Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Federal court upholds CFIA’s reckless cull order—setting a dangerous precedent for the unscientific mass depopulation of genetically important animals.

In March, I interviewed Katie Pasitney of Universal Ostrich and Connie Shields to discuss the alarming implications of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) order to cull 400 research ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farm in British Columbia over bird flu:

Canada Orders Mass Culling of 400 Research Ostriches Over Bird Flu, Refuses to Test Surviving Birds for Natural Immunity

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

·

Mar 11

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has ordered the culling of 400 ostriches at Universal Ostrich Farm in British Columbia, citing concerns over H5N1 bird flu. However, this decision is not based on sound science and could have serious consequences for both food security and medical research.

Read full story

Universal Ostrich Farm is a research facility focused on studying the unique antibody-producing capabilities of ostriches. Their research has demonstrated potential in neutralizing viruses, bacteria, and even COVID-19, making it an important contribution to medical science.

In December 2024, the CFIA claimed that two deceased ostriches—which had been lying outside for over 16 hours—tested positive for H5N1 via PCR testing. Just 41 minutes after receiving these results, the CFIA signed an order to cull the entire flock.

The CFIA initially granted the farm an exemption, recognizing the birds as “genetically important.” Later, without clear justification, they reversed this decision, ordering their destruction.

Despite the importance of this research, the CFIA has refused to conduct further testing on the birds and has banned the farm from conducting its own tests, under threat of heavy fines and possible imprisonment. Why is the Canadian government refusing to study the potential antibodies ostriches have developed against H5N1 bird flu?

On January 31, 2025, a court granted a temporary stay of execution, halting the cull. However, the CFIA is appealing this decision, which means the culling could still proceed.

Today, we have received news that the reckless mass cull order will proceed despite their ostriches having already recovered months ago and developed natural immunity against H5N1:

Official Announcement: Federal Court Decision in Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v. Canadian Food Inspection Agency

Dear friends and supporters,

We are absolutely devastated to share today’s Federal Court decision, issued on May 13, 2025. The court ruled in favour of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), upholding their order to destroy our beloved ostriches and rejecting our plea to save them.

The court’s decision accepted the CFIA’s justification under the Health of Animals Act and their use of the Stamping-Out Policy, which mandates the destruction of animals to control disease outbreaks, regardless of their health status. The court confirmed the CFIA’s approach, prioritizing trade obligations over the welfare of our animals.

In addition, we’ve been ordered to pay $15,000 in CFIA’s legal costs. You can read the full decision here: (2025 FC 878). https://saveourostriches.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/JR-T-294-25-and-T-432-25-Final.pdf

We are heartbroken by this outcome and uncertain about the future of our farm. As we navigate this incredibly difficult time, we ask for your patience and continued support. If you are able, please consider making a donation to help us manage the financial and emotional toll this has taken.

Thank you,

Universal Ostrich Farm

http://SaveOurOstriches.com

This deeply misguided decision sets a dangerous precedent for the Canadian government to recklessly depopulate animals at will.

By upholding the CFIA’s reckless cull order, despite the ostriches’ recovery and natural immunity, the court has prioritized trade protocols over scientific inquiry, animal welfare, and the advancement of life-saving medical research.

Nicolas Hulscher, MPH

Epidemiologist and Foundation Administrator, McCullough Foundation

www.mcculloughfnd.org

Please consider following both the McCullough Foundation and my personal account on X (formerly Twitter) for further content.

FOCAL POINTS (Courageous Discourse) is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to Focal Points

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jack McPherrin and H. Sterling Burnett

In recent years, corporate coalitions have increasingly taken center stage in environmental policymaking, often through public-private partnerships aligned with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals that promise systemic change.

One of the most prominent examples is the U.S. Plastics Pact (USPP). At first glance, the USPP may appear to some as a promising solution for reducing plastic pollution. But in practice, it has encouraged companies to make changes that are more cosmetic than environmental—and in some cases, actively counterproductive—while increasing their control over the market.

