**Testimony of**

**David Martosko**

**Director of Research**

**On behalf of**

**The Center for Consumer Freedom**

**Before the**

**U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture**

**Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry**

**Hearing on Animal Welfare**

**May 8, 2007**

Thank you Chairman Boswell, Ranking Minority Member Hayes, and Members
of the Subcommittee.

My name is David Martosko. I have served as Director of Research for the
501(c)(3) nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom[^1] since 2001. The
Center is based here in Washington, and is managed by Berman and
Company, a public affairs and association management firm. Support for
the Center comes from members of the public and from private industry,
including restaurant and food companies. The center receives no
government grants.

I am pleased that the Subcommittee has chosen to re-examine the welfare
of animals in U.S. agriculture. If recent history is any indication of
what will come of your efforts, you will learn many useful things about
how America's livestock systems are evolving to take the welfare of
animals more and more into account. The most helpful information will
likely come from agricultural scientists and farmers.

But I am here today to counsel you against considering, in any way, the
input of organizations that propose to extend human "rights" to animals.

Organizations like these include the Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS); Farm Sanctuary; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
(PETA); and PETA's quasi-medical affiliate, the Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine (PCRM). These groups have become increasingly vocal
as their financial power has grown. This year, for instance, HSUS alone
is expected to command a budget totaling more than \$150 million. And it
has \$200 million in assets.[^2] Some groups, like PETA, are plainspoken
about their position that "animals are not ours to eat."[^3] PCRM is
more deceptive about its endgame, using its four-percent physician
membership[^4] to pose as a mainstream medical charity that promotes
vegetarianism for health reasons. Farm Sanctuary's leaders have proven
that they are not above breaking the law to get what they want,
incurring massive election-fraud fines in one Florida battle that
actually extended *constitutional* protections to pigs.[^5]

Regardless of their respective appetite for honest and lawful debate,
animal rights groups like HSUS, Farm Sanctuary, PETA, and PCRM are led
by dietary "vegans"[^6] who abhor the very idea of raising animals for
food. PETA, PCRM, and HSUS, for instance, employ "no animal products in
the workplace" employee policies. (We're unaware if Farm Sanctuary has
such a policy, but it would be consistent with the group's stated
positions.) Not only are meat and dairy products forbidden in these
organizations, but staffers are not to wear animal-derived clothing
including leather shoes, silk ties, or wool suits.

It is the position of the Center for Consumer Freedom that when the
topic of discussion is how to improve animal agriculture, the views of
animal rights groups like these should not be taken seriously alongside
those of true stakeholders who actually participate in the system. HSUS,
Farm Sanctuary, PETA, and PCRM are not interested in improving animal
agriculture. They seek to dismantle and destroy it. Their true agenda is
to put all the real stakeholders out of business.

To be fair, some groups (PETA foremost among them) have been candid
about their goal of eliminating animal protein from the diets of all
human beings. One PETA Vice President has said that "eating meat ... is
not your personal decision, any more than whether somebody beats their
child is their personal decision."[^7] For context, this same PETA
leader has also publicly advocated "blowing stuff up and smashing
windows" as "a great way to bring about animal liberation."[^8]

But the self-invented moral high ground of HSUS is far more subtle in
its orientation. HSUS takes full advantage of the public misperception
that it speaks for a silent animal constituency of dogs and cats. Our
research indicates that most Americans mistakenly believe HSUS exists
primarily to shelter homeless dogs and cats. In reality, HSUS doesn't
operate a single pet shelter anywhere. And despite its name, the "Humane
Society of the United States" is not actually affiliated with any local
"humane society" anywhere in the United States.[^9]

Few Americans know this, and HSUS used the resulting (and unearned)
public good will to raise a reported \$34 million after Hurricane
Katrina from Americans who wanted to help reunite lost pets with their
owners.[^10] Louisiana Attorney General Charles Foti is investigating
the disposition of all this money,[^11] comparatively little of which
seems to have been spent on Katrina-related pet rescue.[^12]

The Center for Consumer Freedom will continue to expose the
manipulations of fact and public deceptions that appear in so many
animal-rights campaigns. But groups like HSUS, PETA, PCRM, and Farm
Sanctuary are zealous and persistent---some would say fanatical. They
will continue to use their undeserved public reputations to chip away at
all of animal agriculture, one skirmish at a time. Lately, their chosen
targets have included pork, veal, egg, and duck farmers. Before long it
will be feedlots and dairy producers.

