Hope for the Mega Meat Manufacturers?

Abuse of human rights can occur anywhere, even next door.  Unfortunately, this appears to be true for Canada's next door neighbour, the USA and the Mega Meat Manufacturers.

The Mega Meat Manufacturers are the Supply Management Mafia in Canada for poultry, and the US mega corps like Tyson. Perdue, etc.

Human Rights Watch Inc. ("HRW") is a 30 year old NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) charity that is based in United States and around the world.  Instead of focusing their efforts outwards around the world at social justice hotspots in the Third World, in 2004 HRW had to focus their attention on the US meat processing industry, resulting in their 184 page report:

BLOOD, SWEAT, AND FEAR: Workers’ Rights in U.S. Meat and Poultry Plants.

HRW's 2004 report can be compared to a similar publication back in 1906, just 98 years earlier.

The Jungle (also available as a free pdf or Ebook) was written in 1906 by Upton Sinclair.  This is a novel solidly based on facts about recent immigrants to the US who were working and being abused in the Chicago meat packing plants.  What really got citizens riled up though, were the unhealthy and despicable practices used by these all powerful meat packing mega corps so as to maximize their power and profits.

Upton Sinclair was surprised at the public expressing greater concern for the quality of the food placed on their plates by this devilish system, rather than the people who were virtual slaves being used and abused to get that meat to the consumer's dinner plates.  He later said,

"I aimed at the public's heart, and by accident hit its stomach."

It appears that the food industry didn't learn its former lessons, and the same needs to occur again.  This time, HRW has a facts-based report that may have missed both the heart and the stomach.

Based on what I know from personal experience in poultry processing plants in Canada, and the research that I have done for Canada and US processing plants, the report seems believable, is based on objective evidence, and is collaborated by all the other evidence I have.

However, will it cause or contribute to launching the necessary changes in the industry?

Since the report came out in 2004, 10 years have passed.  Has there been significant change?  Based on a Google search, the HWR report is mentioned on a labor law university course, a workers compensation website, and is cited in a few books.  Not exactly a steam roller of change.

It appears that the report was thrown into the public's lab, but nobody became a champion of the cause.  The author was a consultant hired by HRW, so I assume they went on to finding other projects to pay the bills.  HRW has hundreds of projects to concern themselves with, and I assume that some are even more dire and higher priority in the grand scheme than a few thousand lost souls in the US meat packing industry.  Should HRW have dropped everything else to focus all of their efforts onto this one single issue, until completion?  Was it reasonable to expect Tyson, Perdue, and the other mega corps to change their evil ways from one flashbulb that popped, flooded the scene in brilliant light, then quickly faded back to black?

What would Upton Sinclair have advised, or done differently if he had been asked to do the 2004 report by HRW?

Most important of all for this Blog about the small flock poultry system vs. Supply Management mega corps in Canada, is this a worthy cautionary tale that we can learn from?

I believe Canadians can learn vicariously from the dismal experience in the US poultry and meat packing business.  Here is what I suggest:

1. Organizations can only abuse people (whether customers, workers, suppliers, or others) only so much.  Multiply the severity, duration, and publicity of the abuse together as a measurement of the ticking abuse bomb.


2. Based on the measurement method in Item #1, I estimate that we have less than 20 years before this meat industry abuse bomb suddenly goes off at grave consequences for the meat mega corps.   In case this encourages the meat mega corps to blindly continuing on their current path for another 19 years, I caution them that these issues tend to change abruptly all at once (see The Tipping Point) so there is no time to lose with correcting these chronic, latent, and mis-guided plans and defects.


3. There are viable alternatives to the current methods employed.
   
   
   "For what will it profit a man
   if he gains the whole world
   and forfeits his soul?
   The Bible, Book of Mathew, 16:26


4. If the meat mega corps are unwilling or unable to change their evil ways (which is highly likely, for they don't believe their world could suddenly collapse under their feet), the citizens, consumers, and abused workers will need to act on their own to create a solution.


