Your ballot will refer to Proposition 2 as “Standards For Confining Farm Animals” rather than as “The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act,” which is how the prospective law will be cited for legal purposes. This more moderate title will make you feel like less of an asshole if you choose to vote against Proposition 2, but it also accurately reflects the Proposition’s limited scope. Even with Proposition 2 in place there will still be plenty of room for California farmers to maintain artificially low bottom lines by treating their farm animals cruelly.
Despite its modest aims, Proposition 2 represents an important step toward establishing as a legal reality the common sense notion that farmers who raise animals have an obligation to treat those animals humanely. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly given the strength of the farm lobby, there are essentially no laws in place to protect the welfare of farm animals in California.
Proposition 2 mandates that veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg laying hens must spend the majority of the day with room to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around. Given that California’s commercial veal and swine industries are relatively minor, the primary affect of this measure will be to eliminate the particularly harsh practice of storing hens in “battery cages” in which the birds are crammed tightly together as though they are inanimate commodities.
The opposition to Proposition 2 stems primarily from concerns that the measure will have a significant adverse impact on California’s $337 million egg industry. Although forecasting the precise impacts of the measure is a speculative endeavor, Proposition 2 will have economic consequences.
Over 90% of the approximately 20 million egg laying hens in the state currently live in battery cages, and Proposition 2 will force those farmers who utilize battery cages to overhaul their operations. If this drives farms out of business or out of state, California’s tax base will be reduced, and egg prices will likely rise as a result of increased production costs(estimates range from as little as one cent per egg to as much as twice their current price).
Another concern is that because this measure only affects egg production within the state and places no restrictions on eggs produced elsewhere, the measure could simply cause vendors to import unregulated, cheaper eggs (either from other states or Mexico), thereby harming the California egg industry without leading to a substantial net reduction in the number of hens forced to live in battery cages.
Any adverse economic impacts will, however, be mitigated by the fact that the measure will not take affect until January 1, 2015, giving farmers more than six years to develop viable operations not premised on providing the absolute minimum amount of space to their animals. Furthermore, Proposition 2 has symbolic significance and could help bring about a broader shift in both agricultural practice and consumer choice. Similar laws have already been passed in Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Oregon, (although Proposition 2 would be the first to eliminate battery cages for hens) and California, the nation’s largest agricultural state and a trend setter on a variety of fronts, could stimulate other states to follow its lead.
California consumers can help dictate this result by demanding that the eggs they purchase come from farms that operate pursuant to standards of confinement equivalent to those prescribed by Proposition 2. Currently 5% of all eggs are produced from “cage free” operations, and consumer demand could drive that number much higher. The successful passage of Proposition 2 will send the message that California consumers want their eggs to come from farms that employ humane practices.
The bottom line is that the farming industry has gotten away for far too long without being subjected to standards that set minimum levels of protection for farm animals. Given the power of the California farm lobby, a ballot proposition may be the only chance for the California electorate to ensure that a law protecting farm animals is enacted. Just as industry had to learn to survive economically without being able to dump waste directly into rivers or emit pollutants into the air with impunity, it is not unreasonable to require farmers to similarly evolve in their animal treatment practices. Allowing farmers to treat farm animals cruelly amounts to a direct economic subsidy, paid for by the animals themselves.
Proposition 2, although limited in scope, provides an opportunity for Californians to deliver the message that they will no longer tolerate unchecked cruelty against farm animals.
I urge you to vote yes on Proposition 2.
-----
The main sponsors of Proposition 2 are the Humane Society of the United States (the wealthiest animal rights organization in the country with a budget of over $100 million) and Farm Sanctuary (the largest organization in the country devoted specifically to farm animal rights).
Supporters of Proposition 2 include: California Veterinary Medical Association; Center for Food Safety; Union of Concerned Scientists; United Farm Workers; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Sierra Club California; Consumer Federation of America; California Democratic Party; Michael Pollan; Bill McKibben; and Eric Schlosser.
Despite its modest aims, Proposition 2 represents an important step toward establishing as a legal reality the common sense notion that farmers who raise animals have an obligation to treat those animals humanely. Surprisingly, or perhaps not so surprisingly given the strength of the farm lobby, there are essentially no laws in place to protect the welfare of farm animals in California.
Proposition 2 mandates that veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg laying hens must spend the majority of the day with room to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around. Given that California’s commercial veal and swine industries are relatively minor, the primary affect of this measure will be to eliminate the particularly harsh practice of storing hens in “battery cages” in which the birds are crammed tightly together as though they are inanimate commodities.
The opposition to Proposition 2 stems primarily from concerns that the measure will have a significant adverse impact on California’s $337 million egg industry. Although forecasting the precise impacts of the measure is a speculative endeavor, Proposition 2 will have economic consequences.
Over 90% of the approximately 20 million egg laying hens in the state currently live in battery cages, and Proposition 2 will force those farmers who utilize battery cages to overhaul their operations. If this drives farms out of business or out of state, California’s tax base will be reduced, and egg prices will likely rise as a result of increased production costs(estimates range from as little as one cent per egg to as much as twice their current price).
Another concern is that because this measure only affects egg production within the state and places no restrictions on eggs produced elsewhere, the measure could simply cause vendors to import unregulated, cheaper eggs (either from other states or Mexico), thereby harming the California egg industry without leading to a substantial net reduction in the number of hens forced to live in battery cages.
Any adverse economic impacts will, however, be mitigated by the fact that the measure will not take affect until January 1, 2015, giving farmers more than six years to develop viable operations not premised on providing the absolute minimum amount of space to their animals. Furthermore, Proposition 2 has symbolic significance and could help bring about a broader shift in both agricultural practice and consumer choice. Similar laws have already been passed in Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Oregon, (although Proposition 2 would be the first to eliminate battery cages for hens) and California, the nation’s largest agricultural state and a trend setter on a variety of fronts, could stimulate other states to follow its lead.
California consumers can help dictate this result by demanding that the eggs they purchase come from farms that operate pursuant to standards of confinement equivalent to those prescribed by Proposition 2. Currently 5% of all eggs are produced from “cage free” operations, and consumer demand could drive that number much higher. The successful passage of Proposition 2 will send the message that California consumers want their eggs to come from farms that employ humane practices.
The bottom line is that the farming industry has gotten away for far too long without being subjected to standards that set minimum levels of protection for farm animals. Given the power of the California farm lobby, a ballot proposition may be the only chance for the California electorate to ensure that a law protecting farm animals is enacted. Just as industry had to learn to survive economically without being able to dump waste directly into rivers or emit pollutants into the air with impunity, it is not unreasonable to require farmers to similarly evolve in their animal treatment practices. Allowing farmers to treat farm animals cruelly amounts to a direct economic subsidy, paid for by the animals themselves.
Proposition 2, although limited in scope, provides an opportunity for Californians to deliver the message that they will no longer tolerate unchecked cruelty against farm animals.
I urge you to vote yes on Proposition 2.
-----
The main sponsors of Proposition 2 are the Humane Society of the United States (the wealthiest animal rights organization in the country with a budget of over $100 million) and Farm Sanctuary (the largest organization in the country devoted specifically to farm animal rights).
Supporters of Proposition 2 include: California Veterinary Medical Association; Center for Food Safety; Union of Concerned Scientists; United Farm Workers; Center for Science in the Public Interest; Sierra Club California; Consumer Federation of America; California Democratic Party; Michael Pollan; Bill McKibben; and Eric Schlosser.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment