California passes Prop 2 | Article

The initiative essentially will close down the commercial egg industry in California, affecting 95% of egg production in the state, and will leave California consumers dependent on eggs shipped in from other states and possibly from Canada and Mexico.

The ban becomes effective in January 2015.

The initiative was carried to the ballot by petition last spring by a coalition of animal activist groups led by Farm Sanctuary and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Farm Sanctuary and HSUS advocate animal rights, and HSUS openly promotes vegetarianism.

HSUS chief executive officer and president Wayne Pacelle, in a brief statement last Tuesday night, declared that California voters took "a stand for compassion and decency and said systematic mistreatment of animals cannot continue. All animals deserve humane treatment, including animals raised for food."

Californians for SAFE Food, a broad coalition of agricultural, animal welfare, veterinarian, food safety, public health, business, labor and consumer groups that opposed the initiative, said backers of the measure had led "an emotionally manipulative, dishonest and often deceptive campaign."

The coalition pointed to a number of fronts on which it was successful, including editorial support from more than 30 of California's leading newspapers, including its largest, the Los Angeles Times.

The initiative now goes to California regulators, who will determine how the law will be implemented and enforced.

Unintended consequences

The initiative, listed on the ballot as Proposition 2 and referred to as "Prop 2," requires that all farm animals, "for all or the majority of any day," not be confined or tethered in a manner that prevents them from lying down, standing up, turning around or fully extending their limbs without touching another animal or an enclosure such as a cage or stall (Feedstuffs, March 3 and April 4).

It specifically addresses modern cage housing systems for layers and stall systems for sows and veal calves.

Pork and veal producers already are transitioning to group, or pen, systems because the science and technology to do so are becoming available.

Egg producers already have adopted and follow the highest levels of animal welfare, as established by an independent committee of animal ethicists and scientists, and hens in modern cage systems can express all of the behaviors required by Prop 2 except that they may touch a cage-mate or side of their enclosure when spreading their wings.

Two important studies, one by the University of California at Davis, concluded that commercial egg producers will be unable to continue operating in California because cage systems will not meet the standards of the law, because violations call for fines and jail time, because converting to cage-free systems is economically infeasible and because cage-free housing increases costs substantially and would make California producers uncompetitive with egg producers in other states where cage systems are not banned (Feedstuffs, May 26, July 28 and Sept. 22).

Importantly, the studies found that Prop 2 will affect cage-free production, too, in that many of the cage-free systems in the state are managed by producers who also operate cage systems, and their cage systems "subsidize" their cage-free production.

Furthermore, the studies suggested that regulators could interpret the law in such a way that would make cage-free systems -- such as barn and floor systems -- illegal, too.

It also is well documented that eggs produced in cage-free systems are not as safe and that it is not possible to house hens in cage-free systems at the higher safety and welfare standards available in cage systems (Feedstuffs, Aug. 18).

Among other unintended consequences, closing down the California egg industry will cost the state thousands of jobs and hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenues.

Misspent opportunity

The American Veterinary Medical Assn. (AVMA), which opposed Prop 2, issued a statement last week calling on regulators to involve animal welfare specialists and veterinarians in rulemaking "to make sure that resulting changes in animal housing actually improve conditions for the animals that they are meant to help."

AVMA CEO Dr. Ron DeHaven noted that "if we're not careful, animal health and welfare problems could be precipitated that are as significant as the concerns Prop 2 aspires to address."

Dr. Gail Golab, director of AVMA's animal welfare division, explained how singularly focused objectives such as Prop 2's can threaten animal welfare. For example, she said, moving hens to cage-free systems may permit them to engage more fully in species-specific behaviors but also increases their exposure to disease and injuries and, in the case of free-range systems, predators.

DeHaven pointed out that the money spent surrounding Prop 2 could have been put to better use by developing practical and science-based solutions to animal welfare.

Gene Gregory, president of the United Egg Producers, which provided the central thrust for the Californians for SAFE Food campaign, said the campaign fought "an uphill battle" against opening shots of an agenda "to end animal farming" in California.

Gregory and others said they expect that Farm Sanctuary and HSUS now will likely conduct similar efforts in other states that have ballot initiatives and will use the California results in seeking to persuade state assemblies to adopt similar laws in states that do not have initiatives.

Prop 2 was -- and Prop-2-like efforts elsewhere will be -- disingenuous, according to Bryan Black, a pork producer from Canal Winchester, Ohio, and president of the National Pork Producers Council.

He noted that AVMA and the American Association of Swine Veterinarians have said group housing for sows and stalls are both appropriate for the safety and well-being of sows during pregnancy. California voters have now adopted a measure "outlawing" husbandry practices "deemed appropriate by decades of farmers' experience, as well as by university researchers" and the nation's leading veterinary associations, he said.

"It is regrettable that animal rights groups were successful in vilifying hardworking, honest farmers and ranchers who treat their animals humanely and provide them with a healthful and safe environment in which to grow," Black said.

Daily Commentary provided by Farm Futures, a sister publication of Feedstuffs