Another PETA response

March 14, 2002

Brian Dowling
Safeway, Inc.
5918 Stoneridge Mall Rd.
Pleasanton, CA 94588-3229

2 pages via fax: 925-467-3230

Dear Mr. Dowling:

As you surely must realize, we've been monitoring Safeway's remarks, both to the media and in your form letter, with regard to this issue. We have some comments and would be interested in your responses. We continue to hope that this campaign will be short-lived—that Safeway will stop supporting the most egregious abuses of animals in the meat, dairy, and egg industries.

First, we appreciate the fact that you no longer claim to be monitoring your suppliers with regard to the humane treatment of animals. You should not have told the San Francisco Chronicle that you were (2-6-02). We also note that you've stopped saying that "it's in Safeway's best interest for its suppliers to treat its animals well because that makes for better quality meat" (Contra Costa Times, 2-7-02). As you know, there is no animal welfare expert who would support you in this statement.

However, some of your statements continue to lack credibility and to put you at risk for a class action lawsuit, should we identify consumers who trust your word and buy your products as a result, believing them to be humanely produced.

You continue to tell reporters that you see no evidence of widespread abuse (e.g., Dallas Morning News, 2-26-02).
We don't believe the informed consumer will agree that it's not abusive to cram eight hens into an 18-inch-by-20-inch wire cage, to cram mother pigs into stalls the size of their own bodies, or to starve hens for two weeks in order to shock their bodies into another laying cycle. Again, these are industry-wide practices, and all of your suppliers engage in them, as you well know but seem to hope the consumer will not realize. The fast-food giants agree that they're abusive practices, as do most Americans. And of course, it is an issue of our campaign that you refuse to audit your farm and slaughterhouse suppliers and thus have not found evidence of widespread abuse.

You continue to tell reporters and the public (in your form letter on this topic) that we should take our concerns to the USDA (e.g., Pasadena Star, 2-27-02), even deceiving some journalists (and the public) about the USDA's mandate where farmed animal welfare is concerned.
In direct contradiction of your false "prepared statement" to the Pasadena Star, the USDA does not have inspectors for farms, transportation, or bird slaughter. You know that the USDA does not presently apply its standards to farms or transportation and that it does not monitor bird slaughter at all. You also know that humane slaughter standards for pigs and cows are rarely enforced. McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's are doing their own audits, and Burger King petitioned the USDA on this issue.

You talk in your form letter about animal welfare and have started to tell the media (e.g., Dallas Morning News) that you buy from the same suppliers as your competition.
This assertion is disingenuous and is obviously designed to deceive. If you were beating your child and I told you to stop, it would be silly of you to say, "Well, my friend beats his child." That is a morally bankrupt defense. McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's are no longer willing to support this abuse. Safeway apparently is.

In your form letter and interviews, Safeway states, "We require our suppliers to meet all government safety and sanitation requirements and to guarantee the safety, nutrition, and wholesomeness of their products. We routinely visit our supplier facilities to ensure that they meet these standards."
This sentence is grossly misleading. It does not mention animal welfare or the fact that Safeway would do nothing even if one of your suppliers were sending every single animal, kicking and screaming, through the process of throat-slitting and having their limbs chopped off and their skin ripped from their backs. You do not inspect for humane standards, and that's our point. This is morally reprehensible.

In your form letter, Safeway states, "We have shared PETA's concerns about animal welfare issues with our suppliers and asked that they take the necessary steps to further ensure that their animals are treated humanely."
We appreciate that you've taken this step, but it's like the government sending me a letter asking me not to speed. Without police to enforce speed limits, such a request would mean nothing. It is a fact that McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's have required improvements of their suppliers.

Finally, Cheri Myers told both Alaska Public Radio and the Anchorage Daily News that Safeway "is also concerned about animal welfare" and then, in the next breath, that if we have evidence of mistreatment, we should contact the USDA.
Safeway can't have it both ways: Do you care enough about animal welfare to do something about it, or don't you? Is it our obligation, not yours, to monitor your suppliers? How extraordinary that your job requires you to support with deception what you know to be the gratuitous abuse of animals.

The bottom line: What PETA is asking will not shut Safeway down; what we're asking will keep Safeway in the good graces of the animal welfare and animal rights communities; and what we're asking is the very least Safeway can do to reduce gratuitous animal abuse. This better treatment of animals is what the general public wants, and more and more consumers will learn of these developments as time goes on; it is also what Safeway claims to agree is important.

Please call me at 202-244-3709 at any time. I would be pleased to work out an amicable end to PETA's Shameway Campaign.

Sincerely,

Bruce G. Friedrich
Senior Campaign Coordinator

cc: Steven Burd, Safeway
Karen Brown, FMI
Dr. Steven Gross, Steven J. Gross & Associates
Dr. Temple Grandin, Colorado State University
Terrie Dort, NCCR