There is not a single segment of animal agriculture that proponents of
animal "rights" haven't attacked unfairly. And this isn't surprising.
Animal activists' unwavering promotion of a strict vegetarian or "vegan"
diet tends to make enemies of livestock producers who aren't eager to
abandon their heritage and history just because an activist says so.

If I told you ten years ago that the animal rights movement had its
sights set on not just hampering, but *outlawing*, a specific kind of
animal protein enjoyed by many people, you might not have believed me.
But look what has happened in the case of *foie gras*. HSUS and Farm
Sanctuary have decided not to push for reform, but for abolition. This
is an indication of things to come.

I confess that I've never eaten *foie gras*. Having grown up on the
wrong side of the tracks in a rust-belt city, I suspect my palate
wouldn't appreciate it. But who are these people to decide I should
never have the chance to try it? When zealots ban books because of their
politics, millions of people rise up. It's a mystery to me why banning a
food for political reasons isn't viewed the same way.

Ten years from now, will we be talking about veal speakeasies? And
considering the small scale of veal agriculture, truly a family-farming
business, wouldn't that be ironic? Veal is a perfect example of a
livestock trade that animal activists ought to be supporting. These
animals get individualized care. Veal farmers spend a significant amount
of money on quality-assurance programs involving audits by
veterinarians. And---let's face it---veal farmers provide a purpose for
male dairy calves that would otherwise be destroyed. HSUS and Farm
Sanctuary ought to be promoting veal. But bashing it has always been
good for their fundraising, so they never will.

Last week HSUS released a self-serving scorecard, ranking 25
metropolitan U.S. regions according to what it called its "Humane
Index."[^13] One subset of this index, titled "Humane Eats," employs the
"number of vegetarian restaurants per capita" as its sole
criterion.[^14] By its own admission (although delivered in a less
strident fashion than PETA might embrace), HSUS judges that only
meatless eating should be considered "humane."

Similarly, in 2005 HSUS released its "Guide to Vegetarian Eating."[^15]
An HSUS press statement later that year encouraged consumers to "try
delicious meat alternatives."[^16] In an interview with the
vegetarian-advocacy magazine *Satya*, one HSUS campaign manager included
"promoting vegetarian eating" among HSUS's goals.[^17] In the same issue
of that magazine, HSUS's president said his organization was "now doing
a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it."[^18]

Given HSUS's disingenuous but skillful habit of positioning itself as a
mainstream animal *welfare* organization, its advocacy of strict
vegetarianism may come as a bit of a surprise. But let me be clear: HSUS
and comparatively more flamboyant groups like PETA share the same exact
long-term goals. The chief difference is in the tactics they employ to
move the "vegan" diet from the margins of society into its mainstream.
In this respect, the super-rich HSUS is basically PETA with a nicer
wristwatch. And far fewer naked interns.

Lest the Center for Consumer Freedom be described as an anti-vegetarian
organization, I should state unequivocally that we are interested in
preserving the viability of all dietary choices, including those of the
tiny segment of Americans who choose the strictest vegetarian lifestyle.
It's a free country. Consumers should be free to make their own choices.

But when groups with gargantuan budgets mislead the public about food
that they don't believe the rest of us should be allowed to choose, as
HSUS has done, we object. Here is just one example of many. HSUS\'s
"Guide to Vegetarian Eating" misstated the nutritional content of
chicken in order to discourage people from eating it.

"Even when the chicken's skin is removed, the dark meat is thrown away,
and a nonfat cooking method is used," HSUS wrote in 2005, "chicken is
still 23 percent fat."[^19] Not so. A 140-gram serving of roasted,
skinless white-meat chicken has only five grams of fat.[^20] That\'s
less than four percent.

