The AVMA’s sustainability goals can be achieved by having compassion for all species

Photo courtesy of We Animals Media

As the AVMA House of Delegates meets to discuss sustainability, please encourage them to consider the impact of animal agriculture on the environment and public health. To email your delegate, go to AVMA.org and sign in.

Their contact information is on the first page.

Add your name to our Executive Summary

On July 13th-14th, the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) House of Delegates will meet in Denver, Colorado. On the agenda is a discussion about sustainability and the greening of veterinary workplaces. Examples of sustainability discussed include eco-friendly facility design, reducing the use of disposable materials, and recycling. But these changes are insignificant compared to the impact the veterinary profession could have by advocating for a scaling down of animal agriculture.

Unfortunately, corporate interests pose a significant barrier for those who want AVMA policies that advance these goals. Despite 63.1% of veterinarians being companion animal veterinarians while only 5.1% are food animal veterinarians, the animal agriculture and pharmaceutical industries wield undue influence over the AVMA’s positions. The AVMA’s corporate sponsors: Boehringer-Ingelheim, Zoetis, Elanco, and Merck, profit from selling medications for food animals–this corporate stranglehold on the veterinary profession poses a significant barrier to creating a kind, just, and sustainable food production. 

The United Nations predicts a global population of 10 billion humans by 2050. A November 2020 report in the journal Science concluded that strategies to meet climate goals must address our food system, and part of that strategy includes globally adopting plant-rich diets, decreasing food waste, increasing crop yields, and increasing production efficiency. Currently, we feed 36% of crops grown to livestock. Ultimately, only 12% of those calories contribute to the human diet. According to the UN FAO, global livestock production accounts for 14.5% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing direct livestock emissions through advancements in feeding strategies, intensive confinement, and methane capture attempts to mitigate this; however, the transportation of feed and animals, as well as water use and the labor costs of feed production, animal care, animal slaughter, and the land required for animal feed production, pose significant barriers to sustainability and threaten biodiversity. 

Growing food directly for human consumption requires only one-quarter of the agricultural land used today and would cut food emissions and water pollution in half. Most recently, the New York Times revealed that the Colorado River, supplying 40 million Americans, is running low, and 56% of its flow goes to produce livestock feed. Feed, alfalfa, and grass hay irrigation accounts for 23% of all water usage nationally.

While ruminants can use non-arable land for protein production, this requires the grazing of habitats, threatening native flora and fauna, contributing to the spread of highly flammable grasses such as cheatgrass and red brome–ultimately increasing in wildfires. During the 2020 wildfires in Washington, more than 50% of the state’s pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) and 30-70% of the greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) passed away. Yet despite the environmental toll, livestock grazed exclusively produce barely 1% of our global protein supply. If the United States replaced milk and beef with plant-based alternatives, this would free around 700 million acres of land.  

In a July 2023 Viewpoint article in JAVMA, Jacey Cerda and Dr. Tracy Webb point out the loss of 69% of our mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish between 1970 and 2018, as well as the loss of 83% of wild animal biomass due to ecosystem degradation. They point out, “Seventy-five percent of marine fish stocks are fully exploited, overexploited, or depleted.” Over 85% of wetlands have disappeared, and extreme weather conditions due to climate change will worsen these losses.

Animal agriculture also costs us significantly in disease risk as 60% of human infectious diseases come from animals and 75% of all emerging zoonotic diseases. We slaughter nearly 10 billion land animals annually in the United States, and thousands of stressed, genetically similar animals, interfacing with human workers, create the perfect conditions for disease outbreaks and potential pandemics. A February 2022 review in Science, out of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, points out, “High-density livestock operations can serve as an opportune environment for spillover from wild animals into livestock or as incubators for pandemic influenza strains ... Large pig and poultry farms are where the genetic re-assortment needed to source pandemic influenza strains may most likely occur.” They estimate that the cost of taking action to prevent pandemics is 1/20th of the cost of the lives lost due to the disease, and prevention starts with addressing our relationship with animals and the natural world. 

But instead of decreasing our consumption of animal products, the animal agriculture industry marketing has drastically increased our consumption in recent years, with the help of public funding. In 1961, the average per capita meat consumption was only 50.6 lbs per person per year globally. In 2020, that increased to 94.6 lbs. In the United States, that number grew to 264 lbs per person. But the industry wants to instill the habit of consuming more animal products.

