The Issues

Current Campaigns

AVMA Reform Campaign

The AVMA has repeatedly failed to take a stand against egregious animal cruelty, including the force-feeding of birds to make foie gras, and the prolonged confinement of breeding pigs in two-foot wide metal crates. In addition, they have opposed legislation that would end the slaughter of American horses, as well as legislation that would mandate the labeling of cloned animal products.
Click on the issue below to find out where the AVMA stands:

Gestation Crates -- Veal Crates -- Foie Gras
Horse Slaughter -- Cloning -- California’s Prop 2

AVMA Maintains a Weak Position on Gestation Crates
In July 2005, the AVMA revised its policy, which had supported gestation crates -- (two foot wide metal enclosures where breeding female pigs are confined for most of their lives --), acknowledging that these intense confinement systems cause animal welfare problems. Despite this, however, the AVMA is not advocating a shift away from gestation crates until other systems are "economically viable". Instead of being a forerunner in humane standards, the AVMA has been used to validate cruel factory farming practices. When Smithfield, the multi billion dollar pork giant, announced in January, 2007 that it is phasing out gestation crates on humane grounds, hard liners at the National Pork Producers Council pointed to the AVMA's policy on gestation crates as a way to justify these cruel confinement systems and discourage industry reform.
The current AVMA policy on gestation crates identifies some animal welfare concerns and recommends that improvements be made. While admitting that gestation crates “restrict movement, exercise, foraging behavior and social interaction”, the AVMA has not called for an immediate ban. 

AVMA Needs a Stronger Policy on Veal Crates
In July 2008, the AVMA House of Delegates voted for anew policy on veal calf housing. The new policy states: "the AVMA supports a change in veal husbandry practices that severely restrict movement, to housing systems that allow for greater freedom of movement without compromising health or welfare."  
However, this new policy does not call for the elimination of veal crates and therefore falls short of creating real change for crated veal calves who are confined inside 2-foot-wide enclosures for their entire lives. Usually chained by their necks, these animals cannot even turn around, stretch their limbs, or lie down comfortably.  A resolution proposed by animal advocates which supports a move away from veal crates was referred the AVMA Animal Welfare Committee for consideration in the fall of 2008.
AVMA Executive Vice President Ron DeHaven, DVM, has said "We should have realized, years ago, that veal crates have to go; the practice is simply not defensible in the court of public opinion." Read his full statement here.

AVMA Takes No Stand on Foie Gras Cruelty
During their annual meeting in 2005, the AVMA considered two proposals that would discourage the inhumane force-feeding of birds to make foie gras (translated from French as "fatty liver"). In the production of foie gras, a pipe is shoved down the birds’ throats and huge quantities of food are pumped in, causing their livers to swell up to twelve times their normal size. As their physical condition deteriorates, the birds can scarcely stand, walk, or even breathe. The birds experience tremendous injuries and high mortality rates due to this process.  Sadly, the AVMA refused to take a stand against this egregious cruelty.

At the 2005 annual meeting, the AVMA's House of Delegates (HOD) rejected the 1998 Report of the Scientific Committee on Welfare Aspects of the Production of Foie Gras in Ducks and Geese as being out-dated. They also ignored requests by their own veterinary members and staunchly refused to take a stand opposing the practice of inhumane foie gras production. The issue was defeated by the AVMA HOD due to opposition by the American Association of Avian Veterinarians, the American Association of Avian Pathologists, and the New York State Veterinary Medical Association. These organizations claimed that their recent visits to foie gras farms in New York revealed proper care of birds. However, in previous, unannounced visits to the same farm, ducks were videotaped in diseased and filthy conditions.

In May 2006, Farm Sanctuary submitted hundreds of petitions to the AVMA, signed by veterinarians, supporting a resolution to declare animal welfare to be a higher priority than economic considerations. The signed petitions were submitted for consideration before the House of Delegates at the AVMA's annual convention, held in Hawaii in July 2006. At this 143rd annual meeting, attended by over 10,000 veterinarians, the AVMA refused to place animal welfare over the economic interests of agribusiness. Instead, a last minute resolution of their own was drafted to counter Farm Sanctuary's proposal. The AVMA's resolution, which passed unanimously, supports the "responsible use of animals for human purposes." But, it does not define "responsible" or whether certain inhumane practices would be considered "responsible." At the July 2006 convention, the AVMA also again denied a resolution to "oppose the practice of mechanical force feeding of ducks and geese to produce foie gras because of the adverse effects on the birds' health and welfare." Both denials reaffirm the AVMA's alignment with agribusiness and its defense of cruel factory farming practices to the detriment of animal welfare.

