1. JBS Ear Notching—Non-existent commitment, according to Vetted Causes
SINERGIA’S RESPONSE:
Sinergia already explained this is a valid commitment and Vetted Causes was mistaken to classify it as a non-existing commitment. We acknowledge and regret the deadline error in our spreadsheet shared with ACE.
There are two JBS ear notching commitments Sinergia has claimed existed:
Commitment 1: A commitment from JBS to stop ear notching by 2023.
Commitment 2: A commitment from JBS to stop ear notching by 2027.
It appears Sinergia and Vetted Causes agree that Commitment 1 never existed.
Note: Sinergia is currently being credited for Commitment 1 even though it never existed.
2. JBS Gestation Crates—Pre-existing Policy Presented As a New Commitment, according to Vetted Causes
SINERGIA’S RESPONSE:
[...]
2021 Report: “New projects adopt the ‘cobre e solta’ system, allowing the sows, after being artificially inseminated, to be housed in group housing.”
It appears Sinergia and Vetted Causes agree that this is a pre-existing policy being presented as a new commitment. The policy was already in place in 2021, yet Sinergia claimed it as a new 2023 win.
It’s also worth noting that many of the commitments Sinergia takes credit for don’t use definitive language like “100%” or “all farms.” For example, Alibem’s surgical castration commitment from Row 4 states Alibem will: “Maintain immunocastration instead of surgical castration – a procedure that was voluntarily eliminated from the Company’s protocols in 2010.” (translated from Portuguese to English).
Sinergia took 70% credit for this 2010 policy even though Sinergia didn’t exist until 2017. Further, there is no mention of “100%” or “all farms.”
Additionally, Sinergia’s own “Upper bound” for how many companies will actually follow through on their commitments is just 65% (see Cell B14), which shows many of these commitments are not reliable or permanent. JBS themselves has already walked back their ear notching commitment (see Page 42) .
3. Teeth Clipping—Practice Was Already Illegal Prior to Alleged Commitments, according to Vetted Causes
SINERGIA’S RESPONSE:
[...]
It is also important to clarify that Sinergia Animal did not, at any point, discourage ACE from considering IN 113 as a basis for assessing legal deadlines
It appears Sinergia and Vetted Causes agree teeth clipping was already illegal prior to the alleged commitments. Here is a quote from Sinergia’s Pigs in Focus report: “According to Normative Instruction 113/2020 (IN 113/2020), teeth clipping is prohibited”.
4. Aurora—Pre-Existing Policy Presented as a New Commitment, According to Vetted Causes
SINERGIA’S RESPONSE:
[…]
The claim that Aurora had a formal and exclusive immunocastration policy prior to 2023 does not align with the timeline of documented changes to the company’s website. On October 24, 2022, Aurora’s webpage underwent two rapid edits, according to Web Archive.
The first edit, at 16:44, introduced the phrase cited by Vetted Causes: “The Cooperative only chooses to adopt immunocastration, as it is a less invasive practice.” However, this version was online for just one minute (if Web Archive is right). At 16:45, the page was edited again, and that second version—which does not contain the language cited by Vetted Causes—is the one that remained publicly available and is the one we referenced in Sinergia’s 2022 Pigs in Focus report.
This is factually incorrect, the edits Sinergia describes did not occur. Every archive of the webpage from October 24, 2022 states: “The Cooperative only chooses to adopt immunocastration, as it is a less invasive practice.” (translated from Portuguese to English)
5. BRF—Pre-Existing Policy Presented as a New Commitment, According to Vetted Causes
SINERGIA’S RESPONSE:
[…]
the current 5% is likely to increase in future years.
It appears Sinergia and Vetted Causes agree that Sinergia should not have taken credit for helping 100% of BRF’s sows in 2023 through this commitment when only ~5% were impacted.
6. Female Piglets Surgical Castration
SINERGIA’S RESPONSE: […] Sinergia never said the number of piglets was correct. It was an unintentional mistake of Sinergia’s team to leave all piglets
It appears Sinergia and Vetted Causes agree that:
ACE’s impact calculations were not correct
Sinergia and ACE didn’t account for female piglets not being surgically castrated
Sinergia was incorrectly credited for helping millions of female piglets through surgical castration commitments
There are two JBS ear notching commitments Sinergia has claimed existed:
Commitment 1: A commitment from JBS to stop ear notching by 2023.
Commitment 2: A commitment from JBS to stop ear notching by 2027.
It appears Sinergia and Vetted Causes agree that Commitment 1 never existed.
Note: Sinergia is currently being credited for Commitment 1 even though it never existed.
It appears Sinergia and Vetted Causes agree that this is a pre-existing policy being presented as a new commitment. The policy was already in place in 2021, yet Sinergia claimed it as a new 2023 win.
It’s also worth noting that many of the commitments Sinergia takes credit for don’t use definitive language like “100%” or “all farms.” For example, Alibem’s surgical castration commitment from Row 4 states Alibem will: “Maintain immunocastration instead of surgical castration – a procedure that was voluntarily eliminated from the Company’s protocols in 2010.” (translated from Portuguese to English).
Sinergia took 70% credit for this 2010 policy even though Sinergia didn’t exist until 2017. Further, there is no mention of “100%” or “all farms.”
Additionally, Sinergia’s own “Upper bound” for how many companies will actually follow through on their commitments is just 65% (see Cell B14), which shows many of these commitments are not reliable or permanent. JBS themselves has already walked back their ear notching commitment (see Page 42) .
It appears Sinergia and Vetted Causes agree teeth clipping was already illegal prior to the alleged commitments. Here is a quote from Sinergia’s Pigs in Focus report: “According to Normative Instruction 113/2020 (IN 113/2020), teeth clipping is prohibited”.
This is factually incorrect, the edits Sinergia describes did not occur. Every archive of the webpage from October 24, 2022 states: “The Cooperative only chooses to adopt immunocastration, as it is a less invasive practice.” (translated from Portuguese to English)
Here is a screen recording proving this to be the case.
It appears Sinergia and Vetted Causes agree that Sinergia should not have taken credit for helping 100% of BRF’s sows in 2023 through this commitment when only ~5% were impacted.
It appears Sinergia and Vetted Causes agree that:
ACE’s impact calculations were not correct
Sinergia and ACE didn’t account for female piglets not being surgically castrated
Sinergia was incorrectly credited for helping millions of female piglets through surgical castration commitments