During a National Pork Board webinar, Northwestern Professor Mohan Sawhney said, “If you build a habit, something they will do day-in and day-out, you’ve got a great business. Google is a toothbrush. Facebook is a toothbrush…We’ve got to make pork into a toothbrush – not something that’s exotic, that you do occasionally.”  Check-off funded marketing campaigns like “Got milk?” “Beef. It’s what’s for dinner,” and “Pork. The other white meat” has been wildly successful. Recently, the National Pork Board brought in celebrity country singer Luke Bryan to promote pork consumption leading the poultry industry, asking, “Where is the chicken industry’s Luke Bryan?” Animal agriculture receives billions in public funding, but nutrient and fiber-rich commodities have failed to capture their fair share of public funds. Plant-based commodities receive pennies on the dollar compared to lentils, only receiving $1 to every $470 directed towards beef.

The AVMA’s history of prioritizing corporate interests over animal welfare

The Veterinarian's Oath calls for veterinarians to benefit society “through the protection of animal health and welfare, [and] the prevention and relief of animal suffering,” but the AVMA has long supported policies favoring corporate profits and intensive production over the best interest of animals. The AVMA has a pattern of supporting corporate interests over the interests of the animals and veterinarians. They cherry-pick data and elevate to positions of influence those who support a corporate agenda. For example, the AVMA previously condoned starving birds for up to 21 days, a practice known as forced molting until activist pressure inspired change. 

In 2002, for the 4th time, the AVMA rejected a resolution presented by the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights that called for a position statement against forced molting by food deprivation. In 1992, UPC and Illinois Animal Action staged a protest demonstration at the AVMA’s headquarters in Schaumburg, Illinois. Photo by Illinois Animal Action.

The AVMA also supported confining mother pigs in gestation crates, a practice banned in the U.K. In the United States, two-thirds of mother pigs spend 114 days of their pregnancy confined to the 2.5’ x 7’ stalls. The psychological toll of gestation crate confinement manifests as stereotypies–functionless repetitive behavior exhibited by 92.6% of mother pigs confined to gestation crates with 50-75% of their time occupied by “sham chewing,” a response to frustration at not being able to forage naturally.

In November of 2022, the AVMA published an article discussing the U.S. Supreme Court hearing of National Pork Producers Council vs. Ross, the challenge to California’s Proposition 12 passed by 63% of California voters. The new law requires that unprocessed meat sold in California come from pigs whose mothers have at least 24 sq ft of space, thereby no longer allowing confinement in gestation crates. The article mentions the amicus brief submitted by the American Association of Swine Veterinarians opposing Prop 12 but fails to mention the briefs submitted by veterinarians supporting Prop 12, including the brief of Dr. Jim Keen and Dr. Thomas Pool, another brief signed by nearly 400 veterinarians and animal welfare professionals and another brief signed by veterinarians and public health officials.  

In 2008, the AVMA opposed Proposition 2, requiring that farm animals have adequate space to stand up, lie down, turn around, and extend their limbs. A letter published in the New York Times, signed by AVMA Chief Executive Ron DeHaven, says, “Proposition 2 is primarily based on emotion and not on a thorough scientific evaluation of all factors that contribute to animal well-being,” saying that while “Proposition 2 would provide greater freedom of movement, it would very likely compromise other factors necessary to ensure the overall welfare of the animals, especially concerning protection from disease and injury,” failing to explain precisely how welfare is compromised by granting more space. 

In 2006, the AVMA voted to reject a resolution that would “place a higher priority on animal welfare when required to choose between animal welfare and economic considerations." To counter this resolution, the AVMA unanimously passed a resolution supporting the "responsible use of animals for human purposes” while failing to define what is meant by “responsible.” 

The same year, the AVMA also failed to support 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." Because of welfare concerns, the Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Turkey, and the United Kingdom banned foie gras production. The AVMA statement on the Welfare Implications of Foie Gras Production acknowledges that the capture and restraint of birds for force-feeding is stressful, the esophagus becomes inflamed in the later stages, obesity compromises health and welfare, and liver function and blood flow decreases as the liver expands to ten times its standard size. Despite these acknowledgments, the AVMA refuses to condemn this practice. 