The USPP, launched in 2020, consists of more than 850 companies, non-profits, research institutions, government agencies, and other entities working together to create a new “circular economy for plastics.” Dozens of major retailers and consumer goods companies—including Coca-Cola, Danone, Kraft Heinz, Target, and Unilever—have signed on as “Activators,” pledging to eliminate certain plastics, shift to recyclable packaging, and increase the use of recycled plastics.

Yet, rather than curbing plastic production or reducing waste, the USPP has led many companies to simply transition from polystyrene to polyethylene terephthalate (PET). This shift has been encouraged by claims that PET is more widely recyclable, easier to sort, and better aligned with existing U.S. recycling infrastructure.

However, polystyrene is more moldable, is recyclable, and has insulation properties that PET doesn’t. In addition, PET is approximately 30 percent heavier than polystyrene, meaning more material is required for the same functional use. Moreover, PET requires more energy and is more expensive to produce than polystyrene. And PET’s denser packaging increases transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions and raises costs even more—though these higher costs don’t bother USPP participants, as they simply pass them on to consumers.

Only 5 to 6 percent of all plastics in the United States are recycled. Even for PET products, the overall recycling rate remains low. Just one-third of PET bottles are recycled, while the  recycling rate for many other PET products such as thermoforms is less than 10 percent. Most PET products end up in landfills.

This ineffective, costly, and counterproductive shift was not accidental. It reflects the broader incentives baked into ESG scoring systems that reward superficial compliance over substantive outcomes.

ESG frameworks reward companies financially and reputationally for achieving certain narrow targets such as reductions in single-use plastics or increases in the use of packaging that is technically recyclable. However, these metrics often fail to accurately assess total plastic use in a product’s lifecycle, associated emissions, and real-world recovery. A package that uses more plastic and energy—and therefore generates more emissions—may still earn high sustainability marks, so long as the plastic is recyclable in theory. This is a textbook example of greenwashing.

A closer look at the USPP reveals that some of the world’s top plastic users and producers—Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and Nestlé—are among the Pact’s strongest backers. These corporations, which produce billions of PET containers per year, benefit substantially from signing onto agreements such as the USPP, adopting ESG standards, and pledging support for various green goals—even if they do not deliver any green results. In fact, a 2022 report found that a large majority of retail signatories to the USPP actually increased their consumption of virgin plastic from 2020 to 2021.

Many of these same companies fund the non-profit that organized the USPP: the Ellen MacArthur Foundation. This creates a feedback loop in which large companies shape sustainability standards to their own advantage, defining which materials are “acceptable,” reaping the rewards of ESG compliance, and marginalizing smaller firms that lack the resources to adapt.

For example, by promoting PET as the preferred packaging material, the USPP conveniently reinforces the existing supply chains of these multinational bottlers, while sidelining other materials such as polystyrene that may be more cost-efficient and suitable for specific applications. Smaller manufacturers, who can’t easily switch packaging or absorb the added costs, are effectively squeezed out of the marketplace.

The USPP has not built a circular economy. Rather, it has constructed a closed circle of corporate sponsors that gain reputational boosts and higher ESG scores on the backs of consumers, despite increasing energy and plastics use.

The USPP unites ESG financiers, government agencies, nonprofits, and the largest corporate polluters in a mutually beneficial arrangement. This system rewards compliance, deflects scrutiny, manipulates public trust, eliminates free-market competition, stifles innovation, and increases costs to consumers—all while creating more waste.

Policymakers and consumers alike must recognize that ESG-aligned coalitions such as the U.S. Plastics Pact are nothing more than corporate lobbying groups disguised as sustainability initiatives. They do not improve environmental quality, but they do profit immensely from the illusion of doing so.

Jack McPherrin ([email protected]) is a Research Fellow for the Glenn C. Haskins Emerging Issues Center and H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., ([email protected]) is the Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, both at The Heartland Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research organization based in Arlington Heights, Illinois.