 |
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|||
| Current Issues |
Proposition 2 – Improving Animal Welfare? 08 Nov 25... On November 4, 2008, Californians voted yes on Proposition 2 with a margin of 63% to 37%. This ballot measure adds a chapter to the California Health and Safety Code and requires that egg-laying hens, pregnant pigs, and calves raised for veal be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Exceptions to this law are made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. People found in violation of this law will be charged with misdemeanor penalties, including a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days1. The statute will come into effect on January 1, 2015. California is the 5th largest egg producer in the United States with over 19 million laying hens. The state produces much less pork, ranking 27th in the US2, and even less veal. Proposition 2 will therefore have the largest impact on egg producers. In fact, according to a study by the University of California at Davis3, passing Proposition 2 would lead to the demise of the egg industry in California. It is no surprise that Proposition 2 was heavily opposed by the United Egg Producers and Pacific Egg & Poultry Association. Over $7.5 million was spent to convince voters that Proposition 2 would compromise food safety and increase egg imports from Mexico. This was just shy of the $8 million spent on the Yes campaign4. The success of Proposition 2 was celebrated by co-sponsors the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and Farm Sanctuary. Supporters are optimistic that Proposition 2 will not only improve animal welfare in the state of California, but will cause a ripple of similar legislative changes in other states. However, it is possible that this ballot measure will do just the opposite. It is unclear which housing practices will be acceptable under Proposition 2. The wording of the ballot measure is ambiguous as it only states which behaviours the animals must be able to perform and does not provide a numerical value as to the amount of space each animal must be allotted. The UC Davis report speculates that up to 2.8 ft2 of space may be required for each hen. Many farmers are going to wait for the regulators to interpret the law before making any changes to their operations. Others are considering their exit strategies. Farmers unwilling or unable to refit their facilities to comply with Proposition 2 will either move to another state or close their doors. Before Proposition 2 was passed, California was already importing one third of its shelled eggs. Out-of-state producers that still use cages will undoubtedly capitalize on the market opportunities in California and increase production to compensate for a lack of cheap, local eggs. Therefore, although Proposition 2 was originally intended to improve the welfare of laying hens, it may ultimately decrease it across the United States. It is hypothesized that similar ballot measures will surface in the future. Proposition 2 is the 4th state law to change confinement measures for farm animals. Four other states, Florida, Arizona, Oregon, and Colorado, have already outlawed the use of gestation crates and both Arizona and Colorado have also banned veal crates. Proposition 2 is the first law in the US to include a ban on cages for laying hens. The HSUS was also behind the Florida and Arizona initiatives and it is hypothesized that they will continue with similar measures state by state. With respect to improving animal welfare, these types of ballot measures may be a bit short-sighted. Now that certain housing conditions have been outlawed in California, farmers are left to come up with a solution for their farms that comply with legislation, try to reestablish their operation out-of-state or go out of business. A more effective way to bring about change would be to allow producers to voluntarily phase-out practices that may compromise welfare so that the problem does not merely relocate. In Colorado, the pork industry voluntarily phased-out gestation crates without it having to go to the voters and thus could control the measures to be taken and the timeline. Is it time for Canadian industries to get ahead of this issue and drive change using the research we have available to us? ------------------
|
