More from our inbox:
To the Editor:
Re “See the True Cost of Cheap Chicken” (Opinion Video, nytimes.com, Feb. 10):
Thank you for laying bare the nightmare that is the U.S. chicken industry — from the abominable animal suffering caused by fast-growth genetics to the debt servitude that the industry imposes on farmers. The chicken industry has been “humanewashing” — using unregulated label claims like “all natural” and a network of misleading “animal welfare” certifications — for years, exploiting consumers’ good will to line the pockets of chicken industry executives.
Sadly, even consumers willing to pay $6 a pound for chicken from farms more ethically run are unlikely to find it at virtually any grocery store. Truly sustainable, regenerative and higher welfare farmers can’t compete on price with industry products that pose as something they aren’t.
A recent survey conducted by Farm Forward shows that when American consumers see these labels, they believe that animals have been raised on pasture, not on factory farms. Pasture-raised is the standard of animal welfare consumers expect — but the chicken industry doesn’t come close to meeting that expectation. Why would it, when it’s more profitable to humanewash?
Andrew deCoriolis
San Francisco
The writer is executive director of Farm Forward.
To the Editor:
“See the The True Cost of Cheap Chicken” is a propaganda piece whose goal seems to be to make meat more expensive, as articulated by the president of Mercy for Animals near the end: “Chicken should be closer to $6 a pound, not $1 a pound.” This comes even as Americans are dealing with the highest inflation in 40 years.
Mercy for Animals spends millions of dollars a year imposing its agenda on consumers — which is eliminating meat from the diet and encouraging a vegan lifestyle.
The proper care of our chickens is not only an ethical obligation, but also makes good business sense. Companies do everything possible to help farmers raise the best, healthiest chickens. The ultimate success of the company depends on the success of the farmer.
Choosing to enter into a partnership with a chicken company helps farmers manage their risk, share costs and earn a guaranteed and steady source of income. The system has helped tens of thousands of families on small farms stay on the farm who otherwise may have had to get out of agriculture altogether.
Mike Brown
Washington
The writer is president of the National Chicken Council.
To the Editor:
In the video we met Greg Perry, a longtime chicken farmer in Georgia. The pain in his eyes was undeniable.
“Regardless of how tough you think you are inside mentally and physically, you eventually just get worn down,” he said about his decades growing chickens under the contract model, which is how 95 percent of chicken is produced in the U.S. In this model, farmers have almost no control over their own operations — but are responsible for the debt, dead birds and waste.
Today, just three companies control about half of the chicken market. The industry skillfully uses this hyperconsolidation to its advantage — squeezing both the farmers and consumers’ food budgets to drive record profits.
It’s clear that more action is needed to ensure fair competition. State attorneys general could act now to require that chicken contracts be published publicly and protect farmers’ freedom of association, lifting a veil of secrecy that hinders farmers from negotiating fair contracts.
Contract chicken farmers — at least those willing to risk retaliation for speaking out — have been calling for change for years. It’s past time we listen.
Patti Anderson
Baltimore
The writer is senior program officer for food system policy at the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.
A ‘Polite Canadian’ Has a Few Choice Words
To the Editor:
As a meek, mild-mannered and polite Canadian, I respectfully take umbrage at characterizations of those of us who live in the North American attic. We are, by a vast majority, moderate and peace-loving. The chaos is startling and scary, and an anomaly to our very nature.
Which brings us to you: the very big elephant in our room. While we thank you for flooding our media with Ed Sullivan and Michael Jackson, we were frankly pretty upset with Donald Trump, the alt-right and your cultural penchant for confrontation and violence.
If you would kindly prevent the export of guns to our country (most firearms that are used in crimes here were illegally smuggled in from the United States), we would be very appreciative. Please ask your citizens to stop sending millions of dollars to fund illegal occupations in Canada.
Finally, we suggest to Americans who want to come to Canada to foment hate and division: Stay home. We Canadians would be grateful. Thank you and sorry.
Marty Cutler
Toronto
Reading Classics Aloud
To the Editor:
Re “D.C. and Joyce — Both Incomprehensible” (column, Sunday Review, Feb. 13):
Like Maureen Dowd, I had a copy of “Ulysses” lying around and could not bring myself to read it. Instead of taking a course, I asked a few friends if they’d like to read it aloud with me. When we finished, we thought that maybe we should read “The Odyssey,” and then “The Iliad.”
Thirty-five years later we’re still reading aloud. Some of our members have died, and others have joined in. Now we’re reading Joyce’s “Dubliners.”
Linda Schechet Tucker
Hastings-on-Hudson, N.Y.
