for an H5 pandemic to start” and “a warning bell.”6
H5N1 infections were also detected at multiple mink farms in Finland in 2023,7 demonstrating the risk for this dangerous virus to continue causing outbreaks on mink farms, each time with the possibility of mutating into something transmissible between humans.
COVID-19 in Mink
Mink are highly susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19), with outbreaks on more than 480 known mink fur farms across 12 countries. The virus has infected tens of thousands of captive mink in the United States,8 and millions of mink in Canada, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, and Sweden.9 New outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 continue to emerge on fur farms, including in Poland in January 2023 and Bulgaria in October 2023.
Alarmingly, mink are capable of passing a mutated form of the virus back to humans.10 Mink-to-human transmission of the virus has been reported in at least six countries so far, including the United States. Four people in Michigan were infected with a unique strain of SARS-CoV-2 traced back to mink.11 Spillback from mink farms to humans could introduce new variants, undermining the effectiveness of vaccines and jeopardizing efforts to contain the pandemic.12
Like humans, mink can become infected with COVID-19 without showing symptoms, thus potentially serving as an undetected reservoir of the disease. Escapees from these farms can also transmit the virus to wild populations, potentially fostering reservoirs of the virus off the farms. In December 2020, a wild mink captured near a mink farm in Utah tested positive for a variant of COVID-19 indistinguishable from the virus found in infected mink in a nearby farm—demonstrating the broader dangers posed.13
Mink Farms: Financially Unsustainable
Waste of Taxpayer Dollars
Mink farming is a dying industry, with sales nosediving since well before the pandemic.14 However, taxpayer money is helping to keep this industry afloat. Utah mink farms received approximately $1.5 million in loans from the US government in 2020–21.15 The majority have since been forgiven. The state of Utah also gave mink farmers about $1.8 million “to compensate producers for loss in the market due to COVID-19” and to pay for mink who died during the pandemic.16 US taxpayers are unwittingly propping up a hazardous industry that US consumers were already rejecting.
An Industry in Decline
According to the US Department of Agriculture, in 2017 there were 236 mink operations in the United States that produced about 3.3 million pelts, generating about $120 million. Now, there are approximately 100 US mink farms.17 The industry has declined significantly as a result of shrinking consumer demand for real fur and a commitment by major fashion brands and retailers such as Nordstrom, Macy’s, Bloomingdale’s, Saks Fifth Avenue, Gucci, Versace, and Giorgio Armani to go fur-free.
According to a July 2023 USDA report, 2022 was the fur industry’s worst year on record, with the value of all mink pelts produced falling to $39.2 million, a 17% reduction from 2020 (previously the worst year). Mink pelt production in 2022 also fell 6% from 2020.18
Cities, states and even countries are now banning fur sales, further closing markets for fur products. In 2019, California became the first state to ban fur sales after similar measures passed in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Berkeley, and West Hollywood. In 2020, Wellesley, Massachusetts, became the first East Coast city to ban fur sales.
Furthermore, there was a nearly 50% decline in the value of fur apparel imported into the United States in 2020 compared to 2019, which was also a low year.19, 20 Global fur auctions, which in 2020 were held virtually in Denmark, Finland, and other fur-producing countries only managed to sell a small percentage of the pelts on offer.21 The North American Fur Auction, one of the last remaining fur auctions on the continent, lost its lender and declared bankruptcy in October 2019.22
International Response
Many European countries have already banned, or are in the process of banning, mink farming, including Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Ireland, France, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the United Kingdom. The Italian government also allocated money for reimbursing mink farmers.23 The COVID-19 crisis prompted Denmark, Sweden and Italy to suspend mink fur production, the Netherlands to move up its deadline for ending all mink fur production from 2024 to the end of 2021, and France to announce its intent to ban mink fur production.
In addition, British Columbia, Canada, announced it would phase out mink farming after mink and farm workers tested positive for COVID-19 at multiple BC mink farms. The province is providing financial support and other transition assistance for mink farmers.24 In 2021, Israel became the first country to ban the sale of most fur products. Swift measures taken by governments to address the serious public health risk posed by mink farms are appropriate and proportional to the scale of the crisis.
Act Now to Prevent Inhumane Octopus Farms in the United States
Growing interest in commercial octopus farming threatens to subject these cognitively complex, sentient animals to inhumane conditions and prolonged suffering. To prevent this unsustainable and cruel practice from expanding, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have introduced the Opposing the Cultivation and Trade of Octopus Produced through Unethical Strategies (OCTOPUS) Act (S. 1947) to ban both commercial octopus farming in the US and any import of farmed octopus. Please urge your senators to cosponsor this bill to help protect octopuses.
