California Proposition 2 (2008)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Animals on the Ballot
Alaska
Wolf & Bear Protection
California
Proposition 2
Massachusetts
Greyhound Protection
North Dakota
Captive Hunting
Previous years

Proposition 2, or the Standards for Confining Farm Animals [1] , appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California, where it passed with 63.5% of the vote.

Prop 2 creates a new state statute that prohibits the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.

Voters in other states have voted to eliminate calf and pig crates, but Proposition 2 in California in 2008 is the first time voters will have been asked to eliminate the practice of confining chickens in battery (small, confining) cages.

The hotly-contested battle over the proposition led to both an hour-long Oprah show airing on October 14 and, through September 30, $14 million raised by the two sides of the issue.[2],[3]

Election results

California Proposition 2
Votes Percentage
Yes 8,009,556 63.5%
No 4,622,352 36.5%
Total votes 12,631,908 100%

Specific provisions of the act

The proposed act prohibits the confinement of farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.[4] Additionally, the measure:

  • Imposes a misdemeanor penalty and a fine of up $1,000 or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months to those who have been found to violate the act.
  • Bans dense confinement for egg-laying poultry, gestation crates for sows and veal crates for veal calves.

Estimated fiscal impact studies

As released by Secretary of State, Debra Bowen’s office, on July 22, the fiscal impact on state and local government revenues is:

  • Potential unknown decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, possibly in the range of several million dollars annually.
  • Potential minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue.

A May 2008 study by Promar International that was commissioned by opponents to Prop. 2 estimated the fiscal impact of the measure on the California agriculture industry and consumers. This study concluded:

  • 95% of the California egg industry and accompanying economic output would be lost by 2015.
  • The total current economic output of the industry is $648 million and 3,561 jobs.
  • Egg production costs would increase by 76%. [5]

The University of California Agricultural Issues Center (AIC), attached to UC-Davis, issued a July 2008 study about the fiscal impact. That study said:

  • The best evidence from a variety of sources suggests that (non-organic) non-cage systems incur costs of production that are at least 20 percent higher than the common cage housing systems. This is due to higher feed costs, higher hen laying mortality, higher direct housing costs, and higher labor costs.
  • The study also estimated that the California egg industry would relocate to other states during the 5-year adjustment period.
  • The study concluded that the cost to consumers of the cheapest California-produced eggs would increase by at least 25%. However, since the egg industry shall have relocated to other states, in the opinion of the study, they conclude that the cost of eggs to California consumers will increase by about 1 cent per egg.[6]

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a key supporter of Proposition 2, has filed a lawsuit against UC-Davis relative to this study. The Humane Society had filed a California Public Records Act request seeking documents from the university to establish whether any funding for the study came from industry opponents of Prop. 2, versus entirely from the university's normal revenue streams (taxpayers, tuition, etc.). The university did not deliver the requested documents promptly, which lead to the HSUS's lawsuit, since the HSUS wants the documents prior to the election.[7]

Animal confinement practices in California

Currently in California, chicken farmers are allowed to raise chickens in what are called "battery cages". These are stacked wire enclosures where 95% of laying hens live out their lives, with six to eight hens to a cage. According to the United Egg Producers, a trade association, about 30 farms in California produce most of the state's annual 5-billion-egg harvest, an average of more than 600,000 hens per farm.[8]

Calves may be raised in veal crates and sows may be raised in gestation crates.

Egg production

Currently, about half the eggs consumed in California are produced outside the state. The provisions of Proposition 2 would not apply to out-of-state egg producers.

Egg production in the state is concentrated in Sonoma County, the Central Valley and Southern California. San Joaquin County produced an estimated 34.5 million dozen eggs in 2007, worth more than $25 million to farmers. Eggs account for a little more than 1 percent of California's $32 billion annual farm production. The state's egg industry employs about 3,000 people.

The top ten egg-producing states in the country, ranked by number of active hens, are:

  • Iowa, 52.6 million laying hens
  • Ohio, 25.6
  • Indiana, 23.8
  • Pennsylvania, 20.5
  • California, 18.3
  • Texas, 14.1
  • Florida, 10.4
  • Nebraska, 9.9
  • Minnesota, 9.7
  • Georgia, 9.5

Only three of the top 10 egg-producing states allow for citizen initiative (California, Florida and Nebraska).

Proponents and supporters

The YES! on Prop 2 campaign is run by Californians for Humane Farms, sponsored by The Humane Society of the United States, Farm Sanctuary, and other animal protection groups, family farmers, veterinarians and public health professionals.

Joe Ramsey is the official sponsor of the initiative. In addition to humane societies and animal welfare groups, the measure is also backed by the California Veterinary Medical Association, the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Consumer Federation of America, Clean Water Action, the Sierra Club, the United Farm Workers, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.[9] The measure has also been endorsed by several politicians, including the California Democratic Party and U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein.[10]

Jennifer Fearing is the campaign manager for the "Yes on Prop 2" campaign.[11]

See also: List of Proposition 2 supporters.

