 | |  |  | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
| Author |
Message |
Aquarian
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
Posts: 9844
Location: Miami, Florida 305!
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:08 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| |
Money vs. Animal Rights Intensifies in California's Proposition 2 Battle
Who will Win?
You can bet that if all the animals in America had televisions -- as they do in San Francisco's SPCA shelter -- they'd be tuned in to California's election returns on Nov. 4.
On the ballot is an initiative -- Proposition 2 -- that is as potentially transformational for the treatment of farm animals raised for food in the United States as the presidential vote could be for the nation itself.
Watching closely will be the nation's big meat and egg producers. Because if Californians embrace Prop. 2 -- and scant polling on the initiative suggests it's a runaway hit -- they will be sending a message that goes far beyond the relatively modest changes required by the measure: Consumers really do care about where their food comes from and how it is raised, and they're willing to set limits even if industry isn't.
It's not just another one of those far-out Left Coast things. The Prop. 2 campaign is playing on a mainstream, national stage. Oprah Winfrey devoted a show to the issue of food-animal care and Prop. 2 last week, and the New York Times editorial page voiced support for the proposition.
The changes called for in Prop. 2 are small but significant. The ballot wording says simply that Prop. 2 "requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely." It would take effect Jan. 1, 2015.
If Prop. 2 passes, its main sponsor, the Humane Society of the United States, expects national reverberations -- and has every intention of helping beat that drum. The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) hailed this a "significant step forward" although they'd like to see an end to all forms of animal slaughter for consumption.
Says Paul Shapiro, senior director of the Humane Society's Factory Farming Campaign, "Nobody can ignore the fact that California is the largest agricultural state in the country and it's often a trendsetting state. We envision national reforms coming from passage of Prop. 2. What happened in the veal and pork industry is evidence of this."
Since 2002, veal and pork producers have been hit with tighter regulations in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Oregon, thanks to new laws outlawing the confinement of veal calves and/or pregnant pigs in crates so small they can't turn around. These laws have added muscle to the growing consumer push for more humanely raised pork and veal, and producers and retailers have started to respond. Smithfield Foods, the nation's biggest pork producer, is phasing out gestation crates, metal cages in which many factory farms keep pregnant pigs. The American Veal Association has urged an end to veal crates. Food retailers from Chipotle to Safeway to Burger King have climbed on board, too.
California's Prop. 2 would prohibit veal and gestation crates as well. But it's really all about eggs. Prop. 2 takes square aim at the commodified egg industry's practice of crowding laying hens into small wire cages, stacked to the rafters, in the name of efficiency and profits.
Prop. 2 would not require egg producers to stop caging hens. But they would have to provide enough space in the cages for the hens to do the things that hens naturally do, as defined by the initiative.
The campaign against Prop. 2 says that the measure, however well-intentioned, will be bad for both animals and humans, and could push California egg producers to Mexico, beyond the reach of American food-safety laws.
he industry says cages protect hens from disease and from their tendency to fight. The space standard for a white leghorn is 67 square inches, according to Nancy Reimers, a poultry-industry veterinarian who works for the "No on Prop. 2" campaign. That's about two-thirds the size of a sheet of printer paper.
Often, though, so many hens are jammed into battery cages that they can't lay down, let alone flap their wings -- if there's room for them to get their feet on the ground at all. (I've never seen this firsthand, but documentary film footage of abuses is widely available online. The latest, shot in August and September, shows carnage inside a facility run by Norco, one of California's big egg producers. The anti-2 campaign called it "dubious and cynical" pro-2 propaganda.)
Follow the Money
The amount of money involved -- more than $6 million on the yes side, more than $5 million for no -- tells you there are more than a few omelettes at stake in the Prop. 2 campaign.
The Humane Society has put up more than half the yes campaign's war chest, with the rest coming from other animal-welfare groups and a colorful list of individuals, including financier T. Boone Pickens and his wife, Houston Rockets owner Leslie Alexander, and cartoonist Patrick McDonnell, whose "Mutts" comic strip featured a Prop. 2 story line this month.
Large egg producers from all over the country have poured money into the anti-2 campaign. Among them are Norco, Moark, and Demler, among California's biggest players, plus producers in Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, and many other states. Farm bureau federations from California, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, and Florida have contributed too.
The names of the competing sides tell you exactly how the debate is being framed: It's Californians for Humane Farms against Californians for SAFE Food.
Both sides have planted campaign signs on the food-safety lawn, and can produce jousting scientific studies to buttress their claims, but the no side is relying more heavily on safety arguments.
According to opponents, Prop. 2 "jeopardizes our food safety and public health" because eggs are more likely to carry diseases like salmonella if the hens' carefully calibrated environment is changed. Reimers also says Prop. 2 would kill California's egg industry, and that would leave Californians dependent on eggs from states or countries that lack California's food-safety regulations.
Current space allocations for hens, says Reimers, are "based on the best science."
The yes side points to its own sets of data showing lower rates of salmonella and other bugs that can hurt humans when hens have more space. And it has the support of a number of influential consumer and food-safety groups, including the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, and the Consumer Federation of America.
