FARM-ANIMAL CRUELTY BILL, BRIEFING

Capital Update - National Pork Producers Council

July 18, 2008

Representatives Christopher Shays, R-Conn., and James Moran, D-Va., Thursday held a briefing on the Farm Animals Anti-Cruelty Act, H.R. 6202, to discuss alleged farm-animal cruelty in the U.S. Legal experts stated that this bill would allow federal prosecution for committing unjust torture, pain and killing of farm animals.

Michigan State University Professor David Farve said that the bill is intended for states without Animal Anti-Cruelty laws that include farm animals, not to replace individual state laws.

America’s pork producers recognize their moral obligation to provide for the well-being of their animals, and they raise their pigs in a humane, compassionate and socially responsible manner. Any production practice that falls short of this high-performance standard is unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the pork industry.

In addition to that moral obligation, pork producers’ livelihoods depend on the well-being and performance of their pigs. NPPC staff attended the briefing and continues to closely monitor the progress of this bill.

nppc.org

California coalition fights gestation crate ban

Pig Progress

21 Jul 2008

Californians for SAFE Food, a coalition of public health and food safety experts, labour unions, consumers, family farmers and veterinarians, have launched a campaign to oppose Proposition 2, a November ballot initiative that bans some current practices in California agriculture.

The campaign fights the proposition, that would require that gestation sows, egg-laying hens and veal calves have enough room to lie down, stand, turn around and fully extend their limbs.

Gestation stalls

The proposition could end the use of gestation sow stalls in California. The state would then be the fifth in the USA, after Colorado, Oregon, Arizona and Florida. In the European Union, the use of gestation crates is banned as from January 1, 2013.

The coalition, which e.g. includes the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), California Cattlemen's Association and Pacific Egg and Poultry Association, says the proposition, sponsored by a coalition of animal rights groups, would jeopardise food safety and drive up food costs.

Un-safe food initiative

Proposition 2, for that reason, has been dubbed 'the un-SAFE food initiative'.

"Proposition 2, quite simply, is an un-SAFE food initiative. It undermines California’s current high food safety standards, putting us at greater risk with exposure to illness and disease like Salmonella and Bird Flu," said Julie Buckner, spokeswoman for the "NO on Prop. 2" campaign. "While the proponents claim the measure is 'moderate,' it is really a wide-sweeping, risky, and dangerous measure that will have costly, negative consequences for California."

pigprogress.net

Law gives police powers to activists

Rod Smith

Feedstuffs

7/18/2008

Animal rights and vegetarian activists could have the authority to enter and search California farm buildings and arrest producers for suspected violations of animal welfare laws if California voters approve a ballot initiative this fall, Feedstuffs has learned.

This is the conclusion of attorneys who are analyzing the legal consequences of the initiative for agricultural and food interests in California, whose "Californians for SAFE Food" coalition is organized to educate Californians on the initiative and urge them to vote no on the measure.

The determination makes it exceedingly important for producers and production companies, trade associations and allied industry across the U.S. to become involved in the "SAFE Food" coalition, its supporters said.

The initiative -- which has been designated "Proposition 2," or "Prop 2" -- is directed at the treatment of farm animals and, if passed, would require that farm animals not be confined or tethered in a manner that prevents an animal from lying down, standing up, turning around and fully extending its limbs.

For a hen in an egg production system, fully extending its limbs means extending its wings without touching the side of an enclosure, such as a cage, or another hen, according to the initiative.

The initiative is directed at cage housing systems for hens and sow and veal calf stalls, but recent studies found that even most barn, or cage-free, housing systems for hens would be prohibited under the requirement.

The law would become effective on Jan. 1, 2015, and would carry penalties for violations of a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or a jail term not to exceed 180 days. Legal observers have said violations could cover each animal.

California law

Normally, investigations surrounding and arrests for alleged violations of criminal statutes are conducted by law enforcement and prosecutorial authorities.

However, in a paper based on legal opinion and provided to Feedstuffs, it was noted that California law is unique in that enforcement of animal cruelty and welfare laws "can be undertaken and/or compelled by any individual or by certain non-profit organizations."

The paper quoted California Penal Code 599a, which provides that an individual, who can represent a non-profit organization, can compel issuance of search warrants upon making a complaint under oath.

When such a complaint is made to any magistrate authorized to issue warrants that the complainant believes that any law relating to, or in any way affecting, "dumb animals or birds is being, or is about to be, violated in any particular building or place," that magistrate must issue a warrant to any law enforcement officer or to an officer of a legally qualified association "authorizing him to enter and search that building or place and to arrest any person there violating, or attempting to violate," the law, according to the paper's summation of the penal code.

The initiative qualified for the ballot through a petition carried by animal activists led by Farm Sanctuary and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), both non-profit organizations. Accordingly, the paper suggested that any representative of Farm Sanctuary, HSUS or other animal activist group "would be free to demand and execute warrants and make arrests" to enforce the initiative, the paper said.

The empowerment of non-profit organizations to enforce California animal cruelty laws is further provided for in California Corporations Code Sections 10400 and 14502, the paper said, noting that representatives of such organizations can obtain "peace officer" powers with respect to animal welfare laws.

This unique enforcement feature is almost never referred to by supporters of Prop 2 and is not ordinarily understood by the voting public, the paper said.

California precedent

In a statement, senior campaign director for "SAFE Food" Mitch Head said Prop 2 would establish a precedent for the enforcement of animal welfare laws. "This is something that all of American agriculture must realize," he said, explaining how Prop 2 would help the animal activist groups supporting the measure "not only increase their political powers but also their police powers."

The possible consequences of Prop 2 show the dangers it presents to all of agriculture, not just the egg industry, sources said.

Information on joining "SAFE Food" is available at www.safecaliforniafood.org.

feedstuffs.com