On October 7, the Yes on Prop 2 campaign released two commercials in support of the ballot initiative. [31] and [32]

Supporting arguments

  • Prop 2 prevents cruelty to animals, since it is simply wrong to confine animals in tiny cages barely large enough for their bodies. To emphasize this argument, supporters of Prop 2 released a video on October 14 that according to the Los Angeles Times shows "egg-laying hens crammed into filthy cages, while, nearby, discarded birds are left to die in piles of corpses."[12]
  • Prop 2 improves our health and food safety by requiring better conditions for animals.
  • Prop 2 supports family farmers, who are driven out of business when factory farms cut corners and put profits ahead of animal welfare and our health.
  • Prop 2 protects air and water and safeguards the environment.
  • Prop 2 is a reasonable and common-sense reform, which will take effect in 2015 and won't be costly to implement.
  • The price of cage-free eggs will go down.[13]
  • See California Proposition 2 videos

Donors to Proposition 2

Through September 27, $5,248,759 had been donated to support Proposition 2.[14]

Notable donors and donations to the campaign in support of Proposition 2 through September 27 include:

Path to the ballot

On February 28, 2008, supporters of the measure submitted 790,486 signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. This compared to a requirement of 433,971 valid signatures. In early April 2008, the Secretary of State of California announced that the signatures were sufficient and the measure would proceed to the November ballot.[16],[17],[18],[19]

Initiative supporters say that their petition drive was invigorated in February when a video of sick cows being abused at a packing plant in Chino, California surfaced and was widely viewed on the internet.[20]

The signatures were gathered by a combination of volunteers throughout the state, plus paid signature gatherers employed by Progressive Campaigns, Inc. at a cost of $416,756.[21]

Opposition and opposing arguments

Californians for SAFE Food has been formed to oppose the initiative.[22] When the signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot were turned in, the group released a statement,[23] saying, "This measure is primarily an effort to ban the use of a scientifically proven method for housing egg-laying hens. If implemented it would trigger unintended consequences which are likely to include increased farm costs, decreased in-state production and higher egg prices for California families."

Opposing arguments

  • If it passes, egg supply will go down and egg prices will go up.
  • Some egg farmers in California who already practice cage-free chicken farming are fearful that the ballot language is ambiguous and that their farming would also be subject to the provisions of the initiative.[24]
  • If chickens are not in cages, they are more vulnerable to attacks by predators, including other chickens;
  • Veal crates and gestation crates for pigs are practically non-existent in California or are being voluntarily phased out this year.[25]
  • The initiative doesn't require farmers to keep chickens outdoors. Battery cages have been banned in Europe effective 2012. Farmers making the transition there are not providing free range conditions for their chickens but are instead finding other ways to keep chickens in barns.[8]
  • If egg companies don't want to deal with the new regulations, they can move to other states or Mexico, taking their benefits to local economies with them.[8]
  • According to a study put out by the University of California-Davis, if Prop 2 passes, it is likely that it would force the state's $300 million egg industry to move out of the state or out of business entirely.
  • The cost of producing eggs would increase by 20% or more.
  • The egg business would have to invest about $500 million on new ways to house chickens.[26]
  • Consumers would buy trucked-in eggs from other states and Mexico which would be more exposed to salmonella, and the hens more vulnerable to bird flu.[27]
  • According to the National Taxpayers Union, Proposition 2 would place additional regulations on how livestock owners must handle their farm animals, which could increase food costs.[28]
  • Los Angeles pundit George Skelton says, "I'm for chicken compassion. But I feel more compassionate about the chicken farmer in this bankrupting economy."[29]
  • See California Proposition 2 videos

Donors to opposition campaign

Through September 27, $6,894,966 had been donated to oppose Proposition 2.[30]

As of September 27, examples of groups that have contributed over $100,000 include:

  • Demler Enterprises and Demler Eggs[31]
  • Cal-Maine Foods
  • Braswell Milling
  • Moark, LLC
  • Gemperle Enterprises
  • United Egg Producers
  • J S West Milling Company
  • Valley Fresh Foods
  • Nucal Foods
  • Foster Poultry Farms
  • Quality Eggs of New England
  • Tampa Farm Service

Complaint Filed

On September 3, the Prop. 2 campaign filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission saying that they believe "the No on Prop 2 campaign has used the United Egg Producers as a conduit to launder out-of-state contributions to the campaign in direct violation of California finance laws."

What's at issue is a $250,000 donation from the U.S. Poultry and Egg Association. That group gave its donation to United Egg Producers rather than to the No on 2 committee. The "Yes on 2" committee believes that doing so violates a provision of the state's campaign finance laws. [32]

Polling information

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.
Month of Poll Polling organization In Favor Opposed Undecided
July 2008 Field 63 percent 24 percent 13 percent[33]
September 2008 SurveyUSA 72 percent 10 percent 17 percent
October 18-28 Field 60 percent 27 percent 13 percent[34]

Newspaper endorsements

Editorial boards in favor

  • The San Diego Union-Tribune[35]
  • The New York Times[36]
  • The San Jose Mercury News[37]
  • The Santa Cruz Sentinel[38]
  • The Paradise Post[39]
  • The Los Angeles Daily News[40]
  • The Whittier Daily News[41]

