They ain’t shy

Commentary

You’ve no doubt read on Brownfieldagnews.com or in other ag publications about the introduction of HR 4733, the pejoratively titled “Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act” by two Los Angeles area members of the House, Reps. Diane E. Watson (D, CA) and Elton Gallegly (R, CA). This bill, once you peel away all of the rhetoric, is the federal equivalent of 2008’s Proposition 2, thus far the Humane Society of the U.S.’s (HSUS) proudest moment. You’ve got to give the animal rights movement its due. It has no compunctions about waltzing into a member of Congress’ office, whipping out its videos and photos, and pleading for the good member’s help in – and I paraphrase here — “saving farm animals from lives of the most hideous abuses on this country’s factory farms.”

What a load of manure.

HR 4733 would bar the federal government from buying pork, veal or eggs for its myriad feeding programs – including school lunch and breakfast, nutrition programs, military or federal building cafeterias – if the pig was in a gestation stall, the veal calf raised in a stall or the eggs came from hens housed in cages. HSUS wants these animals to be able to “fully extend all limbs” without touching the sides of an enclosure, and in the case of laying hens, extending wings without touching an enclosure OR another egg laying hen. Oh, and they also must be able to “turn around freely,” meaning they apparently can spin like tops to their hearts’ content as long as they don’t touch the side of an enclosure.

The good news is no other member of Congress has joined the two Los Angelinos in pushing the bill; the bad news is that these two members probably didn’t do a lot of fact checking on the animal rights group’s allegations. I’m guessing they didn’t think it important enough to call and talk with California’s ag community before they introduced the bill. You’d think with all the publicity Prop 2 generated, at least a call to one of the affected farm or commodity groups would have been made so one or both of these elected officials might have learned the following:

• The California Department of Food & Agriculture still has not been able to write even the first regulation to implement the proposition because the language of the ballot item was so vague no one can define or agree on what “alternatives” to stalls and cages would qualify under the proposition, and

• States like Idaho are actively putting in place state legislation that will entice California’s 19 million egg laying hens to move East where the likelihood of a Prop 2 attack is pretty much slim and none. And you can’t fault them for putting out the lures given this is exactly what the United Egg Producers predicted during its battle over the proposition.

This is truly one of the most arrogant, elitist pieces of activist legislation in a long time. Arrogant because groups like HSUS, which immediately hailed the bill, don’t really care about the unintended consequences of their political agenda; elitist because the negative impact of this type of legislation never falls on the upper-middle class folks who can afford to shop organically, holistically or “locally.” The only folks who truly feel the pain of these attacks are those that can least afford to pay the increased price of food these initiatives inevitably bring.

The science establishing the welfare of stalls and cages is always ignored in these debates. What can’t be ignored is how unrealistic such legislation is. Less than 5% of U.S. farmers could likely meet the criteria in HR 4733, and since it’s well established such open systems cost a whole lot more to operate, you can figure only large, well-financed farming operations could afford to make a transition to the systems this bill would impose. So, I guess these House members are from the big-is-better school of farming. The biosecurity and animal health issues are obvious to us.

The costs to the federal government would be staggering given the millions of pounds of meat, milk and eggs our government buys. How would you verify a farmer was obeying the law? Would farmers have to sign affidavits to prove they’d followed the letter of the law and indemnify the processors? We certainly couldn’t afford to hire hundreds of inspectors to check on each farmer’s production practices.

Here’s an idea. Maybe we could deputize a group like HSUS to do those inspections for us?

Stop the madness!

But importantly, who pays? We all do – with our hard-earned tax dollars