Posted on 06/20/2009 1:24:51 PM PDT by SmithL
After a bruising campaign last fall, Californians voted by a 27-point margin in favor of what was billed as an effective ban on cages for egg-laying hens.
The Humane Society of the United States, which sponsored the measure, may have won that battle. But the war over Proposition 2, it seems, is just getting started.
The egg industry says the proposition might allow it to use cages, and wants an interpretation from the state to support that idea. The Humane Society isn't budging. It says voters meant to enact a ban on cages, and that's what they should get.
Meanwhile, the fighting has moved to other fronts.
The society is backing Assembly Bill 1437, which would require all eggs sold in the state not just those laid in the state to comply with the ballot measure. And it has organized a sweeping class-action suit alleging massive price-fixing by egg farmers.
The University of California, hoping to insert itself as a peacemaker, formed a new animal welfare council last month. But at the same time, the university is being sued by the Humane Society over what the group says was an industry-biased analysis of Proposition 2 during the campaign.
While the Humane Society presses its advantage, the egg industry is seeking to find some leverage of its own in the language of the proposition.
While billed as a ban on the wire boxes that house most of California's egg-laying hens, Proposition 2 doesn't explicitly prohibit cages.
"It doesn't say anything is specifically allowed or prohibited," said Fiona Hutton, spokeswoman for the Association of California Egg Farmers.
Instead, it guarantees hens the space for some basic behaviors, including extending their wings which average 28 inches, tip to tip without touching another bird or the side of a cage.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
“Good night! How many other food products, including your fried products (i.e. KFC chicken) require eggs in their ingredients. This will increase the costs of many foods.”
Not mine, heheh :D
I suspect that I am going to be in the minority here, but while animals dont have rights, we are obliged to treat them in a humane manner.
yes, you are in the minority- but I am with you on this. My grandfather was a farmer- he treated those animals in a humane way until the day that they were slaughtered to be eaten. He said it was his job to keep them well taken care of until they did their job by feeding us.
If you cann't eat it or screw it, piss on it and walk away..
California is for the birds ...
So if the voters say “no chicken cages” then you must comply. If the voters say “no same sex marriage” then we count a bunch of same sex marriages anyway?
Finally, how are they going to keep the chickens comfortable in their new expanded facilites without creating more “greenhouse” gases? Certainly they at least have to run more fans. Or does the electricity they import from other states not count?
I agree it can be cruel. We buy a farm share for our veggies and berries. We buy our eggs at the same farm. Our laying hens have a large enclosure and a generous coop within it. They eat scraps from the farm, amuse the children, and occasionally escape into the strawberry patch. The eggs are delicious, and the rich yellow yolks are more dense and flavorful than factory farmed eggs. I really enjoy seeing the hens doing their clucking, flocking thing and fighting over banana peels or tomato trimmings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.