May 15, 2006
The Honorable Robert Teig
Assistant United States Attorney
401 First St. S.E., Ste. 400
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1825
Re: Prosecution of AgriProcessors, Inc.
Dear Mr. Teig:
I am writing to ask that you reconsider your decision not to pursue
prosecution in the case of AgriProcessors, Inc., despite the fact that
multiple violations of the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act
(HMSA) are known to have taken place at their Pottsville, Iowa
processing plant during 2004. Why you have decided that the
investigation conducted by the USDA's Office of Inspector
General (OIG) did not present a prosecutable case is unknown, as you
have made no public statement regarding the rationale which led you
to this conclusion. On the face of it, your decision appears to
represent a prejudicial stance favoring those who violate the law:
The OIG Report states that employees of AgriProcessors "engaged
in acts of inhumane slaughter"; the fact that some of the
animals were still conscious, and clearly suffering, upon leaving the
"kill box" (as shown on the videotape released by the
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) provides irrefutable
evidence of this. The use of a hook to rip out an animal's
trachea constitutes a further violation of the HMSA. Upon
viewing the videotaped evidence, Temple Grandin, whose work in the
field of slaughterhouse operations is highly regarded, has stated:
"This tape shows atrocious procedures that are NOT performed in
any other kosher operation. Removal of the trachea and other
internal parts before the animal has become insensible would cause
great suffering and pain. Many of the cattle on this tape had
this dressing procedure performed when they were still fully sensible."
She has also stated that the practice of using an electric prod to
position an animal's head in the "kill box" caused an
unacceptable amount of distress.
I suspect that your decision not to prosecute AgriProcessors hinges
on USDA Directive 6900.2, issued on October 7, 2003, revised version
issued November 25, 2003. This directive allows for an
"additional cut" to be performed on animals undergoing
ritual slaughter to "facilitate bleeding"; it
also, inexplicably, removes the right of plant inspectors to stop
inhumane acts of ritual slaughter, instead directing them to file a
report to their district office, which must then get permission from
Washington in order to act on complaints. Among those who
lobbied for the revised Directive was Nathan Lewin, attorney for the
owners of AgriProcessors, Inc.; it appears that the use of a hook to
rip out the tracheas of animals being slaughtered began soon after.
Directive 6900.2 also states that no "dressing procedure"
is to be performed during ritual slaughter until the animal is "insensible."
Perhaps the fact that AgriProcessors used a non-Jewish employee to
perform the tracheal ripping allowed them to circumvent this provision?
In absence of any clarification from you, it's difficult to say.
Your failure to provide any rationale for your decision not to pursue
this case is but one in a long line of instances in which concern for
the welfare of animals slaughtered at AgriProcessors has been put a
distant second to political expediency. The Rubashkins have
made financial donations to numerous political figures, including,
though not limited to, Senator Charles Grassley and Representative
Tom Latham of Iowa, as well as to Iowa's Secretary of
Agriculture, Patty Judge: apparently it was hoped that the
adage, "money talks" might be made to apply. That
hope appears to have been justified. The USDA's own Ann
Veneman was responsible for allowing alterations to be made to
Directive 6900.2, alterations which gave additional leeway to the
procedure of ritual slaughter and allowed for the egregious cruelty which
occurred at the AgriProcessor plant. Following the OIG's Report on
AgriProcessor's failure to administer humane slaughter, the only
punishment meted out was a two-week suspension of one inspector, while two
other inspectors who stood by and watched while an unknown number of
animals suffered a slow and painful death met with no more serious
consequence than a letter of reprimand. And now, you yourself
have refused to prosecute – and have refused to say why.
At what point does the suffering of nonhuman animals begin to matter
to any of you? It would appear to matter very little until such
time as undercover operatives bring forth irrefutable proof of
egregious suffering where little to no suffering at all is supposed
to be the norm. Until, apparently, citizens genuinely concerned
with the treatment of animals speak out against what they can see
with their own eyes is clearly a wrongful interpretation of the term "humane."
It is as one of those citizens that I am writing you today, to
ask that you either reconsider prosecution in the case of
AgriProcessors Inc., or release a public statement providing the
reasons for your failure to do so.
Yours sincerely & etc. . . .
|