5. Remember, once a viable option begins to threaten the status quo, the mega meat manufacturers will attack, denounce, ridicule, or attempt to highjack the solution and destroy it before it hurts them.  Everyone will need to adequately protect themselves, as well as the solution.


6. Because of the high capitalization required, the lack of competition due to overlapping oligopolies, and regulatory capture enjoyed by the mega corps, the people will have to fight a guerrilla chicken war against the mega corps.  Frontal assault is not a winnable option.


7. There is likely 1 or more disgruntled chicken grower in every county who is currently, or previously been abused by the mega corps.  Being disgruntled most likely means they were blacklisted and are no longer a supplier to the mega corps.  Ask them to grow chicken for the local community on the basis of CSA (Community Supported Agriculture), or some similar basis.  With a direct to customer model, that disillusioned farmer will be able to earn significantly more with a community based model, than what they previous earned through the mega corps.


8. Once the chickens are ready for harvesting, do a community-based chicken harvest similar to Connecticut's mobile abattoir system, or an on-farm processing similar to Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms.
9. Enjoy your safe, nutritious, locally produced, affordable, and sustainable chicken

In another similar video, Joel Salatin relates how typical factory farm chicken that is processed through an USDA approved high speed abattoir typically has 3600 CFU (Colony Forming Units) of bacterial contamination on the chicken when sold in retail grocery stores, even after dunking and spraying with numerous noxious chemicals to limit bacteria contamination.

Joel has had his operation as shown in the video tested, and he came in at 133 CFU's; which is just 3.69% of the heavy industry mega meat manufacturing results.

While 0.0 CFU is the ideal, Joe's method certainly seems better than what I've seen of the high speed abattoir lines.  As an example of high speed abattoirs see: http://en.engormix.com/MA-poultry-industry/health/articles/intervention-strategies-reducing-salmonella-t1780/165-p0.htm   To me, this is pretty gruesome; no wonder mega meat manufacturers typically have 3,600 CFU

Joel's system is what we recommend for Canadian small flockers.

In speaking to Max Bert here on Manitoulin during a recent farm and abattoir tour of his place, he has had similar experiences and similar CFU results to Joel Salatin for his small, hands-on abattoir here on Manitoulin Island, Ontario Canada.

It won't be easy, nor will it occur over night, but we can leave the mega meat manufacturers to stew in their purulent chicken dunk tanks, and create a better way for ourselves.

Hate vs. Frustration

Do Small Flockers hate all Supply Management farmers?

There was a recent posting in Better Farming that questioned the principles of Small Flockers on this important issue.

Here is my response, with a few added ideas:

You raise an excellent point about how someone can hate SM farmers, yet be filled with compassion for all Canadians who are adversely affected by SM's monopoly and price gouging.

I would suggest that it is more frustration than hate.

For example, in 1980 Mothers Against Drunk Driving ("MADD") was started in California by Candice Lightner after her 13-year-old daughter was killed by a drunk driver. Before MADD started, most everybody laughed about "Joe" or "Jill" tying one on last night, and the crazy results that occurred. It has taken great effort to re-educate chronic drinkers, governments, judges, police, etc.  MADD claims that drunk driving has been cut in half since their founding. So in 34 years, we only have 50% of drunk drivers convinced and converted to a new way of thinking.

Today, drunk drivers are no longer seen as the life of the party.  Few drunk drivers get nominated as Citizen of the Year. There is growing frustration and intolerance towards their continued anti-social behaviour.  In some cases, especially when a love one is killed or maimed by a unrepentant drunk driver, it goes as far as hate.

Is that where SM farmers want to go in the near future, where they are seen in their community as an unacceptable, anti-social person because they're a member of SM that preys upon the weak and poor?

