Inside D.C.
A not-too-rosy outlook for the UEP-HSUS egg bill
Commentary.
Oh, the political intrigue, the high fives, the gnashing of teeth, the tantrums, the ups and downs of redressing the federal government. All of this angst emanates from the recent reality and likely fate of the Egg Products Inspection Act of 2013, viewed by most of agriculture and a good chunk of the animal rights movement, as bad legislation spawned by the unholy alliance of the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS).
The egg bill is an effort by UEP to bring consistency to varying state laws governing the raising of egg laying hens by setting a federal standard. The standard is to enshrine “enhanced environments,” i.e., bigger cages, as the way to go in egg production. National agriculture groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, a group of maverick egg producers who don’t support UEP, some major integrators, and all national livestock and poultry producer groups oppose the bill as unnecessary and ill-advised as it would for the first time set in federal law – amendable at any time in the future – a government-regulated standard for food animal production.
The animal rights groups,led by the Humane Farming Assn. (HFA) of California, see the bill as a sell-out by HSUS, which once held a strict no-cage, no-how policy on egg production. And that’s the “nicest” way to paraphrase the animal rights opposition.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) introduced the egg bill this year, as she did in the last Congress, contending it’s “consistent” with Prop 2 in her state, a new law ostensibly dictating hen housing but is so vague the California Department of Food & Agriculture almost can’t write rules to implement it. However, this time around, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D, MI), chair of the Senate Agriculture Committee, is a cosponsor of Feinstein’s bill, and having her name on the bill is significant. While HSUS and UEP were doing their happy dance, the opposition moved into battle mode.
It was feared Ms. Stabenow might tack the offending language on to the Farm Bill draft she’ll mark up in her committee next week. The language now does not appear in the markup bill, much to the consternation of UEP and HSUS. Ms. Stabenow is a very smart, more-than-capable ag committee chair, and she counts votes with the best of them. Even a cursory survey of her committee membership shows there’s no support for the egg bill if all of national ag – plus a chunk of the animal rights movement – oppose it. Plus, no committee chair wants to suck valuable markup time with issues he/she knows will go down in flames, and Stabenow is moving her Farm Bill like a freight train. The language does not appear in the House markup draft, and the chances of a committee amendment in the House are less than those in the Senate, as in slim and none.
That leaves the floor of both chambers as the next battleground. Ms. Feinstein is no one to trifle with and it’s a safe bet she’ll bring the egg bill to the floor – unless she has much more important amendments for which to fight. The opposition will have its champions lined up, and unfortunately for the egg folks and HSUS, the opposition numbers are going to dwarf the advocates. The fights will be bloody, but I’m guessing the opposition prevails. The House outcome will likely be the same.
So until all of that drama plays out, we’re left to read and listen to the indignant comments from UEP and HSUS as to why no one likes their egg bill. I don’t particularly care how Wayne Pacelle, HSUS, feels about losing to agriculture once again. But here’s what UEP had to say when the language didn’t appear in the Senate’s draft bill:
“We can’t begin to express our utter disappointment in our fellow livestock and farm groups – who (sic) we’ve always supported in the past – who blocked this legislation that is critical to the egg industry’s survival as we know it … simply because these groups were paranoid that somehow an amendment to the Egg Products Inspection Act would affect them, despite explicit language in the bill which exempts them.”
I understand UEP’s frustration, but “paranoia” isn’t paranoia if you know someone’s actually out to get you. Each industry should have the right to set its own rules and standards without interference from other commodity groups. However, in this case the precedent UEP seeks to set is problematic as it does directly affect all livestock and poultry production in the U.S. While the language is specific to the Egg Products Inspection Act, it would become the shining, breakthrough example to which the animal rights groups will eagerly point as they try to force similar legislative action on the producers of hogs, chickens, cattle, sheep and any other species raised for food. I can hear HSUS talking heads now: “If the egg industry and Congress recognized the need and the wisdom in regulating the welfare of laying hens, then…”
Secondly, I don’t trust the animal rights movement on a good day. Any pledge not to seek similar legislation on other commodity groups is laughable. I have personally experiened animal rights groups in more than one congressional fight tell the media one thing, the industry another and Congress yet a third, only to ultimately abandon all “promises” and agreements – no matter to or with whom – if it looked like an easier win was in sight.
I wish UEP had decided to at least try a national voluntary transition to the enhanced cage system if that’s what it wants. I know it would take a while, and I know it wouldn’t solve all the problems UEP as a cooperative and the overall egg industry is facing. Handled correctly and rolled out in the right fashion, those out-of-sync state laws could have been “fixed” relatively easily.
And the UEP guys would have heard nary a peep out of the rest of animal agriculture.
This comment was received through our website “contact us” page:
Steve Kopperud’s article, re: horse slaughter was poorly researched and blatantly biased. He is, in fact, a lobbyist for the predatory horse slaughter industry which would produce adulterated meat, devastate communities in which plants are located in economic, environmental and social terms, and exploit American taxpayers by using our taxes to fund inspections for meat consumed by foreigners. Please employ actual journalists.
Thank you,
Mary McNichols, Ph.D