In 2008, California passed a new Animal Containment Law. This environmental policy calls for revised standards of the confinement of animals. The new policy states that “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.”
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) questions the extent that these standards, to take effect in 2015, will change the ways of animal welfare. They are also concerned about the language used in the document itself-that it is not clear enough.
There has been a recent effort by consumers to create more humane practices in animal industry farming; this demonstrates the power of the people to create change. The Humane Society of the United States intends that the press surrounding these standards could eventually push it through many States in order to spread animal rights in industry farming.
The critique of Proposition 2 is that the California egg farming industry will be harmed by having to reconstruct their cages and therefore prices will be raised to accommodate for a raised cost in production.
I think that the progress towards animal behavioral rights is very important, regardless of these potential cost inflictions. Therefore, I support Proposition 2 and the efforts it has made to better the farming industry and the treatment of animals. I especially was excited to see that large corporations such as Safeway and Chipotle have taken to the American Veal Association’s urge to end the use of veal crates. Large food industries will be a very important component of these efforts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also agree that animal rights need to be taken into consideration at farms. However, I think a few economic issues need to be addressed before you can consider this bill feasible let alone effective. WIll farmers be able to afford the new equipment necessary to comply with this law? Will farmers be able to maintain the level of current production in order to meet growing demands? And in the economic state of this country, will farmers be able to take a hit in profits from both of the issues above, and stay in buisness? I think all of these need to be addressed in order to really evaluate this law.
ReplyDeleteWhy can there not be government financial aid for these changes? I do not think this is a harsh, drastic, or unreasonable "unfunded mandate." There will always be an excuse not to change the current way we raise/process protein. This is only one of many things that needs to happen in order to get our industrial protein stystem "humane." I ask why this has not happened sooner. But you must start somewhere. If California does this than other states that dont do so might look bad, so maybe it will start a domino affect. Then after they change the cage sizes, maybe they'll decide the next step is to do away with cages all together, and then before you know it, maybe these animals will get to live out a natural life (aka not caged, indoors all the time, living too close together with hormones and antibiotics).
ReplyDeleteI think in order to reduce the harsh treatment of farm raised animals is to give incentives for consumers to buy free range animals. If the cost of confined animal products is lower, than of course the average person at the grocery store will be compelled to buy the cheaper product. The incentives could be tax breaks for free range farmers, which would off set the more expensive and less efficient way of farming. The tax break would allow free range farmers to be more competitive with traditional methods of farming.
ReplyDeleteUnder conventional farming methods, livestock and poultry are raised in Confined Area Feeding Operations or CAFOs. These CAFOs raise animals in horrendous conditions: pitch dark sheds, spaces so cramped that animals cannot move, force fed an unnatural diet of corn, antibiotics to fight diseases, and hormone shots to increase growth. These animals are often standing knee deep in their own feces and dead remains of other animals. Bacteria and disease run rampant in these concentrated areas. There are often outbreaks of E. coli and other diseases in consumers of these products due to safety hazards during their upbringing and processing of these animals. Cross contamination of agricultural fields and water systems also occur to from the toxic runoff coming from the facility. Huge amounts of waste are produced everyday and often contaminate groundwater. My hope that is consumers will start to understand and become educated on all of the negative impacts that come from current large scale agricultural practices besides just the condition of the animal, humans are hurt too. If the majority of consumers make active choices to buy free range animal products, only then will we see much change.
ReplyDelete-Alyssa Cultice
As Alyssa mentions, the waste generated by CAFOs is probably of highest concern to environmentalists. Is there any mention of this in the proposition?
ReplyDeleteI believe that a consumer education program might be the best place to start reducing such wastes. Not many people understand the incredibly far reaching effects their purchases have. Low prices often reflect a manufacturing process that takes advantage of a nonrenewable resource, or in the case of CAFOs, "free" waste disposal in the form of allowing manure and other chemicals into waterways, fields, etc.
-Sam Shelby
ReplyDelete