This fall, a decision that could present significant changes to the U.S. egg industry will be in the hands of the public.
This fall, a decision that could present significant changes to the U.S. egg industry will be in the hands of the public.
On Nov. 4, 2008, Californians will be going to the polls during the state’s general election. The ballot will include Proposition 2, the proposed Standards for Confining Farm Animals initiative statute. Self-titled the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, the proposition would add a chapter to Division 20 of California’s Health and Safety Code to prohibit the confinement of certain farm animals in such a manner that does not allow them full movement.
The proposition encompasses three types of confinement: veal crates, battery cages, and sow gestation crates. If voters approve the proposition, the statute would become operative on Jan. 1, 2015. The proposition would also essentially banish cage-free production, as space requirements per bird is part of the proposition. To meet these requirements, the United Egg Producers have stated that farmers would need to build 8-16 new barns each to produce the same amount of eggs as they are currently.
The idea behind this proposition isn’t new. In the past six years, Florida and Oregon have passed laws that prohibit gestation crates. Arizona and Colorado have passed similar laws that also include the prohibition of veal crates.
The California vote will be the first to allow voters to weigh in on battery cages. Not surprisingly, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), with support from fellow activist/welfare group Farm Sanctuary, has led the initiative.
As I discussed in the April 2008 issue, the HSUS is becoming a powerful lobby utilizing politics to fulfil its mandate.
In the spring the HSUS orchestrated the largest beef recall in U.S. history based on food safety concerns.
Interestingly, this proposition may hinder food safety. Numerous reports on Proposition 2 indicate that many egg farmers in California will be forced out of business, and consumers will have to rely on eggs from out of state or Mexico.
But the most significant component of the proposition, something that is not widely known, is that groups such as the HSUS can enforce it if it becomes law. Sections under California’s penal code and corporations code would allow non-profit representatives to act as peace officers.
I find this unnerving. How can a group that doesn’t base decisions on sound science have an untrained representative be given so much power?
My biggest concern is that many consumers/voters are totally unaware of this. They are also unaware of the risks that the proposition could pose to their health as well as the economic wellbeing of the state in which they live.
The United Egg Producers (UEP) and the Pacific Egg & Poultry Association commissioned an economic study that suggests, if the law passed, the state would lose more than 3,000 jobs and $615 million in the next seven years. Food safety group Californians for Safe Food cites increased health concerns, primarily due to increased risk of salmonella.
More than 85 per cent of eggs farms in California are independently certified as meeting the animal welfare guidelines established for the UEP by an independent scientific committee. From what I can see, the HSUS and Farm Sanctuary are basing their decisions on emotion and tidbits of scientific research.
Print this page