By Andrew Heck
Editor’s note: Andrew Heck is past Editor, Canadian Hog Journal. He can be contacted at ‘andrewtheck@gmail.com.’
If COVID-19 taught us anything, it’s that paranoia provides great leverage for influencing people.
Stoking fear, creating division and using coded language as a means of strengthening ideology is nothing new, but when it comes to animal rights activism, it’s recently found a dangerous home in the House of Commons with Bill C-293: An Act respecting pandemic prevention and preparedness.
The bill was introduced in June 2022 by Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, (Liberal) Member of Parliament (MP), Beaches-East York (Ontario) – a small but densely populated constituency near downtown Toronto. As Bill C-293 approaches second reading in the Senate, there is concern that it could become law, despite advocacy efforts by stakeholders across Canadian livestock and meat value chains.
In principle, Bill C-293 is inoffensive enough: Who wouldn’t want to prevent a pandemic? Digging deeper, the bill includes some spurious clauses that single out livestock and meat. While activists are no strangers to using every opportunity to take shots at the industry, their tactics tend to fall flat more often than they’re successful. Even more frequently, these initiatives lack teeth, from a legal standpoint. Bill C-293 is a noteworthy and unfortunate exception, and its passage could further legitimize efforts to end Canadian livestock production while adopting an official government stance against meat consumption.
COVID-19’s association with livestock
With the spectre of COVID-19 likely to linger for years to come, members of the public and policy-makers alike have begun unpacking what went wrong and how issues can be mitigated in the future. That’s a perfectly reasonable response, albeit incredibly challenging.
The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes Wuhan, China as the source of the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus responsible for the pandemic. While no single origin has been pinpointed by experts, one theory suggests that Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market – commonly called a ‘wet market’ – may have been ground zero for the virus’ spread to humans, as many of the first cases were identified in workers there.
Wet markets are characterized by their eclectic mixture of fresh goods for sale, including wild-harvested and farm-raised meats. These markets remain the dominant source of food for Chinese consumers, despite growing competition from modern supermarkets. While the sale of live wildlife is technically banned in Chinese wet markets, it’s estimated that 38 wildlife species were sold for food or as pets at Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market around the time that SARS‑CoV‑2 emerged. The lack of food safety and biosecurity standards, combined with cramped quarters for people, food and animals, certainly would’ve provided the perfect breeding ground for zoonotic disease transmission.
However, looking at Canadian intensive livestock production, there’s no comparison – something that activists would like everyday Canadians and politicians to overlook, in favour of conflating the situation in overseas wet markets with the highly controlled conditions in Canadian hog barns and pork processing facilities.
How does Bill C-293 impact hog production?
Bill C-293 puts forth recommendations for various federal government ministries, including Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC), related to preventing and preparing for pandemics. These recommendations cover everything from public health services and vaccines, to foreign affairs, to wildlife management and land-use planning, to livestock production and meat, including:
(2) The pandemic prevention and preparedness plan must…
… (i) reduce the risks posed by antimicrobial resistance,
(ii) regulate commercial activities that can contribute to pandemic risk, including industrial animal agriculture,
(iii) promote commercial activities that can help reduce pandemic risk, including the production of alternative proteins…
The back-to-back clauses read like an instruction guide for pushing the Canadian food system away from livestock and meat. In isolation, these clauses address three separate but intrinsically connected ideas, regarding antimicrobial use, animal health on-farm and food consumer choice. This is no accident, but the context is likely lost on those outside the industry. More importantly, it’s possible and necessary to set the record straight.
Hog producers are already reducing antimicrobial use
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is indeed a serious issue. While the positive effects of responsible antimicrobial use (AMU) are known, the potentially harmful impacts of AMR on human health are being more closely monitored by global authorities and industry stakeholders.
Starting in 2018, the federal government stepped up its efforts against AMR by requiring veterinarians to prescribe all medically important antimicrobials – those with human health implications – for use in livestock. This legislative change wisely relied on the existing relationships between producers and their herd vets, rather than a heavy-handed approach.
Between 2018 and 2021, Alberta Pork analyzed data from 20 farms, with a total of 7,500 sows, to create an AMU pilot benchmark for the provincial industry. The results of this three-year study were shared widely at the time, showing an overall decrease in most types of AMU. The study has received renewed funding to 2027, to expand its scope. This not only contributes to the fight against AMR, but it highlights just one example of the industry’s proactive approach to the problem.
