Sometimes what seems like a no-brainer is actually a brainer.
Last night my colleague Clare Leschin-Hoar emailed to ask how I felt about California's Proposition 2, which is on the statewide ballot for the November election. I was impressed by her knowledge of my state's politics, especially as she lives on the east coast. I was also embarrassed that I hadn't yet read up on all the propositions.
Well, I've read up now.
Prop 2 deals with animal welfare. It reads, in toto:
Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.
Requires that certain farm animals be allowed, for the majority of every day, to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up and turn around. Limited exceptions apply. Fiscal impact: Potential unknown decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, possibly in the range of several million dollars annually. Potential minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue.
That's it. Pretty succinct.
Now, I like to extend my own limbs when I feel like it, and if I had wings I'd probably like to extend those occasionally too. Standing up is nice, especially when I want to go somewhere or experience some blood flow to my extremities. And turning around without crashing into another live being or being smashed against the side of a cage would be good.
So I vote yes. No-brainer, right?
Well, it's complicated. Many farmers who currently run industrial-sized egg, poultry, and even pig farms are staunchly against this proposition, which should come as no surprise. It will cost them money to re-design their operations, and they'll likely have to thin out their livestock in order to provide the legally required space for their animals to roam and stretch. The result, they claim, is that some farmers will go out of business. There will then be less tax revenue for the state.
There will also be less food. Plus the cost of the new system will be passed onto the consumer. In other words, we'll see a spike in our egg prices if a farmer can only keep 1,000 chickens instead of 6,000. Ultimately, the price spike will encourage cheap imports of, say, eggs from other countries, namely Mexico and China. So those who can only afford to pay $2/dozen will find their only option is to purchase from farther away. Hardly the "buy-local" utopia everyone is now espousing.
This leads to a widening socio-economic divide: The wealthy will be able to afford the humanely-raised, free-range eggs, many from local farmers, while those who struggle to make ends meet will be forced to buy the cheaper imports from hens kept in crowded, less sanitary and less humane conditions abroad.
So what is a concerned voter to do?
First of all, I thank Oprah for educating me on this issue. That may sound ludicrous, but I learned from Clare that O devoted Tuesday's show to the topic. (I missed it, but her website had a lot of useful information, much of which I've summarized above.)
I'll vote yes, though I won't do so lightly since I do see legitimacy in the other side. It seems to me that we have to sacrifice our love of and access to cheap food in order to do what's right ethically. If the prop passes, by the time 2015 rolls around (which is when it would take legal effect), one hopes these farmers will have figured out how to both treat their livestock humanely and still turn a profit without pricing struggling families completely out of the market. It's like anything else -- smoking, transfats, and the like. Jump on me if you must, but if it takes legislation or a voter-approved proposition for a chicken to be able to turn around and spread its wings, then so be it.
