How I’m voting for the environment in the Nov. 4, 2008 election.

Even for carnivores, I imagine there’s something rather unappetizing about knowing that a chicken whose eggs you’re about to eat was caged up so tight it couldn’t lie down, stand up, fully extend its limbs or turn around. Doesn’t the thought of eating what comes out of a disabled, unhealthy chicken sound, you know, gross?

Of course, images of chicken with their feet rotting off aren’t printed on egg cartons, so many egg eaters never see the disgusting conditions their food wallowed in before going into their mouths. Thanks to Prop 2 getting on the ballot, however, Californians are now, at the very least, invited to consider what dirty things they may be putting into their bodies.

While Prop 2 covers pigs and calves too, those industries are quite small in California — basically making the initiative about giving laying hens a lil more space come 2015. According to the LA Times, about 95% of Cali hens currently live in spaces “slightly smaller than a sheet of letter paper.”

Who doesn’t want happier Cali chickens? The main argument against Prop 2 — as exemplified by the LA Times’ opposition to the measure — is an economic one: That treating animals more humanely would cost more, thus making California eggs more expensive and less competitive in the national marketplace.

I have two main rebuttals to this. Yes, I agree that Cali egg people will need to invest some extra money initially (though they’ll have until 2015 to comply with the initiative if it passes). However, what about the long term? Even the LA Times itself notes in its editorial that “Proposition 2 is proof that if farmers insist on mistreating animals, people will act.” Since the tide seems to be turning against super-confined chickens, wouldn’t it be beneficial to Cali farmers to think ahead and grab that growing ethical egg market before other states catch on?

Just like milk containing rBGH — which, due to rejection by consumers, got booted out of Starbucks, Dean Foods, and even Kroger — battery-cage eggs are getting unpopular. In fact, another LA Times article notes that “Many corporate and university cafeterias have switched to [cage-free eggs]. Wolfgang Puck announced last year that he would use only cage-free eggs in his products.”

In Grist, Carol Ness notes that Prop 2 is “not just another one of those far-out Left Coast things.”:

The Prop. 2 campaign is playing on a mainstream, national stage. Oprah Winfrey devoted a show to the issue of food-animal care and Prop. 2 last week, and the New York Times editorial page voiced support for the proposition.

With those facts in mind, I think the LA Times focuses way too much on the potential of battery-cage eggs getting imported into our state, versus our potential to export ethical eggs to other states.

My second economic reason for supporting this is perhaps a bit selfish. When I buy eggs, I get free range eggs from the Santa Monica Farmers’ Market. If we had more farmers in the cage-free egg biz, prices would surely go down. As Sierra Club California points out in its endorsement of the measure:

Many family farmers who raise animals humanely support Prop 2, because the cruel (but profitable) practices of the large factory farms make it difficult for small farms to compete financially. Sierra Club supports family farming, and this initiative helps level the playing field by requiring big agri-business interests to apply some basic standards to their treatment of animals.

Vote yes on Prop 2

2 Comments