New Food Seal Sets Highest Standards for Humane Treatment of Farm Animals
The Animal Welfare Approved standards prohibit cruel conditions and practices that other labels allow. The animals breathe fresh, clean air, instead of fumes from their own waste and grow naturally without pain and deformities caused by unnatural breeding for fast growth.
Comparison of Different Farming Systems
Only family farms can earn our seal. Families who own, labor on and earn a meaningful livelihood from their farms have a true commitment and connection to their animals that is lost on factory farms managed by distant, corporate owners and run by hired hands. Furthermore, unlike other labeling programs, Animal Welfare Approved requires farmers to raise all animals of an approved species according to high welfare standards.
Animal Welfare Approved also prohibits the liquefaction of manure to help ensure that animals breathe fresh, clean air, instead of fumes from their own gaseous waste, to prevent pollution of wildlife habitat from leakage and spills of liquefied manure and to reduce unnecessary consumption of a most precious natural resource, water.
Reviewed by veterinarians, farmers and scientific experts in animal behavior and rooted in the Animal Welfare Institute’s 55-year track record of reducing the pain and fear inflicted on animals, the Animal Welfare Approved standards give careful thought to the needs of animals.
While many specialty product labels are created with the economic interests of agribusiness in mind, the Animal Welfare Approved seal is a non-profit endorsement that prioritizes the well-being of animals and the sustainability of humane, independent family farms. Furthermore, in order to maintain independence there are no fees or royalties for participating in the Animal Welfare Approved program. Advisors and auditors are provided by Animal Welfare Approved, free of charge. The only requirement is upholding the high standards set by the Animal Welfare Approved program.
AWI Urges Comments on USDA’s “Naturally Raised”
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), US Department of Agriculture (USDA), is seeking comments on a proposed voluntary standard for a “naturally raised” marketing claim for meats. According to its Notice and Request for Comments for Docket AMS LS 07 0131; LS 07 16, “the livestock and meat supply chain, along with consumers could benefit from a uniform standard for the marketing of this type of product.”
The definition for “naturally raised” proposed by USDA is:
Livestock used for the production of meat and meat products have been raised entirely without growth promotants, antibiotics, and have never been fed mammalian or avian by-products. This information shall be contained on any label claim that an animal has been naturally raised.
Cathy Liss, President of the Animal Welfare Institute, asks consumers to urge the USDA to include animal welfare criteria in the standards. “We are seeking a better result. The definition as proposed contains no stipulations concerning the animals’ own welfare or how the animals live, but applies narrow criteria related only to feed or other substances administered to animals. While farmers who raise animals under high welfare conditions should be covered by this term, the industrial producers will seek a weak definition so they can profit by selling the products of cruelly raised animals labeled as ‘naturally raised.'”
According to the USDA, prohibiting use of antibiotics, growth promotants, and certain animal by-products are the main attributes consumers want for “naturally-raised” meat and meat products. However, many ranchers, farmers, and others testified in public meetings in 2006 and 2007 that the ability of animals to range freely, eat diets natural to their species, and engage in natural behaviors are essential aspects of a “naturally raised” claim.
Also, in July 2007, the independent Consumer Reports revealed that 83% of consumers polled regarding meat labels said a “natural” label should mean “it came from an animal raised in a natural environment.”
The Animal Welfare Institute asks consumers to urge the USDA to write a definition for “naturally raised” that:
- requires farm animals, including poultry, to be raised in a manner that is consistent with the biology and natural behavior of the species;
- disqualifies farms that use gestation crates, farrowing crates, battery cages, calf crates, slatted floors and liquefied manure, and other equipment or facilities typical of unnatural factory systems; and
- requires that animals have free access to continuous range on fresh pasture or woodlands, or, in inclement weather, be able to move freely in comfortable housing and clean bedding until outdoor conditions improve.
Additional points that could be added include:
- While it is appropriate to disallow routine administration of antibiotics to all animals via feed or water, individual animals that are sick should be able to receive therapeutic antibiotic treatment if needed. To deny them necessary veterinary care is inhumane.
- All animals should be provided with free and continuous access to nutritionally complete food and clean water consistent with the animals’ natural diets (e.g., grass and hay for cattle
- Crowding of animals should be prohibited.
- Tail docking of pigs, beak trimming of chickens and turkeys and other mutilations necessitated by unnatural environments should be prohibited.
