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 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.

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!

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.