For the first 530 years (ie. 1500 to 1930), tobacco was a pillar of all communities, and provided great wealth creation. Around the 1930's, we started to realize the risks and costs of smoking, and that the tobacco industry was a parasite on society.  This realization has been steadily growing for more than 80 years and counting.  During that time of growing awareness, Big Tobacco continuously denied the health and financial impact of smoking, justifying themselves every which way they could imagine. In spite of this resistance, we have dropped from 42% smokers in 1965 to 16.1% as of 2012.

Today, many smokers feel like second class citizens when they want to practice their smoking habit.  Working for Big Tobacco, in spite of the higher than average wages they pay to try and attract good people to these marginalized employers, is no longer seen as a plum job.

Is that where SM farmers and others in the SM industry want to go, where sometime in the near future they'll be ashamed to  honestly answer when somebody asks them, "So, what do you do for a living?"

I can understand that SM farmers will fight tooth and claw to hold on to such a sweet deal for themselves.  That's just human nature. 

I accept and admit that if I were in their SM shoes, I would likely fight hard to carry on in my beneficial, social parasite manner just as they do today.  As such, I therefore assume I am no better or worse as a person than anybody else in SM.  We're just starting from different sides of the same issue.  We need to listen and understand each other's point of view.

I hope that everybody on the SM side of the issue will eventually be intrigued by the growing wave of neighbours, friends, fellow farmers, and the government who are less and less in support of SM.  Perhaps there are some SM individuals who are strong enough today to reach out and understand the reasons for the growing wave of people who are against SM.

If SM refuses to listen or change, there will be minimum movement in society due to their resistance and current strength.  That means the pressure behind the SM dam will get greater and greater as the anti-SM water rises each day.  Eventually the strength of the SM dam will be overcome.  There will then be catastrophic failure of the SM dam, and many SM farmers will be personally destroyed by the sudden release of the built up pressure.

As an alternative to this worse-case scenario, I suggest that it would be far better for SM to recognize the problems with SM, and be willing to work with all stakeholders to find a smooth, effective transition from the old, arcane, fossilized SM system, to something that works better for everybody.

This choice belongs to SM.

Each day, SM can choose to listen to others, or refuse to change.

However, if SM continues to choose resistance and ignoring, one day soon that pig headed choice will be ripped from their grasp by the sudden rupture of the SM dam, which will destroy all.  Choose wisely, SM.

Glenn Black
Small Flock Poultry Farmers of Canada 

Bullies & Evil

Last night, I had a dream.  I dreamed that I had met somebody who had read some part of this bilious Blog.

I was pleasantly surprised.  One out of 7 billion souls of this planet reads your Blog and you think you're famous.  I asked them what they thought about the issues discussed here.

They said I had raised some important issues, but they felt I had done so in an improper manner.

I asked for clarification.

They continued by saying that I was acting like a bully, had stooped to insults, name calling, and personal attacks on many good people, hurting them and their good name.  They accused me of inflaming the situation, rather than helping to improve it.

Bullying?  Wikipedia defines "bullying" as the use of force or coercion to abuse or intimidate others.  Intimidation is intentional behavior that would cause a person of ordinary sensibilities to feel fear of injury or harm.  Coercion is attempting to getting somebody to set aside their free-will choices in favor of the will of others.  Coercion is mutually exclusive of "free choice".

Is it not the Small Flockers and the public who are being bullied by the Chicken Mafia?  It is truly the ultimate hypocrisy and psychological projection to push the crimes of the Chicken Mafia onto their victims.

I asked if this self-confessed Blog reader happened to be one of those "good people" who was the focus of this Blog's attention (ie. one of the Chicken Mafia).

"No.", was their response, then they continued, "...but that doesn't matter.  When you attack somebody, you might as well attack everybody.  Everybody is hurt by verbal attacks, even innocent bystanders."

That gave me pause.  I've been thinking about these dream-sourced comments all morning.  Is my dream part of reality?  Does my dream show a guilty subconscious?  Or is my dream God-sent insight, calling me to reconsider my Blog and my prior actions against the Chicken Mafia?