As far as hen health goes, the no side argues that the hens are safer and more secure separated into small social groups in cages. The yes side has only to show photos of tiny battery cages clogged with feces to make its case that the hens aren't happy.
The California Veterinary Medical Association, plus 700 individual California vets, support Prop. 2. But nationally, the picture flips: the American Veterinary Medical Association, while officially neutral, says Prop. 2 is "primarily based on emotion" and could have "unintended negative consequences" for hen and human health.
A Penny Here, a Penny There
Opponents of Prop. 2 say it would double egg prices. Proponents say it would raise the price of an egg by only a penny. But the threat of higher prices was enough to win the California NAACP over to the no side.
A July 2008 study from the Agricultural Issues Center of the University of California at Davis projects that Prop. 2 would cause "little, if any, cost increase" for consumers, in large part because it would lead to more eggs coming from out of state. That would deal a lethal blow to California's $330 million egg industry within five years, the study concluded. Half the eggs consumed in California already come from out of state.
Jennifer Fearing, chief economist for the Humane Society of the United States and Prop. 2 campaign manager, says there's no way the U.S. egg industry really believes the measure would doom California's egg producers. If it did, out-of-state egg producers wouldn't be flooding the no campaign with contributions, she says, because they would only have market share to gain.
"They are worried that this is nailing down the principle that all animals including those raised for food deserve humane treatment," she says.
[img]http://www2.grist.org/images/feature/2008/10/23/free-range-chicken_h240.jpg
[/img]
The yes side also contends that the U.C.-Davis report ignores the economic upsides of Prop. 2 -- that it would help small, family farmers and likely encourage production of cage-free eggs. The study fails to take into account California's growing market for cage-free eggs, Fearing says, and Prop. 2 could bring prices for them more in line with conventional eggs.
That may be one reason some small producers who have carved a profitable cage-free niche out of the commodity egg market oppose Prop. 2, Fearing says.
One cage-free producer displays a "Californians for SAFE Food" banner on its stall at San Francisco's Ferry Plaza Farmers Market, arguably one of the nation's most rarified bastions of local, sustainable, and humanely raised food. Its owner did not return calls asking why, but he's been quoted as saying that Prop. 2 would kill his business.
Demand for cage-free eggs has already pushed the food industry to start adopting more humane practices when it comes to laying hens. Whole Foods Markets refuses to sell eggs from caged hens, and Safeway and Burger King have taken incremental steps toward selling or using more cage-free eggs.
The Winds of Change
However the economics play out, it seems likely that come Nov. 4, powerful winds of change will be blowing out of the West and into henhouses across the nation. Voters like Prop. 2, according to a poll conducted by four California TV stations in late September. It showed strong support among likely voters, 72-10 with 17 percent undecided -- though that was before late-campaign ad blitzes for both sides.
Peter Singer, the animal rightist and Princeton professor, told me by email that Prop. 2 is "enormously important -- the most important popular vote for animals in the history of the United States, I'd say."
"Yes, it's a small step, but factory farming isn't small -- it affects billions of animals each year, in the U.S. alone," Singer wrote. "If California follows Arizona and Florida in voting against factory farming, it will be impossible to deny that the American public, given a chance to express their views, is against the close confinement of animals, which has been a standard feature of U.S. animal production for the past 50 years. And that will send a signal to producers that they had better change their ways, or they will be put out of business."
Michael Pollan, the U.C.-Berkeley journalism professor whose book The Omnivore's Dilemma propelled him to leadership of the movement to reform the U.S. food industry, says he signed the petition to get Prop. 2 on the ballot, though he does expect it to have unintended consequences, perhaps even negative ones for California egg producers.
He adds, "My hope is that, as on so many issues, California will push the rest of the country forward, and Prop. 2's passage will push companies like McDonald's to change their standards (they're on the precipice already, I'm told) and California's position will become the de facto national position. So whatever messiness we may inherit here, California will, when the history of these brutal practices is written, look visionary."
http://grist.org/feature/2008/10/23/
*The link features a campaign video PRO-PROP 2 and ANTI-PROP 2. |
|
_________________
I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend? ~Robert Redford, Yosemite National Park dedication, 1985 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Author |
Message |
Aquarian
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
Posts: 9844
Location: Miami, Florida 305!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
_________________
I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend? ~Robert Redford, Yosemite National Park dedication, 1985 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
greeney2
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 28, 2001
Posts: 9864
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Your statements King is exactly why I said I wanted to understand the issue and not be voting because of a distorted commercial. People like Aquarian are the ones distorting the issue.
I'm not in the habit of rash decisions that would penalize all the bussiness who are not violator becasue of the few that may be. its also easy for Aquarian to just make a decision for another State becasue Florida is not a state that is a big agriculture state, like California. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Aquarian
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
Posts: 9844
Location: Miami, Florida 305!
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
Florida is ONE of the main agricultural states...  |
|
_________________
I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend? ~Robert Redford, Yosemite National Park dedication, 1985 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
theking
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Aug 19, 2008
Posts: 690
Location: Washington, D.C.
