Proposition 2 is relative to the Grass-fed Party's mission and I thought it was time we talked about the passage of this hotly-contested ballot item. Proposition 2 requires that laying hens, pregnant sows, and veal calves have enough room to lie down, stand, turn around, and fully extend their limbs. It will take effect in 2015. Opponents have said that this proposition would put farmers out of work, and pose new health and security risks for the chickens.
On September 25th , an L.A. Times article supporting a No on Prop. 2 said that "it would likely bolster the market for cheaper out-of-state eggs produced where farmers have no similar bans on cages." They went on to suggest that in the future, "California eggs would become more expensive, and many consumers would simply buy the cheaper eggs laid by hens living in cramped conditions in neighboring states or in Mexico. As a result, we fear the result of Proposition 2's passage would not be better treatment of hens but merely the export of their mistreatment. We recommend a no vote. "
In late August, the American Veterinary Medical Association released a statement on Proposition 2, stating that it “would clearly provide greater freedom of movement, but would likely compromise several of the other factors necessary to ensure the overall welfare of the animals, especially with regard to protection from disease and injury.”
The issue of animal welfare is very nuanced and complicated. The story of Proposition 2 (and we’ve
only seen half of it) is the story of the contemporary ever-present conflict between
industrialized systems and holistic systems of agriculture and how our country is working it out at this time. Is this something that should be voted on by the public?
I’d like to hear your opinions on Proposition 2. Did any one here vote on it?
Comments
By the logic of the LA Times Editorial, slave owners in the pre-Civil War South could argue against abolishing slavery by saying the cost of goods produced in the emancipated states will increase after abolition relative to slave-owning states, because states that haven't banned slavery are still going to be able to get their cotton picked for free. (Obviously, this analogy in no way compares the injustice of slavery to the suffering of animals.)
First, an elementary point: You shouldn't do something or not do something based on whether you think it will start a national trend. A more important point: Sometimes you do something simply because it is the right thing to do. The fact is that the conditions under which chickens are currently raised is appalling. Proposition 2 addresses that crisis in a meaningful way.
As far as what the implications of the bill are, well, we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. It seems to me that awareness of animal suffering is reaching a tipping point, one where, if every chicken farm is operating on a level minimal-cruelty playing field, we can expect that customers will recognize that cost is only one of several factors to be taken into account when buying eggs, and, consequently, we can expect that eggs marked as humane will be purchased in large numbers so long as the prices are somewhat comparable, a situation which does not currently apply. Furthermore, we may find that the next step may be not to allow import of eggs that do not meet standards of minimal cruelty. From what I have seen of the issue, it seems clear that something needs to be done to alleviate the suffering of factory farm animals. Proposition 2 certainly seems like a necessary step in the right direction. Again, I need to investigate this issue further, but I believe people should have voted "YES" on Proposition 2. To do otherwise, is to make oneself complicit in the horrible suffering of factory farm animals. In a democracy such as ours, ballots such as these are an effective way to address our moral obligations, in this case towards animals.