I’ll never forget the first time I laid eyes on a commercial egg-laying operation.
Stacks and stacks of cages, four or five deep, barely large enough to contain the hens within. The hens could literally do nothing but eat and lay eggs, one of which would roll down a ramp every few seconds. They were remarkably calm – maybe because they’d learned by now that squawking and trying to flap their wings would only make things worse. I remember thinking, reincarnation as one of those chickens would be a just fate for Hitler.
That’s why I’m so conflicted by the prospect of states passing animal-cruelty laws on their own.
California and Massachusetts have each passed measures setting minimum confinement areas for animals used for food, including chickens and pregnant sows. The California law, Proposition 12, was passed in 2018, and the second phase of its regulations becomes effective Jan. 1 of next year. Among other provisions, these will require a minimum of 24 square feet of floor space for pregnant sows and their newborn piglets; and chickens can’t be confined to cages at all. The Massachusetts measure, Question 3, was passed in 2016. Among other things, it will require chickens to be confined in cages large enough to spread their wings, or have 1.5 square feet of floor space apiece. As with the California measure, it kicks in next Jan. 1.
The California and Massachusetts laws have two things in common: They were both passed by voter initiatives, not legislatures; and they both apply to all products from the affected animals sold in the state, no matter where they come from.
That’s going to be an obvious problem for producers of eggs, pork and other products that can no longer be sold legally in the huge markets of those states, because their operations don’t conform to the humane standards of those laws. The question is, will it become a problem for consumers who want bacon in California or eggs in Boston? Processors are warning of an impending “egg Armageddon.”
But I think there’s a more fundamental question at stake: Where do California and Massachusetts get off imposing their standards on the rest of the country?
On one level, I sympathize with the animal-rights activists and others who are trying to get meaningful legislation on the books. It would be next to impossible to get standards like this passed at the federal level. Senators from Iowa and other farm states would pitch a fit, and unfortunately, our federal system is set up so that a determined minority can block just about anything.
But getting around the federal system by passing state-level laws is nothing but an end run. Using the market clout of California and Massachusetts to set policy for the rest of the nation, by appealing to their voters’ emotions, gives those emotions inappropriate influence on commercial and agricultural policy.
I don’t like it when Texas uses its market clout with school textbooks (a state board specifies books for every public school within its borders) to impose its versions of history and science on the rest of the nation. I don’t think it’s any more fair for California and Massachusetts to do the same with animal welfare standards.
And to the animal lovers who support these measures: When average consumers who just want their bacon and eggs have to pay outrageous prices for them, or not be able to get them at all, and they realize why, how much of a beating do you think your cause will take?
Pan Demetrakakes is a Senior Editor for Food Processing and has been a business journalist since 1992, mostly covering various aspects of the food production and supply chain, including processing, packaging, distribution and retailing. Learn more about him or contact him
