Letter: Doing good and making money are not mutually exclusive

Imagine confining a dog in a cage so small she can barely move an inch – for her entire life. The thought of such cruelty is heartbreaking, and thankfully, would be a crime in all 50 states. But what if the victim were a pig or chicken? The grim reality is that since World War II, this kind of extreme confinement is business as usual for animals on industrialized farms.

Fortunately, more and more shoppers are now paying attention to where their meat comes from and how farm animals are treated. According to a 2023 Merck study, animal care/treatment is “extremely or very important to 66% of consumers”, and a 2023 study from FMI (the food industry trade association) found transparency is “extremely important” to many shoppers, with 74% saying they want “values-based information such as animal welfare.” State laws, too, have been passed banning extreme confinement practices such as “battery cages” and “gestation crates, including in Florida, Arizona, Ohio, Michigan, Colorado, Oregon, California, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

Given public sentiment today it’s reasonable to ask how the companies we buy from fare when it comes to realizing their corporate social responsibility promises to transition away from dated animal welfare practices that many consider cruel.

Many food companies in the U.S. have made progress in improving animal welfare, while others fall short and lack true policy commitments. We’re seeing these discrepancies even in our own backyard with major food companies such as McDonald’s and Aldi – one a leader, the other trailing in animal protection.

While the pork industry seems to regularly dismiss public outcry, McDonald’s does not. Their animal welfare adviser, the renowned Dr. Temple Grandin, said, “Basically, you’re asking a sow to live in an airline seat ... We’ve got to treat animals right and gestation stalls have got to go.” In 2012, McDonald’s made headlines by announcing a phase-out of pork procurement from operations using gestation crates. The company’s latest report indicates that 91% of its pork comes from group-housed facilities where pregnant pigs are free from cages most of their lives.

Meanwhile, Aldi’s policy appears vague and noncommittal. In 2019, Aldi updated its animal welfare policy to say that “We expect our suppliers to pursue the elimination of crates for pregnant sows in favor of group housing.” Unfortunately, expectations can go on in perpetuity, and five years later, that online policy has yet to be updated and specific goals stated. Strikingly, in Aldi’s home country of Germany, the parent company does not source any pork from operations confining pigs. Yet, for some reason, its U.S. division has no such standards.

Other grocery chains, however, continue to make progress demonstrating that good corporate citizenship can include thoughtful animal welfare standards: In 2023, Costco reported that 97.3% of its fresh pork is group housed. Kroger reported its goal to source 100% of fresh pork from suppliers using group housing systems by 2025. And walk into a Trader Joe’s store and you’ll find pork labeled “crate free.”

In Illinois, we are seeing some of the best and worst ways food companies address farm animal welfare. Let’s hope the companies lagging behind start reflecting on their practices and work to change their ways, proving that doing good and making money are not mutually exclusive.

Jessica Chipkin

Huntley