In conclusion, AMI said that granting the petitions would result in unnecessary waste with no identifiable benefit.
“If a non-ambulatory pig or veal calf could become ambulatory with rest or warming, if they can be handled in a way to minimize discomfort, if economic incentives exist to promote good care, and if these animals can pass ante-mortem inspection, is it really appropriate, ethically, morally, and otherwise, to turn livestock that have the potential to nourish people into little more than a waste disposal problem? In destroying these livestock, a farmer’s livelihood is also harmed dramatically,” AMI says. “The only beneficiaries under this scenario are the petitioners, who will be able to claim ‘victory’ to their constituents, a collection of persons whose underlying purpose is to oppose animal agriculture and meat consumption.”
Dopp says that while the official public comment period is technically closed, it’s not too late for concerned famers to contact the agency with additional comments.
“It’s almost impossible to say when FSIS will make their final decision on these requirements,” he concludes.