The Pink Slime debate and what it means for the future of food

2012-04-17 00:00

STANDING before a crowd of McDonald­’s Corp shareholders at its headquarters last year, an unlikely investor prepared for battle.

Paul Shapiro, a senior official of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), brandished a sheet of paper. The fast-food chain was serving eggs to Americans from caged chickens, he said, each living in a space smaller than the paper rectangle. Why was that?

Shapiro, the group’s senior director of farm-animal protection, said some in the audience clapped.

Shapiro’s bit of stagecraft was part of a fight under way in the U. S. heartland that reaches into corporate boardrooms. U. S. farmers and agribusiness are on one side, and food-safety groups and animal-rights organisations are on the other.

It is fuelled, in part, by politicians eager to court influential backers during an election year. Farm groups, too, want to be heard as Congress picks up its review of the federal farm bill.

And although food-safety activists and animal-rights organisations have different agendas, they both agree on one thing — much of the public is unaware of what happens to their food before it arrives on their plates.

The recent furor over so-called “pink slime” beef filler underscores how social media have given activists and consumers a powerful weapon to influence that process. Using tools such as Twitter and the threat of spending boycotts, consumers and activists pressured retailers to abandon Beef Products Inc’s (BPI) ammonia-treated, lean, finely textured beef.


BPI idled three plants, affecting 650 workers. AFA Foods, one of the largest ground beef processors in the U. S., filed for bankruptcy earlier this month, citing the uproar over pink slime. Agribusiness giant Cargill cut production of the meat scraps, and warned the public’s resistance to the filler could lead to higher hamburger prices this braai season. Wal-Mart Stores Inc and Kroger Co, among other grocery sellers, dropped it.

“What do you have to hide?” is the new battle cry for food activists, said Amanda Hitt, a director at the Government Accountability Project, a group that protects whistle-blowers.

Stung by the setbacks, farm groups and agribusiness heavyweights are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on political campaigns to block critics from stepping inside barns.

Tech-savvy farmers have launched ­social-media campaigns about farm life, and trained their peers on how to tweet critical food bloggers. The agribusiness sector spent $123,8 million on lobbying efforts in 2011, up from $110,2 million in 2007, according to

Critics are equally determined. Tens of thousands of dollars have been plowed into lobbying efforts this legislative year, by activists on proposed laws regulating the raising of pigs in six states. Activists are pushing for legislation that would bar farmers from housing pregnant sows in certain types of crates.

The HSUS is snapping up shares of ­agriculture and food companies to press them to change corporate purchasing practices.

The fight has gotten so intense that ­Nebraska governor Dave Heineman ­recently told a crowd of cattlemen that he had a message for the HSUS: “We’re going to kick your ass, and send you out of the state.”


The HSUS and other activists say their goal is to pull back the curtain on the ­nation’s food supply. But what is behind that curtain is often a messy sight — particularly in the meat industry, where pro­duction methods can be less than appetising.

The outcry over BPI and its pink slime worries farmers and food processors. They argue that they are being sabotaged by opportunists who have infiltrated farming operations.

They also fret that agriculture is misunderstood by a public whose ties to farming were cut generations ago. About two percent of the nation’s population lives on a farm, according to government data.

“We have to stop them,” Forrest Lucas, founder of the Lucas Oil Co, said of the activists. He owns a 6 475-hectare cattle-breeding ranch in southwest Missouri.

Lucas said he invested more than $600 000 to start the agriculture-advocacy group Protect the Harvest, and plans on spending much, much, much more to help back political candidates and social-media campaigns to thwart critics this election year.

But amid this outrage, an unsettling realisation is growing among the farm set — some of these battles may already be lost.

“We have to do a better job of communicating with the public, and that includes listening to what they say,” said Don Lipton, spokesperson for the American Farm Bureau­.

The clash has hit farmers’ incomes. The price of beef trimmings BPI used fell from an average of $1,01 a kilogram in February­, prior to the controversy, to about 50 cents this week, according to data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

While People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) is better known for its ­anti-fur campaign and headline-grabbing antics, no activist group is more loathed by the agricultural community than the HSUS.