As it turns out, the PETA-affiliated Physicians Committee for
Responsible Medicine has been using nearly the same language since at
least 2000, claiming that "\[e\]ven when the skin is removed, dark meat
is thrown away, and a non-fat cooking method is used, chicken is still
23 percent fat."[^21]

In 2001, I challenged PCRM president Neal Barnard on this point during
one of his Maryland book-signing appearances. Barnard conceded that he
was wrong, but PCRM has never corrected its error. HSUS republished it
uncritically (or perhaps intentionally) and only corrected the record in
its "Guide to Vegetarian Eating" this year.[^22] Other HSUS web pages,
however, still contain the original agenda-driven falsehood.[^23]

At the Center for Consumer Freedom, we have become accustomed to this
sort of misinformation coming from animal rights groups. And we can
almost understand it. If you believe---as leaders of HSUS, PETA, Farm
Sanctuary, and PCRM have all historically believed---that a veal calf or
a breeding sow (or even a lab rat) is morally equivalent to my daughter
or your mother, it becomes remarkably easy to invent moral
justifications for cutting factual corners, breaking election finance
law, or even advocating the murder of people who don't share your
views.[^24]

But back to my main point: Groups like this are not interested---and
never will be interested---in improving animal agriculture. Improvements
to the existing system will likely make it more efficient and more
profitable. Even progressive animal-welfare reforms, such as those being
embraced by small-scale family farmers in the veal industry, generally
serve to make the American public increasingly comfortable with the idea
of buying meat and dairy foods. This is anathema to the animal rights
movement.

Among HSUS's more cynical attempts to erode the institution of animal
agriculture came in 2002, when it began to apply "The Three R's" to meat
production.[^25] The Three R's represent a guiding principle in modern
biomedical research---*Reducing* the number of animals used to a
minimum, *Refining* the way experiments are carried out so that animals
suffer as little as possible, and *Replacing* animal experiments with
non-animal models wherever possible.[^26]

Biomedical research scientists generally agree with animal welfare
advocates that it would be lovely to live in a world where animals
weren't needed for research. Activists, however, generally refuse to
acknowledge that we don't presently live in that world.

The survival of millions of people, quite literally, may depend on
research that requires the use of animals. But considering the cost and
regulatory burden of using lab rats and other animals, most scientists
would rather it weren't necessary. So they generally agree to *Reduce*
the number of animals they use, *Refine* their techniques, and *Replace*
as many animal experiments as possible with other research methods.

Only a militant vegetarian could apply this formulation to meat and
dairy production. Livestock farmers don't want to "reduce" their herds
or "replace" animal protein in our food supply with tofu. The vast
majority of Americans, being omnivores, don't want this
either---although they generally embrace "refinements" that appear
sensible. Yet HSUS persists in nudging us all toward a PETA-approved
diet that includes no meat or dairy foods at all.

HSUS is less interested in the welfare of animals than in convincing
Americans that the phrase "humanely raised meat" is an oxymoron. In his
youth, one HSUS manager famously declared on a public mailing list: "My
goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture."[^27] And HSUS's
current president Wayne Pacelle has, to my knowledge, never disavowed
his published opposition to the breeding of livestock. "We have no
ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock
produced through selective breeding," he said a decade ago. "One
generation and out."[^28]

As long as people who have enthusiastically articulated this anti-meat
worldview continue to lead HSUS, it will be impossible to convince
American farmers and ranchers that HSUS doesn't intend to do them harm.

Personally, I will believe that HSUS and Farm Sanctuary are in favor of
"humane" meat production on the day that their leaders join me in
*eating* it. I invite Gene Baur, Wayne Pacelle, and Paul Shapiro, for
instance, to e-mail me and let me know what they think the most humanely
raised veal on the planet is. Dinner is on me. All they have to do is
eat it---in front of a few dozen cameras. I'm confident that I won't
have to buy that meal, because those gentlemen don't believe such a
thing as "humane" meat production can *ever* exist.

Put another way, imagine that Congress required U.S. farmers to supply
every pig, chicken, duck, and cow in all the land with private rooms,
daily rubdowns, video iPods, and organic meals catered by Wolfgang Puck
himself. What would happen? Would PETA cheerfully pack up its Hollywood
rolodex? Would this satisfy Farm Sanctuary or HSUS? No. They would
continue to argue that farm animals have inherent "rights"---and chief
among them is the right to *not* be eaten. Besides, declaring your own
obsolescence has a way of drying up donations.

