Be informed on voter initiatives on ag

By Frank Priestly
Friday, October 24, 2008 2:03 PM CDT

California voters will decide this fall whether to support an initiative that bans certain agricultural practices long used in the production of meat and eggs. And something similar to Proposition 2, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, may be headed to Idaho and many other states in the near future.

This initiative, recently endorsed by the New York Times, would end the use of battery cages for laying hens, hog gestation crates and crates used to confine calves destined to become veal. The NYT went so far as to urge every state to enact similar laws. In addition, the issue will be featured on the Oprah Winfrey program and although it hasn’t aired yet, we’ll hazard a guess that Oprah’s influence will help the cause.

This voter initiative is sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) — which, as a side note, is not affiliated with the good folks that operate animal shelters all across this great nation. The HSUS motivation is to turn back the clock on American agriculture. They would rather you ate tofu, and they’ll ply on the emotional aspects of the issue to get this initiative passed. Their methods have already worked on voters in Colorado, Florida and Arizona.

HSUS will tell people that being able to roam free makes happier pigs and chickens and that conventional methods are cruel and confining. They’ll tell California voters that humans don’t like being confined in small spaces and neither do chickens. And they’ll tell California voters that passing this initiative will reduce the suffering of millions of farm animals.

What they won’t tell voters is this initiative and others like it will make food cost more. Pork and egg production in this country has evolved to capture efficiencies. We’re not going to attempt to argue about what makes an animal with no ability to reason happy or whether they have feelings like us. But we do know how to raise healthy farm animals that produce healthy, affordable food.

To illustrate the fact that grocery costs will increase if this measure passes, let’s look at hog gestation crates. These crates are used to confine a sow for about the first week after she gives birth. The crate keeps her from stepping on and killing her babies. If farmers can’t use the crates, they’ll have fewer pigs to sell. That’s no big deal to the farmer, as long as he gets more money for the pigs he has for sale. If the farmer can’t get the price he needs to make the farm work, he goes out of business. If enough farmers go out of business and American consumers still want to eat pork, its’ likely to be produced in Canada or Mexico where they don’t pass absurd laws placing unsubstantiated limits on food production.

The moral to this story is twofold; first, American agriculture has evolved to capture efficiencies that produce a healthy affordable food supply. If we upset these time-tested production practices, we can expect to pay more for our food. And second, government intervention rarely if ever provides a clean-cut solution. American consumers already have lots of options to purchase free-range or organic meat, milk, eggs, fruit, and vegetables. This proposition and others likely to follow come with steep costs while accomplishing very little.

Frank Priestley is president of the Idaho Farm Bureau.

Comments »

Comment on this story

Comments will be approved within 48 hours

Name:

Email: (optional)

Comments:

Image Verification: (Case sensitive)