Read "Edging Away from Cruel Eggs: Part 1 - California's Prop 2"
Read "Edging Away From Cruel Eggs: Part 2—Slogging Toward Enactment"
Consumer polls have consistently shown that the majority of egg buyers think that keeping hens in small cages is cruel, that they would prefer to buy cage-free eggs, and that they would be willing to pay more for them. So when California voters passed Propostion 2, “Standards for Confining Farm Animals” in 2008, an initiative that mandated more humane conditions for chickens by 2015, that’s when the egg industry should have gotten to work figuring out the best way to give their customers what they wanted. Instead, what ensued was years of turmoil and stress as most in the egg industry looked for every possible way to block the changes required by Prop 2.
Read "Edging Away From Cruel Eggs: Part 2—Slogging Toward Enactment"
Consumer polls have consistently shown that the majority of egg buyers think that keeping hens in small cages is cruel, that they would prefer to buy cage-free eggs, and that they would be willing to pay more for them. So when California voters passed Propostion 2, “Standards for Confining Farm Animals” in 2008, an initiative that mandated more humane conditions for chickens by 2015, that’s when the egg industry should have gotten to work figuring out the best way to give their customers what they wanted. Instead, what ensued was years of turmoil and stress as most in the egg industry looked for every possible way to block the changes required by Prop 2.
In Part
2 of this series, I wrote about how certain egg producers rolled out
“enhanced” cages as their answer to the required changes. In spite of the positive spin of their PR
fanfare, enhanced cages were really still just cages—they just gave each hen
slightly more space. I also discussed a
lawsuit filed in California State Court in 2010 by egg companies that argued
that the new rules were too vague because Prop 2 didn’t specifically say how
much space a chicken really needed. The
case was ultimately dismissed in 2011.
Chickens in Battery Cages (Wikipedia Commons - public domain) |
It took less than a
year for the next legal challenge—this lawsuit was so very similar to the first
one that they could have been twins. William
Cramer, a trustee of a family business that owned egg farms in Riverside
County, filed his suit in Federal District Court. He claimed that Prop 2 violated the US
Constitution because its vagueness would prompt arbitrary enforcement. He maintained that most egg farmers would
stop operating rather than comply with the new regulations, which would result
in skyrocketing egg prices. The
Association of California Egg Farmers (ACEF) joined this suit just as it had the
previous one.
This lawsuit was not
successful, either. The case was heard
by U.S. District Court Judge John Walter who sounded a bit irritated in his
ruling, maybe because this ground had already been plowed in the previous
suit. Judge Walter ruled that "Proposition
2 establishes a clear test that any law enforcement officer can apply, and that
test does not require the investigative acumen of Columbo to determine if an
egg farmer is in violation of the statute.”
He dryly stated that "the mere fact that Plaintiff dislikes or
disagrees with the policy or language of Proposition 2 is not sufficient to
sustain a Constitutional challenge."
Before the dust had
settled on the U.S. district court case, ACEF filed another suit, this one in
the Superior Court of the State of California.
The charge this time? That the law
was too vague. It was déjà vu all over again! Again, the court ultimately ruled against
ACEF, declaring in their 2013 findings that “The fact that the statute defines confinement limitations in terms of
animal behaviors rather than in square inches or other precise measurements
does not render the statute facially vague.”
At the conclusion of the trial, Jonathan R. Lovvorn of The Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS) noted that the opponents of Prop 2 had
been allowed their day in court not once but three times and had not
prevailed. “Now…it’s time to get on with
the process of transitioning egg operations to meet the needs of animals and
the will of California voters,” he suggested.
“We sincerely hope the Court’s ruling will put this objection [of
vagueness] to rest once and for all.”
It did seem like it was time to get on with it. The inauguration date for the new law was now
less than two years away, and many in the egg industry had spent a lot of time
fighting it, but next to no time preparing for its institution.
Through the whole battle leading up to the vote for Prop 2 in California,
and in the years after it passed, HSUS
had tirelessly campaigned, raised funds, and had successfully defended it three
times in court. And simultaneous to the
fight in California, HSUS was pursuing a similar course to free chickens from
cages in other states. The biggest
adversary HSUS faced in most of these battles was the United Egg Producers (UEP), the country’s largest
egg production group. UEP represents egg farmers that raise over 90% of all the
egg-laying hens in the United States.