Read what one veterinarian writes on how the 2006 AVMA convention reflects the AVMA's entrenched historical alliance with agricultural producers.

At its annual meeting in 2007 the AVMA House of Delegates once again declined to take a position on foie gras.  The House of Delegates considered two resolutions, one which called on the AVMA to oppose foie gras production and one which asked the AVMA to approve foie gras production. Neither resolution was approved.  Notably, a delegate from Vermont, Dr. Thomas L. Munschauer, supported the resolution against foie gras, saying "I have a problem, as a veterinarian, endorsing any practice that creates disease in an animal."  Dr. Michael L. Whitehair, House of Delegates chair, specifically noted that the AVMA has no welfare guidelines concerning foie gras production.

AVMA Defends Horse Slaughter
On July 25, 2006, Bonnie Beaver, DVM, who is Past President of the AVMA, testified against the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act (H.R. 503). On behalf of the AVMA, she defended the slaughter method which kills horses who are processed and sold as meat. She also insisted that the transportation of horses to slaughter facilities is highly regulated by the USDA.
However, Farm Sanctuary and other animal protection organizations petitioned the USDA in 2005 to amend its antiquated animal transport regulations - the federal "Twenty-Eight Hour Law". Although 95 percent of all animals transported in the United States are shipped by truck, the USDA's regulations implementing the Act were interpreted to only apply to trains, not trucks - until the petition was finally granted in September 2006. Farm Sanctuary has also documented the prevalence of U.S. highway accidents involving transported farm animals.

Current AVMA policy still supports the transport, slaughter, and processing of horses for meat. The AVMA also opposes H.R. 6598, the Prevention of Equine Cruelty Act of 2008. This important federal bill will stop the transport and slaughter of American horses intended for human consumption. Each year more than 100,000 American horses are hauled over the border to Mexico and Canada where they are brutally slaughtered for meat. If the AVMA truly cared about the welfare of horses, they would support this humane legislation.

Animal Cloning and the AVMA
Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved cloned animals and their products for the U.S. food supply, state and federal legislation has been introduced to mandate the labeling of cloned animal products. The public currently has no means of knowing whether meat, milk, or other food products are derived from cloned animals since we have no reliable tracking and labeling of these products. Despite the fact that labeling can only help the public make informed food choices, the AVMA has come out against labeling measures. The AVMA has stated their opposition to the Cloned Food Labeling Act and to efforts to prohibit clones in Organics. See the AVMA’s recent press release here.

Instead of undermining measures to label cloned products, the AVMA should consider the serious animal welfare implications of animal cloning.

The majority of cloning attempts fail, but of the 5% of cloned animals who make it, a shockingly high percentage suffer from heart, kidney, and liver disorders, as well as other deformities and even early death. Currently, the AVMA does not have an animal welfare policy on issue of cloning animals for food. 

AVMA Worked Against California’s Prop 2, The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act
California's Prop 2, a modest measure to provide farm animals with enough room to stretch their limbs, turn around and lie down comfortably, passed with the support of 8 million voters. Unsurprisingly, the AVMA is worked against California’s Prop 2. In contrast, the California Veterinary Medical Association, more than 600 California veterinarians, more than 150 California veterinary medical students, the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, the San Diego County Veterinary Medical Association, and nearly 70 veterinary hospitals and clinics pledged their support. An article by Dr. Eric Barchas, DVM, explains how the AVMA’s opposition to Prop 2 damages its credibility. Read more about this landmark initiative.

It is critical for veterinarians and others to urge the AVMA to adopt sensible policies that promote animal welfare instead of economic priorities. The veterinary profession should take a stand against factory farming cruelty, rather than defend it.

Return to AVMA Reform homepage