New Zealand Pork’s new initiative to introduce a ‘100% New Zealand Welfare Approved Pork’ label is designed to increase sales, not animal welfare, says SAFE campaign director Hans Kriek.
After last year’s Mike King expose of cruel factory pig farming, NZ Pork, with its back against the wall, promised to label its products according to production methods and carry out compulsory animal welfare audits of its farms.
“Both promises turn out to be complete rubbish,” says Hans. “The so called ‘animal welfare’ audits are simply a ploy to allow farmers to use the ‘100% Welfare Approved Pork’ label. Farms will be audited against the current pig welfare code – the very code that allows the cruel use of sow crates and fattening pens. This means that all farms that abide by this code will pass the audit and will be allowed to call their products 100% welfare approved! Needless to say that the industry has broken its promise to label according to production method, so consumers will still be kept in the dark as to whether sow stall, farrowing crates or fattening pens were used or not.”
Sadly the SPCA has provided input in the development of this nonsensical audit. SPCA chief executive Robyn Kippenberger said the agency opposed the use of stalls and crates.
“By sitting at the table, we may not get the sows out of stalls faster, but at least they will be better looked after while they are there,” Kippenberger said.
However SAFE feel this position is disappointing and will result in consumers being mislead over deceptive labelling.
“I believe the SPCA’s involvement is disappointing and alarming. There is no doubt that NZ Pork will use the good name of the SPCA to promote its label, and this may see many people unwittingly buying factory farmed pork believing that it is SPCA approved,” says Hans.
The true colours of NZ Pork were revealed when SAFE obtained a copy of their submission to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee under the Official Information Act. In their submission, NZ Pork calls on NAWAC to allow the ongoing use of sow stalls for five weeks, and farrowing crates for six weeks per pregnancy cycle.
“This means that sows would be confined to a crate for at least half their lives – a clear breach of the Animal Welfare Act,” says Hans.
The stubborn insistence of NZ Pork to keep its cruel sow stalls is in strong contrast to developments taking place in the Australian pig industry. Rivalea, Australia’s largest pork producer, is phasing out the use of sow stalls for its 45,000 sows (as many sows as the whole New Zealand industry combined) by 2017.
Rivalea managing director, Paul Pattison, said the expensive move was based on commercial reasoning. “There is no point trying to defend a production system which, in the eyes of the consumer, is indefensible.”
“Rivalea makes a mockery of NZ Pork’s claims that New Zealand pigs enjoy better welfare than their Australian counterparts,” says Hans. “By refusing to move with the times, the New Zealand pig industry will be the maker if its own demise.”