farmgate: Ohio Livestock Interests Preempt Humane Society's Livestock Production Restrictions.
Ohio voters in three weeks will consider a statewide referendum spurred by the Humane Society of the US in its effort to radically change livestock production practices. However, the referendum, known as Issue 2 on the November 3 ballot, is something that the Humane Society is advocating a “no” vote, and agricultural interests are urging a “yes” vote. In other words, the agricultural interests in Ohio, knowing that the Humane Society had targeted their state, stepped ahead of HSUS to get a pro-livestock production issue on the ballot instead.
The Humane Society has taken credit for ballot initiatives in California, Arizona, and Florida where certain livestock production practices have been banned. And in California, the initiative will have closed down that state’s egg production industry by 2015 according to political analysts. In Michigan, a new law took effect Oct. 12 that phases out chicken cages and sow gestation crates within 10 years and veal crates for calves within 3 years, which was pushed by Humane Society lobbyists.
Taking preemptory action, Ohio agricultural groups convinced the state legislature to approve a ballot initiative to create a livestock care standards board to advise the Ohio Department of Agriculture. Ohio State University economist Brian Roe the board would establish standards for governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in Ohio.
The Humane Society had intended to propose its own set of rules which Roe says could result in laws similar to those in California and other states which have severely restricted livestock production. That is the reason the HSUS is urging rejection of the referendum, which would be composed of representatives of farms, farm organizations, veterinarians, food safety experts, the dean of an ag department at a university in Ohio, and a representative of a county humane society organization. The purpose is to: 1) maintain food safety, 2) encourage locally grown and raised food, and 3) protect Ohio farms and families.
Roe says if Issue 2 passes, there are several possible scenarios, although none is guaranteed to occur.
1) There would be no change in agricultural practices in Ohio.
2) There could be some additional paperwork for livestock producers to report their production practices, but changes would not be required.
3) There could be public pressure to force changes in production practices.
Roe is quick to say that passage of Issue 2 does not preclude the Humane Society in returning to the legislature and seeking a “California-style” ballot initiative to radically change the way livestock are produced in Ohio, but it would likely decrease the odds of that happening. But Roe says if Issue 2 fails on Nov. 3, there may be an initiative in 2010 to pass a wide ranging law to ban a variety of typical livestock production practices. He says lawmakers and farm groups may try to negotiate a deal, similar to Michigan, which gave the HSUS what it wanted, but delayed the bulk of the changes for 10 years.
The OSU economist says if a California-style law is approved in Ohio, farmers will have to spend money to change their practices, which are 20% more costly for poultry production, or they could alter their marketing strategy to not require the purchase of meats produced with the altered practices, or they could move their operation to another location where policy issues were not as threatening, or they may exit the livestock production business.
Summary:
With the expectation the Humane Society would seek to radically change livestock production practices in Ohio, agricultural interests there will seek voter approval next month for establishment of a livestock care standards board, made up primarily of pro-livestock interests. They fear that Ohio would be the target for new rules that would ban chicken cages, sow gestation crates, and veal crates, which have been banned in several other states. There is no guarantee the referendum will pass or that opponents will seek restrictions on production in another year.
Posted by Stu Ellis on October 13, 2009 12:05 AM to farmgate