On November 4th, 2008 the Proposition 2, Standards for Confining Farm Animals, State of California, went to the polls and was passed with a majority of 63.4% votes. (Woodward) Animal farming is a key commercial activity in California. However, during recent times, anxiety over several animal-farming processes such as the accommodation of particular animals in restricted confines, such as enclosures or other restrictive cages has been raised.
Somewhat as a reaction to these apprehensions, various farms have altered in their production methods more towards protecting the rights of animals. State regulation forbids brutality on animals. For instance, McKinley notes, any individual who raises an animal in an enclosure is obliged to supply it with a sufficient exercise spot and permit admittance to liberal shelter, food, and water. (McKinley)
Starting January 1, 2015, this measure forbids with certain exclusions the incarceration on a farm of expectant pigs, calves raised for beef and egg-laying hens in an approach that disallows them to turn around without restraint, rest, stand up, and completely extend their limbs. Under this bill, any individual who infringes this law would be accountable for an offense, liable to be punished by a penalty of up to $1,000 and/or custody in county jail for up to six months. (Woodward)
Preventing cruelty to animals: It is unethical to incarcerate veal calves, gestating pigs, and poultry hens in minuscule cages hardly bigger than their own sizes. Calves are tied by the neck and cannot move freely, pigs in ruthless captivity bite into the metal slabs of their barred enclosures, and hens are ensnared and even pierced in their wired confines. Humans should not compel farm animals to undergo such wretchedness. All animals, even those which are reared for victuals, are worthy of humane handling.
Improving health and food safety: The spiteful handling of ailing and stultified cows was uncovered by a Chino slaughter plant inquiry, forcing authorities to take away meat from school menus and commence a countrywide recall. Woodward states, animal farmers have endangered public health by permitting these dreadful abuses. They even, irresponsibly, endorse keeping animals in congested and inhumane environments. Shoving several animals into tiny enclosures promotes the spread of animal infections, which have an adverse effect on the health of the whole community. Thus, Proposition 2 is not only better for animals but also for the humankind. (Woodward)
Supporting family farmers: California family farmers endorse Proposition 2 for the reason that they consider food value and safety are improved by superior farming techniques. Progressively, they are increasingly providing for mainstream vendors. Factory farms favor cheaper approaches, have a negative impact on family farm businesses, and view earnings as a priority instead of animal interests and public health.
Protecting air and water and safeguarding the environment: The American Public Health Association called for a cessation on new factory farms because of the distressing effects of its maneuvers on surrounding environments. Factory farms regularly dispense waste on the ground unprocessed, which pollutes watercourses, lakes, groundwater, earth and air. By doing away with the awful animal incarceration approaches, Proposition 2 facilitates the protection of valuable natural resources.
A reasonable and common sense reform: Woodward states, Proposition 2 offers sufficient time i.e., until 2015, for factory farmers employing brutal confinement approaches to alter their practices. Other states like Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Oregon also implement similar plans. (Woodward)
Yesonprop2 mentions that California vets, family farmers, the Center for Science in the Public Interest along with the prestigious Pew Commission on animal agriculture, Republican and Democratic nominated representatives, Episcopal and Methodist church leaders, National Catholic Rural Life Conference, the Consumer Federation of America and various others supported the cause for Proposition 2. (Yesonprop2)
Opponents of Proposition 2 argued that the proposal would expose Californians to the hazards of Avian Influenza, Salmonella infectivity along with various other infections. California animal farmers assist in shielding Californians against Avian Influenza, or bird flu and other ailments by means of contemporary shelter systems to rear poultry chickens. These accommodation systems are in effect forbidden by Proposition 2.
According to Woodward, It is so severe that in addition to that it in fact prohibits “cage-free” eggs, drawing hens in the open air for the most part of the day. Further, as stated by the United States Animal Health Association, the outdoor contact increases the possibility of such birds experiencing straight contact with migratory and untamed birds along with other animals, significantly escalating the threat of Avian Influenza, Exotic Newcastle Disease, and other maladies. (Woodward)
The majority of all California animal farmers adhere to the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s Egg Quality Assurance Program, which guarantees premier standards for food quality and assures public health. The outcomes of this program have lead to the effective eradication of food-borne infirmity like Salmonella.
Opponents of Proposition 2 further claim that the proposal brings in tribulations for California consumers who depend on secure, fresh, inexpensive California-raised eggs. They proclaimed that consumers would be coerced to purchase eggs brought in from far off states and Mexico if the proposal takes effect. California family animal farm owners would suffer losses in their business. Woodward mentioned that the implementation of Proposition 2 would lead to the loss of several jobs and in excess of $600 million in the commercial arena would be gone, affecting the state and neighboring economies. California eggs would cost more as a result and with increasing inflation rates, paying increased prices for home food would be disastrous on part of the Californians. (Woodward)
They proclaimed that Proposition 2 was deceptive for the reason that it concerns with conduct towards farm animals, but in reality, it deals with just housing issues. The bill largely influences egg-laying hens. According to a New York Times report, “because veal and pork are not major industries in California, the battle over Proposition 2 is focused almost exclusively on the state’s henhouses, which opponents say will be hard hit by higher production costs if the measure passes.” (NYT)
Most food safety authorities, public health officials, vets, and animal rights activists defend contemporary housing methodologies, which offer the finest care for hens in addition to providing safety for them from injury, infections and disease.
In an interview with Gary L. Francione, a law and philosophy professor at Rutgers University in Newark, N.J. and the creator of the blog Animal Rights: An Abolitionist Approach, he was quoted saying “Proposition 2, if passed, will only make the public feel better about animal exploitation and will result in increased exploitation. Animals will continue to be tortured; the only difference will be that the torture will carry the stamp of approval from the Humane Society of the United States.” (Francione)
“The issue of Proposition 2 raised immense passion among both the proponents as well as the opponents of the cause. It was a heated campaign issue and both sides argued with comparable rigors.” (Personal Interview) However, the proponents received the mandate and we have to wait and watch until the proposition takes effect in 2015 to judge its competency. In conclusion, it should be mentioned that Proposition 2 is a very beneficial issue and I completely support the cause.
Works cited:
Francione, Gary L. Animal Rights: An Abolitionist Approach. Tina Volpe’s Wake Up America. abolitionistapproach. 2008. Web.
McKINLEY, JESSE. A California Ballot Measure Offers Rights for Farm Animals. NYTimes. 2008. Web.
Woodward, Kay. Animal Rights. World Almanac Library: Auckland, 2008
Yesonprop2. Common Sense Reform. yesonprop2. 2008. Web.
Zimmerman, L. Personal Interview. 2009.