I can understand that some people might worry that the gun-sights of this Blog might swing their way after the Chicken Mafia has been fully dealt with.  Perhaps these worriers have been involved in similar evils to the Chicken Mafia.  Perhaps they are fine upstanding citizens who just worry.

I admit that the tone of this Blog has been very pointed, and has been extremely critical of the quota-bearing chicken factory producers, major chicken processors, chicken feed suppliers, both the Federal and Provincial Governments, and the Supply Management ("SM") system in general.

Is it improper for me to criticize others for their actions?

Wikipedia provides the following guidance:

The most basic "rule-of-thumb" of criticism which psychologists usually recommend is:

"Respect the individual, focus the criticism on the behaviour that needs changing - on what people actually do or actually say."

I agree with this basic rule, as stated above.  I am aware that many or most people, including me, might have fallen into the SM trap, had our roles in life been reversed. I assume that most people who are in the Supply Management system work hard, and generally perform their role in the system as that system has defined it.  To me, it appears that it is the Supply Management system itself, not the people who work the system, which is the root cause of the problem.  It is the Supply Management System which is mis-guided and poorly defined, and this causes the unacceptable consequences of which this Blog complains.

As bad as the Supply Management rules are, I have discovered that there are other people who knowingly cheat on those SM rules, going to even greater evil than what Supply Management permits.  What should we say about those people and their greater evils?

If anybody in the Supply Management system wants to reform their actions (and/or their inactions) so that it resolves some or all of the grievances complained about here, I will quickly recognize the change, and state my appreciation for their reformed behaviour.  I will then move on the the outstanding issues that have not yet been fixed; letting bygones be bygones.

Criticisms of things that cannot be changed (eg. a person's height) is pointless and unacceptable.  Attempting to impose the preferences of one person onto the rights, free choice, and preferences of others is not acceptable.

Both this Blog, and Supply Management should respect the equality of rights by everybody.

If you feel I have failed these principles at any point in this Blog, please be kind enough to point out my error, and I will promptly correct it.

Failing that, this Blog's criticisms and assertiveness for the rights of Small Flockers and the public in general stand as stated herein.  If the edgy tone in this Blog causes angst, frustration, or discomfort by those who have unacceptable behaviours in the Supply Management system, those persons are free to relieve their negative emotions by changing their behaviours for the better.

Epictetus (Greek philosopher, AD 55 - 135) believed:

"Suffering occurs from trying to control what is uncontrollable, or from neglecting what is within our power.  As part of the universal city that is the universe, it is our duty to care for all our fellow men. Those who follow these precepts will achieve happiness and peace of mind."

and

"Where is the good?
      In the will.
Where is the evil?
      In the will.
Where is neither of them?
      In those things that are independent of the will."                Discourses of Epictetus,

If the Chicken Mafia don't want to change their evil ways, they might want to seek psychological counseling to deal with their increasingly chronic negative feelings created by this Blog.

Why Change Now?

As recently posted, OFPMC has cut the throat of CFO and the Chicken Monopoly by reducing the FCR by 16.3%.

This is obviously a very significant change.

Why make this change?

Why do it now?

One reader of this Blog, Jim Rohman suggests:

"...reform of marketing boards will come only if and when they are in dire straits with no choice."

Winston Churchill (or Israeli Diplomat A. Eban, depending on the source cited) once said:

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else."

Perhaps these wayward bureaucracies operate on the same principles referred to in the above famous quotation.

I think there are overwhelming piles of anecdotal evidence to support the theory that bureaucracies will only make painful changes when they have no other choice.

If that is so, then why quit the stonewalling?  Why admit that the FCR was way out of whack?  Why did OFPMC force a significant change at this time?