More recently, the AVMA opposed H.R. 3355, known as the SAFE Act, which would prevent horses from being shipped across the border to slaughter. Their letter explains how they endorse the policy of the American Association of Equine Practitioners, which states, “The AAEP recognizes that the processing of unwanted horses is currently a necessary aspect of the equine industry, and provides a humane alternative to allowing the horse to continue a life of discomfort and pain, and possibly inadequate care or abandonment.” 

Mass Killing Animals Via Heat Stroke

One of the most shocking revelations has been the AVMA’s sanctioning of cruel heat stroke-based mass killing of animals. The AVMA Guidelines on Depopulation condone the brutal mass killing of animals via heat stroke in emergency situations. This method requires sealing up barns as heat, and sometimes steam is pumped in until the animals slowly die after a prolonged period of suffering.

During the 2022-2023 avian influenza outbreak, officials killed millions of birds via heat stroke. Less barbaric methods are available and listed on a table provided by the Animal Welfare Institute, including high-expansion nitrogen-based foam, which causes much more rapid unconsciousness and death. But, the guidelines neglected to list this method. Other listed options include whole-house gassing with carbon dioxide, container gassing, and suffocation with carbon dioxide foam. While none of these methods are pleasant, they all result in a more rapid death than heat stroke. Unfortunately, they are more expensive, and carbon dioxide was in short supply during the outbreaks. Companies that supply carbon dioxide had to prioritize their contracts with bottlers instead of depopulation, but this didn’t have to be the case. 

At the beginning of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, President Trump used the Defense Production Act to keep the slaughter plants open to ensure meat production continued at the expense of worker health. Enacting the DPA could have ensured the availability of carbon dioxide for animal use. But, with heat stroke-based methods as an option, and a lack of concern about the welfare implications of this method of killing, the USDA did not prioritize less brutal killing methods. 

Who determines killing methods in the first place? The United State Department of Agriculture looks to the AVMA Guidelines to set policy and indemnity payments and cannot use methods not listed in the guidelines. The USDA pays for depopulations and reimburses producers if depopulations are carried out themselves, so ultimately, producers bear no financial risk for disease outbreaks or other disasters that might necessitate the need to kill their animals en masse.

The Intercept revealed a $110,075 grant from the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association was used to fund research on ventilation shutdown at the Prestage Department of Poultry Science, named after Prestage Farms, at North Carolina State University. This highlights how the industry-centered research performed at universities was used as the reason ventilation shutdown plus was placed in the AVMA’s Guidelines on Depopulation, which the USDA then uses to grant indemnity payments back to the industry that funded the research.

Heatstroke-based killing methods came to light in 2020 during the COVID-19-induced slaughterhouse bottlenecks due to worker illness that reduced slaughter capacity.  The industry’s failure to plan for such an emergency meant pigs quickly outgrew their available pen space creating welfare concerns. Their solution was to seal up barns, pump in heat and steam, and watch as the pigs inside slowly suffered a prolonged and agonizing death. 

Veterinarians, horrified that their profession was lending legitimacy to this cruel practice, founded Veterinarians Against Ventilation Shutdown. More than 1,600 veterinarians have signed on to urge the AVMA to reclassify heatstroke-based killing methods as a “not recommended” form of mass killing.

From documents obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request of the USDA-AMS (p. 17). Dinah Peebles, Director of Certification Programs for the National Pork Board, sends out talking points for media, and social media in response to the depopulation of pigs during the COVID-19 slaughterhouse bottleneck. Notice the incorrect use of the word “euthanasia.” Euthanasia refers to the humane ending of the life of one who is suffering. These pigs were healthy, and only suffering because their owners failed to plan enough space to house them if there were delays in slaughtering. Additionally, the methods used are not humane. They also use the veterinary profession’s moral authority to quell any outrage.

In 2021 veterinarians submitted a petition to the AVMA’s House of Delegates to reclassify ventilation shutdown plus (VAS+) as a “not recommended” form of depopulation. Unfortunately, 99.1% of the AVMA’s House of Delegates voted to push the ventilation shutdown question back to the Panel on Depopulation. More letters, op-eds,  and petitions were drafted and collected by those seeking reform, but to no avail. Animals continue being killed via heat stroke when “constrained circumstances” are met and industry practices continue to contribute to those very  “constrained circumstances'' that necessitate the most brutal killing methods.

