Cattle producers in Iowa were told by Tyson that to supply that company the cattle feeder would have to submit to a third party audit of practices. Tyson says consumer groups are insisting on it.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20131210/BUSINESS01/312100056/Tyson-adds-cattle-welfare-req...
"A third-party auditor will visit farms to ensure compliance, assessing them on issues such as how workers handle animals, whether animals have access to adequate food and water, and whether treatment is humane."
"Wright told the group that voluntary industry efforts are “not enough” in the eyes of consumers. “Our customers want more,” she said, adding that multiple customers have taken a stance on individual sow housing, requiring 10-year plans to eliminate them."
My own feeling is this is one reason why Tyson and others like the animal structure they have. They can lean on producers and if necessary distance themselves from producers while at the same time taking credit for forcing the producers to comply with some set of standards. It's win-win for Tyson. It makes producers who already do a good job of animal welfare - the vast majority - look bad. It makes the consumer groups think they were effective so they will be even more emboldened.