I must reiterate that in the context of considering how best to raise
animals for food, radical vegans in the animal-rights community are
strictly *outsiders*. They don't deserve a place at the debating table,
because their fondest wish is to destroy the table itself.

Consider the uproar that would ensue if Rush Limbaugh were invited to
overhaul the Democratic Leadership Council. Or if Cindy Sheehan were
asked to moderate a Republican primary debate. These polarizing figures
probably have interesting ideas about how their opponents could do
things differently, but thinking people would instantly recognize their
ulterior motives. The *last* person whose input you should invite is
someone who has sworn to put you out of business.

This is what we have with organizations like HSUS and Farm Sanctuary.
They have parlayed an illegitimate moral superiority into the power to
antagonize, lecture, and strong-arm America's farmers---and the
countless people who enjoy eating what they bring to market. Seriously
considering the input of radicals like these makes no sense.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing and for
inviting my testimony today. I will be happy to answer your questions
and those of your colleagues.

**David Martosko** is Director of Research at the Center for Consumer
Freedom (CCF), a Washington, DC nonprofit organization dedicated to
defending consumers' food choices. David is CCF\'s principal research
expert on the politics of animal rights. He holds a B.A. from Dartmouth
College and a Masters Degree from the Johns Hopkins University. His
family includes two practicing veterinarians.

Mr. Martosko frequently shares CCF's expertise with federal law
enforcement officers, government officials, and media commentators. In
2005 he testified about the threat of animal-rights violence and
eco-terrorism before the United States Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works. Last year he was invited to lecture the United
Kingdom\'s National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU) about
the growing threat of lawless animal-rights radicalism on both sides of
the Atlantic.

Dozens of newspapers have published Mr. Martosko's opinion pieces, and
he has appeared on hundreds of domestic and international television and
radio broadcasts. He is also a frequent source of information for
reporters writing about food politics, animal agriculture, and
environmental and animal-rights advocacy groups.

Mr. Martosko lives in Virginia with his wife and daughter, and expects
to complete a book about the American animal rights movement during the
coming year.

[^1]: [www.ConsumerFreedom.com](http://www.ConsumerFreedom.com/)

[^2]: IRS Form 990, publicly available

[^3]: This statement can reliably be found on most of PETA's more than
    100 websites.

[^4]: PCRM's newest website says the group has "over 6000 member
    physicians"
    ([www.nutritionmd.org/about_us.html](http://www.nutritionmd.org/about_us.html),
    accessed on May 1, 2007). And a recent PCRM fundraising letter
    states that the group has \"nearly 200,000 members.\"

[^5]: Farm Sanctuary paid a \$50,000 fine after the Florida Elections
    Commission found it guilty of 210 counts of campaign finance fraud,
    stemming from the group's promise of tax-deductibility for
    contributions intended to sway an election. The commission chose to
    address only the finance fraud committed against Floridians,
    declining to address the thousands of similar offenses involving
    donors from other states. The convictions were handed down weeks
    after the election, long *after* Farm Sanctuary's unlawful behavior
    helped to add pigs to the state constitution.

[^6]: In common usage, a "vegan" is a strict vegetarian who uses and
    consumes no animal products (including fish, beef, chicken, pork,
    eggs, dairy foods, and honey).

[^7]: PETA Vice-President Bruce Friedrich, at the "Animal Rights 2002"
    national conference (June 29, 2002)

[^8]: Bruce Friedrich, at the "Animal Rights 2001" national conference
    (July 2, 2001). In its full context, Friedrich said: "If we really
    believe that these animals do have the same right to be free from
    pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be,
    as a movement, blowing stuff up and smashing windows. For the
    record, I don't do this stuff, but I do advocate it. I think it's a
    great way to bring about animal liberation ... I think it would be a
    great thing if all of these fast-food outlets, and these
    slaughterhouses, and these laboratories, and the banks that fund
    them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for
    people to take bricks and toss them through the windows, and
    everything else along the line. Hallelujah to the people who are
    willing to do it."

[^9]: From a disclaimer buried within HSUS's website (and conspicuously
    absent from the group's ubiquitous fundraising mailers): "The HSUS
    is neither legally nor contractually affiliated with---nor is a
    parent organization for---local humane societies, animal shelters,
    or animal care and control agencies. In short, The HSUS does not
    operate or have direct control over any animal shelter."
    ([www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/animal_abuse_and_neglect/reporting_animal_abuse_or_neglect.html](http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/animal_abuse_and_neglect/reporting_animal_abuse_or_neglect.html),
    accessed on May 1, 2007)

[^10]: "Robust economy = robust giving," *The Christian Science
    Monitor*. June 20, 2006

[^11]: "Red Cross, Humane Society Under Investigation," *The Washington
    Post*. March 26, 2006

[^12]: \"Only a small percentage of the money was specifically earmarked
    for the Katrina response." From a statement attributed to HSUS in
    "Humane Society spending probed," *The Times-Picayune*. March 18,
    2006

[^13]: "The HSUS Unveils America's Most Humane City: San Francisco Leads
    Nation, Followed by Seattle and Portland," press release. The Humane
    Society of the United States. April 30, 2007

[^14]: [www.humaneindex.org](http://www.humaneindex.org/), accessed on
    May 1, 2007

[^15]: See
    [www.hsus.org/farm/resources/pubs/gve](http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/pubs/gve)

[^16]: "Celebrate World Vegetarian Day on October 1," press release. The
    Humane Society of the United States. September 28, 2005

[^17]: "Standing Up For Farmed Animals: The Satya Interview with Paul
    Shapiro," *Satya*. June/July 2005

[^18]: "(R)Evolution From Within? New Directions for the Humane Society:
    The Satya Interview with Wayne Pacelle," *Satya*. June/July 2005

[^19]: [www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/gve.pdf](http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/gve.pdf),
    page 9, accessed on August 11, 2005

[^20]: [www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/5064.html](http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/5064.html),
    accessed on May 1, 2007

[^21]: "There\'s No Room for Chicken in a Healthy Diet," *Good
    Medicine*. Spring/Summer 2000. Accessed at
    [www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM00SpringSummer/GM00SpSum2.html](http://www.pcrm.org/magazine/GM00SpringSummer/GM00SpSum2.html)
    on May 1, 2007

[^22]: [www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/gve.pdf](http://www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/gve.pdf),
    page 9, accessed on May 1, 2007. Google's recent cache of the text
    from this PDF
    (<http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:B-2Q7huJNo4J:www.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/farm/gve.pdf>,
    accessed on May 1, 2007) still shows the original copy.

[^23]: "Isn't Chicken Good For You?" at
    [www.hsus.org/farm/resources/pubs/gve/for_your_health.html](http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/pubs/gve/for_your_health.html),
    accessed on May 1, 2007

[^24]: In one widely reported case, Dr. Jerry Vlasak openly advocated
    the murder of his fellow doctors whose research requires the use of
    animals. He was speaking as a spokesperson for the Physicians
    Committee for Responsible Medicine at the "Animal Rights 2003"
    national conference. "I dont think youd have to kill \-- assassinate
    \-- too many," Vlasak told the assembled activists. "I think for 5
    lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million,
    10 million non-human lives."

[^25]: HSUS website, accessed by the Coalition to Support Iowa's Farmers
    on May 17, 2002. Archived at
    [www.supportiowasfarmers.org/activistnews/humane.aspx](http://www.supportiowasfarmers.org/activistnews/humane.aspx).
    Later repeated at
    [www.hsus.org/farm/resources/pubs/rrr.html](http://www.hsus.org/farm/resources/pubs/rrr.html),
    accessed on May 1, 2007

[^26]: A good all-purpose practical guide to the Three R's can be found
    on the website of the University of Kansas, at
    [www.ur.ku.edu/\~acu/chapter2.html#rrr](http://www.ur.ku.edu/~acu/chapter2.html#rrr)

[^27]: HSUS manager John "J.P." Goodwin, in a message to the "AR-Views"
    electronic listserv

[^28]: In *Animal People News*. May 1, 1993.