- The use of hormones or other agents, including beta-agonists and ractopamine, to promote growth and increase production should be prohibited.
- Early weaning, before the immune systems of the young are fully developed, should be prohibited.
- Genetic selection for high growth rates and high rates of reproduction that reduce the animals’ ability to reproduce naturally and thrive in environments natural to its species should be prohibited. Examples include selection that makes natural birth difficult without human intervention (double muscled cattle) or makes normal reproduction impossible (conventionally bred turkeys).
The Animal Welfare Institute believes that a solid definition of “naturally raised” must be adopted by USDA to serve consumers, farmers and particularly the farm animals by differentiating the practices of farmers who address the physical and behavioral needs of their animals from the factory farms that don’t. To contact the Animal Welfare Institute, call (202) 337-2332.
Groups Say Human Oversight Necessary at US Slaughterhouses
Following a recent suggestion in Congress that the government should install video cameras in US slaughterhouses to ensure the humane and safe treatment of animals killed for human consumption, the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) and the Humane Farming Association (HFA) today call on legislators to reject any attempt by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to use cameras in lieu of inspectors.
Recent undercover video footage obtained by an investigator from an animal protection organization revealed abhorrent acts of cruelty to livestock at the Westland/Hallmark Meat Packing Company in Chino, Calif. The footage showed downer cows being tortured prior to slaughter, raising both ethical and food safety issues.
For more than a decade, animal advocates have presented detailed reports and graphic video documentation from a number of slaughter facilities across the country to demonstrate this widespread problem. In the wake of the Hallmark case, which led to the biggest beef recall in US history, the USDA is now considering the installation of video cameras as a deterrent.
“Documentation has been obtained on videotape at slaughter plants because animal advocates were there in person recording what they saw. These people were able to move about the plants and rotate the cameras to catch the plant workers engaged in illegal activities,” said AWI President Cathy Liss. “Animals must be watched from the time the truck arrives and animals are unloaded, through the stunning and slaughter process, until the last animal on the vehicle is killed. Under USDA’s proposal, where will the cameras be positioned and who is going to watch all the footage?”
“Government-installed video cameras aren’t the answer,” said Gary Dahl, Colorado representative for the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals. “The law was specifically crafted to allow an inspector who is present and observes violations of the Humane Slaughter Act to stop the slaughter line on the spot. How on earth can this happen with a video camera?”
From 2001 forward, Congress has provided millions of additional funds to the USDA for humane slaughter enforcement. Additional monies were intended for the USDA to hire new in-plant employees to work full-time on Humane Slaughter Act enforcement only, but to date, none have been hired. When the Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2004 citing widespread animal welfare issues under the USDA’s watch, the report was ignored by the agency.
“Using cameras to give meat packers a ‘Good Slaughter Housekeeping Seal of Approval’ is just another publicity stunt by the USDA,” said Gail Eisnitz, an HFA senior investigator whose acclaimed 1997 book Slaughterhouse exposed a myriad of problems behind the closed doors of the US slaughter industry.
AWI and HFA are concerned with the lack of conviction to enforcement shown by the USDA; the agency must hire inspectors to work in plants full-time with the sole responsibility of enforcing the regulations for humane handling, stunning and slaughter of animals as mandated by the Humane Slaughter Act.
The Truth Behind Humane Slaughter Law; Animal Welfare Institute Report Reveals Lack of Enforcement
“The hog was lying in the cradle and all four feet had been removed. The hog was observed to be kicking and shaking its head. It exhibited skin twitching and irregular but rhythmic breathing with deep abdominal and thoracic movement. It appeared to be gasping for breath,” a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) inspector wrote about a still-conscious hog at a slaughter plant in Frankenmuth, Mo.
With meat recalls due to bacterial contamination and the horrific handling and slaughtering of downer cows making headlines in recent months, consumers are increasingly aware of some of the problems occurring behind slaughterhouse doors. But new documentation reveals how dire the situation really is. The Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) has released the first report of its kind to analyze humane slaughter enforcement at state, federal and foreign slaughterhouses.
Drawing from over 1,000 documents obtained from sources including 60 public records requests to federal and state agriculture departments from 2002 to 2007, the report exposes the lack of sound enforcement at plants throughout the United States and across the globe.
“This report shows that enforcement of humane slaughter law is a low priority of the US Department of Agriculture, state agriculture departments, and the US animal agriculture industry as a whole,” said author Dena Jones, a consultant to AWI. “Legal and regulatory changes need to be made in the current inspection system to better protect the approximately 10 billion animals killed for food each year in the United States.”
