Articles in this document:

· Gov. Schwarzenegger urges "no" on Prop 2

· Opposition to California proposition grows

· Confining Farm Animals the Prop. 2 Way

Would It Make California Eggs Easier to Swallow, or Destroy the Industry?

Gov. Schwarzenegger urges "no" on Prop 2

FEEDSTUFFS

(10/29/2008)

Rod Smith

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger late yesterday urged Californians to vote no on the California ballot initiative on farm animal housing, Proposition 2, or "Prop 2." Schwarzenegger did not offer reasoning for his position on the initiative or any of the other propositions on the ballot that he endorsed or opposed.

Prop 2 would ban modern confinement housing for egg-laying hens, sows and veal calves. It is supported by animal rights and vegetarian organizations, including Farm Sanctuary and the Humane Society of the United States.

feedstuffs.com

Opposition to California proposition grows

KTIC 840 Rural Radio - Nebraska

October 29, 2008

An organization representing a broad-based coalition of farmers, ranchers, farm and ranch trade groups, suppliers, processors and retailers has joined the list of those opposing California Proposition 2 on the November 4 ballot. According to the Animal Agriculture Alliance, the legal initiative would have negative consequences to animal welfare that will be difficult to correct.

Proposition 2 would prohibit housing that prevents farm animals from turning around freely, lying down, standing up and fully extending their legs. It would apply to poultry cages, sow gestation crates and veal crates. Among reasons for the Animal Agriculture Alliance’s opposition to the ballot question are higher death rates in non-cage systems, increase animal smothering and more animal-to-animal aggression.

In addition to the alliance, other groups opposing the measure include the American Veterinary Medical Association, California Restaurant Association, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the California Alliance for Consumer Protection, the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, California Teamsters Public Affairs Council and the California Retailers Association.

Many of the state’s leading newspapers oppose Proposition 2. The list includes the Orange County Register, Los Angeles Times and San Francisco Chronicle. Editors at the Register cited “massive cost increases” in the price of eggs for consumers and criticized the measure as part of “ California’s regulation frenzy.”

During an August hearing before the California Legislative Analysis Office, one producer said about 90% of his market is for eggs from caged production. He told the government panel Proposition 2 will force him to go completely cage-free, putting him in a business without sufficient consumer demand to sustain the operation.

kticam.com

Confining Farm Animals the Prop. 2 Way

Would It Make California Eggs Easier to Swallow, or Destroy the Industry?

Santa Barbara Independent - California

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Pro: Battery Cages Are a Sick Imitation of Assembly-Line Auto Production. Reform Will Cost Only a Penny an Egg.

by Lee E. Heller, an environmental activist and Santa Barbara County coordinator of the Yes on Prop. 2 campaign.

Scrambled eggs and ham — mmm, yum. As you tuck into your plate, you imagine chickens contentedly pecking in the dirt, pigs rooting about in their trough — a scene right out of Charlotte’s Web.

Well, think again.

More than 90 percent of eggs come from chickens living in “battery cages” — cages with chickens stuffed in together, up to eight birds in a space so small that each chicken is jammed up against her cagemates, unable to move more than a few inches or nest. She’ll stand on wire her entire life, feet never touching solid ground. The stress is so incredible that chickens peck each other bloody. The cages are stacked vertically, the feces from above falling on the birds below.

As for the ham: Pregnant pigs are crammed into “gestation crates,” spending their entire pregnancy standing on concrete, unable to lie down fully or turn around.

And as for the veal piccata you order at dinner — veal calves are raised, for the pathetic misery of their brief lives, in cages where they are tethered by the neck, unable to lie down, never able to stretch their limbs.

This isn’t farming. It’s a sick imitation of the assembly line that produces cars and DVD players quickly, cheaply, and on a massive scale. And yet it’s been applied to living beings for several decades and is perfectly legal — unless we pass Proposition 2, the Standards for Confining Farm Animals initiative, on November 4.

