Why Prop 2
It was argued yesterday on this blog that we should not vote for Proposition 2 because a) animals raised for food are not pets, and b) we should not tell businesses what to do. I submit to you that these are insufficient reasons to vote against extending basic humane treatment to animals that have the same capacity for suffering as your cat or dog.
I am no friend of business regulation, but I know sometimes we must tell businesses what to do in the interests of our safety, planet, and moral standing. Prop 2 is a question of ethics; a referendum on our progress as a society. It's a modest measure that says animals destined for slaughter ought not be tortured in the process; egg-laying hens ought not be denied basic leg movement; pigs and veal calves ought not be confined to crates so small they can't turn around, lie down, or extend their limbs.
There's nothing radical or overreaching in Prop 2's guidelines. Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and Oregon have passed similar measures, as have many other countries—all without harm to industry and consumer. Mohandas Gandhi said, “The measure of a society can be how well its people treat its animals.”
Surely we've come this far?
Labels: proposition 2
Posted by solomon @ 11/03/2008 07:52:00 AM
20 Comments:
Thank you, A.W.
I couldn't agree more.
Well stated.
Reasonable.
One question: What's it doing on this blog?!
From what I understand this will only hurt California businesses. I am all for the humane treatment of all animals but this is not going to work unless all of the states have to do it.
@j.scott: Some California companies are already doing the right thing. Others need a little push. Regardless, though, history has already disproved that argument. If I may quote a talking point from the Yes on 2 website:
"…after Arizona voters banned gestation crates [in landslide vote (62-38)], Smithfield Foods—the nation’s largest pig producer—announced it would phase out its use of gestation crates across the nation. One week later. Canada’s largest pig producer announced it would do the same. Farmers are innovative people who can meet challenges presented to them. Already, a large number of them—especially in California—are raising laying hens without confining them in battery cages…"
@jack hoff: Mayor Sam has been heavy on national politics in recent months. I'm sure you'll agree that as a California ballot initiative, Prop 2 hits closer to home than McCain vs. Obama. Either way, I'm confident after tomorrow the focus will start getting back to local stuff.
Jack, here's your local angle…
Mayor Villaraigosa just spammed me with a No on Prop 8 message, but a simple Google search returns no statement of support by Mayor V for Prop 2.
What's the problem, Tony? Chickens can't vote?
I am all for the right thing. Well done Antonio. So it doesn't say anywhere on the Yes on 2 website about the price of eggs. Why are cage free eggs so much more expensive? Is that what we have to look forward to if this passes?
j.scott,
The Yes on 2 campaign cites analysis "by a California-based poultry economist" that it costs producers "less than one additional penny per egg not to confine laying hens in battery cages."
To be clear, Prop 2 doesn't mandate cage free.
The eggs we're talking about here are your Ralph's eggs produces in highly-competitive factory farms, not your Whole Foods cage free eggs at $10/dozen. Those are a completely separate market and conversation.
Like most food labeled "organic" or targeting conscious consumers, it's a seller's market. They overcharge you because you'll pay the "tax" for your health/good conscience (I do). I have no hard evidence, but it's reasonable to expect market forces to reduce prices as "cage free" loses its niche.
Again, though, Prop 2 doesn't mandate cage free and really has nothing to do with cage free. All Prop 2 says, is that hens will be kept in a cages larger than a sheet of paper.
Think it over… I'd like to change at least one mind today :)
A.W., I already voted aye on 2. Hope you caught G. Skelton's article a week or so back in the Times. He is against 2 for economic reasons, but also took an interesting slant from his childhood that chickens, because they created the "pecking order," are basically mean and almost deserving of their confined spaces. First time I've ever really disagreed with George.
For J. Scott, there will always be a better way to do things economically, but those ways often are neither healthy nor humane, thus, like some huge bonds, we end up paying for it later anyway.
George Skelton is against Prop 2 for economic reasons? That's rich. You mean the same George Skelton who never met a tax increase he didn't like?
We put restrictions on businesses all the time - look at building codes.
The point is that this is long overdue - no one thought that such cruelty would ever happen, so it was never part of the law to begin with.
Forgot to say, great points, Antonio.
This reasoning on price is similar to illegals picking lettuce. Theorists ask, but would you REALLY be willing to pay 3 cents more for a head of lettuce if real, paid labor picked it?
Um, yes. And I'd like not to feel guilty every time I eat meat or eggs.
Besides the fact that there will be less death of the animals with better conditions. Duh. So prices could go down.
Obama's nanamama just passed onto the next life. I think he should have spent more time with her since he knew she was going to be getting on to the next life.
Maybe you guys didn't notice, but while I voted No on 2, I did suggest that we pass a law to increase crate sizes... which would involve receiving input from both animal rights groups and farmers.
There must be a better way, and I don't think it's fair to have the public micromanage an industry.
At least you didn't accuse me of hating animals. I certainly don't.
SMS
You don't have to hate animals to be cruel to them. Ignorance works, too.
Yes, more input. That always works on issues where we know what each side would say. This already covers living quarters - I don't know what you mean by crates, Sarah.
sarah mchelle, prop 2 is a start, and you are purely wrong. you do not have to hate animals to be cruel to them. people do it all the time, and you should become more thoroughly familiar with each Proposition before you attempt to persuade others.
if you want to do things right.
for example, something called the Healthy Families Act. To just look at it on a surface issue, how could anyone be against it?
the same thing for Prop 2. at least get familiar with something beyong the introductory sentences.
Healthy Families? Amy you've got a lot to learn.
Liberal politicians have learned they can sell big-government schemes by wrapping "feel good" terms around it.
Sure, who's against healthy families? No one. But that doesn't mean this massive boondoggle isn't worth it.
Remember Rob Reiner's big "Early Childhood Education" plan? We're going to tax cigarettes to help "the children." Sounds good.
It's turned out to be the shadiest program ever. They've wasted a lot of money and got no results but even worse have spent it on things like sending people to a San Francisco resort and then giving them gift cards to Nordstroms, etc. as part of the "program."
Well meaning liberal programs hardly work.
You will soon find out that Americans are incredibly generous (look at the response to Katrina) and that private charities can address social issues far better than any government program.
But those charities don't do anything to help Democrats get elected or give jobs to their friends. So that's why Democrats don't push them.
Interesting that the LA Times is against this but the Daily News is for it. That's a switch.
Maybe the Daily News folk like their omelettes fluffy!
Huh - this is the first time in recent memory I've agreed with the L.A. Times on anything!
Yes on 2, of course. And my neighborhood council, the Greater Valley Glen Council, voted at our meeting tonight to support Prop 2.
Charlotte Laws
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home