My take on: Proposition 2

[torquill]

Several other people have discussed various state propositions already... I thought I'd put forth my own thoughts as I try to figure out how to vote.


I've had a devil of a time with this one. Start with the basics:

Do I know anything about the current situation? No.
Has anyone I look to for political guidance decided on this one? No.
What does the bill propose? To allow certain food animals room in their enclosures to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn freely, with a small list of exceptions. A reading of the proposition itself reveals that it applies only to egg-laying hens, veal calves, and pregnant sow pigs.

So, I have a look at the pro and con arguments. What seems to be the argument on each side?

Pro: this ensures that every farm treats animals humanely, and in the process, it'll cut down on disease from close quarters and help water quality. It would also support family farmers in their battle against large factory farms. It gives until 2015 for compliance, and (supposedly) the egg industry's economist says it wouldn't cost farmers much to implement it. Okay.

Con: this will hike the cost of business (specifically with eggs) so much that we'll end up importing eggs from Mexico. Additionally, California already requires humane treatment, and most chickens are already housed in enclosures that allow them to stretch and turn around; this law would make those pens illegal so the farmers would have to replace them at their own expense. And having chickens out in the open exposes them (and us) to bird flu. ....okay.

Who's on each side? Humane Society is on the Pro side, which is neutral to me. Veterinarians' associations... on both sides. Center for Food Safety on the Pro side, a former USDA Food Safety Admin and a professor of Food Safety on the Con side. A Professor of Vet Med from UC Davis, one for each side. ....this isn't working.

In desperation: whose argument contains more ALL CAPS and italicized statements? Con does, hands down, as it screams about EGGS FROM MEXICO and BIRD FLU and how this is DANGEROUS.

The con side already seems incoherent, as they argue that the chickens who are already humanely confined would have to have new housing so that they could be again humanely confined, which will drive up egg prices so much that nobody will buy eggs from California anymore, opening up the floodgates to Mexican eggs farmed without regulations. Meanwhile, these new rules will essentially ban the use of cages altogether, banishing chickens to the outdoors where they are in contact with wild animals, where they will contract bird flu and infect all of us. That.... doesn't really sound like reality to me, sorry. Shrillness and scare tactics are a losing strategy for me.

So -- concerns I have heard raised about it, in a couple of places:

Room to turn around/stretch = one hen per cage = fewer cages = fewer hens = fewer eggs = more expensive eggs/it'll drive farmers out of business. I'm not sure how it compares to the current situation -- the analyst says it would be a change from current practice, but I don't know how widespread. If chickens are currently allowed to turn and stretch as the "con" side says, the enclosures already conform to this proposal, and there won't be a reduction in density on any but a few farms that are not using "modern" "humane" enclosures. That's if you believe the people formally arguing against it, anyway.

Any economic calculations I might throw out are really just pulled out of my ass, so I won't bother. I will say that I don't have the sense this will hike egg prices to an unsustainable level, nor will it cause an exodus of egg farmers from the state; the screams that it'll drive us to import eggs from Mexico sound like scare tactics. That's my take on it, anyway.

It'll cost more to enforce. These rules don't add much to the existing body of inspection laws, which already require inspection of farms producing animals for food. When the inspector is checking that the animals have enough food, access to water, adequate sanitation, and so on, zie can observe the amount of room the animals have to move at the same time. I don't see a lot of extra overhead, in time, money, or personnel. As the analyst mentions, any cost it does incur would be offset by fines.

It only covers three categories of animals. That doesn't exclude the ability to pass such a law in the future for other food animals... if this law passes and does well, I expect we'll see a few more come down the pipe for animals that are in more distressing conditions.

I don't have a lot of conviction on this one -- it's not an issue close to my heart -- but I haven't heard anything that convinces me this is a Really Bad Idea, and the arguments for it sound reasonable. If I do vote on this one, and I may not, I'm likely to vote yes.

Comments

[catnip13.livejournal.com]

Eggs are a good source of a lot of nutrients, they are one of the quickest and easiest to prepare unprocessed foods, and I hate the idea of something that is going to cause a single mom trying to raise a couple of kids on minimum wage and/or food stamps having to pay a higher price for eggs.

What I'd REALLY like to see is better standards for what can be called free-range, humane, cage free, pastured, etc. because right now those terms are pretty loosely defined. I have the luxury of a good source for genuinely free range eggs. I pay a lot for them, but we don't use much; Kaia is the only one in our family that eats eggs. But not everybody has the time and inclination to actually get face to face with the farmer and talk about how their food is produced, so I'd like to see labels that MEAN something.

That said, I'll probably vote yes.

[agengrgal.livejournal.com]

Would you consider reading my response below in this thread? Thanks.

[luna-torquill.livejournal.com]

I agree with you on the labeling standards. I'm not sure the price hike would be enough to significantly impact low-income people, but I have no real data on it.

[redrob.livejournal.com]

In desperation: whose argument contains more ALL CAPS and italicized statements?

ooh! I must remember this litmus test for the future. (Of course, my memory is this is generally a wash, but I will have to look more closely in the future.)

Alex

[luna-torquill.livejournal.com]

It often works pretty well. If they feel a need to shout, either their argument is weak, or they're nuts. Either way...

[knaveofhearts.livejournal.com]

I understood the "room to turn around/stretch = more expensive eggs" to be due to the need to tear down perfectly good coops and replace them with larger coops -- and the farmers who can't afford or won't pay to rebuild their coops will be out of business. I think the proposition's requirements exceed what the opponents already consider to be "modern" and "humane", based on my reading.