Amid the 2022-2023 avian influenza outbreak, veterinarians once again asked the AVMA to reclassify this mass killing via heat stroke as “not recommended.” But this time, a vote was not allowed. The AVMA even amended its House of Delegates manual to prevent such petitions from advancing in the future. 

The AVMA House of Delegates quietly amended its manual in January 2023 to prevent future member-driven petitions, like the one about heat stroke-based depopulation methods, to advance.

The AVMA has been working on the Guidelines on Depopulation since 2016. Thus, it is surprising the industry was seemingly caught off guard and had to resort to heat stroke-based killing methods to be used in “constrained circumstances” only. From the 2022 USDA-AMS FOIA documents, p. 266.

The Psychological Toll of Killing

Not only do these mass depopulations compromise animal welfare, but they also compromise the mental health of veterinarians involved in these practices. Many veterinarians suffer perpetration-induced traumatic stress from this work saying, “I think for me the hardest part was the one day I had to be present, or I was present for the ventilation shutdown….” Other veterinarians engaged in emotional distancing, saying, “I wish I would have acknowledged earlier how stressful and traumatic the event was. I really repressed the feelings.” Modern intensive animal agriculture puts veterinarians in charge of devising macabre workarounds for an industry that failed to prioritize animal welfare and plan for emergencies. One veterinarian, describing themselves as “not super empathetic,” suggested that because of the large amount of work involved in mass killing, there was not “enough time to really think about the morality – maybe it’s just that [we’re] constantly moving and acting.” But now that we have time to think about the morality of it, organized veterinary medicine must prioritize policies that seek to reduce the need to put veterinarians and animals in such horrifying positions. 

Another study found that 10.4% of swine veterinarians thought about suicide due to the mass killing, and 29% suffered from at least moderate levels of burnout. While they discuss the need for supportive services for veterinarians who suffer psychologically from this work, we must start to ask whether we are trying to solve a problem that should not exist in the first place.  

A Viewpoint article published in the February 2023 edition of JAVMA titled “Psychological implications of humane endings on the veterinary profession” discusses the mental health impacts of depopulation. The euphemism “humane endings” softens the harshness of what veterinarians must do–kill healthy animals en masse, in often brutal ways. In the case of heatstroke-based methods, depopulation is not humane. The definition of depopulation given in the article calls it a “process marked by quick and efficient destruction of a complete population of animals in response to urgent circumstances with as much consideration given to the welfare of the animals as practicable,” but what is meant precisely by “quick” is not defined. In the case of heat stroke-based killing of pigs, one paper determined that it took “90.4 min for nursery piglets and 110.3 min for finishing pigs. The maximum time was 110 min and 151 min, respectively, and there were documented survivors assessed as showing signs of consciousness.” In the case of heatstroke-based killing of birds, it took 4.5 hours until birds were no longer standing, and state records showed in some cases, it took 8 hours, and birds were still alive. 

Disturbingly, one of the Viewpoint author’s answers to the mental health effects of depopulation appears to be normalizing children at a young age to animal harm and exploitation: 

US urbanization continues to increase, and since 1900, most people live in urban settings where children grow up without experiencing farm animals. Some children gain experience with animals in 4H and Future Farmers of America (FFA), with membership in FFA growing faster than student populations. Informing children about sources of their food and efforts to improve the welfare of farm animals is important. Thus the continued support of some background in animal science is encouraged for individuals interested in the veterinary profession.  Likewise, exposure of students at a young age to animals in research and comparative medicine has the potential to increase acceptance of animals’ utilization in research as well as positive views on biomedical research and competence.

On the contrary, instead of increasing acceptance of animal exploitation, we should embrace the next generation’s compassion for animals and the emerging technology to aid the transition from animal use. 

Those in the medical field are conditioned, and thus acutely vulnerable, to the pressures to become complacent in condoning practices and systems that cause harm. A medical student beautifully summarizes these pressure in an essay in which she looks at the past and considers how she might withstand the pressures of the medical culture that might push her to harm her fellow humans, citing recent cases of physicians involved in torture at Guantánamo Bay, and those who committed “mercy killings” during Hurricane Katrina. By examining the grooming of Nazi doctors to commit mass atrocities, she discovered that “most doctors who participated in the Holocaust were regular people who believed that they were doing an unpleasant but morally correct and necessary job” and points out how “physicians disguised the horrors by systematising them and cloaking them in misleading medical jargon.” The use of euphemisms, normalization to inflicting pain in hopes of achieving a benefit, learned detachment to avoid burn-out, hierarchical structures, and socialization all contribute to the moral vulnerability of the medical profession. She draws from the way concentration camp physicians “adjust to their new reality by means of extreme socialization…by watching their more experienced peers perform ramp ‘selections’ and by commiserating with them afterwards,” new doctors “rapidly came to view the culture of the camp as an unchangeable fact.”  

