CVMA Wimps Out on Humane Farming Initiative
I discussed California’s Proposition 2, the California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, in a recent post.
Proposition 2 will appear on California’s ballot in November. A brief quote from the text of the ballot initiative presents a succinct view of its goal.
The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.
Veterinarians have a number of roles in society. According to the veterinarian’s oath, our duties include the conservation of livestock resources and the promotion of public health. But above all, veterinarians are supposed to help and heal animals. That is what our profession is all about. And that’s why approximately 600 California veterinarians have endorsed Proposition 2.
The California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) is the leading veterinary organization in California. Most vets in the state are members. The association’s mission is to represent and promote the interests of veterinarians in California. It is a politically active organization. It was bound to take a stand on the proposition.
The initiative presented a conundrum for the CVMA. The CVMA must not only represent the interests of pro-Proposition 2 companion animal veterinarians such as me. Its membership also includes food animal vets. Some (but certainly not all) of these vets favor the farming status quo.
So, I wondered, how would the CVMA balance the obvious moral superiority of endorsing Proposition 2 against the need to placate its anti-Proposition 2 members?
In the end, according to the initiative’s sponsors, the CVMA endorsed the measure. But the CVMA has released an official position statement that is one of the most incredibly cowardly works of neutrality, buck-passing and fence sitting I have ever seen. It is the political equivalent of betting on both red and black at the roulette table. Here it is (quoted from the July/August issue of California Veterinarian).
The CVMA, guided by The CVMA’s Eight Principles of Animal Care and Use, has thoughtfully considered the California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act.
As experts in animal health and welfare, California veterinarians must balance scientific knowledge with ethical, philosophical, and moral considerations. While the CVMA supports the concept that animals should be allowed to turn around, line [sic] down, stand up and fully extend their limbs when confined, we also believe that issues such as public health, biosecurity and good farming practices must be considered.
The CVMA firmly believes that any modifications of [sic] the current system should be made in consultation with California’s food animal veterinarians, the leading authorities on the health and well being of production animals.
I realize that the CVMA must balance the interests of a diverse and fractious group of veterinarians. But Proposition 2 is a no-brainer. In this case, it seems that bureaucracy has trumped common sense.
You have questions. 
Thank you, Dr. Barchas, for your continuing support of Prop 2.
We at the YES! on Prop 2 campaign are proud to have the continued support and endorsement of the 120-year old California Veterinary Medical Association. CVMA’s endorsement is listed at the top of the YES! on Prop 2 campaign’s ballot argument that will appear in the voter guide mailed to all California voters.
Opponents to Prop 2 are so frustrated that the state’s established veterinary group with more than 5,000 members as well as nearly 700 individual California veterinarians (like you, Dr. Barchas) have put animal welfare ahead of the cruel practices of big agribusiness, that they have invented a fake veterinary group with only a handful of industry members – the so called Association of California Veterinarians. This group was created in July 2008. CVMA was formed in the year 1888 and remains at the forefront of veterinary leadership in California and nationwide.
Factory farms in California would do well to pay closer attention to concerns raised by CVMA, the Consumer Federation of America, the Center for Food Safety, the Humane Society of the United States, Clean Water Action, both U.S. Senators from California, and many others (full list at YESonProp2.com).
Producers using cruel and inhumane cages and crates to confine certain farm animals should stop putting profits ahead of animal welfare and our health. Agriculture products that are “California Grown” should meet some basic standards — doing more to improve the treatment of their workers, our food safety, and animal welfare. Instead, they’re fighting Prop 2 which a July Field poll showed 63 percent of voters favor.
For more on the sentiments that are shared by most California veterinarians and the process that CVMA went through in reaching its support of Prop 2, read this recent op-ed in the Modesto Bee penned by CVMA’s immediate past president Jeff Smith, DVM – http://www.modbee.com/opinion/community/story/377131.html.
Thank you again, Dr. Barchas, for your unwavering support of Prop 2! I agree with you – it is absolutely a no-brainer! I am also deeply disappointed that some veterinarians – those more concerned with big agribusiness than with preventing animal suffering – are opposing Proposition 2. And I agree that organized veterinary medicine has often been remiss in advocating for animal welfare. However, the good thing about the CVMA’s position statement on Prop 2 is that it will be astonishingly easy to achieve what they recommend!!
Prop 2 strikes a perfect balance between scientific knowledge and ethical, philosophical, and moral considerations. NONE of these support confining chickens in battery cages or pigs in gestation crates. As you state, these practices are just the “status quo” – there is nothing but inertia supporting them! Battery cages cannot provide adequate welfare for hens – the scientific evidence and expert opinion in support of this is simply overwhelming!
In addition, phasing out battery cages DOES allow full consideration of public health. Risk of salmonella contamination of eggs is often thought to be higher in cage-free systems, but this is actually not the case. Salmonella control is MORE difficult in cage systems, due to difficulty of cage disinfection and higher densities of birds producing larger volumes of contaminated feces. Therefore, it may actually be easier to produce safe eggs in cage-free systems than in battery cages!
