Commentary: Only time will tell if voters made the right decision on Proposition 2

Issue Date: March 11, 2009

By Sarah Macedo

Sarah Macedo

Oprah, Hilary Duff, Alicia Silverstone and Ed Asner all joined in the campaign for voting "yes" on Proposition 2. In the state's general election on Nov. 4, 2008, nearly 64 percent of California voters voted "yes." The celebrities discussed the ethics and morals of raising California's food supply. Their voices were heard throughout the state, yet very few farmers' voices were heard during the campaign—a campaign that will remarkably change the way farmers do business in California, as well as where consumers' groceries come from.

Also known as the Standards for Confining Animals, the new statute prohibits the confinement of farm animals. It phases out cages that do not allow livestock to turn around freely, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs. The face of the poultry, swine and veal industries will change dramatically by Jan. 1, 2015.

In recent years there has been growing public awareness of the treatment of farm animals. Many city dwellers see farm animals as pets, instead of livestock being raised, respected and grown as a food product. Much concern has been expressed about animal welfare and the public seems to demand substantial changes in the way California's poultry, veal and swine are raised.

Those in favor of the proposition thought they were voting to protect animals, consumers and the environment. They believed that by phasing out small confinement facilities, our natural resources would be better preserved. Supporters of the statute claimed it is a "reasonable and common sense reform." Farmers, on the other hand, have been providing safe, economical and quality commodities, including meat, for years.

In California this law will have the most impact on egg laying chicken facilities. Currently, California imports about one-third of its eggs. Other states are more than willing to supply more. They do not have to meet the requirements of the new legislation. Because of this, egg prices may not rise as dramatically as we might imagine. However, Californians will use more resources in transportation, as more eggs are shipped into the state. Local egg laying facilities will face substantial costs to not only upgrade their facilities, but extra costs in labor, space and energy. How can California farmers compete with out-of-state farmers not facing the same requirements?

Which brings up the safety issue again: How much do we really value the safety of our food supply?

Those against the statute claimed that it is too risky. Study after study has shown that California has the safest, most economical and most reliable food supply in the world. Proposition 2 will now force California to rely more on out-of-state and foreign food production. Regulations vary in different countries and different states. Importing goods puts citizens more at risk for salmonella and other food-borne illnesses from countries with more liberal regulations. Also, allowing the birds to roam freely increases the likelihood that they will come in contact with wild birds or other exotic animals.

Some believed that Proposition 2 was very misleading. The backers said they were promoting the ethical treatment of animals, while they actually only addressed housing methods. The Humane Society of the United States used pictures of distressed animals in its campaign to pull at people's heartstrings. Commercials of celebrities voting yes, and animated cartoons of pigs, hens and calves were just some of the techniques used.

Many California family farmers and ranchers will have to change their methods of raising animals. Commodity price increases and larger amounts of food imports are issues that could lead to detrimental impacts on California's agriculture and consumers. Citizens today are removed from the farm. Many are not aware of how their food is produced. They want to feel good about themselves by making the "right decision" for the animals. Only time will tell whether the majority of citizens made the best decision for California's egg producers.

On a personal level, my family's farming operation currently has not had any direct impact … yet. It has, however, placed another intrusion and regulation that will have to be dealt with gradually. These regulations are being imposed on us by people who do not understand the entire issue. The reality of the situation is that California's farmers, ranchers and agricultural business professionals will have to continue to educate the public on the truth. Proposition 2 has made it clearer than ever that we need to bridge the continuously growing gap between agriculture and the public.

(Sarah Macedo is a student at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. Her family farms almonds and silage crops and raises turkeys in Turlock. She can be reached at sarahmosquito@mac.com.)

Permission for use is granted, however, credit must be made to the California Farm Bureau Federation when reprinting this item. Top