As for the costs incurred being offset by fines, that's presuming firms actually fail -- and that's only the state's costs, not the farmer's costs.

[luna-torquill.livejournal.com]

I read the actual proposition, and the requirements don't seem that stringent -- so it's not like it's a technicality that would force farmers to tear down "perfectly good coops". If the hens are that crowded, I'm with the animal rights people: they should probably be replaced. Sixteen years allows the farms to retool without having to come up with large amounts of cash quickly, which lets them pass along any costs for production more gradually... and for anyone who finds it too expensive, I expect the facilities will get taken up by another farmer who wants to give it a shot. I just don't see egg production in this state becoming scarce enough to create significant price hikes. Maybe I'm naive, but none of the opposition has managed to give me good numbers to demonstrate otherwise, and agriculture in California is resilient.

The line about the costs being offset by fines was in response to added inspection costing the state money, btw -- it had nothing to do with farmers' costs for upgrading. As for presuming firms actually fail... there are always places that are noncompliant, for one reason or another. Given that the added costs of inspection will be small, you don't need many fines to make up the difference.

[agengrgal.livejournal.com]

I'm aware of the animal agriculture industry and am very certainly voting No on Prop 2. Please note, the below comments are not meant to sound inflammatory.

1) California already has poultry housing standards set and if you want cage-free eggs or chicken, you have the option of buying clearly labelled cage-free eggs or chicken. With the arguments made above about existing coop sizes, bird flu, food safety standards here vs. other countries, and the economic of the situation, I'm strongly inclined to vote no.

2) Farrowing crates that sows are put in while they birth their piglets are necessary tools used to help manage the sows, protect the handlers, and protect the piglets from being sit upon or eaten by their mothers. The sows are in the farrowing crates for a limited amount of time. Examples of the farrowing crates can be seen at the state fair each year in the nursery. This law would I suspect, unfortunately, discontinue pigs being in the nursery at the state fair.

3) I'm not a fan of veal so I don't eat it. Calves are separated from their mothers so we can have milk and put in calf hutches with a reasonable amount of room for them to move already. With the number of dairies I've been on, I have rarely seen them "caged up".

I welcome questions if you'd like to ask them.

[catnip13.livejournal.com]

From what I've read, "cage free" is a very misleading label. Floor raised chickens are housed in crowding conditions almost as bad as battery cages, plus the numbers of chickens are so large that they are unable to establish a proper social heirarchy (crammed three chickens to a battery cage, they at least have that capability). In most cases, cage free chickens still need to be debeaked because they are too crowded.

"Free range" is a marketing claim that is also very misleading, since the amount of access to roaming that is required is very small. I'd very much like to see these labels standardized and actually meaning something.

[catnip13.livejournal.com]

disclaimer: I'm vegan.

[agengrgal.livejournal.com]

And I respect that fully. It seems that your concern is with proper labelling and standards related to what is being labelled as what. This bill would not give consumers the choice of conventional and would affect the entire poultry industry and the economics of it. Thanks for reading my comments.

[luna-torquill.livejournal.com]

1) catnip13 has already mentioned that the standards for cage-free are not well-defined or labeled... I trust the company I buy eggs from because they offer much more information on how they do things, but most places don't.

2) This law would not discontinue harrowing crates for pigs on exhibition at a state fair or similar event. One of the exemptions is "d) during rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions, 4-H programs, and similar exhibitions."

Likewise, the law would not apply "[t]o a pig during the seven-day period prior to the pig's expected date of giving birth." I've heard the concern raised that it can be hard to predict the birthing date, and you raise the additional question of what happens afterward, but the exception suggests that the issue has at least been considered. I don't know how well.

3) With respect, anecdotal evidence isn't. The practice of caging veal calves in an "inhumane" fashion may not be widespread, so you may not have run across it, but that doesn't mean it does not exist. I don't eat veal either, but I wouldn't eat it even if this passes, so I can't exactly boycott it on principle.

[packy.livejournal.com]

Damn. So many props in CA, on so many interesting issues. All I had were three: should the state be able to issue bonds without voter approval as long as they don't legislate an obligation to pay them back, should the method of appointing municipal judges be set by law instead of in the state constitution and should Jersey City have an elected or appointed school board.

yawn...

Wait...

[firestrike.livejournal.com]

should the state be able to issue bonds without voter approval as long as they don't legislate an obligation to pay them back

I'm reading that as: Should we let the state borrow money without getting our permission as long as the legislature doesn't pass a law stating that lenders must be repaid?

Did I miss a step here or do you guys have some obscure rule requiring complete honesty on the part of the authors as part of the voter initiative process??

Re: Wait...

[packy.livejournal.com]

Here's a look at the initiative in question...

The New Jersey State constitution requires that the Legislature and Governor must seek voter approval for bonded debt, but NJ courts have ruled that voter approval is required only for proposed State bonds that contain a binding, non-repealable pledge to pay off the bonds directly with State taxes. Most State authority bonds can be issued without voter approval because the payment of the bonds is backed only by a promise of the Legislature and the Governor that they will enact appropriations in the future to meet the bond payments.

Personally, I see this as a loophole in the intent of NJ's framers' wording in the constitution, so I voted yes, especially because the measure exempted bonds issued by state entities that would pay tha bonds back from dedicated revenue sources, such as tolls or user fees.

See? It's really a ho-hum issue.