Negotiations: Full text of letters

[our commentary in brackets]

April 12, 2000
Gregg A. Ostrander
President and CEO Michael Foods, Inc.
5353 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 324
Minneapolis, MN 55416

Dear Gregg Ostrander,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing on behalf of the board of trustees and membership of Compassionate Action for Animals, a nonviolent, Minnesota-based animal protection group. We want to start a dialogue with you and your company regarding our concerns about Crystal Farm's treatment of hens. I hope this dialogue will allow us to collectively develop solutions that are fair and acceptable to both you and the animals.

Because every chicken has the capacity to enjoy life, this makes it an imperative for all ethical people do what they can to minimize the suffering inflicted on these sensitive, peaceful souls.

In a spirit of cooperation and respect, I offer for your consideration the concerns of our membership regarding the current treatment of battery-caged hens. Our concerns are as follows:

1. Hens suffer physical and psychological deprivation as a result of confinement and overcrowding: According to the United Egg Producers, a four pound battery hen's recommended allotment of floor space is only 48 square inches -- meaning hens live their entire lives in a space roughly the size of half a sheet of paper (United Egg Producers. Recommended Guidelines of Husbandry Practices for Laying Chickens. 1983). The extreme confinement and crowding in battery cages thwarts basic behaviors vital to hen welfare including: exercise, nesting, dustbathing, sunbathing, the ability to move and flap their wings, healthy social behavior, scratching and pecking. Furthermore, the confinement and overcrowding makes hens more susceptible to lameness, brittle bones, osteoporosis, and muscle weakness, as well as frustration, boredom, and aggression (Rollin, Bernard. Farm Animal Welfare. Ames: Iowa State University Press. 1995).

2. Farmed hens have a high incidence of disease and death: The overcrowding, animal wastes, and stressful living conditions found in battery cage facilities all contribute to a high disease and death rate. According to the USDA's Dairy and Poultry statistics for 1996, 28% of chickens raised for eggs are lost or die before being sent to slaughter which typically occurs at only 72 weeks of age.

3. Sick and injured animals are not provided individual attention: The mass production of eggs from hens and the small profit margin for eggs prevents sick and injured animals from receiving individualized veterinary attention because it is not cost effective (Rollin. pp. 10-11). Instead, sick and injured animals suffer untreated.

4. Hens are mutilated without pain-killers: To prevent death from stress-induced cannibalism between hens, up to two-thirds of a hen's beaks is cut off. No pain-killers are provided during the mutilation. Cutting these delicate tissues with a hot knife causes severe pain for weeks (British Poultry Science, 1989; 30).

5. Hens in the US are either slaughtered or force-moulted at the end of their laying cycle: The latter practice involves removing food and water for several days in order to shock hens' bodies into another egg-laying cycle (Cheeke, 1999).

6. Bird slaughterhouse practices are inhumane: The law does not require birds to be unconscious before slaughter. And while most slaughterhouses use electrical stunning, there is considerable debate as to whether current methods actually produce unconsciousness (Rollin, 1995). Surveys of poultry processing plants show that with alarming frequency a proper stun is not achieved. This means that hens are often still conscious while having their throats slit, and as they bleed out. (Humane Slaughter of Poultry: The Case Against the Use of Electrical Stunning Devices. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics. 7/94.)

7. Male chicks of the egg industry are killed shortly after hatching: Methods of killing include decapitation, gassing, crushing, or suffocation in plastic bags. (Rollin, p. 134)

Thank you for considering our concerns. Ultimately we would like to see that all hens are provided an environment that allows them to fulfill their basic behavioral and psychological needs. Because respectful dialogue between animal advocates and the industry are essential to this goal, we request from you the following:

1. Your response in writing to the concerns we have outlined above by Wed. April 19, 2000. Your response can address any factual errors you see with our concerns, or how your operations may differ from the concerns we have listed above.

2. By Wed. April 19, 2000, we would like to have finalized a date where you will provide us with a tour of one of your battery hen facilities so we can observe and document the conditions. We believe this experience will be helpful in our future dialogues together on hen welfare.

I hope to hear from you soon so we may start working towards a win-win solution for farmers and the animals. Best wishes to you.

