Articles in this document:

· Prop. 2 backers wield lawsuits as weapon

· The case for Proposition 2

· Calif. ballot initiative raising concern among farmers nationwide

Prop. 2 backers wield lawsuits as weapon

Humane Society says egg board illegally used check-off dollars

Hank Shaw

Capital Press Agriculture Weekly - Salem, OR

10/30/2008 9:34:00 AM

The campaign in favor of Proposition 2 is turning heads among veterans of California's ballot initiative process because it has been unusually litigious.

The "yes" campaign has filed at least five separate lawsuits against its opponents this year.

"I've seen lawsuits before, but not this many," said Barbara O'Connor, a professor of political communications at Sacramento State University. "It's unusual for a proposition."

Julie Buckner, spokeswoman for the "no" campaign, said litigation is a specialty of the Humane Society of the United States, which is bankrolling the "yes" campaign.

"I do not think it's unusual for the Humane Society," Buckner said. "It's one of their primary tools."

Proposition 2 could essentially end the conventional egg industry in California, the nation's sixth-largest supplier of eggs. The initiative would also end close-confinement practices for hogs and veal calves, but neither industry is significant in California.

The Humane Society of the United States is the prime mover behind the "yes" campaign. It says passage of Prop. 2 would strike a blow for the humane treatment of food animals and that could spread to other states.

Egg farmers say Prop. 2 won't change how eggs are produced, only where, because other states would not be affected by the initiative but could export more eggs to California. The state imports one-third of its shell eggs.

Veterinarians also argue over whether the cage-free method advocated by the Humane Society of the United States is actually better for the chickens, which can hurt each other when allowed to flock en masse. There is also some question over whether free-ranged birds are most susceptible to diseases.

The Humane Society began the slew of lawsuits by charging that the United Egg Board was illegally using check-off money - normally used for advertising and promotion - to fight Prop. 2. They have won at least the first round in that suit.

It then followed with a series of other suits:

n HSUS sued the University of California over a study it did that suggested that passage of Prop. 2 would end conventional egg production and cost jobs. The group said the university did not give them documents concerning the funding of that study in a timely manner.

• The group sued a French Camp egg rancher for allegedly discharging ammonia into the air, creating a nuisance and violating clean-air laws.

• The group sued a San Diego County egg producer for similar pollution-related charges shortly after he became active in the "no" campaign. Humane Society staffer Jennifer Fearing, who is running the "yes" campaign, told the New York Times, "He put a bull's-eye on himself."

• HSUS sued the United Egg Board again, this time for allegedly making false claims about the welfare of conventionally raised chickens.

The Humane Society is also involved in a series of class-action suits against the egg industry as a whole that allege the industry illegally fixed prices; they are not the primary plaintiff in those cases, however.

Fearing says each suit has been justified.

"We are only reacting to the most unethical and unlawful 'no' campaign in modern history," Fearing said. "It's a lot of work trying to keep up with all the 'no' campaign's unlawful conduct. And I am sure we've only scratched the surface."

Other campaigns have used the courts as a campaign weapon. UC-Davis law professor Floyd Feeney said he tracked at least 25 lawsuits in the 2003 recall campaign the sent Arnold Schwarzenegger to the governor's office.

"The stakes are fairly high on this, so people are using these lawsuits in a variety of ways," Feeney said, adding that it costs little to file a suit and each one becomes an opportunity to make news.

"It's a way of adding bite to a press release," Feeney said.

O'Connor was more blunt. "It's like a PR firm doing event planning - that, and a little bit of intimidation and threat."

Hank Shaw is the California editor based in Sacramento.

capitalpress.info

The case for Proposition 2

Benjamin Davidow

The Union - Grass Valley, CA

Oct 31, 2008

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.

theunion.com

Calif. ballot initiative raising concern among farmers nationwide

By PHILIP BRASHER • Gannett News Service

Statesman Journal - Oregon

October 31, 2008

WASHINGTON — A ballot measure in California is raising the dander of farmers around the country.

The initiative, known as Proposition 2, would set new standards for livestock farms. Starting in 2015, all animals would have to have room to lie down, turn around and extend their legs or wings. The measure is intended to force farms to stop keeping hens in cages or sows in stalls.

In California, the measure would primarily affect egg-laying operations. The state has no pork industry to speak of.

But both proponents and opponents of the measure agree it could have ramifications well beyond California if it passes. If nothing else, it would send a message to the next Congress, which is likely to be one of the most liberal in history.

"One of the major effects will be on the retail sector," said Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, which has spent more than $4 million on the campaign so far to pass Proposition 2. "It will be another indicator that the public finds these intensive confinement practices are out of bounds and unacceptable."

Passing the measure also would provide "additional momentum to our efforts at the federal level," Pacelle said.

One of the group's top priorities is a bill known as the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act, which would set animal-welfare standards for foods purchased for school lunches and any other federally funded nutrition programs. The bill didn't go anywhere this year, but its chances would almost improve dramatically if Proposition 2 passes.

Previous ballot measures to ban sow stalls in Florida and Arizona had little direct impact on farms, since neither of those states has significant pork production. But shortly after passage of the Arizona measure in 2006, pork giant Smithfield Foods announced it was phasing out the use of sow stalls.

California, which ranks No. 6 in egg production and has an even bigger population than Florida or Arizona, now raises the stakes for agribusiness.

Animal welfare activists "would be pretty emboldened by winning in California," said Dave Warner, a spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council, which has contributed $10,000 toward the campaign against Proposition 2.

"With a Congress and a White House that they're likely to have, why not take it nationally?"

Egg producers and other agribusiness interests are expected to spend $7 million campaigning against Proposition 2, matching the proponents' expenditures.

Nearly $300,000 in contributions to the anti-Proposition 2 campaign have come from egg farms and other business interests in Iowa, the nation's top producers of eggs. Producers also have chipped in from across the Midwest and from states such as New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, North Carolina, Texas, Oregon and Washington.

Sparboe Farms, an egg producer based in Litchfield, Minn., has contributed $100,000. West Des Moines-based Hy-Line North America, a leading company in hen breeding, has given $40,000.

Mitch Head, a spokesman for the United Egg Producers, said the measure would put most egg farms out of business in California and increase egg prices. His side also is working to raise concerns among voters about food safety by claiming egg production would move from California to Mexico, an argument disputed by the Humane Society.

"They're attempting to stoke concerns about immigration and trade with Mexico," said Pacelle.

Little public polling has been done on the initiative but what has been done showed broad support for it. But major newspapers in California, including the Los Angeles Times, have come out against it, and Head said he believes the measure's fate is still up in the air.

"Both sides are moving all chips in," he said.

Pacelle said he's confident the measure will pass.

"At some point, it becomes absurd for the industry to deny that the public is concerned about the welfare of animals raised for food," he said.

The industry is certainly paying attention.

Philip Brasher is a reporter for The Des Moines Register.

statesmanjournal.com