My take on: Proposition 2
Oct. 28th, 2008 20:02![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
torquillSeveral 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.
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.