April 20, 2000

Dear [CAA]

Thank you for your recent letter of inquiry. By background, please note that the Crystal Farms Refrigerated Distribution, Co. subsidiary of Michael Foods, Inc. does not own or maintain any hen facilities. Eggs sold by Crystal Farms come from external sources, only a small portion of which come form Michael Foods facilities.

[This is not true, as our research has uncovered. Most if not all eggs from Michael Foods' LeSueur, MN battery cage facility (under the name M.G. Waldbaum) are produced and packaged for Crystal Farms.]

Since your letter addresses industry hen welfare practices and standards, we would suggest that a better source of information would be egg-related industry trade groups. We believe the largest such organization in the U.S. to be the United Egg Producers; you may want to contact them. The UEP has a Scientific Advisory Committee on Animal Welfare that has been addressing hen welfare issues for more than 18 months. Their approach to such matters is science-based, so their input may be valuable to your group.

Regarding our company's hen welfare practices, we strictly follow all local, state and national agricultural standards and regulations regarding hen care, egg handling and processing. We adhere to, and often establish, the best-practices of the egg industry. Further, we maintain a staff of caretakers, managers and a veterinarian who are trained to observe and manage the welfare of hens.

[This fails to address our concerns. We are not questioning whether they follow standards, we are questioning whether those standards adequately protect the physical and psychological health of hens. Note they have "a veterinarian." Does Michael Foods really think that one veterinarian is enough to monitor the 12 to 13 million hens who are confined in their battery cage facilities in Minnesota, Colorado, and Nebraska?]

Regarding your request for a tour of a hen facility, that is not possible. Due to strict bio-security measures in place to protect our hens' welfare, access is strictly limited to the staff mentioned above. Lastly, our company is not involved with egg hatching or the post-production disposal of hens.

[This is also not true. Michael Foods owns facilities for raising pullets (young hens). In any case, a company raising some 40 million hens can hardly claim to be "not involved with" hatching and slaughter.]

We appreciate your interest and share your desire for ensuring the safe and humane treatment of all animals in food production, including laying hens. Thank you for your inquiry.

Sincerely,
Michael Foods Community Relations

April 24, 2000
Gregg A. Ostrander
President and CEO Michael Foods, Inc.
5353 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 324
Minneapolis, MN 55416

Dear Gregg Ostrander,

Thank you for having Michael Foods Community Relations respond to my previous letter in a timely manner. It is wonderful to know that you share our interest in hen welfare.

Thank you also for telling us about the United Egg Producers role in industry standards for hen treatment. We will be certain to contact them. This, however, does not detract from our interest in Michael Foods. As the world leader in egg products, you help set the standards of hen treatment that other corporations will follow. Therefore it is imperative that we continue dialogue with you on this vital subject.

Once again I would like to express our sincere interest in touring your battery cage facilities. We understand you have strict bio-security measures at these facilities. Let me assure you that we are willing to conduct the same bio-security measures that your employees engage in before entering the premises. If your workers wear bio-security suits, we will wear them, and we will even pay to buy ours if our borrowing a suit from you is an inconvenience. Whatever measures your workers take, we will do the same, and we will take those measures at our expense.

We feel the value of our shared experience in a battery cage facility where we can document the conditions, for later reference, will be tremendously helpful as we continue our dialogue regarding hen treatment.

Therefore, by Friday, April 28, 2000, we would like to have a finalized date where you will provide us a tour of one of your battery cage facilities so we can observe and document the conditions. Again, we feel this experience will be helpful in our future dialogues together.

Furthermore, after reading your letter, we still have questions left unresolved. Please respond in writing to our questions below by Thursday, May 4, 2000.

1. In a communication with Lakewinds Community Coop in 1997, Michael Foods Director of Corporate Communications, Mark Witmer, confirmed that Crystal Farms 13 million hens are raised in battery cages with four to six chickens per cage. According to your current letter, Crystal Farms "does not own or maintain" any hens. Given Michael Foods' desire to move towards producing egg products as opposed to eggs, I do not question the information you provided me in your letter. But, considering your previous battery cage practices -- and, please, correct me if I am wrong -- I believe it is safe to assume that Crystal Farms' current "external sources" of eggs, as well as the eggs produced by your subsidiary, M. G. Waldbaum, would come from hens raised in battery cages. So my question is this: How do you respond to concerns that battery cages prevent or frustrate hens from engaging in basic natural behaviors (including: stretching their wings, exercising, perching, dustbathing, preening, sunbathing, breathing fresh air, escaping from dominant hens, and scratching) that are fundamental to their physical and psychological welfare?

