California’s Egg Law
By Leslie Ballentine
Features Layers Production Poultry Production ProductionMore questions than answers
In a 2008 ballot initiative, California citizens passed Proposition 2 (Prop 2): The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, giving layers, sows and veal calves more space. Under the Act California egg producers are required to house egg-laying hens so they have enough room to “lie down, stand up, sit down, turn in a complete circle without any impediment and without touching the side of an enclosure” and “fully extend their limbs… including both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens.” The renamed Standards for Confining Farm Animals regulations took effect on January 1st, 2015.
The initiative, backed by animal activists, was designed to move farmers away from cages for laying hens. Proposition 2, itself, does not specify a space allotment and does not prevent non-compliant out-of-state eggs from being sold in California.
Following passage of the Act, California egg producers won their case that the law was vague and would put them at a competitive disadvantage with other states and countries. To resolve these problems a companion bill was approved under the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s food safety regulations that marry with Prop 2. As a part of California’s egg safety regulations, designed to address Salmonella, stocking densities were established by state authorities based on input from animal welfare experts at the University of California, Davis. In the end, they decided that each white hen is legally entitled to at least 116 square inches of floor space for groups of nine hens or more. Lower stocking densities require additional floor space. Under the regulations, “Egg-laying hen” means “any female domesticated chicken, turkey, duck, goose, or guinea fowl kept for the purpose of egg production.”
Also effective January 1, these regulations apply to all chickens whose shell eggs are sold in California, regardless of flock size or location, that are raised in “any cage, crate, or other structure used to confine egg laying hens.” The state’s food safety involvement in cage space comes from its assertion that caged poultry with more room are less susceptible to bacterial infections. Egg cartons now must carry a new stamp on their cartons indicating that the eggs meet the state agency’s egg safety standards.
Based on department of agriculture statistics, the regulations affect California’s 15 million laying hens as well as more than 20 million out-of-state hens. About 9 per cent of all eggs produced in the United States are sent to fill the California shell egg market. Penalties for a violation are up to $1000 and or up to 180 days imprisonment per offense.
The passage of the California law in 2008 set a North American precedent. Since then new standards for hens have been approved by voters or legislatures in Oregon, Washington, Michigan and Ohio. In all cases, there was heavy lobbying by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) as well as counter efforts by state egg producers. Ohio, the only significant egg producer among these four states, requires cages to provide 144 square inches per bird. Existing egg farms in Ohio have been grandfathered to allow for continued use of conventional cages so long as they provide a minimum of 67 square inches per bird–the U.S. industry standard. Six egg producing states meanwhile have launched law suits to challenge the California law under the U.S. Constitution for impeding interstate commerce. In some states producers have chosen to modify their facilities in order to continue shipping their eggs to California.
A joint effort by the HSUS and the United Egg Producers to pass a national egg law however has failed. The UEP-HSUS federal bills had sought to phase in 124 square inches per hen over 15 years at a UEP-estimated cost of $4 billion. Costs for colony cage conversions were estimated at $28 to $40 per bird. Supporters of the bill argued it would end the patchwork of state standards. Opponents argued it would be the slippery slope for other commodities and would set a precedent by over-riding state authority for farm animal production.
HSUS, which was the primary sponsor of Prop 2, started the New Year with an aggressive campaign aimed at California retailers. In a letter they claim was sent to every major retailer, HSUS reminds that the law is in effect and urges supermarkets to stock eggs exclusively from hens in cage-free environments. Signalling that they will continue to push their agenda, ,” HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle wrote in the published letter: ‘Our best advice, and our strong recommendation for complying with these two new legal requirements, is that you only sell eggs from hens not confined in cages.’ HSUS is also promoting its web site, CageFreeCA.com, as an information source and petition site.
Meanwhile, HSUS does not define “cage-free”. Prior to negotiating with UEP on a national standard, HSUS was on record as opposing all cages, including colony cages. On January 2, Paul Shapiro, HSUS vice president of farm animal protection, told Capital Press that, “(h)ens vary in size but many experts believe Prop 2 requires about 200 square inches of space per hen.” And in a cross-state tour in January, Pacelle met with his supporters and food distributers about Prop 2. Media report that ‘while, Pacelle did not visit farms, he said many egg producers are complying with the law by renovating existing barns while some are improperly jerry-rigging cages or pulling chickens out of wire cages to allow others more space.’ “These are landmark animal welfare laws,” Pacelle said, “that we want to make sure are properly enforced.”
While some California egg farmers are modifying their existing structures, most have instead constructed colony housing systems, according to John Segale of the Association of California Egg Farmers. Giving 116 square inches of space per hen, they also offer scratch areas, perches and a nest box, he told San Jose Mercury News. “Many (producers) have shrunk their flocks to create more room for each bird and operational costs are higher,” he said. The egg farmers group estimates the statewide price tag at about
$400 million.
The new rules have also created uncertainty about enforcement. The state Department of Food and Agriculture will use its food safety authority to audit whether each bird gets at least 116 square inches of space — but it can’t enforce Prop 2 or the egg import components. The department has stated that local law enforcement will oversee this as the measure makes it a misdemeanor to place hens into small cages.
Some speculate that the new laws are what have been driving food companies to adopt “cage-free” policies. As HSUS argues on its website: ‘Cage-free eggs are available and affordable. The egg industry’s own economic analysis shows that converting to cage-free egg production systems is feasible. Several companies, including Aramark, Sodexo, and Compass Group, have already converted to 100 per cent cage-free shell eggs in their California operations in order to comply with the upcoming rules. And many more companies are going cage-free for all their locations and products across the nation, including Unilever (Best Foods), Nestle, Marriott, and Burger King.’
What makes the California law different than other states or provinces is that it is using both the front and back doors to force changes in housing by not only making it illegal to produce but also to sell shell eggs from conventional cages. And according to industry accounts it seems to be working. Major cage manufacturer, Big Dutchman, reports that its California clients have entirely stopped placing orders for conventional cages. As with the European Union which has also banned the use of conventional cage systems (but not the sales of eggs from such systems), California egg producers have had time to gear up for the change. How many were in compliance as of January 1 is unknown.
Print this page