California Prop 2 – Is it Necessary to Prevent Cruelty to Animals?

California Prop 2 is on the ballot next week, and is one of a number of “hot button” issues that the citizens of California will be voting on. While it may not be as earth-shattering as Prop 8 (the gay marriage initiative), California Prop 2 will have potentially far-reaching implications. The measure, sponsored by the Humane Society, seeks to prevent animal cruelty by requiring larger farm cages for veal, chickens and sows. Its title alone is enough to give you pause: “The California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act.”

Specifically, the following measures would be required by California state law if California Prop 2 passes:

Calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs shall be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.

Exceptions will be allowed for transportation of animals, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes.

The new law would include misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.

Will we crack at higher egg prices?

Now that all sounds well and good, doesn’t it? Who doesn’t want to support a law that requires better conditions for animals? A number of farmers, that’s who! Opponents of California Prop 2 say that, because veal and pork are not the primary products produced in the state, the biggest effect of the new animal cruelty law would be felt by farmers housing egg-producing hens. The law would require these farmers to increase the size of the cages (which, by the way, are currently smaller than the size of a regular piece of paper), which will raise egg prices, force many farmers to either acquire more land or cut back on production, and even allegedly result in negative health implications.

On the October 29, 2008 National Public Radio (NPR) “Morning Edition” broadcast, one farmer explained that the hen cages are already big enough for the animals to turn around, since water is on one side, and food is on the other. She claimed that it doesn’t make sense for the hens to be able to spread their wings fully without touching the edges of the cage and/or hens in adjoining confinement. The farmer continued by cautioning that allowing greater mobility for hens raises the risk of feces contamination and resulting potential illnesses in humans that consume chicken or eggs.

Notably, none of these farmers addressed the cruel practice of debeaking. Often, the birds must have their beaks cut off to prevent them from attacking each other in the overcrowded conditions of the battery cages. There is also scientific evidence to support the claim that animals living their entire lives in such overcrowded conditions often develop severe medical and/or psychological problems. Supporters of California Prop 2 state that animals under the stress of intensive confinement have compromised immune systems, and thus higher levels of pathogens such as Salmonella in their intestines. Not surprisingly, high-density living environments for egg-laying hens lead to unhealthy concentrations of bird feces.

Even if you don’t live in the Golden State, California Prop 2 is worth watching and considering. Similar laws already exist in Florida, Colorado, Arizona and Oregon. A number of other states are poised to take action if Prop 2 passes – and it is expected to succeed as of the date of this publication. There are no federal laws that require humane treatment of farm animals.

On the other hand, with grocery prices already sky-high (and not falling in sync with fuel prices), a faltering economy and uncertainty about the prospect of a recession, many consumers will “squawk” (sorry, don’t um…. “egg” me on) at any additional impact on their wallets. Maybe its just time to go vegan.

What do you think? Are you willing to pay potentially more on your food bill so that animals can live in humane conditions? How would you vote if a similar measure was on the ballot in your state?