2. Your letter mentions that Michael Foods has "a veterinarian." According to your website, your subsidiary, M.G. Waldbaum, has 12 million hens laying eggs with operations in Minnesota, Colorado, and Nebraska. Including all of your subsidiaries, how many hens do you currently care for? How many different battery cage facilities does Michael Foods operate? In which states do your battery cage facilities reside? And, does your one veterinarian oversee all of your hens, at all of the facilities, in all of the different states, or did you mean that you have a veterinarian at each facility? And, if you have a veterinarian at each facility, what is the hen population at each of those facilities?

3. You letter states, "We adhere to, and often establish, the best-practices of the egg industry." What are the specific "best-practices" that you established regarding the humane treatment of hens?

4. Besides Sparboe, what other companies does Michael Foods purchase eggs from for sale under the Crystal Farms brand name?

5. Does your subsidiary, Pappetti's Hygrade Egg Products, also raise hens?

6. Part of being a good steward toward the animals in your care is taking responsibility to see that your suppliers, the chicken hatcheries where your hens come from, and the slaughterhouses where you dispose of your post-production chickens meet the same standards of care that you would provide them should you be running those businesses. Which hatcheries and slaughterhouses do you do business with, and what efforts have you taken to ensure that they meet Michael Foods' high standards of animal care?

Thank you in advance for taking our concerns seriously and responding to them in a timely manner. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Best wishes to you.

April 25, 2000
Gregg A. Ostrander
President and CEO Michael Foods, Inc.
5353 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 324
Minneapolis, MN 55416

Dear Gregg Ostrander,

Good day. Because the suffering of hens in battery cages is of vital importance to our membership and board of directors, we are committed to continuing dialogue with you, Michael Foods, the world leader in egg products. Therefore, members of Compassionate Action for Animals will be attending Michael Foods shareholders meeting on Wednesday, April 26, 2000. Our attendance will be for the purpose of sharing our concerns with your shareholders so they may join the discussion on this vital issue.

Again, let me make it clear that our sole purpose is to share our concerns with your shareholders and hear their response on this issue. We have not -- and will not -- send the news media a release announcing our attendance at your meeting. We trust that our concerns regarding the treatment of hens will be resolved through continued dialogue, so there is no reason for us to involve the media or general public in our discussions as long as they continue to be so productive.

As you may already know, in 1999 the Agricultural Ministers for the European Union reviewed many scientific studies on the welfare of hens raised in battery cages, decided battery cages were cruel, and passed a law to phase them out within the European Union. We share their belief that battery cages cause unbearable suffering to hens.

Battery cages prevent chickens from engaging in basic natural behaviors that are fundamental to their physical and psychological welfare. Attempts to stretch their wings, exercise, perch, fly, dustbathe, sunbathe, scratch, and escape dominant chickens are totally frustrated by the battery cage system.

The stress and frustration of living in a battery cage, and the crowded cage space which prevents chickens from fleeing one another, result in increased fighting between cagemates. This fighting can have fatal consequences. Therefore, it is a common practice for battery egg facilities to cut off part of the hens beaks to prevent deaths from the stress-induced fighting. However, this mutilation in itself is painful and disfiguring. We believe it would be far more humane to give the hens the space they need to engage in their basic, fundamental behaviors. This would not only prevent the stressful conditions that cause such intense and deadly fights, but also remove the need for the painful beak mutilations.

Battery cages are enclosed in sheds, and it is common for the manure from tens of thousands of hens to be stored below the building for months at a time. These stock-piles of manure attract flies and rats, and cause the hens breathing-air to be full of noxious gasses which are harmful to them. Confined hens are unable to move, which prevents them from choosing cleaner air to breathe, therefore it is the caretakers responsibility to ensure they have plenty of fresh air.