Editorial boards opposed

External links

Basic information

Supporters

Opponents

References

  1. ↑ [1] Office of the Secretary of State, Ballot Label, Initiative 07-0041, July 3, 2008
  2. ↑ Oprah, "Lisa Ling Reports: How We Treat the Animals We Eat", October 14, 2008 (video)
  3. ↑ Press Democrat, "Millions spent on chicken-cage ballot initiative", October 12, 2008
  4. ↑ FAQ about initiative's provisions
  5. ↑ [2] Economic Impact on California of the Treatment of Farm Animals Act, Promar International, May 16, 2008
  6. ↑ [3] Sumner, Daniel A. et al, Economic Effects of Proposed Restrictions on Egg-laying Hen Housing in California, University of California Agricultural Issues Center, July 2008
  7. ↑ The Guardian, "UC served legal threat after Prop. 2 study", September 26, 2008
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 Los Angeles Times, "Chicken Run", July 5, 2008
  9. ↑ List of sponsors of the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Initiative
  10. ↑ California Democratic Party, U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator Barbara Boxer Endorse State Anti-Cruelty Ballot Measure, June 19, 2008
  11. ↑ Jennifer Fearing personnel profile
  12. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Footage of mistreated hens released in support of Proposition 2", October 14, 2008
  13. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Prop. 2: Caging of farm animals under debate", September 30, 2008
  14. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Ballot Watch: Proposition 2: Standards for confining farm animals", September 27, 2008
  15. ↑ Official record of donations to California Proposition 2
  16. ↑ Secretary of State's ballot qualification notice
  17. ↑ Nearly 800,000 signatures turned in to qualify anti-cruelty measure for November ballot
  18. ↑ Anti-Cruelty Measure Certified for California’s November Ballot, April 10, 2008
  19. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Animals in the voting booth", April 8, 2008
  20. ↑ Press-Enterprise, "Prop. 2 petition drive lagged until cow abuse video surfaced", August 17, 2008
  21. ↑ Campaign expenditure details
  22. ↑ Group forms to fight California ballot initiative, Daily Herd, Jan. 8, 2008
  23. ↑ United Egg Producers, "Measure threatens science-based farm practices" February 25, 2008
  24. ↑ [* Inside Bay Area, "Some cage-free egg producers fear effects of Prop. 2", September 25, 2008
  25. ↑ California Farmer, Group Formed to Fight Ballot Measure, May 1, 2008
  26. ↑ Record Net, "Measure could send egg industry packing, study says", July 23, 2008
  27. ↑ Press Telegram, "Uncertain animal benefits", September 29, 2008
  28. ↑ National Taxpayers Union, "General Election Ballot Guide 2008, The Taxpayer's Perspective"
  29. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 2: Good for chickens, bad for chicken farmers", October 20, 2008
  30. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Ballot Watch: Proposition 2: Standards for confining farm animals", September 27, 2008
  31. ↑ Official record of $5,000+ donors opposing Proposition 2
  32. ↑ California Majority Report, "Yes on Prop 2 Campaign Files FPPC Complaint Today, Alleging Money Laundering by United Egg Producers", Septembver 3, 2008
  33. ↑ July 22 Field Poll results on Proposition 2
  34. ↑ Field Poll for the Sacramento Bee, October 31, 2008
  35. ↑ San Diego Union Tribune, "Ban on inhumane confinement is sensible", September 15, 2008
  36. ↑ New York Times, "Standing, Stretching, Turning Around", October 8, 2008
  37. ↑ Mercury News, "Editorial: Vote yes on Proposition 2 to let chickens spread their wings", October 2, 2008
  38. ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Proposition 2 makes humane sense"
  39. ↑ Paradise Post, "We support Prop 2 but not Prop 3"
  40. ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "Yes on Prop 2; It's a feel-good egg"
  41. ↑ Whittier Daily News, "Vote 'yes' on Prop 2"
  42. ↑ http://www.sfbg.com/entry.php?entry_id=7262
  43. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "No on Proposition 2", September 25, 2008
  44. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Why Proposition 2 is a bad idea", September 24, 2008
  45. ↑ Press Telegram, "Uncertain animal benefits", September 29, 2008
  46. ↑ [4]
  47. ↑ [5]
  48. ↑ [6]
  49. ↑ [7]
  50. ↑ [8]
  51. ↑ [9]
  52. ↑ [10]
  53. ↑ [11]
  54. ↑ [12]
  55. ↑ [13]
  56. ↑ [14]
  57. ↑ [15]
  58. ↑ [16]
  59. ↑ [17]
  60. ↑ [18]
  61. ↑ [19]
  62. ↑ [20]
  63. ↑ [21]
  64. ↑ [22]
  65. ↑ [23]
  66. ↑ [24]
  67. ↑ [25]
  68. ↑ [26]
  69. ↑ [27]
  70. ↑ [28]
  71. ↑ [29]
  72. ↑ [30]

Additional reading

v • d • e
2008 ballot measures in California

To connect to everything on Ballotpedia about California and its ballot—laws, history, statewide ballot measures, ballot access, and more, visit:

Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_2_%282008%29"
Personal tools