Maple Lodge court decision encourages 'fresh look' at animal welfare regulations

Thursday, May 1, 2014

A tough probation order meted out by an Ontario court has prompted a national review of the regulations governing how chickens are transported from farm to slaughter

by MARY BAXTER and MATT MCINTOSH


Late in March, at an Ontario Court of Justice in Brampton, the final chapter played out in a long-running animal welfare transportation case involving Maple Lodge Farms. It concerned 18 charges the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) had laid against the company, Canada's largest independent chicken processor and the largest buyer of spent hens in North America, for failing to transport chickens humanely, as required under the Health of Animals Act.

After the chicken processor pleaded guilty to the charges, Judge Nancy S. Kastner meted out a tough-talking three-year probation order. She would suspend sentencing on the violations, but only if the company paid a fine of $40,000 on each of two similar violations for which it had been convicted nearly seven months earlier; if it spent a further $1 million to modify its trailers used to transport the birds; and if it made changes to its facilities as well as to its live bird transportation protocols.

Maple Lodge was further ordered to make public quarterly summaries of animals arriving dead at their processing facility, as well as undertake other steps to ensure transparency about its compliance with the order.

Ever since Maple Lodge was charged in 2010 (initially there were 60 counts under the Health of Animals Act for several incidents in 2008 and 2009), Ontario's poultry industry has monitored the case closely. There were fears the case would generate criticism of the industry from animal rights groups and make it look bad.

"They will criticize whatever is a sensitive area," John Maaskant, a director at Chicken Farmers of Ontario and chair of Farm and Food Care Ontario told BetterFarming.com in 2012 as the trial began. It addressed two representative incidents, one in 2008, the other in 2009, both of which involved the company's decision to transport birds to its processing plant in very cold weather conditions. In total, nearly 2,000 birds died.

Industry fears were realized in the release of Kastner's September 2013 decision, although the object of criticism was perhaps not quite as anticipated.

Kastner found Maple Lodge Farms at fault, but she did acknowledge one of the points that the company had argued – that the industry's tightly managed regulatory framework may have contributed to the decision to place the interests of business above welfare.

"Surely some flexibility could be built into the chicken production and slaughter industry to accommodate exigencies such as adverse weather and other conditions which are detrimental to the humane transportation of poultry," Kastner wrote. "If delay in transportation triggers a series of economic administrative penalties at either end to either the farmers or the meat producers, this functions as a disincentive to wait out the weather conditions."

The judge also encouraged legislators "to take a fresh look at the regulations in the Health of Animals Act" as well as the regulations that govern the supply-managed poultry industry, "its transportation and slaughter, and its ultimate sale."

Carol Gardin, director of corporate affairs for Maple Lodge Farms, says the company is pleased with the court's acknowledgment of the difficulties associated with transporting chickens. The company states on its website that "until a regulatory framework review results in changes that allow growers, transporters and processors to make adjustments to schedules without adverse consequences, continued transportation challenges within the industry can be anticipated."

The inference of these statements, says Mike Dungate, executive director of Chicken Farmers of Canada, is that the penalties used to control production volumes in the supply-managed sector make it uneconomical to make a good welfare decision. "I don't believe that's the case," he says.

Dungate explains that there is a delicate balance between the pressures to meet quota amounts and marketplace expectations for a standardized size. Birds that are kept back, for whatever reason, may become too large to meet market specifications and therefore are more difficult to market. Too many too-large birds might also mean a farmer overshoots his or her quota allocation, ending up having to pay a 44-cent-per-kilogram penalty for the overage. (The national association's regular levy is "four tenths of a cent per kilogram," Dungate says. The higher penalty is intended to discourage overproduction, he explains.)

The system provides some wiggle room. The national organization permits its provincial counterparts to over- or under-produce their quota limits by two per cent over two consecutive eight-week production periods. Many provinces in turn annually allow producers an annual four to five per cent quota "sleeve," he says.

Overall, the intricate process of scheduling the movement of birds between farmers and processors to meet the expectation of just-in-time production has been very good, he says. "Do surprises come up? Yes." So then the challenge becomes, "how do you deal with the abnormal circumstances?" Bad weather is one example; a power outage at a slaughter plant is another. "I know that, with the extreme weather this winter across the country, there were days processors decided not to slaughter birds. And we will take that into account."

He also anticipates the national organization's board will take the Maple Lodge court decision under advisement. "We will make sure we've got a good process in place to allow for farmers and processors not to be penalized when it's clear that they've acted in the best interest of the birds and it hasn't been a ploy by them to market more chicken."

Dungate points out that there have been substantial changes in the handling and shipping of poultry since Maple Lodge's first infractions listed in the court action took place. In 2009, the industry launched its national animal care program and now 95 per cent of the country's chicken farmers are certified on the program, which includes regular audits. Provincial boards are also in the process of making the program mandatory for marketing birds. Currently, it's mandatory in eight provinces, including Ontario.

Moreover, the industry has worked with the CFIA to develop an animal care guidance document for catching and transporting birds. The document reflects the requirements in Chapter 12 of the agency's Meat Hygiene Manual of Procedures and was published in 2012. Lack of knowledge about proper transportation procedures during inclement weather had been one of the issues Kastner identified.

As well, last year, ironically days after Kastner's decision was released, an Alberta livestock transport training program announced its expansion into national delivery. Initiated in 2007 by Alberta Farm and Animal Care and now operated by the Canadian Animal Health Coalition, the program issues three-year certification for the drivers of livestock transports.

Currently, the program has 1,700 certified drivers, the majority of whom are in Western Canada. Mark Beaven, the coalition's executive director, says demand is growing for the program. Drivers who have taken it consider it a "worthwhile exercise and that word is getting around," he says. Trucking companies, plants and processors are beginning to demand it. "They're thinking 'we want to make sure we're doing everything we can to ensure both the quality and the welfare of the poultry and livestock coming from farm to plant.' They see that the Canadian Livestock Transport program is definitely a worthwhile asset to help them in that regard."

Whether the federal government will consider the "fresh look" that Kastner calls for remains to be seen. Tammy Jarbeau, a spokesperson with the CFIA's media relations office, said in a March email statement that the agency couldn't comment on anything related to the court case because "they are waiting for the official record from the court."

Also unknown is when, or if, a review of the industry's code for the handling of animals during transport will take place. The code was initially released in 2001.

Jackie Wepruk, general manager of the National Farm Animal Care Council, the organization that spearheads such code development, says the council has applied for federal funding to develop three more codes. A review of the transportation code isn't guaranteed if funding is granted, but it is definitely a contender.

"A number of our member organizations have expressed interest in reviewing the standards for animal transportation," she says.

While it might be too early to determine if the Maple Lodge decision will spark regulatory or industry review of poultry production, Dungate says that the incidents that the CFIA noted in 2008 and 2009 very likely spurred it to work with industry to develop the animal care guidance document it published in 2012.

"But that's all positive," he says. "From our perspective, we want to assure all of our customers that the birds on every farm in Canada are treated well." BF

– With files from Susan Mann