Likewise, the veterinary profession currently views the need for intensive animal exploitation and the resulting need for depopulation as an unchangeable fact. Let’s instead recognize the possibility of an alternative system built using the very ingenuity that gave us the technology and innovation that got us to this point in the first place. 

Suffocation is Not a Humane Ending

Technological advancements brought us gas chambers, facilitating the efficient slaughter of 130 million pigs annually. Veterinary school taught us how pigs peacefully fall asleep inside the chambers. Many of us watched videos narrated by Dr. Temple Grandin, explaining the slaughter process. Her video shows pigs entering the gas chamber and rolling out. 

Recently, Raven Deerbrook placed cameras inside a gas chamber at a Smithfield slaughter plant in Vernon, CA. She recorded 16 hours of grizzly footage showing pigs scrambling and screaming inside the chambers before dying. Over 140 veterinarians signed a statement and letter to the AVMA describing the welfare concerns depicted in the footage explaining how it violated the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act and California animal cruelty laws. 

On its website, Smithfield Foods claims that its carbon dioxide chambers lead to “painless loss of consciousness and death.” Dr. Grandin also watched the video and explained how, several years ago, she wanted to place cameras inside the chamber, but another company stopped her study. She said, “They didn’t want to look inside the box.” 

The AVMA’s Panel on Humane Slaughter is reviewing its document and plans to publish its next edition. Several of my colleagues submitted comments on the draft and footage from inside the chamber. Unfortunately, other methods of slaughter have welfare concerns as well. Electrocution requires that pigs line up single file, often necessitating electric prods to get them to move fast enough. 

Gas chambers create distance between the human workers and the killing, which may benefit the company by reducing worker turnover and decreasing the psychological toll on those tasked with killing. But ultimately, to ensure compliance with the law, while gas chambers exist, several animal protection groups are calling for the USDA to require cameras be placed inside the chambers. This rulemaking petition should be supported by the AVMA to monitor the machine function and killing. For those of us who watched this footage in order to draft and sign our letter, the secondary effects of witnessing this killing took its toll psychologically. Several of us could only manage to watch a few minutes of footage before needing to stop. 

Slaughterhouse workers, who must witness killing daily, suffer from both present and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and perpetration-induced traumatic stress. This psychological toll of killing affects them outside of work.  Witnessing and participating in killing is listed in the DSM-V as “trauma,” which can devastate families and communities. One study found that slaughterhouse workers had higher arrest rates, including arrests for violent crime and rape. 

Veterinarians Barred From the AVMA Humane Endings Symposium

But instead of embracing new possibilities and recognizing the need to protect our colleagues from moral vulnerability, our patients from suffering, and the profession's reputation as caring advocates for animals, the AVMA has become defensive and sought to silence those opposed to cruel killing methods. 

In January 2023, AVMA leaders barred several veterinarians who advocated against heat stroke-based killing from attending the Cargill-sponsored AVMA Humane Endings Symposium. 

Dr. George Bates, a 49-year member of the AVMA, emailed AVMA President Dr. Lori Teller, criticizing the fact that the AVMA barred his colleagues. In response, she wrote:

…we recognize there are strongly held views concerning animal end-of-life decisions, and we appreciate when people share those views and engage in conversation that is professional, respectful, and constructive. The Symposium was intended specifically to allow top experts on the euthanasia, humane slaughter, and depopulation of animals, as well as the psychological impacts of these activities on the humans involved, to share information and have open, candid, and thoughtful discussions on these important topics. It is therefore critical that the Symposium be a safe space for those conducting research and involved in these activities to be able to share information and practical experience and engage in discourse that serves to inform the members of the AVMA’s Panels and Working Groups who draft the AVMA’s guidance on humane endings.

