If I wanted to create a fake news story – I would lead with
a sensational headline. Something that would incense and shock the readers and
be extra “clickbaity”. Perhaps a hook about a teenager getting raped to death.
That should get some serious traffic.

That seemed to be the approach taken by New York Time’s
journalist Michael Moss back in in January 2015 when he wrote “Research
Lab Lets Livestock Suffer in Quest for Profit” skewering the US Meat
Animal Research Center (US MARC).

Moss began
investigating the USDA-research facility after being contacted by Dr. James
Keen,
a disgruntled ex-employee who is prohibited
from setting foot in the center. In the article Keen is
quoted as saying that in 1989, “There was a young cow, a teenager, with as many
as six bulls,”…”the bulls were being studied for their sexual libido, and
normally you would do that by putting a single bull in with a cow for 15
minutes. But these bulls has been in there for hours mounting her”…”Her back
legs were broken. Her body was torn up.” According to the article a few hours
later the (teenager) cow died.

That is a gut-wrenching image! I have never heard a heifer
referred to as a teenager, but that one compelling anecdote was enough for me.
If true, this was egregious and unacceptable animal cruelty. However, the
scenario did not ring true. I know the protocol for libido testing bulls, and
it never involves multiple animals. There would be no reason to EVER put six
bulls in with a single heifer for 5 minutes, let alone for hours.

There were numerous other horrific claims in the article. Moss
quoted another source, Robert A. Downey, the executive director of the Capital
Humane Society, in Lincoln, NE as saying “Experimental surgery is being
performed in some (not all) cases by untrained, unskilled and unsupervised
staff. This has resulted in the suffering of animals and in some cases the
subsequent death of all animals.” During a visit, he said, he saw animals
headed to surgery that fell from carts or were pushed to the floor by their
handlers, while two other workers in the operating room ate doughnuts.

Again that infuriated me – as an animal scientist I know
the very strict animal care protocols we have to comply with to undertake any animal
research at UC Davis, even routine herd management is strictly monitored.
However, again the scenario did not ring true given what I know of the character
of the researchers at US MARC, not to mention the senselessness and research futility
of doing a surgery if all the animals subsequently died. That does not pass the
common sense smell test. And surgeries do not mix with doughnuts. For obvious
reasons.

As I wrote in 2015 “As
an animal geneticist, I have worked with the researchers in the Genetics,
Breeding and Animal Health research unit at MARC, and personally visited the
center on several occasions over the past decade. The story published by The
New York Times does not reflect my knowledge of the current research that is
being conducted at the center. Nor does it in any way align with my observations
as it relates to the handling and treatment of animals at the center.”

Even back then I challenged Micheal Moss’ statement that
“the center has one overarching mission: helping producers of beef, pork and
lamb turn a higher profit” It is unclear where that demonstrably incorrect statement
originated. Moss’ personal opinion perhaps. MARC’s publicly-available
mission statement is to develop “scientific information and new technology to
solve high priority problems for the U.S. beef, sheep, and swine industries.”
Even the article itself then goes on to state that since MARC was founded 50
years ago, it “has fought the spread of disease, fostered food safety, and
helped American ranchers compete in a global marketplace.”

However it was the allegations of the death raping of the
teenage cow and experimental surgery being undertaken by untrained, unskilled
and unsupervised staff that really stuck in my mind. I was therefore glad when
the USDA Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announced it was going to
investigate and audit the allegations made in the New York Times article.
Specifically they stated they were going to investigate “33 statements from the
article to evaluate and attempt to determine their veracity”.

I watched with interest as the interim
report came out in 2015 to see which 33 statements were going to
be investigated, and was satisfied to see that the two most egregious
statements about the teenage cow (Statement 14), and that untrained staff performing
experimental surgery (Statement 15) were going to be thoroughly investigated.
At the time the interim report was released in September 2015, it stated with
specific reference to these two statements, “We have no observations on this
statement at the current time.”

So imagine my surprise when the OIG final
report was released Friday December 16, 2016 and I was none the
wiser. The OIG report stated that of the 33 statements made by the New York
Times, “we determined that only 7 were materially accurate — 26 were
inaccurate, lacked sufficient context or were uncorroborated”. New York Times
that is a 21% material accuracy rate – also known as an F in my classes. The OIG
report further clarified that “Overall, we did not note evidence indicating a
systemic problem with animal welfare at US MARC”

Wait - death raping of a teenage cow and experimental
surgery being undertaken by unskilled staff – is that not the definition of an
animal welfare problem? So I looked to see what the report specifically said
about Statement 14 and 15. It said nothing. Because the entire text was
redacted. Both the statements and the findings – blacked out. Even the statement
text that was in the interim report was inexplicably redacted.

So of the 26 statements in the New York Times article that
were determined to be “inaccurate, lacked sufficient context or were
uncorroborated” which was which? How many were inaccurate? There is a HUGE
difference between inaccurate (i.e. fake news), and lacking sufficient context.
And hopefully any journalist worth their salt would corroborate statements from
a disgruntled employee and an executive director of a Humane Society in an
article about animal welfare at an animal research facility with at least one
independent source. Isn’t that how journalism works? Only two of the statements
were listed as inaccurate in the OIG report, but the OIG conclusions on several
others was bizarrely redacted. So your guess is as good as mine.

In its
12/20/2016 article about the report “U.S.
Animal Research Center Needs More Oversight, Audit Says”, the
New York Times explained that “The Times
did not answer questions from the auditors, telling the inspector general’s
office that the article spoke for itself.” Actually it didn’t, that is why
there was an OIG investigation and audit which found only about one in five
statements were correct. Nary a mention of that failing grade in material
accuracy.

And in perhaps the ultimate piece of irony, the OIG report concluded that US MARC
“could make its research more transparent to the public”. I might say the same
to the OIG in its report! What are the privacy concerns that required the
redaction of a simple conclusion of either materially accurate, inaccurate,
lacked sufficient context or uncorroborated? Those sensational
allegations and emotive images are out there now – right or wrong –
unchallenged.

At the end of the day we will never know if the bull libido
test heifer incident ever happened, or if untrained, staff performed
experimental surgeries. All we have is OIG report conclusion that they “did not
note evidence indicating a systemic problem with animal welfare at US MARC.” The
OIG investigators said the Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Michael Moss did not agree to be interviewed for their audit of the
veracity of his article’s statements.

Rather than being shamed by his failing grade, in a recent
email Moss doubled down
his assertion that US MARC pushes the biology of livestock for profit, a
statement that was graded plain “incorrect” in the OIG report. Repeating
something does not make it true. Once again the facts are that US MARC develops
“scientific
information and new technology to solve high priority problems for the U.S.
beef, sheep, and swine industries.”

But as has been evidenced repeatedly in recent months
perception soon becomes reality and the truth gets left in the dust. And policy
based on perception ensues which seems to have been the article’s original
objective. Facts be damned.

Alison Van Eenennaam is an animal geneticist and Cooperative Extension specialist in the
Department of Animal Science at the University of California, Davis.