Dr. Michael C. Appleby's testimony

Commentary on video from a foie gras production facility
labelled July 2007

By Dr. Michael C. Appleby

I have been told that the video was taken at Aux Champs D'Elise foie gras production facility. It was clearly taken by someone working on the farm, using a camera apparently attached to his chest and filming as he participated in or watched the work shown. The titles used below are those in the video.

For the record, I carried out scientific research on behaviour, housing and welfare of poultry for 20 years at the Poultry Research Centre, Scotland, and the University of Edinburgh. I am author and editor of several books on the subject (1992 Poultry Production Systems: Behaviour, Management and Welfare; 1997 Animal Welfare; 2004 Poultry Behaviour and Welfare).

July 1, 2007: Force fed duck regurgitating blood

The duck shown is producing a large quantity of bloody material from its bill, which is pouring over its bill and onto its breast. I have been told that this happened within five minutes of it being force fed. This suggests that the material is a mixture of feed and blood, and that both the bleeding and the regurgitation have been caused by severe damage to the oesophagus by the force-feeding tube pushed into the throat. I have also been told that on an average day one or two ducks out of the 900 in the house bled from the mouth in this way, over a period of about one hour after feeding. Most of these died soon afterwards, before the next feeding, and all died within two days. This shows that force feeding is causing fatal injuries and gross suffering to a large number of birds; the figures suggest mortality of the order of 4% over a three week period from this cause alone, which is completely unacceptable. Some such problems are intrinsic to the process of force feeding, but their severity here suggests that the practice is being carried out particularly roughly on this facility.

July 2, 2007: Employee hacks off live duck's head using a hunting knife

A young man is shown hanging up a duck by the feet and slicing and sawing at its neck with a knife. I have been told that he "chose to test out the sharpness of his new hunting knife" in this way, and the knife is clearly of a type appropriate to hunting or similar uses rather than a tool specialised for neck-cutting such as a scalpel. If a bird is to be killed by neck cutting, this should be achieved in calm conditions by a single cut, producing rapid and full bleeding and hence quick unconsciousness and minimum pain. In this case blood is visible only after the third cut, and the stimulation caused by repeated handling of the bird will have prolonged consciousness. A total of 8 cuts was made, plus a session of sawing at the neck, over a total period of 58 seconds. The wing-flapping convulsions indicating unconsciousness are only seen after this, suggesting that the bird was conscious throughout this long-lasting process, which will have been extremely painful. It is apparent that the knife had nothing approaching the razor-sharpness necessary for this use and that the employee was completely irresponsible in using it in this way. It also seems likely that the management is culpable in not training him in proper attitudes and techniques for humane husbandry and culling of animals. This is gross cruelty.

July 4, 2007: Employee kills sick duck by swinging it in circles while holding the duck's head

A man is seen holding a sick duck by the head and moving the head in quick, small circles so that the weight of the hanging body dislocates the neck just below the head. I estimate that the dislocation and consequent unconsciousness took about 2 seconds to achieve. This is fairly quick, but not as quick and therefore not as humane as a common and readily available method of culling ducks – placing a heavy bar over the neck on the ground, standing on the bar and then pulling the body upwards, which is almost instantaneous. A disturbing further development is that the man was apparently unsure that the duck was dead, perhaps because it continued to flap for longer than he expected. Sixty nine seconds after he started the culling procedure, he banged the duck's head on the ground. If it was in fact still alive, I do not believe that this action would have killed it, because its body also hit the ground, reducing the force of the blow to the head. So it is possible that it died slowly, with considerable suffering, over a very long period. It is clear that each house should have available a proper method for stunning sick animals (such as the heavy bar mentioned or an alternative such as an electric stunner), and that employees should be trained how to cull birds humanely, including how to check that a bird is indeed dead.

June 29, 2007: Employee hurls ducks through the air by their necks (slowed to half speed)

Lifting ducks by the neck is usual in duck farming. However, here a young man is shown lifting groups of ducks by the neck from the back of a truck and throwing them through an opening in the side of a house, perhaps 3 metres above the ground. There is no sign of a floor at that level, so the impression is that they then fell that full height to the ground. There is no indication that this is necessary: presumably the ducks could easily have been carried into the house through a door. This violent treatment is certainly not usual, and is unjustifiable. It will have caused considerable, unnecessary fear and pain to the animals involved.

Mary Lou Randour, Ph.D.'s testimony

Commentary on video from a foie gras production facility, labeled July 2007

By Mary Lou Randour, Ph.D.
September 14, 2007

As a brief introduction, I am a psychologist with over twenty years clinical experience. In my capacity as a psychologist I have served on various professional boards and committees.  In addition to my clinical experience, for the last ten years I have focused on the important association between animal cruelty and interpersonal violence. I am the author of three books, numerous articles in professional journals, and three handbooks addressing the topic of animal cruelty and human violence. The latest handbook, “Common Bond: Child Maltreatment and Animal Abuse in the Family” was written in partnership with the American Bar Association. I also have testified as an expert witness for the prosecution at animal cruelty trials.

Because of my background, I was asked to review the video, paying particular attention to the actions of the 15-year-old employee seen hanging a duck by the feet and sawing at the animal’s neck with a knife.

The boy subjected the animal to prolonged, visible suffering, showing disregard for humane slaughter techniques. He hacked at the animal’s neck a number of times before producing blood, and took up to a minute to kill the animal. The injury he inflicted on the animal was intimate, as he grasped a frightened, flailing bird. Mental health professionals who are trained in the assessment and treatment of animal cruelty are taught to consider a number of factors, some of which include duration of the suffering, intimacy of the injury (e.g., with a knife or rifle), and degree of planning—all of which can indicate a more serious degree of pathology.

The young man’s behavior toward the animal, at best, was egregiously callous; definitely cruel, and may have been calculated. His comments to the investigator about punching a bird who resisted dying and finally hammering its head, reinforces the picture of cruel and callous behavior.

There is now compelling empirical evidence of the link between cruelty to animals and interpersonal violence. Animal cruelty is one of four factors that predict which men will become batterers; cruelty to animals and people is one of four factors associated with the persistence of anti-social and aggressive behavior in children. What is clear is that callous disregard for animal suffering indicates a lack of moral development, which puts people at risk for the commission of other offenses.

Although it would require a forensic evaluation of the young man in question to determine his psychological and moral standing, the very graphic image in the video strongly suggest the need for intervention.

Sincerely,
Mary Lou Randour, Ph.D.