On November 2nd, Ohio voters passed Issue 2, a constitutional amendment, which creates a ‘Livestock Care Standards Board’ to set standards for livestock and poultry care, food safety, disease prevention, farm management, and animal well-being. The Board will comprise of 13 Ohioans appointed by the governor and the legislature with minimal oversight. The Board will have the authority to establish the standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in Ohio. As stated in my previous post on Issue 2, this ballot initiative was in response to the Humane Society of the United States’ (HSUS) having picked Ohio for the next State to target for agriculture legislation banning confinement treatment of farm animals.
The battle may have been won for Ohio, but the war is still on as far as HSUS is concerned. With little money invested into defeating Issue 2 (Ohio farmers and agribusiness lobbies spent over $4 million), HSUS is gearing up for future legislation in Ohio and other states. While Ohio lawmakers refused to work with HSUS on humane farming legislation, Michigan recently agreed on legislation on improved livestock-standards, requiring that egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves must be able to stand up, lied down, turn around and extend their limbs. The lawmakers, agribusiness interests, and HSUS came together to jointly agree on livestock-care legislation. Wayne Pacelle, the president and CEO of HSUS said that “the solution forged in Michigan shows that open-minded and fair discussions among stakeholders can lead to good outcomes for farmers and for animal welfare.” Jim Byrum, president of the Michigan Agri-Business Association, said his group and others decided to work with the animal-rights groups rather than against them. He said the decision was based on “a healthy dose of pragmatism. In terms of public policy, it made sense to sit down with them.” Michigan is the seventh state to act on livestock standards, including Arizona, California, Florida, Maine, Colorado, and Oregon.
Ohio farmers claim that the health and well-being of animals is at the forefront of this amendment and argue that unhealthy animals do not produce the healthy products. This of course is false, and there is much evidence supporting the fact that very very unhealthy animals are indeed the types of animals that we find in our food. The animals raised for human consumption are genetically designed for productivity, fed unnatural diets, and pumped full growth hormones and antibiotics, which can hardly be argued as a “healthy” way of raising them. One of the biggest problems I have with letting farming interests decide on animal cruelty is that they certainly do not have the physical and mental well-being of animals at heart – ultimately they are a business and want to maximize profits.
While reading blogs and articles about Issue 2, I came across a farmer who phrased my opinion of this whole situation perfectly: “We are stewards and caretakers of these animals and we have a moral obligation to treat them humanely.” With the passage of Issue 2, I sincerely hope that conditions for farm animals improve in Ohio, as promised, but I really doubt that will be the outcome.
Filed under: animal law, animal welfare, factory farms | Tagged: animal abuse, animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal suffering, animal welfare, CAFOS, factory farms, farmed animals, HSUS, industrial farming, Issue 2, Michigan, Michigan Farm Animal Welfare Bill, Ohio | 2 Comments »