CFO says it was Association of Ontario Chicken Processors (AOCP) who complained.  Note that neither this Blog nor any of the greatest critics of the Chicken Mafia were given the nod by CFO as causing or contributing to this significant change.

CFO would have you believe that the chicken industry is healing itself.  CFO wants everybody to believe that a small bookkeeping error in the FCR inadvertently occurred a long time ago.  CFO also wants us to believe that sharp-eyed chicken industry insiders found this miniscule slip, and promptly got it corrected.

Unfortunately, the facts don't fit CFO's rationalization and cover story.

The FCR "error" has existed for more than 10 years.  There have been legions of people squawking about CFO's phony FCR for a very long time.  I and this Blog have joined the chorus just since Feb. 2013, making even more noise about this evil FCR.

Somebody at CFO had to propose that phony FCR ten years ago, justifying it to both the chicken processors and the government oversight regulators.  Was this phony FCR true at any time in the 10 years it was in effect? 

How did CFO slip these fraudulent assumptions past everybody back then?

How did CFO keep that lie alive and well all this time?

Perhaps there is a true criminal mastermind lurking in the shadow, within CFO, or using CFO as a facade behind which they can hide as they plot and scheme against Canadians.

To think that they would go to such lengths for just a few billion dollars of reward.

So why not continue to stonewall?

If CFO says AOCP generated the complaint that initiated the change, can we believe them?  Does AOCP have enough clout with OFPMC or the Ontario government; enough lobbying and arm twisting behind the scenes that OFPMC was forced to act at this time?

After all, AOCP is an industry group of dozens of corporations, each of which has millions to billions of dollars sales each year, and owned by billionaires.  Who would think that they would have any influence on the powers that be?

 I can't wait to find out how this chicken soap opera finally ends.

What changed first, SM or the Tariff?

Last June, Susan Mann of Better Farming wrote about Al Mussell's published report (Sr. Research Associate at George Morris Centre in Guelph ON) suggesting that Supply Management ("SM") didn't need to be scrapped, we just need to allow greater access to the Canadian markets to satisfy our trade partners under WTO (World Trade Organization) and/or TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership).

The article says that foreign commodity producers want access to Canadian markets, the second largest in the TPP negotiations.  I agree.  However importers don't have access to all of Canada's market.

For chicken as an example, foreign chicken can enter Canada at an import tariff cost of 0% (NAFTA) or 5% (WTO) under TRQ. TRQ quantities are limited to just 7.5% of the total kg consumed in Canada.  After that miniscule market access is exceeded, importer must pay a 285% import tariff cost.

100% of the 2nd largest market is significant, and worth going after under TPP and WTO.  7.5% of the second largest market is more trouble than its worth, for you need bilingual labels, learn all of the intricacies of the Canadian market, form a Canadian supply chain, etc.

All of the above keeps Canadians paying for the most expensive chicken meat prices in the world.

The farmers get some of that gravy as COP (Cost of Production), but the vast majority of those price gouging profits go to others up & down the food chain (ie. chicken feed companies, processors, supplementary processors, distributors, retail, etc.).  Gravy train for everybody, except the consumer, who pays for it all.

If the 285% import tariff was reduced, more foreign chicken would soon enter Canada, and everybody would take a hit to their gravy train.  Eventually, as everybody in the chicken supply chain got hungrier, retail prices would drop.  Anybody working under the arcane rules of SM would be at a considerable disadvantage, and they'd start to drop like flies, or be bought up by foreign suppliers for pennies on the $, because an asset caught in SM's web of fossilized bureaucracy is close to worthless as the import tariffs drop farther & farther.

Dropping import tariffs without first removing SM is a good way to kill the entire domestic chicken production system.

I think we need food security first & foremost, which means we want to ensure we can feed ourselves, even when imported chicken is no longer available.



Same logic applies to all other SM commodities.

That means we must keep the 285% import tariffs on chicken until something else is changed first.  I wonder what that something else will be?  Do you think it might be SM?