Past experience has taught the men and women of the agriculture industry to eye animal welfare commitments from major corporations with an apprehensive eye. Nestlé’s latest commitment appears to be no exception to this rule. In an Aug. 21, 2014, press release, Nestlé announced its partnership with NGO World Animal Protection and renewed its commitment to farm animal welfare. Nestlé has 7,300 suppliers who act as middlemen between Nestlé and producers. Consequently, this initiative affects tens of thousands of dairymen around the world.
A more detailed explanation of Nestlé’s plan can be found in the appendix to the Nestlé Supplier Code in the document entitled “Nestlé Commitment on Farm Animal Welfare.” The document discusses such practices as dehorning, disbudding, tail docking and castration as well as the mandatory use of analgesics, which are not currently labeled for use in livestock animals.
These new regulations will be enforced through mandatory audits. Until this point, the company’s animal welfare audits have been voluntary. To further compound the problem, much of their wording is vague, leaving many wondering what the next step is for the industry.
The issue of dehorning or disbudding cattle is perhaps the biggest concern for the dairy industry. With only a handful of the industry’s commercial cattle being polled or naturally hornless, dehorning and disbudding practices are necessary to the industry, both from a human and animal safety standpoint.
“To prevent dehorning – that clearly is a problem,” Tom Overton, University of Cornell professor and Pro-Dairy director, says. “That’s a problem from the animal welfare standpoint; that’s a problem from a human welfare standpoint. Frankly, I would be surprised if Nestlé were to go to the point that dehorning not be allowed.”
Because of the way Nestlé has structured one of the sentences within the new document, questions have been raised as to whether all of these practices are still allowed provided the animal is given anesthetics and analgesics, or if only castration requires the use of anesthetics and analgesics and all the other practices are banned altogether. According to Chris Galen, senior vice president of communications at National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), this is not the case.
“The Nestlé statement on painful procedures was, perhaps, not worded as precisely as it could have been,” Galen says. “The actual Nestlé standards for dehorning/disbudding and tail docking are similar to the FARM program. For dehorning, the FARM program recommends disbudding by 8 weeks old with appropriate use of analgesics/anesthetics in consultation with a veterinarian.”
Disbudding, says Amy Stanton, a University of Wisconsin – Madison dairy science assistant professor and animal well-being specialist, is the preferable method of horn removal from an animal welfare point of view. It is much easier on the calf, and they recover more easily.
She would, however, like to see a caveat written into Nestlé’s document that allows for calves to be dehorned by a veterinarian. This method would not be standard procedure for the operation but would allow for the occasional calf who was missed, not fully disbudded or could not be disbudded prior to the eight-week mark for one reason or another.
Tail docking, a common practice in the dairy industry in order to keep cattle cleaner, is another key issue discussed in the document. However, Stanton says numerous studies have been conducted on this practice, and they have yet to show that it improved the cleanliness of the cow. The FARM program is also against tail docking and has pushed for the practice to be phased out by 2022.
At the very least, Nestlé’s new commitment will require producers to use anesthetics and analgesics when they castrate their calves. Although this is recommended currently, producers are concerned because the FDA has yet to approve any analgesics for use in livestock animals.
This means that a veterinarian must sign off on it as an off-label use before any analgesic can be administered to a livestock animal. The veterinarian and producer would then be held responsible should any negative consequences result from it. Galen says it is for this reason that the FARM program strongly encourages a close veterinary-client-patient relationship (VCPR) with veterinary supervision.
Stanton hopes having more companies requiring and industry associations encouraging the use of analgesics in livestock will put the pressure on to get an analgesic on the market that is labeled for livestock use.
Also in the company’s new animal welfare commitment is a general statement that could also be of concern. It reads, “Our first focus is the responsible use of antibiotics, in line with World Organization for Animal Health’s (OIE) guidance, and the phasing out of the use of growth promoters.”
Overton points out that while their statement regarding antibiotics should not be a problem for producers, growth promoters such as somatotropin and rbST have been deemed safe by FDA and may prove to be an important tool in the future of agriculture.
“Both the use of antibiotics and the use of somatotropin or rbST come under FDA oversight,” Overton says. “I think the FDA continues to take appropriate steps to ensure that any therapeutic use of antibiotics in the dairy industry does not compromise antibiotic resistance with human use of antibiotics.
It is in a dairy producer’s best interest to minimize antibiotic use on the farm. In terms of somatotropin or rbST, it is a safe, proven technology – safe from both the standpoint of the cow and also food safety. Its use is with FDA approval, and I think responsible use of technology in the dairy industry is going to be important as we continue to think about feeding our population.”
As was mentioned previously, Nestle’s previous animal welfare audits were voluntary. However, Matt Jones, the senior director of audits and assessments at Validus, says it is common for companies to require them.
“This is a pretty common practice for retailers and wholesalers. They have the ear of the consumer. The consumer wants to be reassured the food they’re buying is meeting certain attributes. From my understanding, that’s what Nestlé and several others are doing, is setting standards that are meeting those attributes for those consumers buying their products.”
Nestlé declined to comment on the new standards.
In spite of the initial concerns regarding the policy, many are optimistic that in the long run it will prove beneficial for all involved.
“We see a close alignment between the Nestlé policy and the FARM program standards,” Galen says. “As part of the announcement from Nestlé, it seems that some people may have interpreted incorrectly exactly what those guidelines may specify. We’re confident that, at least in terms of Nestlé’s U.S. milk supply, the move toward adopting these protocols is not going to be disruptive to the producer community.”
Stanton is also pleased with Nestlé’s scientific approach to develop the new policy.
“What I was very impressed with is that they have gone back to the OIE and have very much looked at setting standards and regulations that are consistent and based on science rather than just arbitrary decisions,” Stanton says. “They certainly have put a lot of thought into it, and they seem to be willing to really support the farmers. Not just make demands but assist farmers with improving in those areas.”
Others, like Overton, are still a little skeptical.
“They made the comment on their Stakeholder Engagement and Advocacy section that they are committed to engaging with suppliers, farmers, industry associations, governments, international organizations, NGO scientists and other stakeholders,” Overton says.
“I think if they truly do that in a broad-based way, as opposed to leaning too hard into the direction of more NGOs that may have a specific agenda, I think that this could be an overall or to some extent a win-win for the supplier and also the industry … This has the potential to be reasonable, but it all depends on how they put that together.”
Animal welfare continues to be a major subject of debate. Industry experts, producers and consumers are waiting to see how it will unfold. In the meantime, Overton encourages those in the dairy industry to build relationships with those around them.
“One of the keys from a dairy industry standpoint, and I think from a dairy cooperative or supplier standpoint, is to continue to work with the manufacturers,” Overton says. “So when they get shown a video or something like that which may have been produced by a group that may have a hidden agenda, they work in a more broad-based way with people in the dairy industry – with universities or other sources of expertise – to have balance or balanced reactions.” PD
Jenna Hurty is a 2014 Progressive Dairyman editorial intern.