Prop. 2 is a modest effort to reduce farm animal suffering and improve the quality of our food. It would require only that laying hens, pregnant pigs, and veal calves have room to turn around, lie down, and fully extend their limbs. It seems insane to think that we have to pass a law to get this bare minimum of care for 19 million of California’s farm animals — but we do.

Don’t let the opposition scare you off with claims about huge price increases, the death of the California egg industry, and more contaminated food.

In fact, the egg industry’s own economist calculated recently that it would only cost about one cent more per egg for farmers under the requirements of Prop. 2. California’s farmers would have until 2015 to make the transition, giving them time to tap into the increasing market for humanely raised food — a market that now includes Burger King and Safeway Stores.

As for health: Prop. 2 has been endorsed by the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Food Safety, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest because battery eggs are less, not more, safe — in fact, they are up to 20 times more likely to be contaminated with salmonella or other food-borne pathogens.

A recent New York Times article called Prop. 2 the “most important election … you’ve never heard of.” The European Union has banned all of the practices that Prop. 2 seeks to change in California. California, with the world’s fifth largest economy, is poised to lead the nation in making meaningful reforms for better, more humanely raised food. And all you need to do is vote YES on Prop. 2 to make it so.

Con: Initiative Would Destroy Egg Industry, Making Californians Dependent on Unsafe Imports.

By Teri Bontrager, executive director of the Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau.

Among the 12 propositions to appear before California voters on their November ballot is a measure that would impact your family’s access to safe, fresh, affordable, and locally grown eggs. Proposition 2 would outlaw modern egg production practices and thereby threaten public health by putting us at increased risk for salmonella contamination and avian influenza (bird flu). I urge you to vote NO on Prop. 2.

California’s current housing standards for egg-laying hens, banned under Prop. 2, are the most stringent in the nation, protecting humans from disease by keeping our food safe while also ensuring hen welfare. Nearly all California egg farmers adhere to the California Egg Quality Assurance Program (CEQAP), a strict set of food safety standards developed and implemented by California egg farmers, California Department of Food and Agriculture, U.S. Department of Agriculture, University of California Cooperative Extension, California Animal Health and Food Safety Laboratory, California Department of Health Services, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

This program is credited with helping control egg-associated salmonella in the state. Since the program was implemented, there’s been no human case of salmonella from eating California-grown eggs. However, 118,000 Americans become ill each year from salmonella-contaminated eggs produced out of state. Prop. 2 will force a dependence on eggs shipped in from other states and foreign countries, such as Mexico, that do not have the same high food safety standards as California.

Prop. 2 also has significant impacts on our state’s economy, and agriculture in particular, which is an important economic sector in California. According to a University of California economic impact study, Prop. 2 will eliminate almost all of the state’s egg industry in five years and further harm the state’s economy due to resulting job and revenue losses. As a result, California will lose thousands of jobs and $615 million in economic activity and millions more in lost state and local tax revenues. At a time when the country and our state are already facing an economic downturn, we can’t afford the impacts of Prop. 2.

The long-term effects of Prop. 2 will be the elimination of safe, fresh, locally farmed eggs for California families. Costs will continue to go up, quality and safety will be compromised, California’s ag sector will be weakened, and our environment will be negatively impacted with an increased carbon footprint from eggs trucked in from out of state and Mexico. Additionally, Prop. 2 will significantly increase — and nearly double — the price of locally produced California eggs, forcing consumers to pay higher prices for eggs at a time when Californians are already experiencing skyrocketing prices for groceries, gasoline, and other basic living expenses.

Why would we risk our great safety record, the health of consumers and create greater economic hardship by driving egg farms out of state? It’s no wonder that leading newspapers, including the San Francisco Chronicle, L.A. Times, Orange County Register, Sacramento Bee, and others have editorialized against Prop. 2. Join me in voting NO on Prop. 2.

independent.com