Currently, humane slaughter laws require that livestock be rendered insensible with one stunning attempt before they are killed. However, American Meat Institute guidelines consider an acceptable stunning effectiveness rating of 99 percent for pigs and 95 percent for cattle and sheep, while the National Chicken Council has set an acceptable stunning standard of 98 percent for chickens. Even if every single slaughter plant was able to meet these voluntary industry goals, the report notes, 185 million chickens, 1.8 million cattle and sheep and 1 million pigs would still be killed inhumanely each year in the United States.
Little time is actually spent by agriculture department inspectors observing the handling, stunning and slaughter of animals. Nonetheless, the citations recorded by the USDA are disturbing. At a plant in Benton, Ark., an inspector noted, “At approximately 1:00 p.m. [a Holstein cow] had a 1 cm hole in its forehead from a captive bolt stunner. At 1:10 p.m. the cow had not been moved and was breathing regularly. An establishment employee tried to re-stun the animal twice but the hand held captive bolt stunner did not fire.”
Between 2002 and 2005, only 42 enforcement actions beyond issuances of deficiency reports for noncompliances with humane slaughter laws were taken in the United States. But whistleblower accounts and undercover videotape documentation from inside slaughterhouses reviewed in the report suggest that the current low level of humane enforcement is not due to a lack of violations. Instead, crimes are either not observed or recognized by inspection personnel, not reported through the proper channel, or the appropriate remedial measures are not being taken.
“USDA inspectors must be present at plants to ensure adherence to basic standards of decency, said AWI President Cathy Liss. “At the very least, animals who are killed for food are entitled to a merciful death.”
For a PDF version (150 pgs, 1.4MB) of the report, click here.
Animal Welfare Institute Calls on Perdue to Remove Misleading ‘Humanely Raised’ and ‘Raised Cage Free’ Claims from Chicken Packaging
In a letter to Perdue CEO Jim Perdue released today, Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) President Cathy Liss demanded that the company end its use of a misleading label claiming that certain of its chicken products are ‘Humanely Raised’ and ‘Raised Cage Free.’ This February, Perdue introduced new product packaging bearing these claims for release in grocery stores. AWI asserts that the ‘Humanely Raised’ label misleads consumers about how Perdue treats chickens, and the ‘Raised Cage Free’ label deceptively suggests a special benefit, when in fact no producers raise meat chickens in cages.
The letter launched AWI’s effort to publicly expose Perdue for using misleading labeling claims to manipulate consumers who are trying to make humane choices in the market place. Perdue, the country’s third largest poultry producer, raises its chickens according to standards that are no better than other industrial chicken producers.
“These standards, devised by Perdue and the National Chicken Council (NCC), a private industry group, are not humane under any reasonable consumer understanding of the term,” Liss remarked. “Perdue’s lip service to humane treatment, by way of these deceptive claims, is merely an attempt to profit from the growing number of consumers who seek a better alternative to factory-raised chicken.”
According to NCC guidelines, Perdue chickens raised for marketing under the ‘Humanely Raised’ label can be confined in windowless sheds with less than one square foot of space per bird. These standards do not require access to fresh air or sunlight during the duration of the chickens’ lives. “The chickens are exposed to up to 20 continuous hours of dim, artificial light to further an unhealthy rate of growth,” said Liss. “They are bred for rapid growth that allows the birds to be slaughtered earlier but which results in health problems like lameness, heart attack, and even sudden death.”
This approach to husbandry satisfies NCC poultry welfare criteria because it represents conventional industry practice, but according to a recent national poll conducted for AWI by Edge Research, 70 percent of consumers said they think chicken labeled ‘Humanely Raised’ is produced under a standard of animal care that is better than typical chicken production practices. Moreover, 65 percent of those who frequently shop for chicken meat said the practice of housing chickens in sheds with less than one square foot of space per bird is totally unacceptable.
“Truth in labeling is critical so that consumers who want their grocery dollars to promote humane farming are actually supporting farmers who raise their animals under high welfare conditions,” said Dena Jones, AWI farm animal program manager.
Perdue’s new label and promotional materials also deceive consumers by boasting the term ‘Raised Caged Free.’ “Meat chickens are not and have never been raised in cages under any typical industrial or small-scale production systems in the US,” remarked Jones. “Perdue’s ‘Raised Caged Free’ claim serves no other purpose than to capitalize on the popularity of the ‘cage free’ label for eggs by exploiting the average consumer’s unfamiliarity with modern animal husbandry.”