So, as you can imagine, everyone on both sides of the issue was shocked
when HSUS
and UEP joined forces in 2011 to pursue
federal legislation that would standardize cage sizes for laying hens, mandate
egg carton labeling to tell the buyer about the environmental conditions in
which the eggs in that carton were produced, and regulate other practices used
in chicken keeping.
No doubt the reason UEP came to the table was the fact that there was continually
increasing public pressure to liberate caged hens, the public pressure was
manifesting itself in legislation in California and other states, the cost of
the PR fight and litigation against the legislation was rising, and UEP was
continuing to lose ground.
HSUS undoubtedly joined forces with UEP because it saw an opportunity to
improve lives for chickens throughout the entire country in one fell swoop with
federal legislation.
The bill, simply called “The Egg Bill” was put before the 2012 Congress. It had a late start and it didn’t gain much
traction, but HSUS and UEP were back in 2013 with legislation that they hoped
would be added as an amendment to that year’s farm bill. Among other things the bill proposed that
battery cages be phased out over a twenty-year period and mandated that all egg
cartons contain labeling that would inform consumers about the treatment and
housing of the hens that produced the eggs.
A collaboration between opponents means compromise, and compromise, of
course, means concessions from both sides.
Many felt that HSUS gave up too much.
Perhaps the worst part of the bill in terms of chicken welfare was that
it allowed “enhanced” cages.” As I
pointed out in Part
2 of this series, “enhanced” cages are still cages. As author, Clare Druce, points
out, “Basically it’s still a battery cage, the birds living behind bars on
metal grid flooring, the cages stacked up in tiers, many thousands of hens to a
building.” While nest boxes are included
in these cages, Clare Druce explains that “It is simply a curtained area,
behind which the hen finds the same sloping cage floor, the metal grid now
covered in matting of some kind. Not a wisp of straw, no soft material with
which to arrange her nest. Some of the enriched colony cages I saw held up to
60 hens. Gleaming metal cages stretched away into the distance, and there was
that familiar unending clamor of frustrated hens’ voices.” And as is the case with battery cages, the
enhanced cages are over-packed with hens.
The legislation recognized that brown hens were larger than white hens,
thus brown hens were allowed 144 square inches but white hens were only given 124 square
inches. Most experts agree that a hen
needs at least 216 square inches for minimal normal behavior.
While some in the animal welfare community supported HSUS in this
endeavor, many others, including PETA, the Humane Farming Association, Friends
of Animals, and United Poultry Concerns opposed it and referred to the
legislation as “The Screaming Hen Bill” and “The Rotten Egg Bill.”
While HSUS and UEP, the proponents of the legislation, were indeed
strange bedfellows, those who jumped into the opposition bed were equally mismatched. The animal welfare groups were joined in
opposition by organizations like the American Farm Bureau, the National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the National Pork Producers Council. These groups representing animal farmers were
all alarmed at the prospect that a federal law governing the treatment of chickens
would segue into laws regulating the treatment of all farm animals. The pork producers issued a statement that they
were “gravely concerned” that such legislation would “take away producers’
freedom to operate in a way that’s best for their animals.” In their contorted logic, the best thing for
their animals was not to have any laws that would guarantee their humane
treatment.
Due to the effort of the beef and pork lobbyists, a number of farm state
Senators said they would work to bring the entire Farm Bill down if the Egg Bill
amendment was part of it. In order to expedite the passage of the Farm Bill, Agriculture
Committee chair Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and the primary author of the Egg Bill, Senator
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) grudgingly allowed the Farm Bill to go forward without
the Egg Bill. In a bit of eleventh hour
drama, when the Farm Bill was headed to the floor in the House, Rep. Kurt
Schrader (D-OR) and Rep. Denham (R-CA) proposed adding the egg amendment to it,
and it quite likely would have passed, but the House Rules Committee denied
them the opportunity. So the Farm Bill
was passed by both houses of Congress without any provisions for hen welfare
and it ultimately was signed into law in that form by President Obama in
February of 2014. And since the UEP and
the HSUS didn’t extend their memorandum of understanding, the prospect of passing
any national legislation even in this diluted form that would protect
laying hens from living out their lives in cruel cages was dead in the water.
Next time: The California
Department of Food and Agriculture muddies the waters, a bunch of egg-producing
states bring suit, and Prop 2 finally
(gasp!) becomes law!
Read "Edging Away from Cruel Eggs Part 4—California, and now Massachusetts!"
Read "Edging Away from Cruel Eggs Part 4—California, and now Massachusetts!"
No comments:
Post a Comment