Monday, November 09, 2009
Animal Welfare Groups Want To Change Your Production Practices
A year ago Proposition 2 in California was approved by voters and spelled the end to the California egg industry because it caused the abolition of common production practices. Voters in other states have spoken out, and in some caused significant changes in the way livestock are raised. Last week Ohio voters approved Issue 2 on the ballot, which was a pro-active move by the Ohio livestock industry to pre-empt an effort by the Humane Society of the US to change livestock production practices in that state. The public debate over what livestock producers should and should not do to raise their animals has barely begun.The heavily financed Humane Society of the US (HSUS ) has been a strong proponent in the debate that has caught the public ear in many states, as well as the attention of lawmakers, and petition passers. Agricultural economists F. Bailey Norwood and Jayson Lusk at Oklahoma State University believe the livestock production industry has not taken enough of a role in the debate and the industry has suffered from that reluctance. Writing in the current issue of Choices Magazine, Norwood and Lusk believe the debates will “play out in the ballot box, state and federal legislatures, and courtrooms.”
The economists say the animal welfare groups have focused on farm animals and how they live, and the livestock industry has focused less on the farm, and has said the activists want to convert everyone to veganism and that the activists have not used scientific evidence but are waging the debate to elicit public emotion. And the economists contend those latter issues are “red herrings.” The Oklahoma State researchers say the claims of the activists “are carefully documented by scientific studies while also appealing to emotions with pictures and videos of miserable-looking animals in small cages. These publications go into great detail documenting and articulating practices that they believe the public will deem undesirable. Although some of these pictures and videos do not represent the average farm, they are real events and that matters.”
Economists Norwood and Lusk point to the United Egg Producers, which have defended their welfare standards are based on “sound” science whereas the farm practices sought by HSUS are not. They say the UEP standards for egg production are based on recommendations of an independent scientific committee, but the HSUS has presented other scientific studies saying cage free eggs are superior to cage eggs in terms of animal welfare. The economists say their own research found that “consumers believe confining animals to small cages is inhumane and that they believe cage-free systems provide higher levels of well-being.” Labeling the livestock industry arguments as “the red herring strategy,” the economists contend that consumers are asked to disregard those beliefs and accept that “science” shows animal do not suffer in cages. They acknowledge that any change will cost money and rhetorically ask if consumers will pay the cost, which they say is the real debate that should be held.
Interviewing consumers across the US, they asked if animal feelings were important and if so, should they be considered. The statistics indicated 29% of consumers found animal welfare to be of little importance and 69% said animal should not suffer, but society has no obligation to ensure animals are “content and happy.” Those same consumers were also asked if government has a role in regulating animal welfare. Given five choices and the option for multiple answers, the survey found 58% supported anti-cruelty legislation, 25% would ban farm practices the majority of citizens oppose, 55% would allow firms to voluntarily label their food as “animal compassionate” if they adhere to high welfare standards, 49% would force all food companies to indicate the level of animal care on their product labels, and 9% chose none of the above.
Norwood and Lusk suggested the agriculture industry engage HSUS in an effort to promote food differentiated by animal welfare, then the groups could save money now being spent to catch the public attention. The economists say it is unlikely to assume the groups will agree, but say there apparently is no common ground at present.
Is there a public good in the debate over animal welfare? Norwood and Lusk say the issue is one of public ethics of how animals are raised, and that affects social norms. And since there are conflicting views, they do not believe the matter will be resolved very soon, and will not be resolved without a bitter battle that will be in the public, legislative, and judicial arenas. They say there is a general support for laws banning “cruel” practices, but there are arguments about what constitutes cruelty, even if one third of consumers do not care about the feelings of animals.
The bottom line, Norwood and Lusk believe, will be for the HSUS to introduce new referenda, target food retailers, file lawsuits and appeal to public sympathy for animals. And they say animal agriculture will fight back by introducing legislation prohibiting such referenda, all of which will result in “a patchy, incoherent set of laws and court rulings to emerge.”
Summary:A handful of states have taken legislative action to control livestock production practices, as the result of efforts by the Humane Society of the US to appeal to consumers and voters about how animal agriculture should conduct its business. Both sides present their scientific arguments, but the expensive debate is expected to continue unabated in the press, the courts, and in legislatures. Currently there is no common ground between the two sides.
Posted by Stu Ellis on 11/09 at 01:46 AM | Permalink