Consider the case of California’s Humane Farming Initiative, a ballot measure that passed by a landslide last November. The law states that by 2015 farm animals must be allowed enough space to stand up, turn around, and stretch their limbs. Pigs, egg-laying hens, and veal calves will benefit most from the new law.

When the initiative passed, some farmers and food animal veterinarians squealed louder than the pigs the law was designed to help. A few of them protested that the law will end agriculture in California.

I beg to differ.

I believe that California’s farmers will adapt to the new regulations. When the rest of the world implements similar measures (and it will), California’s farmers will be ahead of the game. The law will help California remain a dominant agricultural powerhouse.

A sea change has occurred in the public’s beliefs about animal welfare. Opponents of the Humane Farming Initiative couldn’t sense that change, but I believe that California’s farmers and food animal vets will benefit from it.

Many food animal veterinarians and two major veterinary organizations now have failed to notice a different sea change. They have taken postions on an issue that places them squarely on the wrong side of history. The organizations are the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA). I am a member of both organizations.

At issue is the routine use of antibiotics in livestock.

When I was in veterinary school, I was surprised to learn that antibiotics are added to animal feeds for reasons other than disease control or prevention. Feed manufacturers may add antibiotics (such as tylosin) simply because they can cause animals to grow slightly more efficiently. This reduces the total amount of feed needed for each animal. It reduces the time to slaughter. It increases profit margins, in theory. In practice, since so many farm animals receive antibiotics I suspect that the competitive advantage farmers gain from the medicines is wiped out.

I doubted in veterinary school, and I still doubt, that adding antibiotics to animal feeds simply to increase efficiency by a few fractions of a percent is worth the risks.

What are the risks? Excessive use of antibiotics is linked to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that may pose health risks to animals and people. And if antibiotics aren’t withdrawn from feed for an adequate length of time before slaughter, residues of the drug can end up in meat (controls are in place to prevent this, but it has been known to happen nonetheless).

Let’s face it: using antibiotics simply to make animals grow more rapidly does not pass the smell test. That’s how I see it, and that’s how I’m betting more and more people are going to see it. (Consider the backlash against rBST in dairy cows. In my opinion, rBST is safer than antibiotics.)

Here is my prediction for the record. In 30 years, antibiotics no longer will be used to promote efficient growth in food animals. Nobody wants tylosin in his turkey sandwich.

Yet the CVMA and the AVMA, pandering to food animal vets who have failed to sense the sea change, are proudly and actively on record in favor of using antibiotics to promote animal growth.

The CVMA recently published a newsletter in which it bragged about its role in defeating a bill in that would have required school districts to purchase meat from animals that were not fed antibiotics.

At around the same time, the AVMA sent me a link to a legislative action alert. The AVMA appears to be working to generate opposition to a bill in the US senate that would restrict antibiotic use to disease treatment and prevention.

It’s too bad. In my opinion, the elimination of antibiotics from animal feeds is inevitable. The CVMA and AVMA should be leading the way on this issue. Instead, they are standing myopically in the way of a change that I believe could benefit farmers and food animal vets in the long run.

And speaking of myopically attempting to prevent the inevitable, tomorrow we’ll talk about people who support breed standards that call for ear cropping and tail docking.

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.