Battery cage sheds often hold tens of thousands of hens. The sheer number of birds prevents sick and injured hens from receiving individual veterinary attention. Therefore, the diseased hens are forced to languish until they are killed or die on their own. To put it simply, they are neglected to death. We find this practice absolutely contrary to the humane and ethical treatment of animals.

We understand that raising chickens in battery cages is cost effective and profitable. Certainly it is important to have a good income to support one's family. However, no one should let their desire for financial wealth eclipse their responsibility to treat other feeling, sensitive individuals -- be they human or non-human animals -- with respect and dignity. We hope that through our continued discussions, you will provide us with the information we need to confirm that your hens receive the respect and dignity that all of God's creatures deserve.

Thank you again for taking our concerns seriously and responding to our first letter. I look forward to meeting you tomorrow, and for your response to the follow-up letter I faxed you yesterday.

Best wishes to you.

May 3, 2000

Dear [CAA],

In response to your April 25th letter, we must again decline any request for a tour of our hen facilities. Please understand that our position relating to flock access is a strict, science-based company policy aimed at helping to ensure the welfare of our hens. Access is only granted to employees of Michael Foods who are responsible for hen care or to non-employees providing regulatory inspections.

The health and safety of our hens is the rationale for this long-standing policy, a standard shared by the overwhelming majority of the egg producers in our industry nationwide. The other matters raised in your correspondence are matters that relate to an industry, not to a specific company. As noted in previous correspondence, Michael Foods will continue to adhere to all federal, state, and local guidelines regarding flock welfare. We suggest that any further correspondence regarding these issues be directed to industry trade groups and/or the U.S.D.A.

We continue to appreciate and share your interest in the quality of Michael Foods products and your concern for all animals used in food production.

Sincerely,
Michael Foods Community Relations

May 18, 2000
Gregg A. Ostrander
President and CEO Michael Foods, Inc.
5353 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 324
Minneapolis, MN 55416

Dear Mr. Gregg Ostrander,

I hope this letter finds you well. However, I am saddened by your continued refusal to provide us a tour of your battery cage facilities despite our willingness to follow the same biosecurity measures conducted by your employees at our own expense.

I must admit that these repeated refusals of our simple request to see your battery cage facilities do raise some concerns about your operations. First, denying entrance to people who follow your own biosecurity precautions leads us to believe the hens must be living in an extremely disease-prone environment. Is this policy necessary because your hens' immune systems are so severely compromised from the dirty, over-crowded, and stressful battery cage conditions that prevent them from exercising, cleaning themselves, perching, and escaping from the aggression of dominant cage-mates that they are unable to adequately fight off diseases? Or is this policy necessary because crowding tens of thousands of hens into a single shed creates a potential powder-keg of death that would be ignited by the introduction of any contagious disease? Or is it a combination of both of these scenarios?

Whichever situation it is, they all sound horrible for the hens. It certainly is a far cry from the hens I have seen at animal sanctuaries, where people can go and visit animals without taking extensive biosecurity measures. Of course, the hens in these situations have plenty of fresh air; sunlight; soil to dustbathe in; and ample space with which to exercise, groom themselves, and foraging for food all of which helps them maintain a healthy immune system. Furthermore, the flock sizes are small enough so that chickens could establish a peck order thereby helping prevent fights amongst them and should one become sick, he or she could be isolated from the healthy hens. Sick hens also receive individualized veterinary attention helping them on their road to recovery. It should also be noted that eggs laid by hens at sanctuaries do not need to be pasteurized or thoroughly cooked to prevent food poisoning, as is the case with a large percentage of the eggs that come from battery cage operations today.

Second, you mentioned in your May 3rd letter that denying entrance to people who follow your biosecurity policies is a " long-standing policy shared by the overwhelming majority of egg producers in our industry nationwide." This raises even further questions for us. Is this policy possibly a cover the industry uses to conceal from the public how they treat their hens? Does the industry know that the public would be offended to see God's creatures treated so contrary to the way He intended? Does the industry fear the public outcry that would result when they learned that animals with bones and muscles are crowded into such tight quarters that they are unable to exercise or stretch those muscles without bumping into their cage mates? Does the industry worry about the public recognizing the obvious injustice when they see that innocent hens in battery cages are provided worse living conditions than those of convicted murders and rapists who are in prison?

