Blue Star  
Title and Summary Analysis Arguments and Rebuttals Text of Proposed Law

PROP
2

STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS.
INITIATIVE STATUTE.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF
PROPOSITION 2
ARGUMENT AGAINST
PROPOSITION 2

YES on Proposition 2—Stop Animal Cruelty

Proposition 2 is a moderate measure that stops cruel and inhumane treatment of animals—ending the practice of cramming farm animals into cages so small the animals can't even turn around or stretch their limbs.

Voting YES on Proposition 2 prevents animal cruelty, promotes food safety, supports family farmers, and protects the environment. The agribusiness interests opposing Proposition 2—masquerading as the deceptively named Californians for Safe Food—have a record of duping the public, harming animals, and polluting the environment.

Voting YES on Proposition 2 means:

. . . Preventing cruelty to animals. It's simply wrong to confine veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens in tiny cages barely larger than their bodies. Calves are tethered by the neck and can barely move, pigs in severe confinement bite the metal bars of their crates, and hens get trapped and even impaled in their wire cages. We wouldn't force our pets to live in filthy, cramped cages for their whole lives, and we shouldn't force farm animals to endure such misery. All animals, including those raised for food, deserve humane treatment.

. . . Improving our health and food safety. We all witnessed the cruel treatment of sick and crippled cows exposed by a Chino slaughter plant investigation this year, prompting authorities to pull meat off school menus and initiate a nationwide recall. Factory farmers have put our health at risk by allowing these terrible abuses, and now are recklessly telling us it's okay to keep animals in overcrowded, inhumane conditions. Cramming tens of thousands of animals into tiny cages fosters the spread of animal diseases that may affect people. Proposition 2 is better for animals—and for us.

. . . Supporting family farmers. California family farmers support Proposition 2 because they believe food quality and safety are enhanced by better farming practices. Increasingly, they're supplying mainstream retailers like Safeway and Burger King. Factory farms cut corners and drive family farmers out of business when they put profits ahead of animal welfare and our health.

. . . Protecting air and water and safeguarding the environment. The American Public Health Association has called for a moratorium on new factory farms because of the devastating effects these operations can have on surrounding communities. Factory farms often spread waste on the ground untreated—contaminating our waterways, lakes, groundwater, soil, and air. By phasing out the worst animal confinement practices, Proposition 2 helps protect our precious natural resources. That's why California Clean Water Action and Sierra Club California support Proposition 2.

. . . A reasonable and common-sense reform. Proposition 2 provides ample time—until 2015—for factory farmers using these severe confinement methods to shift to more humane practices. Arizona, Colorado, Florida, and Oregon have passed similar laws. California veterinarians; family farmers; the Center for Science in the Public Interest and the prestigious Pew Commission on animal agriculture; Republican and Democratic elected officials; Episcopal and Methodist church leaders; National Catholic Rural Life Conference; the Consumer Federation of America; and others recommend voting YES on Proposition 2.

Visit www.YesOnProp2.org.

WAYNE PACELLE, President
The Humane Society of the United States

DR. KATE HURLEY, D.V.M., M.P.V.M., Clinical
  Professor
School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis

ANDREW KIMBRELL, Executive Director
Center for Food Safety


REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 2


VOTE NO on Proposition 2 because it HURTS California families.

Thousands of jobs will be lost and egg prices could skyrocket for California consumers.

A UC Davis study says Proposition 2 will eliminate California-produced safe, fresh, affordable eggs. We'll end up buying eggs trucked in from thousands of miles away, including Mexico.

VOTE NO on Proposition 2 because it ENDANGERS both food safety and animal welfare.

Leading food safety, veterinary, and public health experts oppose Proposition 2. They know modern housing systems for egg-laying hens are safe, sound, and humane for the hens, and they protect human health.

These modern systems are designed for proper care and treatment, providing ample space, food, water, light, and sanitation, allowing hens to stand, stretch, turn around, and lie down. Hens are protected from migratory birds and wild animals (which can carry BIRD FLU), and from living in—and laying eggs in—their own waste, which can contain Salmonella bacteria.

By effectively banning modern housing, Prop. 2 actually harms egg-laying hens, undermines animal welfare, endangers food safety, and risks public health.

VOTE NO on Proposition 2 because it's RISKY.

Proponents say this measure is "moderate," but it's really EXTREME, ignoring science-based food safety and animal welfare guidelines while endangering the health of California families.

Proponents say the measure deals with animal treatment, but they don't tell you California law has long required humane treatment of animals, and still does.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 2. Keep California food SAFE.

DEAN CLIVER, Professor Emeritus of Food Safety
University of California at Davis, School of Veterinary Medicine

MIKE KARLE, DVM, President
Association of California Veterinarians

HECTOR CERVANTES, DVM, President
American College of Poultry Veterinarians

Proposition 2 is UNNECESSARY, RISKY, and EXTREME. It is sponsored by a well-funded Washington, D.C.-based special interest group and will have dangerous, expensive consequences for California.