Agribusiness lobbyists have written to companies sympathetic to the group, asking them to halt donations.

“It is HSUS and its issues that truly deserve our attention because of the threat they pose to our society,” a spokesperson for the Nebraska Farm Bureau wrote in a 2007 editorial in the High Plains Journal.


The HSUS is neither small nor poor. The group’s total assets — including cash, investments, property and other items — were $231,3 million in 2010, according to the group’s consolidated financial statements posted on its website.

Over the years, the HSUS has become known for its undercover videos. One shot in 2008 at a California slaughterhouse, where workers were shown using chains and forklifts to move so-called “downer” cows, led to the largest beef recall in the country’s history.

A more recent victory: eggs.

After several years of successful political campaigns to require larger cages for egg-laying hens, or to mandate cage-free egg farm production, the United Egg Producers (UMP) joined forces with the HSUS

The longtime adversaries petitioned congress to amend existing egg-inspection laws to require all U. S. farmers to adopt larger standards on cage sizes for egg-laying hens.

Producers say the changes will mean overhauling housing for nearly 300 million U. S. chickens, at an estimated cost of as much as $4 billion.

But agribusiness leaders said they felt trapped — they could join forces with the HSUS or continue to lose the fight one state at a time.


Worried about a repeat in other ­agricultural sectors, the industry is battling­ back.

Much of that fight has resulted in legislative efforts to block or restrict undercover investigations on farms — or to force activists to quickly turn over evidence of potential wrongdoing to local authorities.

In February, Iowa lawmakers enacted a law that makes it a crime to enter — or try to enter — an animal or crop-production facility using fraudulent reasons.

They said it will help farmers protect their private property, but whistle-blower groups and animal-rights activists say it was created to silence them, and make it impossible for them to get video footage.

The idea is spreading. Last month, Utah lawmakers passed a bill similar to Iowa’s. New York, Minnesota, Missouri and Nebraska­ are weighing similar or related legislation.

But critics are keeping the pressure on corporations through shareholder ­activism. Earlier this year, when Carl’s Jr and Hardees fast-food chains failed to make good on vows to move away from buying eggs from caged hens and pork from suppliers who house their pigs in gestation crates, the HSUS called a stock broker.

The animal-rights group soon bought about $2 000 worth of shares in Apollo Global Management, the parent company of the chains — enough to submit a shareholder resolution decrying its “lack of progress on animal-welfare issues,” said Matthew Prescott, food-policy director for the HSUS.

The HSUS’s stock portfolio today includes more than 80 publicly traded companies, nearly double the number it held two years ago, Shapiro said.

The coming weeks promise to be busy, he said. They have seven shareholder meetings to attend, including one for Seaboard Foods, a unit of Seaboard Corp, the third largest U. S. pig producer and a supplier to Wal-Mart.

Shapiro will be back at McDonald’s, too. The fast-food giant has started using cage-free eggs in the U. S., and has promised to ask its pork suppliers to stop buying from farmers using hog-gestation stalls.

— Reuters.

Join the conversation! encourages commentary submitted via MyNews24. Contributions of 200 words or more will be considered for publication.

We reserve editorial discretion to decide what will be published.
Read our comments policy for guidelines on contributions. publishes all comments posted on articles provided that they adhere to our Comments Policy. Should you wish to report a comment for editorial review, please do so by clicking the 'Report Comment' button to the right of each comment.

Comment on this story
Comments have been closed for this article.

Inside News24

Traffic Alerts
There are new stories on the homepage. Click here to see them.


Create Profile

Creating your profile will enable you to submit photos and stories to get published on News24.

Please provide a username for your profile page:

This username must be unique, cannot be edited and will be used in the URL to your profile page across the entire network.


Location Settings

News24 allows you to edit the display of certain components based on a location. If you wish to personalise the page based on your preferences, please select a location for each component and click "Submit" in order for the changes to take affect.

Facebook Sign-In

Hi News addict,

Join the News24 Community to be involved in breaking the news.

Log in with Facebook to comment and personalise news, weather and listings.