This statement does not answer why they could not attend; one might take away from this statement that these veterinarians, in some way, did not engage in professional, respectful, or constructive conversation–which is entirely inaccurate. All barred veterinarians addressed their concerns through professional means such as letter writing, JAVMA letters to the editor, opinion pieces in newspapers, and the publication of scientific articles. None of those barred participated in any disruptive protests. 

In an article about the Symposium, Dr. Teller states, “Some of those who have views that differ from the approach taken by the AVMA's current humane endings guidance have chosen to be disruptive in the way they express those views.” Unfortunately, Dr. Teller does not state what those disruptive ways were.

Dr. Gail Golab, the AVMA associate executive vice president, and chief veterinary officer, said, “Some outspoken critics were refused admission so that attendees, including those who raise livestock (known as producers), could share their experiences using depopulation methods without fear of reprisal.” However, this statement ignores the actual reprisal those of us not in positions of power and privilege have faced for voicing ethical concerns, including professional exclusion, ostracization, personal attacks, memes, backchannel shunning, and negative publicity. 

Preventing AVMA members from attending the symposium violates the AVMA Bylaws, which state, “Section 4. Rights and Duties. All members shall be entitled to attend the member meetings and social functions of the Association.” Additionally, attending AVMA Events is listed as a member benefit and “regulatory, legislative and business advocacy,” with a listed monetary equivalent of “invaluable.”

Disturbingly, many positions of influence within the AVMA are held by those with close ties to corporate animal agriculture. Dr. Cia Johnson, the Director of the AVMA’s Animal Welfare Division, heads the Humane Endings Panels, is also a member of the Scientific Advisory Committee of United Egg Producers, Dean Foods Animal Welfare Science Council, OIE panel on slaughter and depopulation, and the American Association of Bovine Practitioners Animal Welfare Committee. These types of credentials are necessary to be considered for such leadership positions within the AVMA. Someone with a background working for animal protection groups is not likely to be considered. 

In fact, at the 2022 AVMA Veterinary Leadership Conference, one speaker explained how the AVMA was calling for veterinarians to apply for various committees. I had previously applied and have never received any response. I expressed concern that someone like me, with a history of advocacy for animal protection, would likely not be accepted to such committees. She indicated that was indeed true; someone with what she called a “political agenda” might not be allowed the opportunity to serve on a committee. 

The AVMA has a history of silencing those whose perspectives oppose corporate interests. In 2004, the AVMA revoked the booth space for the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights after they published an advertisement in the New York Times criticizing the AVMA’s animal welfare policies. In 2005, the AVMA prevented the Animal Welfare Institute from exhibiting at the AVMA Convention with a demonstration critical of gestation crates. 

What about the political agenda of those who want to promote the growth of animal agriculture? At a June 2022 Animal Mortality Management Conference, in a room full of producers, Dr. Cia Johnson urged her “friendly audience” to produce the data needed to keep heat stroke-based killing in the AVMA’s Guidelines on Depopulation saying:

One item I would like to place some emphasis on for this room, since I feel you are a little more friendly of an audience than I’ve had the opportunity to present for, over the past couple of years, is we need data from you. And I know we’ve seen some presented here. Even if it’s not published, if it’s a case report, if it’s proprietary data, if it's unpublished data, the panel needs it. Some of these methods are at risk of leaving the guidelines; I think you probably have an idea of what those methods might be. We need data to support them staying in the document.

This statement departs from her comments in an October 2022 article in which she says "The panel’s work is designed to be entirely scientific…The association will solicit comments on the draft document from its members but does not accept lobbying from outside entities like politicians, industry, or activists.”

Barred from the AVMA’s Legislative Fly-In

This year, the AVMA also barred me from attending the AVMA’s Legislative Fly-In. This was an event in which AVMA members went to Capitol Hill to lobby for legislation the AVMA decided to support. I received the following unsigned email from the AVMA: 

Good afternoon, Dr. Heath,

We regret to inform you that we are cancelling your registration for the 2023 AVMA Legislative Fly-In to be held in Washington, DC, in April. The issues we’ll be talking about include legislation such as the Healthy Dog Importation Act, and participants in the Fly-In will be focused on these particular issues versus the issues you care so passionately about.

Thank you for your understanding.

I replied, asking exactly why they had denied me. They responded with:

Dear Dr. Heath:

We are responding to your email regarding the AVMA’s decision to cancel your registration to participate in our annual Legislative Fly-In.

