By Ioven Fables on BCHeights.com
November 2009
The idea catching on would spread the potential for poorly regulated agricultural practices to become even more entrenched in our economic system than they already are.
Last week, citizens of Ohio voted on Issue 2 over Livestock Care Standards,
the point of which was to establish a 13-member board to regulate all
matters of care for livestock and poultry. The legislation passed by a 30
percent margin. The approach, lobbied for by the big agricultural
businesses, has essentially handed power over such matters to these same
companies through delegation of animal regulation to a small vulnerable
board. This will result in the perpetuation of a business model and
practices that are abusive to animals and threatening to our health.
Currently, the conditions under which industrial farm animals are raised are
terribly inhumane. Cattle, for example, are crammed in quarters so small
they can't turn around, are 90 percent grain fed (an entirely unnatural food
source evolutionarily speaking), are collectively injected with 70 percent
of the antibiotics in the U.S., and live in filthy conditions. Mentioning
these conditions, however, is not meant to support an intrinsic value claim
for the humane treatment of animals. That argument generally does very
little to support its own primary aim - the improvement of animal living
conditions. What are more directly important to most people are the effects
of these conditions on human health. The cramped conditions (we're talking
cages for a chicken smaller than the length of a sheet of paper) are
conducive to the spread of diseases - eggs from hens raised in confinement
are 250 percent more likely to contract salmonella. The conditions also
support the emergence of new diseases such as the bird flu and the more
recent swine flu. So much antibiotic use not only indicates highly suspect
conditions (why do they need so much medicine?), but also creates strands of
super-bacteria highly risky to the human body.
Issue 2 created a 13-member panel to manage these conditions practiced by
nearly all of the meat industry, which will quite simply solidify the status
quo. It replaces federal regulation with a small group that would be
susceptible to corruption from the corporations that support the idea.
Corporate interests already have far too much influence in the larger
federal organizations, and there is no regulation on the horizon regarding
campaign finance and lobbying in general. Reducing the size of the
organization managing agriculture will simply amplify the effect of external
pressures.
The passage of Issue 2 will probably preempt efforts by the Humane Society
to pass legislation immediately, enforcing more humane, healthier, and more
sustainable agricultural practices. Aside from the general momentum, the
Livestock Care Standards board could argue that any separate legislation
would be redundant, unnecessary, and less qualified, despite that the Humane
Society is the organization most informed about issues of animal care. Thus,
the legislation amounts to a constitutional takeover by the agricultural
businesses lobbying for the legislation.
What is further disconcerting are the implications this board will have
nationwide, since the explicit intent of the designers is to create a model
for other states. The idea catching on would spread the potential for poorly
regulated agricultural practices to become even more entrenched in our
economic system than they already are. Instead, regulation of these
destructive agricultural practices in Ohio should follow the precedent set
by California, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, and Oregon.
These states have already adopted measures that require more space for
overly confined farm animals (not to say that they are wholly adequate, but
they are steps in the right in the right direction). There is no reason why
further oversight for abusive practices should not remain the responsibility
of state and federal legislatures rather than a new 13-member board.
Essentially, Issue 2 continues a troublesome trend: private interest gaining
influence over matters that should be kept under control of public officials
dedicated to the best interests of American citizens. The passage of Issue 2
would establish a board dominated by people bought out by the industries it
should be regulating. These people are only able to pitch the value of Issue
2 through false propaganda. The language used by Jack Fish, vice president
of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, in his editorial on ourohio.org is
revealing: "A highly organized and well financed operation is underway to
convince you that farmers are cruel to their animals. It's trickery, but
effective. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) wants to end the
consumption of animal protein, a tough task because Americans love meat,
milk, and eggs." Describing the HSUS as highly organized and well-financed
seems like a scare tactic given that it is a charity, and one of the highest
ranked ones at that. Further, the statement about ending consumption of
animal protein is a flat lie - the HSUS's primary mission is to ensure
ethical treatment of animals, not an elimination of the meat industry.
As Bob Cesca from huffingtonpost.com says in regard to Issue 2, "the end
result will be conditions that are far, far worse than they are today -
producing food that's even more dangerous and all of it overriding the
authority of the federal government." Placing control over such important
roots to the well being of our bodies and environment in the hands of a few
vulnerable people is discordant with the progress of our democracy toward a
more healthy, sustainable food industry and culture.
Number of animals killed in the world by the fishing, meat, dairy and egg industries, since you opened this webpage.
0 marine animals
0 chickens
0 ducks
0 pigs
0 rabbits
0 turkeys
0 geese
0 sheep
0 goats
0 cows / calves
0 rodents
0 pigeons/other birds
0 buffaloes
0 dogs
0 cats
0 horses
0 donkeys and mules
0 camels / camelids