One week later, June 9, the news story broke in the afternoon via Twitter and news radio at approximately 3:40 p.m. By 6 p.m., the full news story on the farm and the alleged abuse of dairy cows was the lead story on the CTV dinner hour news.

The broadcast story included just under a minute of the activist video footage. It was enough. The story named a large national processor as the receiver of the farm’s milk. By 9 p.m. that night, the processor posted its first press release expressing its concerns for “high standards in animal care,” and “seeking clarity from the BC Milk Marketing Board.”

This large processor, like all processors in a “pooled milk” system, had no control over which specific farms supplied its raw milk.

The next day, a media storm and consumer outrage erupted. As busy as the BC Milk Marketing Board’s phone lines were, the email and website traffic to the board was even busier. And it was angry. The issue began as a local one but quickly became national and international in nature.

As soon as the large processor publicly called on the BC Milk Marketing Board for “clarity” in its first press release, media and consumers wanted to talk to the board directly about milk pick-up, regulations and, of course, animal welfare.

As a regulator, the board could not react emotionally to the images or to the public, media and processor pressure – facts were needed.

The board’s primary mandate is to maintain the orderly marketing of milk – ensuring pick-up and delivery of milk and meeting British Columbia’s milk supply demand. Moreover, the board had no clear authority over animal welfare.

What was clear was that the board did not have to debate the issue of animal care ever; the mistreatment of animals was, and is, absolutely unacceptable.

Furthermore, there was an unspoken agreement among the board’s members that even though something may not be your responsibility, when it becomes apparent that action needs to be taken, you step in because it is the right thing to do.

This action was fundamental – not just because of the board’s role as a regulator responsible for orderly marketing but because we care about the treatment of cows.

Once the board confirmed the SPCA orders regarding animal care, milk pick-up at the farm was suspended. The board knew it was on uncertain legal ground, but it also knew it had to be assured that the cows were being well taken care of.

It was a question of ethical responsibility, not just jurisdiction. Next, the board requested veterinary reports regarding the state of animal care at the farm. After reviewing the first of several veterinary reports, which showed that the farm was taking necessary and appropriate actions concerning animal care, the board resumed milk pick-up.

However, after the board was satisfied by independent veterinary reviews that assured the farm was taking appropriate actions to address all issues of animal welfare, the processors remained firm in their refusal of the milk.

There was no clear process in place to determine how the board would require a processor to resume accepting qualifying milk, where it has previously refused to do so, based upon consumer reaction to animal welfare.

The board’s focus was on the proper treatment of dairy cows and orderly marketing. To that end, the board developed a process for independent inspections of the farm and technical oversight by an animal welfare steering committee, so that everyone could be confident adherence to animal welfare standards was being maintained.

Following additional veterinary reports that assured again that appropriate animal welfare standards were being adhered to on the farm, processors resumed accepting the milk from all producers in the milk pool. It was clear from the media and consumers that destroying quality milk was the wrong thing to do; it would not help the cows.

The subject of animal abuse, under any circumstances, is emotionally charged – and the horrible video images were extremely difficult for everyone.

This made the initial responses of consumers very emotional, often irrational and much of the time directed personally at members and staff at the board. This public vitriol was not just directed at the board, however. It was directed at everyone along the dairy value chain, from processors to dairy producers across the country.

And everyone, it seemed, wanted to do the right thing. The difficulty was that while everyone agreed dairy cows needed to be well taken care of, there was no consensus on how to assure that and what steps should be taken and when. Nearly all agreed on the end, but none seemed to agree on the means – at least not during the crisis itself.

In other words, the board’s key challenge throughout the crisis, as a regulator, was to remain focused on restoring orderly marketing while navigating the new terrain of animal welfare authority in an emotionally charged and very public landscape.

The good news is: The Dairy Farmers of Canada (DFC) voluntarily adopted the National Farm Animal Care Council’s (NFACC) Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Dairy Cattle in 2009. The really good news is: Everyone was at the table when the NFACC standards for the code were created, including the SPCA, processors, dairy farmers and consumers.

Furthermore, the DFC’s proAction Initiative includes an animal care “pillar” that uses the NFACC Code of Practice as the standard to be incorporated across Canada.

Still, the public’s trust in the dairy industry had now been severely shaken and this, in turn, had eroded the social license to operate.

Voluntary was no longer an option; mandatory was now called for by retailers, consumers and processors. Indeed, when the board held a BC dairy industry stakeholders’ meeting on animal welfare on June 26, the board was directed to quickly provide mechanisms for monitoring and mandatory compliance with the code in its consolidated orders.

On Aug. 1, the BC Farm Industry Review Board (BC FIRB) directed all commodity boards in British Columbia to adopt enforceable animal welfare standards in the interest of maintaining orderly marketing.

After further consultation with stakeholders, the board approved amending Order 16, which made the on-farm requirements of the code mandatory effective Oct. 1.

The detailed policy development of how that will be implemented is yet to be fully worked out; the board is currently consulting with stakeholders.

The goal is to ensure that all British Columbia dairy producers are fully familiar with and compliant with the code. However, the board will act immediately and firmly regarding any confirmed severe violation of the code. The most serious offences could result in the suspension of a dairy producer’s license.

The circumstances that got us here cannot be changed, and mandatory animal welfare standards are here to stay. Indeed, nearly all aspects of industrial food production are under very close scrutiny everywhere. This is not news to farmers.

The recommitment of the dairy industry to animal welfare standards will help prevent any further erosion of the public’s trust, and the work ahead – ensuring that dairy cows are well taken care of – will help rebuild it. The social license granted to farmers to operate is not a guarantee. Trust must continually be earned.  PD

Vicki Crites is the policy and communication manager for the BC Milk Marketing Board. She can be reached by email.

This article is an abridged version of an article written for and presented at the Western Canadian Dairy Seminar, held in Red Deer, Alberta, in March 2015.

• James C. Byrne
• Chairman
• BC Milk Marketing Board