The Fly-In is an opportunity for the AVMA to share the profession’s legislative priorities with members of Congress. For the Fly-In to be a success, it is very important that those participating be able to fully support the AVMA’s positions on the two or three key issues we will be discussing with legislators and staff. AVMA’s positions are the result of very careful deliberation by our volunteer leadership and reflect input from across the profession.

Unfortunately, your recent actions and advocacy suggest it is very unlikely that your perspective and the AVMA’s on these key issues will align. While we fully respect your right to your own views, conflicting messages could undermine our advocacy efforts. Our intent is not to exclude you from all AVMA events. However, it is essential that the AVMA be able to conduct events, like its Fly-In, in the manner we believe is most likely to be productive and effective.

 We hope this addresses your question. Thank you for writing to us, and for your membership in the AVMA.

Sincerely,

AVMA Fly-in Team

Denied by the American Association of Swine Veterinarians

Motivated to learn more about pig medicine and the swine industry after learning about cruel practices like ventilation shutdown and gestation crates, I tried to join the American Association of Swine Veterinarians but was quickly denied membership. Upon finding out I was denied, several other veterinarians who supported me, and the advocacy against ventilation shutdown, also attempted to join and were denied membership. 

As a shelter and general practice veterinarian, I primarily care for dogs and cats, but occasionally, pigs also come to me in need of care. Unfortunately, my area has a shortage of veterinarians who treat pigs. Joining the AASV would be a great way to understand the industry more deeply, learn more about pig medicine, and network with pig veterinarians. From talking to Dr. Temple Grandin, I was under the impression that about 50% of swine veterinarians were opposed to ventilation shutdown as well, and by getting to know them, I could better understand the barriers to ending this barbaric practice.

A 2020 statement by Dr. Harry Snelson, Executive Director of the AASV, regarding the use of heatstroke-based killing methods on pig farms states:

As you know, the activist groups have targeted VSD+ as cruel and inhumane. That is to be expected. They have their own agendas. The somewhat disappointing pushback has come from within our own profession. A small but vocal group of veterinarians have spoken out against depopulation for market disruption and especially against VSD+. While I support everyone having and expressing their opinion, it is disappointing that members of our own profession often do not bother to reach out and try to learn why things are being done the way they are before attacking their fellow colleagues.  

But that’s exactly what I tried to do. 

I received a letter in the mail saying they had denied my application saying, “Based on information available to it at this time, it has been determined that you do not meet the requirement for active membership as set forth in Section 1(1A) of our association’s bylaws (available on our website at https://www.aasv.org/aasv/bylaws.htm).” Upon reading the bylaws, it seems they believe I do not have an abiding interest in swine medicine. 

They said I could appeal the decision and sent this letter in response. I received a reply a few weeks later saying the Board reviewed my materials and had determined that I did not meet the requirement for active membership, with no explanation as to why. 

The vice president of the AASV, Dr. Angela Baysinger, is also a member of the board of the Animal Agriculture Alliance, a group that sent out an “alert” about me for asking to shadow and talk to livestock veterinarians while sharing on my public Facebook page posts critical of animal agriculture. She is also the Animal Welfare Lead at Merck, is on the AVMA’s Humane Slaughter Panel, and is on the Center for Food Integrity board. 

Dr. Baysinger is also the lead author of the paper “A case study of ventilation shutdown with the addition of high temperature and humidity for the depopulation of pigs,” which killed 243,016 pigs via heat stroke. Dr. Michael Senn, the President of the AASV, is also an author of the paper. Our Honor has criticized the assertions made by this case study in an open letter to the AVMA leadership and a letter to the editor of JAVMA, which they did not publish. 

Dr. Temple Grandin provided a statement about the paper “A case study of ventilation shutdown with the addition of high temperature and humidity for the depopulation of pigs,” which killed 243,016 pigs via heat stroke, based on a PowerPoint presentation given by Dr. Baysinger. From the 2022 USDA-AMS FOIA documents, p. 259.

