Vets Cited as Opponents of California Farming Initiative; at Least One Vet is Incensed
An interesting message appeared in my inbox the other day. The message was sent by an organization that opposes a voter initiative scheduled to appear on the November ballot in California.
The ballot measure in question is the 2008 Farm Animal Initiative. An excerpt from the e-mail I received follows.
Californians for SAFE Food, a coalition of family farmers, veterinarians and consumers, which includes the National Animal Interest Alliance, California Farm Bureau Federation, California Women for Agriculture and many of the leading avian science and poultry experts in the nation, ask you to join us and oppose this dangerous initiative. (emphasis mine)
I did some research on the initiative. Here is a quote from the text of the ballot measure (link is PDF format).
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.
To me, the standards set forth in the initiative sound quite reasonable. And I have a hunch that the overwhelming majority of Californians will see it the same way. I predict the initiative will pass by a landslide in November.
If you look at the website sponsored by the initiative’s opponents, you will see a list of veterinarians who have, indeed, endorsed the opposition. But a check of the sponsor’s site will reveal a much, much longer list of veterinarians who support the measure.
I recognize that the initiative may create a burden for California farmers. It may also lead to increased food prices.
But I, for one, am not happy that veterinarians as a group have been listed in mass e-mails as opponents of an initiative designed to promote humane farming practices–especially when it seems that most vets (myself included) support the measure.
For more information on the initiative, click on the links below.
Supporters’ website: Californians for Humane Farms
Opponents’ website: Californians for SAFE Food
You have questions. 
More than 450 California veterinarians have endorsed the YES vote on Prop 2, the California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act.
Only a handful of vets, many of whom aren’t even in California, have sided with Big Agribusiness on this ballot measure.
You can see a full list of all the YES campaign endorsers, including veterinarians, at
http://www.humanecalifornia.org/endorsements/index.php
Californians who care about preventing animal cruelty, promoting food safety, and protecting the environment, should vote YES on Prop 2 this November.
The oppononts of this initiative claim it is an “animal rights” attack on agriculture. Yet the European Union, Australia, New Zealand all have more stringent requirements for farm animal welfare than this calls for. There are several sets of standards looked to for guidance about animal welfare in general, such as the Five Freedoms developed by the ag council in the UK, the California Veterinary Medical Associations 8 principles and the American Veterinary Medical Associations principles of animal welfare. This measure is conservative compared to what the application of any of these moderate sets of standards would call for.
Thank you Dr. Barchas! Like you, I am a veterinarian that wholeheartedly supports Proposition 2, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act. I think very few of our colleagues actually want laying hens and breeding pigs to continue be confined in a manner that does not allow them to engage in normal movement or postural adjustments.
I am a veterinarian specialist in animal shelters, so I focus primarily on dogs and cats. However, I am also concerned with and knowledgeable about humane housing for a variety of species, including farm animals.
This measure will improve housing conditions for up to 20 million laying hens and 20 thousand breeding pigs. The measure provides a 6 year transition period and multiple exemptions for temporary holding (rather than housing), such as transport, 4H, rodeos, individualized vet care, etc.
The most important target of this measure is housing of laying hens in battery cages. Approximately 95% of the 20 million hens in California are confined in battery cages, in which they are provided with 67 square inches of space, approximately 2/3 than a sheet of paper, on which to live their entire lives. These cages do not allow hens to engage in instinctual behaviors, the most important of which is nesting. Nesting behavior is triggered by internal hormone fluctuations, and hens are so motivated to perform this behavior that it is called a behavioral “need.”
Experts in poultry science, behavior, and husbandry agree that hens need more space than they are currently given, even to simply stand comfortably, much less turn around, spread their wings, or even walk freely. These experts also agree that the inability to nest in battery cages causes hens to experience intense frustration.
These poultry experts include nationally and internationally recognized veterinarians and animal scientists, faculty at veterinary colleges across North America and Europe, and even members of the poultry industry’s own scientific advisory council.
The LayWel Project, a collaborative research project by Universities and research centers in 7 European countries, collected data from 230 laying hen flocks in a variety of housing systems (battery cages, cage-free, and free-range) Their conclusion was that all housing systems have the potential to provide satisfactory welfare for laying hens, with the notable exception of battery cages.
Here in the US, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production recently concluded a study of American animal agriculture with unanimous findings from its 15 members, which included a prominent veterinarian, as well as experts in public health and food policy and several politicians. Their report recommended a phase out of battery cages, gestation crates, and veal crates. The Commission also issued a press release in which it cites the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act as “the type of modest animal welfare public policy improvements that [they] recommend implementing.”
The bottom line if that battery cages cannot provide adequate welfare for hens – the scientific evidence and expert opinion in support of this is simply overwhelming.
Thank you, Dr. Barchas, for expressing your support for the YES on Prop 2 effort to phase out the cruel and inhumane treatment of animals kept in cages and crates so small the animals cannot even turn around or extend their limbs.
You, and other veterinarians, may appreciate the comments expressed by two veterinary leaders in San Diego in the recent edition of the SDVMA newsletter.
All California veterinarians wishing to endorse the YES on Prop 2 campaign, can do so by clicking here and faxing to 916-344-1808.
Here is the link to the SDVMA newsletter article:
https://www.humanecalifornia.org/assets/122_sdcvmanews.pdf
Tesco in the UK has recently come up against criticism about the way it rears cheap chickens. They voted to carry on with the way their chickens are intensively farmed, claiming that putting the price up would deny customers freedom of choice between the regular chicken and the “premium” Freedom Food chicken. Personally I would rather spend a bit more on what is frankly a luxury item than think my food has been forced to sit in its own faeces until the skin on its legs gets burned away…
THANK YOU, Dr. Barchas, for starting a dialogue about California Prop 2, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act initiative. Thanks also to people like Barbara Jones, DVM, whose comments here are insightful and powerful. I’m so pleased to find Prop 2 discussed on Dogster & Catster, and I hope we can keep the YES ON 2 campaign a visible topic until November.
How wonderful for California to lead the way in humane farming reform. Ending animal cruelty should a political priority, along with human rights’ concerns. Who among us would want their legacy to be a “green” future safe from global warming if humans were still torturing animals and other humans?
Crazily enough, there is a big lobby opposing Prop 2. Yet Prop 2 is a simple, clearly written statement asking for prohibition of “the confinement of farm animals.” I’ve heard an argument against Prop 2 in the small farming community, and it’s about the financial concerns of changing the way they do business. While I usually side with small business, I obviously cannot in this case. I don’t support inhumane treatment of any animal. Or human.
** Californians, forget about carbon footprints for a minute and CHECK THE CRUELTY FOOTPRINT. ** Please join Humane California on MySpace, Facebook, and YouTube and help them raise funds for YES on Prop 2.
[…] I discussed California’s Proposition 2, the California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, in a recent post. […]
[…] 2, the Humane Farming Initiative. I have covered Proposition 2 twice on this blog already: here and […]