News
Proposition 2 is a simple and sensible measure that would protect farm animal welfare and food safety. It is simple, because all it mandates is that farm animals be given enough living space to turn around, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs. It is sensible, because here in California, 20 million animals on large, industrial farms are confined so severely that they can barely move.
In California, 95 percent of egg-laying hens are kept in cages so small they cannot even flap their wings. They are restricted from basic natural behaviors, such as dust-bathing, perching, preening, and simply walking around. Intensive confinement is also common for veal calves and breeder sows, which are confined in crates so narrow they cannot even turn around, let alone walk or exercise, for their entire lives. Prop. 2 would phase out these inhumane confinement systems.
Intensive confinement not only harms animals, it also compromises food safety. Confining tens or hundreds of thousands of animals on a single property results in an astounding concentration of waste that can taint the food supply. Furthermore, highly stressed animals are more likely to produce unhealthy food. This is why organizations concerned with public health endorse Prop. 2, including the Consumer Federation of America, Center for Food Safety, and Union of Concerned Scientists. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production also backs Prop. 2, warning that intensive confinement systems “increase the likelihood that consumers will be exposed to higher levels of foodborne pathogens.”
The opposing side claims the initiative would hike up costs for egg production and hurt competitiveness with out-of-state farmers.
This gloomy forecast ignores the fast-growing market for humane farming. In 2007, following Florida and Arizona’s banning of veal and gestation crates, the two biggest U.S. veal producers, Strauss Veal and Marcho Farms, and the top U.S. pork producer, Smithfield Farms, pledged to adopt group housing systems. The CEO of Strauss Veal called crates "inhumane and archaic" saying that they "do nothing more than subject a calf to stress, fear, physical harm and pain."
Though intensive confinement is currently profitable (hence the opposition to Prop. 2), it is not economically viable in the long run. Public opinion polls show that these inhumane practices are far out of step with consumer values.
As a top ag state, California would send ripples of reform nationwide with the passing of Prop. 2, and as other states followed suit, California farmers would take a competitive edge. Prop. 2 would not take effect until 2015, allowing farmers ample time to make the transition.
This Election Day we have a choice: Will we support humane farming practices or will we cling to cruel and archaic confinement systems? Will we show basic humanity and decency toward the animals that we rely on for food or will we trade in their welfare for a few cents?
On Nov. 4, let’s wave good-bye to the worst cruelties of factory farming by voting yes on Proposition 2.
Benjamin Davidow is a board member of the Palo Alto Humane Society.
In California, 95 percent of egg-laying hens are kept in cages so small they cannot even flap their wings. They are restricted from basic natural behaviors, such as dust-bathing, perching, preening, and simply walking around. Intensive confinement is also common for veal calves and breeder sows, which are confined in crates so narrow they cannot even turn around, let alone walk or exercise, for their entire lives. Prop. 2 would phase out these inhumane confinement systems.
Intensive confinement not only harms animals, it also compromises food safety. Confining tens or hundreds of thousands of animals on a single property results in an astounding concentration of waste that can taint the food supply. Furthermore, highly stressed animals are more likely to produce unhealthy food. This is why organizations concerned with public health endorse Prop. 2, including the Consumer Federation of America, Center for Food Safety, and Union of Concerned Scientists. The Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production also backs Prop. 2, warning that intensive confinement systems “increase the likelihood that consumers will be exposed to higher levels of foodborne pathogens.”
The opposing side claims the initiative would hike up costs for egg production and hurt competitiveness with out-of-state farmers.
This gloomy forecast ignores the fast-growing market for humane farming. In 2007, following Florida and Arizona’s banning of veal and gestation crates, the two biggest U.S. veal producers, Strauss Veal and Marcho Farms, and the top U.S. pork producer, Smithfield Farms, pledged to adopt group housing systems. The CEO of Strauss Veal called crates "inhumane and archaic" saying that they "do nothing more than subject a calf to stress, fear, physical harm and pain."
Though intensive confinement is currently profitable (hence the opposition to Prop. 2), it is not economically viable in the long run. Public opinion polls show that these inhumane practices are far out of step with consumer values.
As a top ag state, California would send ripples of reform nationwide with the passing of Prop. 2, and as other states followed suit, California farmers would take a competitive edge. Prop. 2 would not take effect until 2015, allowing farmers ample time to make the transition.
This Election Day we have a choice: Will we support humane farming practices or will we cling to cruel and archaic confinement systems? Will we show basic humanity and decency toward the animals that we rely on for food or will we trade in their welfare for a few cents?
On Nov. 4, let’s wave good-bye to the worst cruelties of factory farming by voting yes on Proposition 2.
Benjamin Davidow is a board member of the Palo Alto Humane Society.