Dr. Angela Baysinger discussed Dr. Temple Grandin’s statement in an email to Dr. Dave Pyburn, who now works for Zoetis but was the Senior Vice President of Science and Technology for the National Pork Board; he was previously a veterinarian for USDA-APHIS, cc’d is the Executive Director of the AASV Dr. Harry Snelson, who formerly worked for the National Pork Producers Council, and before that, the pharmaceutical company Schering-Plough Animal Health; Dr. Paul Sundberg Vice President of the National Pork Board; Dr. Sara Crawford of the National Pork Board; Stephanie Wisdom of the National Pork Board; Dr. Sherrie Webb of the AASV, former Director of Welfare for the National Pork Board, and former Chairman of the Board of the Animal Agriculture Alliance; Jacque Matsen, Senior Vice President of Communications of the National Pork Board; Dr. Anna Johnson, Professor of Animal Behavior and Welfare at Iowa State University and former Director of Swine Welfare at the National Pork Board; Dr. Chris Rademacher Swine Extension Veterinarian at Iowa State University, and former veterinarian at Murphy-Brown (Smithfield) and Dr. Monique Pairis-Garcia, Associate Professor of Global Production Animal Welfare at North Carolina State University.

I am also a member of the American Association of Industry Veterinarians, the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, and the American Association of Feline Practitioners. I have never been asked whether I have an abiding interest in industry, shelters, or cats. 

In April 2022, the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) published "Challenges and opportunities in modern swine veterinary education," which states:

• "We would also like to invite the greater veterinary community to engage and collaborate… To determine the most appropriate path forward.”

• "The global and pervasive impact of modern Swine farming and pork production should motivate veterinary colleges and schools to both provide resources for Veterinarians wishing to specialize in Swine medicine in production and also to ensure that all Veterinarians are equipped with enough baselines in knowledge to accurately advocate for pigs within their communities.”

• “many potential Swine clients in the sectors report difficulty finding veterinary services and that many companion and mixed animal practitioners do not feel they have sufficient ‘pig knowledge’ to offer service.”

Their denial of the membership of veterinarians seeking to improve pigs’ welfare is contrary to this commentary’s goals. 

Bullying and Intimidation at the 2022 AVMA Convention

Ahead of the AVMA Convention in July of 2022, Dr. Simon Shane, a poultry veterinarian and professor at North Carolina State University, wrote a hit piece about me, saying, “Based on her social media posts Dr. Heath is virulently opposed to VSD and her writing suggests a streak of zealotry.” He implies that I was somehow involved with the protests at AVMA CEO Janet Donlin’s house.

When I arrived at the convention, security followed us around and would line up in the back of the room for each talk we attended. While I did not do any demonstrating at the convention, there was a small peaceful group of demonstrators with a TV screen showing footage of the ventilation shutdown and a banner that read “Tell AVMA: Stop Roasting Animals Alive.” 

My colleague, who graduated from veterinary school in Mexico, decided to go to the sidewalk alone and stand with a sign explaining why she was a vegan veterinarian and against killing with ventilation shutdown. An older white male veterinarian shoved her from behind and told her to “get out of the way.”

Dr. Daniella Castillo holds her sign outside the 2022 AVMA Convention in Philadelphia before being shoved from behind by an older white male veterinarian.

The AVMA’s Principles of Veterinary Ethics state: 

• A veterinarian shall be influenced only by the welfare of the patient, the needs of the client, the safety of the public, and the need to uphold the public trust vested in the veterinary profession, and shall avoid conflicts of interest or the appearance thereof.

• A veterinarian shall respect the law and also recognize a responsibility to seek changes to laws and regulations which are contrary to the best interests of the patient and public health.

• Veterinarians must not defame or injure the professional standing or reputation of other veterinarians in a false or misleading manner. Veterinarians must be honest and fair in their relations with others, and they shall not engage in fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit.

The treatment of my colleagues and me and the policies the AVMA endorses are not in alignment with these principles; neither is the AVMA’s ongoing support of cruel practices, such as mass killing with heat stroke, and intensive farming practices, such as gestation crates is not in alignment with the public’s increasing compassion for animals. These positions continue to undermine our profession’s reputation as caring advocates for animals.

The AVMA’s mission is “to lead the profession by advocating for our members, and advancing the science and practice of veterinary medicine to improve animal and human health.” But the AVMA continues to endorse practices that compromise the mental health of veterinarians, the welfare of our animal patients, our environment, and public health.

As the House of Delegates meets this year to discuss sustainability, I hope they consider their history of falling short of serving the best interests of animals, veterinarians, the environment, and the public, look to the future, envision what our relationship with other species should be, and the science-based policies they should embrace to get us there. If we start to center the interests of animals over corporate interests, all species will benefit, including our own.