Please understand that providing us with a tour of your facility would help us dispel these nagging concerns and questions which the continued denials are causing. So, for the third time, we respectfully request a tour of one of your battery cage facilities. As always, we are more than happy to follow your biosecurity procedures at our own expense. Please respond, in writing, by May 31, 2000, with the address of one of your facilities where we can have a tour, and the dates which you would be willing to provide us a tour of this facility. Thank you.

Your May 3rd letter stated, "Michael Foods will continue to adhere to all federal, state and local guidelines regarding flock welfare." Let me make this clear, we are not questioning your adherence to these guidelines regarding hen welfare, we are questioning whether those guidelines adequately protect the physical and psychological health of hens. In our opinion, compliance with inadequate guidelines is still inadequate. This is why we are seeking answers to our specific questions regarding your treatment of hens.

Your May 3rd letter also stated, "The other matters raised in your correspondence are matters that relate to an industry, not to a specific company. We suggest that any further correspondence regarding these issues be directed to industry trade groups and/or the USDA." Because your letters are so brief and overlook our direct questions, we can't help but read into comments like these. Now correct me if I am wrong, but this suggestion appears to be an admission that the information we have about battery cages operations is true. This information includes:

* Battery cages prevent chickens from engaging in basic natural behaviors that are fundamental to their physical and psychological well being. Attempts to stretch their wings, exercise, perch, fly, dustbathe, sunbathe, scratch, and escape dominant chickens are totally frustrated by the battery cage system.

* Sick and injured hens do not receive individualized veterinary care. Battery cage sheds often hold tens of thousands of hens. The sheer number of birds prevents sick and injured hens from receiving individual veterinary attention. Therefore, the diseased hens are forced to languish until they are killed or die on their own. These unfortunate animals are neglected to death. This practice runs absolutely contrary to the humane and ethical treatment of animals.

* Part of a hen's beak is cut off without the aid of pain killers. The stress and frustration of living in a battery cage, and the crowded cage space which prevents chickens from fleeing one another, result in increased fighting between cage mates. This fighting can have fatal consequences. Therefore, it is a common practice for the egg industry to cut off part of the hens beaks to prevent deaths from the stress-induced fighting. However, this mutilation in itself is painful and disfiguring. We believe it would be far more humane to give the hens the space they need to engage in their basic, fundamental behaviors. This would not only prevent the stressful conditions that cause such intense and deadly fights, but also remove the need for the painful beak mutilations.

* Hens are deprived of food for up to fourteen days and water for up to three days to induce a molt. The industry conducts forced molts because hens lay more and larger eggs afterwards, but the dehydration and starvation impairs many of the hens' immune systems and many die as a result. Because the practice was deemed cruel and increased the incidence of salmonella in eggs, it was banned in Great Britain in 1987.

* Battery cages are enclosed in sheds, and it is common for the manure from tens of thousands of hens to be stored below the building for months at a time. These stock-piles of manure attract flies and rats, and cause the hens breathing-air to be full of noxious gasses which are harmful to them. Confined hens are unable to move, which prevents them from choosing cleaner air to breathe, therefore it is the caretakers responsibility to ensure they have plenty of fresh air.

Despite your apparent admission to the above stated facts, we realize that not all battery cage operations are the same. If any of these statements regarding battery cage facilities do not accurately represent your operation, please clearly articulate, in writing, how your facilities differentiate from this information by May 31, 2000. Once again, thank you.

Your suggestion that we share our concerns with egg-industry trade groups will be implemented, however, that does not in any way, decrease our interest in the way you treat your hens. It is our belief that a company like Michael Foods is responsible for its own actions. The principles of accountability and personal responsibility not only apply to individuals, but also to corporations. It should not be difficult for a corporation with ethical practices to explain and/or justify their behaviors to the community at large. We feel this principle of corporate accountability justifies our desire to continue dialogue with you. However, there are additional reasons for why we wish to continue corresponding with you.

First, you acknowledged in your April 20th letter, "We [Michael Foods] adhere to, and often establish, the best-practices of the egg industry" (emphasis mine). This can only mean that you -- one of the largest egg producers in the U.S. and the world leader of egg products -- have a significant say in what industry standards should be and are, which only gives us further legitimacy in sharing our concerns with you since you have the power to improve the industry s hen welfare standards.