AWI’s letter urged Perdue to take meaningful steps toward ensuring the welfare of its chickens but demanded that, until then, Perdue stop obscuring informed choices in the supermarket.
USDA Urged to Toughen Penalties for Humane Slaughter Violations
A new report by the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI)—Humane Slaughter Update: Comparing State and Federal Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Laws— indicates that, more than two years after the shocking depiction of inhumane practices at the Westland-Hallmark slaughter plant in California, enforcement of humane slaughter laws has increased at both the state and federal levels, but remains inconsistent and low in comparison with other aspects of food safety inspection. Furthermore, application of weak penalties (including typical plant suspensions of one day or less) is insufficient to deter repeat violators from continuing to commit inhumane acts.
AWI conducted the review, which was performed by analyzing data received through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, to judge the effectiveness of measures taken in the aftermath of the Westland-Hallmark incident, where workers were observed kicking, shocking and abusing animals too sick or injured to walk into the slaughterhouse. While federal suspensions for humane slaughter violations increased 7-fold after Westland-Hallmark, AWI found that the 15 federal food safety districts varied widely in application of humane slaughter laws. And, although state-level enforcement was up as well, some states offered no evidence of enforcing the law. Overall, federal inspectors were shown to be four times more likely than inspectors in state plants to take serious action in response to an egregious humane infraction.
Earlier this month, AWI presented a petition to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) describing how the agency can prevent future animal abuse in American slaughterhouses by implementing a few relatively simple and inexpensive reforms. First and foremost, AWI is recommending stronger penalties, including substantially longer suspensions and more frequent withdrawal of inspection, for slaughter plants that repeatedly violate humane slaughter laws.
“We have slaughter plants that are still operating after three, four and even five suspensions within a one-year period,” said Dena Jones, farm animal program manager for AWI. “Apparently shutting down a plant for a day or less isn’t enough of a deterrent to prevent repeat violations.” AWI is recommending that a second suspension result in removal of inspection for no less than 30 days and retraining of staff in humane handling and slaughter practices, and a third suspension result in withdrawal of inspection service for a period of at least three years.
In addition to stronger penalties, AWI is requesting USDA develop procedures for referring willful acts of animal cruelty to state law enforcement for prosecution, and that the agency work toward greater consistency among state-level humane slaughter enforcement programs. AWI is also urging USDA to post enforcement records on its website. “Making humane handling records available would not only assist the public in making more informed choices about the foods they purchase and consume but would encourage compliance by individual slaughterhouses with humane laws,” said Jones. Until USDA makes these records readily accessible to the public, AWI will post documents received through FOIA on its website at www.awionline.org/humaneslaughterviolations.
Animal Protection Groups Concerned over Decompression of Chickens
A coalition of animal protection organizations have sent letters to more than 30 of the nation’s largest chicken suppliers urging them not to consider a new slaughter method called “low-atmospheric pressure killing” (LAPK), or “vacuum stunning.” Several leading animal welfare scientists, including world-renowned expert Dr. Temple Grandin, have expressed concerns that LAPK might cause chickens to experience significant pain. After reviewing the most recent industry data on LAPK, Grandin wrote, “The behavioral reactions [of the chickens] are poorly described in this paper…” Among the companies that will receive a letter are Perdue Farms, Pilgrim’s Pride, and Tyson Foods.
Dr. Mohan Raj, visiting fellow in the University of Bristol’s School of Veterinary Sciences, has voiced his concern about the probability of ruptured guts and air sacs in conscious birds during LAPK. Grandin, Raj, Dr. Ian Duncan, and many other animal welfare experts recommend “controlled-atmosphere killing” (CAK), the least painful slaughter method available. In CAK, the oxygen that chickens breathe is slowly replaced with a nonpoisonous gas mixture that puts the birds “to sleep.” As a result, they do not experience the pain of shackling and live scalding common in electrical stunning or the potentially painful effects of LAPK. At least two chicken processing companies— Bell & Evans in Pennsylvania and Pitman Family Farms in California—are currently implementing CAK.
“[T]he evidence to date does not offer meaningful data to support claims that LAPK is humane, nor does it answer many critical questions about the birds’ experience from an animal welfare perspective,” write the groups. “Because of the numerous critical unanswered questions regarding the impact of vacuum stunning, we cannot encourage a commercial switch to it at this time.”
The coalitions’ letter to chicken suppliers is attached.