Proposition 2
"California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act"
Prohibits confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, or fully extend their limbs.
| APPROVED (91% of precincts reporting): Yes 5,845,361 | (63.3%); No | 3,397,579 | (36.7%) |
Los Angeles Times editorial, Sept. 25, 2008: NO on Proposition 2
"California eggs would become more expensive, and many consumers would simply buy the cheaper eggs laid by hens living in cramped conditions in neighboring states or in Mexico. As a result, we fear the result of Proposition 2's passage would not be better treatment of hens but merely the export of their mistreatment. We recommend a no vote."
Summary: official summary from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
"Requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely...."
Analysis: Full analysis from the state Legislative Analyst’s Office
"Beginning January 1, 2015, this measure prohibits with certain exceptions the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Under the measure, any person who violates this law would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months...."
Full text: Text of measure from the state Attorney General’s Office
Ballot arguments: Pro and Con, with rebuttals, from the California Official Voter Information Guide
An opinionated guide to Proposition 2: This measure was the first initiative to be certified for the November ballot thanks to an enormously successful signature campaign led by the Humane Society of the United States. The society gave itself a big boost in January when it released shocking undercover video taken at a Chino slaughterhouse of workers trying to force cows, too sick to stand, to the slaughter room. The workers jabbed the animals with forklifts, poked them in the eyes, and resorted to other inhumane treatment to get the animals to move. The video resulted in the nation's largest-ever beef recall, a probe of USDA inspectors, and criminal charges.
But the society’s Proposition 2 would not apply to cows like those in the video or the treatment that was so disturbing. It would apply to the pens in which pigs, veal calves and chickens are confined on commercial farms in California. See the Op-Ed by Julia Olmstead explaining, among other things, the difference between cage-free and free-range eggs, and some environmental consequences.
See the "No" campaign's site here.
If a ballot measure could make people treat farm animals better, there's a good chance we’d be for it. The Humane Society – sponsors of Proposition 2 – certainly make a good point about the cruelty that lies behind an inexpensive plate of bacon and eggs. Most eggs sold in California don’t come from hens that roam freely around a picturesque barnyard. They come from chickens packed so tightly in small cages for their entire short lives that they cannot raise their wings or stretch their legs. They are virtual egg machines.
So why not support a measure that requires enough room for sows, veal calves and chickens to stretch and turn around? First, Proposition 2 would apply only to animals raised in California, and few veal calves or pigs are commercial raised here. It’s all about the chickens. Second, the measure would make the cheap eggs now produced here more expensive, so grocery shelves would begin to fill up with cheaper eggs imported from other states or Mexico, beyond the reach of California law. End result: the state simply exports its animal cruelty.
A more effective ballot measure could be crafted, and we’d certainly be open to it. For example, what about requiring any eggs sold in the state, not just produced here, to be cruelty free? See Karin Klein's suggestion in this blog post.
One of the measure's not-so-secret weapons is the Humane Society's controversial but passionate -- and photogenic -- chief executive, Wayne Pacelle. Read the Times' profile.
Joining the Times in urging a "No" vote is the presumably liberal San Francisco Chronicle and calling for a "Yes" is the generally conservative San Diego Union-Tribune. Go figure.