Proposition 2 puts Californians AT RISK for AVIAN INFLUENZA, Salmonella contamination, and other diseases. California farmers help protect Californians against Avian Influenza, or BIRD FLU, and other diseases by using modern housing systems to raise egg-laying hens—housing systems effectively banned by Proposition 2. It is so EXTREME that it also effectively bans "cage-free" eggs, forcing hens outdoors for most of the day.

"This outdoor access enhances the likelihood that such poultry will have direct contact with migratory and wild birds as well as other animals, substantially increasing the risk of Avian Influenza, Exotic Newcastle Disease, and other diseases." UNITED STATES ANIMAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION

According to the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, transmission of bird flu from poultry to humans results in "very severe disease" and "could mark the start of a global outbreak (pandemic)."

Nearly all California farmers follow the California Department of Food and Agriculture's California Egg Quality Assurance Program, assuring the highest standards for FOOD SAFETY and PUBLIC HEALTH. This program has resulted in the virtual elimination of food-borne illness, like Salmonella, in California eggs. In fact, according to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, no case of Salmonella has been traced to California egg production in nearly a decade. Eggs produced and trucked in from out-of-state and Mexico are not required to meet the same high food safety standards as California eggs.

Proposition 2 HARMS California CONSUMERS who rely on safe, fresh, affordable California-raised eggs for their families. Consumers will be forced to buy eggs trucked in thousands of miles away from out-of-state and MEXICO. California family farmers will be driven out of business. It will COST thousands of JOBS, and more than $600 MILLION in ECONOMIC ACTIVITY will be LOST, hurting the state and local economies. California eggs will be MORE EXPENSIVE. With gasoline, housing, and basic grocery costs at an all-time high, Californians can't afford to pay higher prices for food.

Proposition 2 is misleading because it refers to treatment of several farm animals, but it actually addresses housing methods. The measure primarily affects egg-laying hens. Most food safety officials, public health experts, veterinarians, and animal welfare advocates support modern housing systems, which provide the best possible care for hens while also protecting them, and humans alike, from injury, illness, and disease.

Proposition 2 is UNNECESSARY because California law ALREADY PROTECTS animal welfare and safety.

Proposition 2:

  • INCREASES THE RISK OF BIRD FLU
  • INCREASES THE RISK OF FOOD-BORNE ILLNESS, LIKE SALMONELLA
  • INCREASES GROCERY PRICES OF CALIFORNIA EGGS
  • COSTS THOUSANDS OF CALIFORNIA JOBS AND PUTS FARMERS OUT OF BUSINESS
  • COSTS CALIFORNIA $615 MILLION IN ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
  • HARMS THE ENVIRONMENT BY CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING

Family farmers, veterinarians, public health and food safety experts, and consumers urge a "NO" vote on Proposition 2. Visit www.safecaliforniafood.org.

VOTE NO ON PROP. 2.

KEEP CALIFORNIA EGGS SAFE. AFFORDABLE. FRESH. LOCAL.

DR. CRAIG REED, DVM, Former Deputy
  Administrator
Food Safety and Inspection Service, United States
  Department of Agriculture (USDA)

DR. TIM E. CARPENTER, Ph.D., Professor of
  Epidemiology
Department of Medicine and Epidemiology, School
   of Veterinary Medicine, UC Davis

DR. PATRICIA BLANCHARD, DVM, PhD.,
  Branch Chief
University of California Animal Health and Food
  Safety Laboratory System


REBUTTAL TO ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 2


YES on Proposition 2 Protects Animals, Food Safety, and the Environment.

Factory farming corporations trot out "experts" aligned with industry to scare voters with false claims and junk science. It's just common sense to allow animals to lie down, turn around, and stretch their limbs. Suggesting it's dangerous is ridiculous.

Science-based, mainstream organizations supporting Prop. 2 include:

  • Consumer Federation of America
  • Humane Society of the United States
  • Union of Concerned Scientists
  • Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production
  • Sierra Club California
  • California Clean Water Action

Proposition 2's opponents are bankrolled by companies that put profits ahead of people and animals.

One major funder, Moark LLC, paid to settle criminal cruelty charges for throwing live birds into trash bins. Another, United Egg Producers, paid to settle false advertising allegations brought by 17 attorneys general related to misleading claims about animal welfare.

The fact is, animals crowded in cages are MORE likely to be infected with Salmonella and other diseases than those in cage-free facilities.

And scare tactics about costs? The industry's own economist admitted it costs less than one additional penny per egg to stop cramming hens in cages.

The opponents have it all wrong. They fail to mention that the vast majority of chickens in food production already are not confined in small cages. They also omit mention of Prop. 2's protection of calves and pigs, and the misery these animals endure in tiny crates.

Vote YES on Prop. 2.

www.YesOnProp2.org

DR. IXCHEL MOSLEY, DVM, President
San Diego County Veterinary Medical Association

NIGEL WALKER, California Egg Farmer

MICHAEL JACOBSON, Ph.D., Executive Director
Center for Science in the Public Interest



Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.


Back to the top