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2008 10:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
I just find is amusing that no matter what you do or where you go in America, small business gets the short end of the stick EVERYWHERE. From Joe the Plumber to small slaughterhouses and corner stores.
Take your pick. |
|
_________________
"I fear not for the banning of the book. I fear for the hunger to read the book. Why should one ban a book no one cares to read?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Wing-Zero
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Oct 27, 2004
Posts: 596
Location: California
|
| Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| theking wrote: |
I just find is amusing that no matter what you do or where you go in America, small business gets the short end of the stick EVERYWHERE. From Joe the Plumber to small slaughterhouses and corner stores.
Take your pick. |
Bad for capitalism. Simple as that. |
|
_________________
Nice Boys Don't Play Rock N' Roll |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Aquarian
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
Posts: 9844
Location: Miami, Florida 305!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
A Message from the Humane Society:
Take a bow. You rewrote history for animals.
Thanks to you, 20 million animals in California will soon be spared the worst abuses of factory farms. And I'm confident that we'll look back at Prop 2 as a pivotal moment in how our nation treats animals who are raised for food.
Early returns tonight show that more than 60% of Californians voted for Prop 2. This is a tremendous victory for animals, for The Humane Society of the United States...and for you. We were able to reach millions of California voters with our message of compassion only because you stood with us -- by taking action, by donating to the campaign, and by telling those you knew in California about Prop 2 and what it would do for animals and for citizens there.
This was a momentous election for the nation. I'm so grateful and honored for everything you did to make Prop 2 a big part of the story. Please read my blog over the coming days for my take on Prop 2 and what it means for animal protection.
It may be a cliché to say that "we couldn't have done it without you." But it's so utterly true. Thank you. |
|
_________________
I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend? ~Robert Redford, Yosemite National Park dedication, 1985 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
maelstrom
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: May 21, 2008
Posts: 9366
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
That's sad for those kosher 'slaughterhouses' where they hire illegals (cheaply), torture the animals and let them bleed slowly to death.
- Well it's too bad for the kosher ones more than others. |
|
_________________
What has been won by the brave at great cost can be lost cheaply by fools and once gone can rarely be regained and only then at great cost. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Aquarian
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
Posts: 9844
Location: Miami, Florida 305!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
_________________
I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend? ~Robert Redford, Yosemite National Park dedication, 1985 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
greeney2
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 28, 2001
Posts: 9864
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| Just so you understand Aquarian, you are supporting putting chickens in a cage only big enough to stand in and spread their wings, but don't think thats everybit as cruel? That is all the measure will guarentee those chickens. By the way I voted for it, but you choose to crucify me for questioning the ads and how they represented it. I beleive they were not a true picture of the majority of egg bussinesses. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Saturos
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Feb 19, 2003
Posts: 1325
Location: Dark Universe
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
First of all I know itīs not wrong to eat meat because I eat meat and itīs just natural for a human to eat it, if some people choose to be vegeterian then so be it thatīs their choise aswell as eating both things is mine.
BUT, we need to review our current observations when it comes to the meat industri and change it because lots and lots of meat is wasted around the world for nothing and to me that is slaughter.
Sure we need to improve the handling of farms but I am alot more concerned by the production.
Less production is needed, more security to endangered species around the world,specially Asia and Antartica.
One of the main antagonists to the meat industro are restaurants.
So much food specially meat is wasted on that market and that is sad really, restaurants just to feed capitalists and nothing else and they barely eat their food once they get it.
Restaurants should be halfed down aswell.
This is not the same world as before! We need to sacrifice some things for other things to improve!
And lets start with the non important ones like restaurants and hunting! |
|
_________________
The truth is hidden so well, itīs right infront of you... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Wing-Zero
B.V. Info Seeker
Joined: Oct 27, 2004
Posts: 596
Location: California
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| greeney2 wrote: |
| Just so you understand Aquarian, you are supporting putting chickens in a cage only big enough to stand in and spread their wings, but don't think thats everybit as cruel? |
Thats a bit of a stupid question, don't you think? |
|
_________________
Nice Boys Don't Play Rock N' Roll |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Aquarian
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Oct 25, 2003
Posts: 9844
Location: Miami, Florida 305!
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| It's a definate improvement, especially when it affects the lives of 9 billion chickens every year. |
|
_________________
I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise what is there to defend? ~Robert Redford, Yosemite National Park dedication, 1985 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
bluesman
B.V. VIP - Friend
Joined: Sep 11, 2001
Posts: 8329
Location: next to gort the big alien in reeds spring mo.
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
that just raised the price of KFC by a couple of bucks a bucket...
now im mad..
im a member of PETA..
people eating tasty animals..
life long member..
bluz |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
greeney2
B.V. Info-a-holic
Joined: Sep 28, 2001
Posts: 9864
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| |
| No wing its not stupid, because the change in cage size barly is any different. The most it has done has gone from what is called extremely cruel, to still very cruel, if cage size is the measurement of the crulty. Aquarian shoots out a big number of boloney that 9 billion cages will be affected. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| | | | | | | |
| |
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
blocks-left.jpg
|  |
Online Stats: 
