AFF Sentinel Vol.5#31
The Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) has been
telling one story on its website implying wrong-doing by a U.S. meatpacker and
then telling a different story, - - and issuing cautionary statements on its
lack of evidence -- when speaking in person or in correspondence. The story
involved an HSUS investigation of a New Mexico auction market.
The story posted on the HSUS website and the
extensive video on the site was carefully constructed to leave the clear
implication that the meat packer - specifically named in the story and
the video -- had used downer cattle in its school lunch production. HSUS was evidently
itself concerned the implication was damning and over-the-top,
because HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle now claims he issued a disclaimer not
contained in the story or the video at his live news conference in Washington.
But the news release and video ran for days on the
HSUS website before Pacelle ordered them taken down. AFF did not attend the
live news conference in D.C. - we lack Pacelle's $130 million dollar budget --
so we used HSUS' published statements & video. Only on the sixth day
after the conference did Pacelle withdraw his website material, after having admitted
in writing to industry leaders for nearly a week that he could
not link the cattle in the video or any others to the Texas packer named in
his story and video.
Now, in a story published on Cattlenetwork.com,
Pacelle said, "I specifically and unambiguously said that our
investigation did not track the cows once they left Portales, and that we had
no knowledge of what happened to the downer cows that had been sold at
auction," apparently referring to his news conference. Funny no such
language appeared in his website story or video. Funny that HSUS members
who checked the site to see what their dues were accomplishing didn't read
or hear Pacelle's admission. Funny, he must think stretching his story is okay
because, after all, HSUS is trying to help animals.
There is no doubt that the HSUS video showed
cattle being mistreated and that should not have happened. But HSUS
footage of a handful of animals over months deserves perspective -- the
nation's cattle producers, auctions and packers care for and handle millions
of animals every week without any abuse. While regrettable, the situations
in the video are in not typical of animal care in the nation's cattle
and market operations.
Attacking someone's business reputation without
proof is not the kind of tactics HSUS should be using on a company. Pacelle
pulled the classic TV courtroom stunt, where the trial attorney gets something
stated in the courtroom that is not true or unproven and the judge instructs
the jury to disregard the statement. But the statement sticks with the
jury. Pacelle told one story on his website and another to the national media.
Only at the news conference does he claim a cautionary aside to disregard
his lack of evidence - but asks the media to help him anyway to
convince USDA, Congress and the public that SOMETHING needs to be done.
In his rebuttal story, while claiming that he
admitted he had no evidence on the Texas packer and he had, therefore,
agreed not to mention the packer's name, he did give a town and state,
making it easy for any reporter to figure out. Arrogantly, in the rebuttal
story, he managed to give the packer's name seven different times.
Responsible bit, that.
One of Pacelle's parting shots is rich.
"It's time for the industry to stop micro-
analyzing HSUS's actions and start holding outliars within the
industry accountable," he wrote.
Well, we are going to hold HSUS accountable to
the truth. Their actions in this case have been inexcusable,
especially given their resources in personnel and budget and their self-righteous
attitude. It's not "micro-analyzing" or "sniping"
to demand proof before allowing the construction of serious and elaborate
implications against a company to go unchallenged. HSUS credibility should
be important to their members and the media. The end does not justify any
means. And, "whether or not we mention a packer," does
matter. If it doesn't, why is Pacelle bothering to try to clarify his
actions and defend his credibility? Why has the footage naming the
packer been removed from the video on the website now?
Knowing HSUS constantly uses emotions and psychology
to motivate people, we have to wonder if Pacelle really doesn't know how to
spell "outlier" or if he intentionally misspelled it "outliar"
to further sully the reputations of the nation's animal agriculture people.
Yet by using the term outlier - "an extreme
deviation from the mean" by one reference -- he has contradicted himself.
In the original story, he said, "No longer can anyone ... claim
that the abuses we documented at Hallmark were an aberration or isolated
case." Yet he himself has labeled as outliers the handful of
abuses uncovered at a few auctions and one packer, out of the thousands of
auctions and packers and tens of millions of cattle handled every year.
If Pacelle wants to "correct the
record," as he said in this latest story, we suggest he explain the
discrepancies and contradictions.
The industry does need to continue improving its
animal handling. It needs to do it on its own. And the constant call for more
legislation Pacelle espouses is overblown overreaction.
Email your comments to the author {mos_sb_discuss:08} |