As Europe phases out battery cages, they’ve launched an EU-wide Salmonella survey, providing extensive data on Salmonella risk in different housing systems. Studies released so far show significantly higher Salmonella risk among caged flocks than cage-free flocks.
Most California battery-cage egg producers also have smaller cage-free operations. So their claim that cage-free production will jeopardize public health is ironic – surely they’re not already risking public health with their cage-free eggs?!?
Once Prop 2 passes, the nay-saying veterinarians will pipe down. California’s food animal veterinarians won’t have any trouble at all ensuring that California farms continue to provide safe food, and will finally admit what the rest of us have been saying – that eliminating inhumane confinement practices is actually critical for the well-being of production animals.
When the CVMA voted to endorse Proposition 2, I was prouder than I have ever been to be a member of that organization. I am thrilled with the article in support of Prop 2 written by Dr. Jeff Smith, immediate past president of the CVMA (www.modbee.com/opinion/community/story/377131.html.), While I may have chosen slightly different wording for the CVMA’s statement in support of Prop 2, the CVMA’s willingness to support this critical measure is nonetheless incredibly important, and will surely help ensure that Prop 2 passes in November!
Yes, perhaps I was a bit hard on the CVMA in the post. The key fact is that the CVMA did, in fact, endorse Prop. 2. And I commend them for that. What irked me was that nowhere in their communications to their members have they clearly disclosed the endorsement.
The headline in California Veterinarian did not state that the CVMA had endorsed the measure. It stated merely that the CVMA had released a position statement on the measure. Then it printed the above statement.
If I did not have access to outside news, I would have no idea whether the CVMA was endorsing the measure or not.
Once again, kudos to the CVMA for endorsing. I don’t envy the board of directors–what a balancing act they must perform.
Thanks for your continued articulate support of this modest, reasonable, humane initiative. While I too was disappointed by CVMA’s wishy-washy position statement, I was THRILLED that they had the guts and vision to represent me and the over 600 California veterinarians who support proposition 2 and oppose the confinement of chickens, calves and pigs such that they can not even more their limbs or turn around freely. In fact, I was so pleased that they actually took a position on this crucial intiative that I renewed my membership that day. I agree – as a veterinarian charged with relieving animal suffering, this one is a no-brainer.
If people really want to help animals, I respectfully ask, why are we hurting them in the first place? No one maintains today, in 2008, that we need to eat meat to live healthy, long lives. No matter what regulations are put into place, animals are still going to suffer at human hands as long as they are legally and socially regarded as nothing but property.
I look at the photo in this blog post, and the faces I see are of beautiful, sentient beings that are capable of feeling pain and suffering. The only reason we confine them at all and force them to live in at best unnatural conditions — and the reality is the conditions are far worse than simply “unnatural” — is because we like the way they taste. There is no other “justification” for this treatment.
There is a famous quote by Ghandi, and I’m paraphrasing here but it basically says that the moral worth of a society can be measured by how it treats its animals. Unless you are campaigning to stop seeing animals as our property and stop using them for what amounts to frivolous purposes, I respectfully submit that you are not serious about their welfare or well-being. A slave who is beaten once a month instead of once a day is still a slave. An animal who is confined and mutilated without even anesthesia, no matter how big a cage we put them in, is still property of human exploiters. And we do this to sentient animals beings for what amounts to no reason at all.
Why don’t we just stop using them altogether? It is not only possible to do this, it is a far healthier way to live for everyone involved, not just the animals.
The only problem I find with this proposition is that for the animals welfare it sometimes needs to be confined, for example when gilts are in farrowing pens, they are not allowed to turn around so that they will not lay down on top of their babies and kill them. So it is not always cruel to confine an animal for that long.
Meredith,
Prop 2 applies only to pregnant pigs, which are housed in gestation crates, not pigs that are nursing litters, which are housed in farrowing crates. The text of the initiative includes a specific exemption for farrowing crates. See page 3 at http://ag.ca.gov/cms_pdfs/initiatives/2007-08-09_07-0041_Initiative.pdf . You are correct that farrowing crates help prevent crushing of piglets, which is a real problem in modern slatted floor pig production systems.
Confinement of pigs in gestation crates is not done for the protection of piglets, and lasts longer. Nursing pigs are confined in farrowing crates for approximately 3 weeks at a time, but pregnant pigs are housed in gestation crates for 3 months at a time. In fact, breeding pigs may be confined in these 2-foot wides crates, unable to turn around, for nearly their entire adult lives.
[...] public links >> farming CVMA Wimps Out on Humane Farming Initiative Saved by jnttcarrillo on Fri 26-9-2008 Suburban Farming 101 Saved by rslpemilyrox on Tue [...]