National Pork Producers Council

The National Pork Producers Council, headquartered in Des Moines, Iowa, conducts public policy outreach on behalf of its 43 affiliated state associations, supporting nearly 69,000 U.S. pork producers and other industry stakeholders by working to establish the U.S. pork industry as a consistent and responsible supplier. This has been called into question by the NPPC's defense of the industry's standard practice of housing pregnant pigs in gestation crates, a practice which is criticized by The Humane Society and other animal welfare groups.^[1] The NPPC supports a variety of housing systems (including gestation crates as well as open pen housing), each of which has advantages and disadvantages concerning animal welfare according to the American Veterinary Medical Association.^[2]

Political Involvement

According to NPPC's website, their mission is to "fight for legislation and regulations, develop revenue and market opportunities and protect the livelihoods of America’s 67,000 pork producers. Public policy issues on which it focuses are in the areas of agriculture and industry, animal health and food safety, environment and energy, and international trade." ^[3]

Beyond legislation and regulation, NPPC is involved in the political process through a political action committee, PorkPAC. The PAC seeks to educate the public and support candidates at the state and federal levels who support the industry.^[4]

Organization

NPPC is governed by Board of Directors, composed of 15 members, and pork producer delegates from the states. Recommendations for new policies and for changes to existing policies are considered annually, in March, at the National Pork Industry Forum.

NPPC also creates ad hoc task forces to study or provide guidance on industry issues. NPPC receives advice and works closely with the meat packing industry and animal health and feed companies, as well as the National Pork Board. Together the NPPC and NPB have formed joint task forces on certain issues.^[5]

Ethical Principles

The pig farmers represented by NPPC adhere to a set of We Care^[6] guidelines, including:

• Produce safe food
• Promote and protect animal well-being
• Ensure practices to ensure public health
• Safeguard natural resources in all our practices
• Provide a work environment that is safe and consistent with our other ethical principles
• Contribute to a better quality of life in our communities

Criticism

NPPC has received significant criticism as a leading proponent of housing pregnant pigs in gestation stalls. One advantage of gestation stalls is that they allow farmers to provide individualized care for each animal. If the farmer notices that one pig is underweight, they can increase her feed rations without affecting another sow's feed. Farmers and their veterinarians can also easily check each pig for any signs of sickness. Gestation stalls also allow each sow protection from other pregnant sows, who tend to be aggressive and establish a "pecking order" similar to chickens. Pregnant sows can often fight to the death if left in open-pen housing systems. However, most animal welfare groups condemn gestation crates as inhumane.^[7][8][9] Pigs in gestation crates suffer from intense boredom and frustration due to deprivation of social interaction or external stimuli. This mental deprivation has been blamed by researchers for abnormal, neurotic behaviors confined pigs sometimes exhibit, like repetitively biting at the bars of the gestation crate or chewing with an empty mouth. These behaviors can lead to additional suffering by causing sores and mouth damage.^[10] Other industry experts feel that economic pressure, rather than science or animal welfare, is the driving force behind the use of gestation crate housing in the U.S. pork industry.^[11]

Livestock industry consultant and animal welfare activist Dr. Temple Grandin has been quoted as saying, "We've got to treat animals right, and gestation stalls have got to go." She continues, "Confining an animal for most of its life in a box in which it is not able to turn around does not provide a decent life."

In July 2012, NPPC communications director Dave Warner told the National Journal, “So our animals can’t turn around for the 2.5 years that they are in the stalls producing piglets. I don’t know who asked the sow if she wanted to turn around…”^[12][13] Neil Dierks, NPPC CEO, released a statement in response to the quote: “On behalf of the National Pork Producers Council, I sincerely regret the recent comments in a news article that were attributed to an employee of the National Pork Producers Council. The comments were inappropriate and do not represent the views of our organization nor do they reflect the values of the hardworking American farmers who produce safe and nutritious pork for consumers around the world. Our nation’s pork producers take great pride in their long-standing commitment to the highest standards of humane care for animals. They are good people with good values. They care deeply for the animals they raise and make their health and well-being a top priority.”^[14]

Warner and the NPPC justify gestation crates by stating, “The only real measure of [pregnant pig] well-being we have is the number of piglets per birth, and that’s at an all-time high.”^[15] However, Dr. Donald Broom, a science advisor to the British government and professor of animal welfare at Cambridge explains, “Efforts to achieve earlier and faster growth, greater production per individual, efficient feed conversion and partitioning, and increased prolificacy are the causes of some of the worst animal welfare problems.”^[16] Broom describes an inverse relationship between animal welfare and productivity in these intensive confinement practices.

References