Other studies have been taking place across the country, with research organizations like Swine Innovation Porc (SIP) continuing to support projects that aim to reinforce the judicious use of antimicrobials when they are needed, and to encourage their reduction through practical means. The most compelling aspect of this transition, for producers, is the cost saving associated with using fewer production inputs. With that in mind, it’s clear the industry is moving in the right direction, with progress quickly being made.
Hog production is already federally regulated
When it comes to “regulat[ing]… industrial animal agriculture,” the clause is over-simplified to the point of being deliberately misleading.
The National Farm Animal Care Council’s (NFACC) Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs, for instance, outlines recommendations and requirements for various aspects of production, including herd health management, humane treatment and disease response.
The small but vocal minority of critics argue that the code is insufficient to ensure adherence, and that code itself doesn’t do enough to protect pigs; however, when it comes to adherence to the code, the industry itself is largely responsible for its implementation. That fact concerns extremists who would rather see an end to animal agriculture through any means – even if politically authoritarian – rather than its constant improvement, which tends to be industry-led.
NFACC’s purpose is laid out in a black-and-white fashion: “NFACC’s scope concerns national animal care issues related to farmed animals, with a primary focus on animals raised for the production of food for humans.” From the outset, anyone opposed to this purpose is going to take issue with the organization. While the industry and activists will have to ‘agree to disagree’ on NFACC’s core mandate, it’s worth noting that NFACC’s membership includes representation from various sectors, including the industry itself, veterinary professionals and even animal welfare groups.
Likewise, Canadian Pork Excellence (CPE), covering more than 99 per cent of all hog production in Canada, stipulates best practices meant to create conformity in production, including animal health. CPE is the veterinary-audited quality assurance certification that producers need to be able to sell their hogs to slaughter facilities licenced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA). Without CPE certification, a producer’s options to market pigs would be greatly diminished, which would be counter-intuitive, business-wise.
Moreover, even beyond the extensive programming and monitoring that voluntarily cover disease prevention in Canadian hog production, anyone concerned with potential mistreatment should refer to their provincial authorities’ existing legislation on animal care, which is backed by enforcement powers that are usually delegated to humane societies and SPCAs. Some SPCAs have drifted increasingly toward stronger activist sympathies, while others, like the Alberta SPCA, continue to foster goodwill, understanding and partnership with the industry, which provides the best outcomes for all.
Playing favourites and deceiving consumers
Perhaps the most outrageous of the three clauses of concern is the “promot[ion]” of “alternative proteins.” Understandably, these proteins are an alternative to meat, which comes from livestock. That’s obvious, but explaining it this way truly distills its intent: Bill C-293 is asking the federal government to side with plant-based protein manufacturers, at the expense of livestock producers and meat processors.
Not only is this particular clause fundamentally flawed, but it speaks to the growing ideology that meat isn’t good for you. Another prominent example is the newest version of Canada’s Food Guide, published in 2019, which conspicuously snubbed animal-based foods. As most nutritionists and dieticians will tell you, that’s simply not good for your health, yet the rhetoric persists, disguised as policy reform. Perhaps most importantly, it has nothing to do with pandemic prevention or preparedness, making its presence in the bill all that more ominous and inappropriate.
Will Bill C-293 come to fruition?
Bill C-293 is a reflection of its time, in terms of the COVID-19 fallout, food fads, and the federal political atmosphere. Canadians’ sense of public health is heightened, some are beginning to reduce or cease consumption of animal-based foods.
Bill C-293 demands that a comprehensive plan be developed and presented in Parliament within two years of its passage. The text of the bill concludes with a proposed amendment to the Department of Health Act, which would appoint a Public Health Agency of Canada official as the coordinator responsible for implementing the plan.
This is where the specifics end and uncertainty begins. The appointed coordinator would have significant power over the livestock industry and meat processing to make sweeping decisions, under the right circumstances, that could be incredibly disruptive to the Canadian pork value chain.
Is all hope lost? Not even close. Bill C-293 represents activist propaganda flying under the radar of politicians who, like all of us, understand the importance of pandemic prevention and preparedness, but that doesn’t mean tearing down a prominent industry that is responsible for feeding tens of millions of Canadians and even more abroad.
Even if passed, farming groups and concerned Canadians should continue to fight hard against legislation that unreasonably discriminates against livestock and animal-based foods, for the sustainability of their livelihoods and the ability to continue supplying high-quality, delicious, nutritious protein to a hungry world. In the end, we also need to be mindful of food security, sustainability, affordability and safety.
