Where Do You Stand on Proposition 2?
Or . . . why I'm voting "Yes" on Prop 2If you regularly read these pages, my personal stance on Prop 2 isn't an earth-shattering declaration or a departure from my usual sentiments. But is it a statement of my belief that animals -- especially those entrusted to our care -- deserve, at minimum, a baseline level of humane treatment.
Proposition 2 calls for changing the worst of the confinement systems present on modern farms. It is not an extreme measure. It stipulates that confined animals have the freedom to lie down, to turn around, and to fully extend their limbs. When you consider that some animals are tethered without the ability to turn around, or packed tight into cages without the ability to stretch, these are not radical, physiological requirements.
As I'm sure you know, the photo above does not represent the standard accommodation in which millions of modern farm animals dwell. It was taken at Little Farm in Berkeley, a bucolic environment that bears little resemblance to the battery cages and veal crates which constitute life for millions of animals in the processed food system.
The Humane Society of the United States, a sponsor of Proposition 2, has information on these confinement systems and what they entail for the animals. The Humane Society is joined in support of Prop 2 by 150 animal protection groups, the California Veterinary Medical Association and more than 700 California veterinarians. In addition, a roster of newspapers, legislators, medical professionals, and more than 100 California farmers also supports Prop 2. See the full list of endorsements at the Yes on Prop 2 website.
The two primary arguments against Proposition 2, as presented by the No on Prop 2 coalition, relate to financial and human health issues. The No on Prop 2 campaign suggests that the proposition will drive up food costs and increase the risk of food-borne illness. You can read their arguments here and view their list of endorsements.
The Yes on Prop 2 site has rebuttals to the above arguments, including a refutation of the food safety issue. They also enumerate some of the interest money behind Prop 2's opposition force.
Keep in mind that even if implemented, the changes in Proposition 2 aren't slated to take effect until 2015 -- which provides for transition time.
I've read almost all of the arguments for and against Proposition 2. And I personally remain committed to the idea of changing these bare parameters. When raising and confining animals for our own purposes, I believe it's incumbent upon us to address this responsibility, with humane treatment at the core. That's my stance. But I welcome discussion in the comments below.
Prop 2 Resources:
Photo © Ingrid Taylar
Comments
Hi,
Thank you so much for this post! I could not agree more.
I will be voting yes on Prop 2 as well. This is a modest measure that improves treatment of animals while also benefiting human health and reducing negative impacts of factory farming on our air and water.
As you point out, Prop 2 is supported by a very broad range of Californian and national organizations. These include the United Farm Workers, the CA Veterinary Medical Association, the CA Sierra Club, the Food Safety Center, and many others.
As a volunteer working on this proposition, just about everyone I’ve talked to intuitively supports it - we wouldn’t treat our pets the way these farms do and we shouldn’t treat animals raised for food this way either.
Thanks again.
If we already have laws to protect these farm animas…why do we need another?
These are time tested and proven methods of animal husbandry. Why should we allow uniformed persons with a Bambi mentality to drive up our food costs? Oh I forgot China will provide our food cheaply and with a fortified protein supplement.
Why should we allow uniformed persons with a Bambi mentality to drive up our food costs?
It’s easy to level an ad hominem attack against those with whom you disagree. Try debating the issue on its valid points. When you say “time-tested,” I’m assuming you mean tested from an economic and production standpoint. We all know that many policies and practices throughout history were later in time, deemed misguided. Which is to say, “time tested” does not necessarily imply correct or humane.
The plan is to shut down every animal breeder in America, not just a select few. The Animal Rights movement was started in Germany in 1933. They brought the 4 class system. Animals would reign over people. Animals were in group 2. Most of the population was in group 3. The people of color, all religions,the disabled, people with birth defects were in group 4. THE MASS EXTERMINATION OF GROUP FOUR followed.