Second, regardless of your size and importance within the egg industry, no one is forcing you to only meet the minimum standards of care -- especially if those standards are found to be horribly cruel. You certainly would not be violating any laws by providing hens better conditions such as more space, comfortable bedding, perches, sunlight, fresh air, or individualized veterinary care.

Third, Michael Foods' April 24th news release announced: "record net earning for the first quarter of 2000. Net earnings for the first quarter increased 13% to $9.5 million." Therefore you have the financial means to provide more care to hens should that be the only responsible thing to do.

So for these reasons above, we will continue our dialogue with you. Therefore, we ask once again that you please respond, in writing, to the following questions (which were originally in our April 24th letter to you) by Thursday, May 31, 2000. You will be happy to see that these questions are not matters that relate to an industry, rather they are specific questions about your company and its policies and opinions. So please answer them appropriately. Thank you.

1. How do you respond to concerns that the battery cages you use frustrate or prevent hens from engaging in basic natural behaviors (including: stretching their wings, exercising, perching, dustbathing, preening, sunbathing, breathing fresh air, escaping from dominant hens, and scratching) that are fundamental to their physical and psychological welfare?

2. Your letter mentions that Michael Foods has "a veterinarian." According to your website, your subsidiary, M.G. Waldbaum, has 12 million hens laying eggs with operations in Minnesota, Colorado, and Nebraska. Are we to believe that one veterinarian is sufficient for maintaining the health of 12 million hens who are located in three different states?

3. You letter states, "We adhere to, and often establish, the best-practices of the egg industry." What are the specific "best-practices" that you established regarding the humane treatment of hens?

4. Besides Sparboe, what other companies does Michael Foods purchase eggs from for sale under the Crystal Farms brand name?

5. Does your subsidiary, Pappetti's Hygrade Egg Products, also raise hens?

6. Part of being a good steward toward the animals in your care, is taking responsibility to see that your suppliers, the chicken hatcheries where your hens come from, and the slaughterhouses where you dispose of your post-production chickens meet the same standards of care that you would provide them should you be running those businesses. Which hatcheries and slaughterhouses do you do business with, and what efforts have you taken to ensure that they meet Michael Foods' high standards of animal care?

Thank you in advance for taking our concerns seriously and responding to them in a timely manner. We look forward to hearing from you soon. Take care.

Sincerely,
Freeman Wicklund
Executive Director

July 13, 2000
Gregg A. Ostrander
President and CEO Michael Foods, Inc.
5353 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 324
Minneapolis, MN 55416

Dear Gregg Ostrander,

Greetings. I am writing to once again express Compassionate Action for Animals sincere interest in continuing dialogue with you and Michael Foods on the treatment of hens at your intensive confinement battery cage facilities. However, we have still not received a response from the letter we sent you on May 18.

Please consider this letter your reminder to respond to us. Seeing as you have already had nearly two months to respond, we would appreciate receiving your response in writing by July 19, 2000. Thank you. Our letter had two main requests of you:

Arrange a tour for us of one of your battery cage facilities. Please provide us with the address of the facility you would like us to see, and the dates and times which you would be willing to provide us a tour of it. As always, we are willing to follow your biosecurity procedures at our own expense.

Answer our questions. In case you have misplaced our previous letter, the questions have been restated below:

2. Your April 20 letter mentions that Michael Foods has "a veterinarian." According to your website, your subsidiary, M.G. Waldbaum, has 12 million hens laying eggs with operations in Minnesota, Colorado, and Nebraska. Are we to believe that one veterinarian is sufficient for maintaining the health of 12 million hens who are located in three different states?

3. You letter states, "We adhere to and often establish, the best-practices of the egg industry." What are the specific "best-practices" that you established regarding the humane treatment of hens?

4. Besides Sparboe, what other companies does Michael Foods purchase eggs from for sale under the Crystal Farms brand name?

5. Does your subsidiary, Pappetti's Hygrade Egg Products, also raise hens?

We look forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you and take care.

Sections

Personal tools

Negotiations: Full text of letters