CA bill would require imported eggs to meet "Prop. 2" standards (Riverside PE)‏
Sent: May 15, 2009 3:17:07 PM
Riverside Press Enterprise (CA)
Bill would apply caged hen rules to out-of-state eggs
By JIM MILLER
Sacramento Bureau
May 11, 2009
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_eggs11.4644e80.htmlSACRAMENTO - California's upcoming ban on small cages for egg-laying
hens would be extended to out-of-state egg producers if a bill moving
through the Legislature becomes law.
The state's $648 million egg industry so far is neutral on the
legislation, which is championed by the same groups that backed Prop.
2, the successful November ballot initiative that requires more room
for chickens and other farm animals.
The bill, though, already has received support from legislators who
opposed Prop. 2. They say it will help California's egg industry
compete with out-of-state egg producers who, under current law, will
not need to comply with Prop. 2 when its rules take effect in 2015.
"I think there's a general consensus out there that if our industries
have to do certain things for the housing of poultry, then we don't
think it's too much to ask the rest of the country to adhere to the
same rules that we do, just to keep our folks competitive," said
Assemblyman Tom Berryhill, R-Modesto, a co-author of AB 1437. He
opposed Prop. 2.
Prop. 2 mandates that pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens
have enough space to lie down, stand up, turn around and fully extend
their limbs. Violators can face criminal penalties.
Its main impact is on the egg industry, which led last year's
opposition to the initiative.
An Assembly committee analysis of the bill raised concerns that
expanding Prop. 2's rules to out-of-state egg producers could violate
the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution meant to
prevent states from restricting imports from other states.
In addition, the new legislation has failed to placate California egg
producers' frustration with Prop. 2. The industry is forming a new
group, the Association of California Egg Farmers, mainly to deal with
Prop. 2's implementation.
Gary Foster, general manager of Riverside County's Norco Ranch, a
major egg producer, said his company recently canceled a $35 million
expansion because of questions about complying with Prop. 2.
Among other things, he said, the 540-word law leaves unclear what sort
of building would meet the initiative's requirement that chickens need
to be able to extend their wings without touching another bird. Would
a producer get in trouble if birds touched while extending their wings
at the same time, for example, Foster asked.
"It incorporates Prop. 2 but doesn't explain what it is," Foster said
of this year's bill. "We would like very much to comply with what the
voters wanted. But we don't know what that is."
The Humane Society of the United States, which largely bankrolled the
Yes-on-2 campaign, is pushing the new bill.
Jennifer Fearing, the Humane Society's chief economist and its
Sacramento lobbyist, said the bill would further the goal of getting
more chickens out of what animal-rights groups contend are inhumane
cages.
She also said the Humane Society is working with California producers
to address questions about complying with Prop. 2.
"The overwhelming support that Californians had for Prop. 2 sent a
signal about what they think about the tradeoffs and risks associated
with this kind of food production," Fearing said.
prop. 2 fight
The battle over Prop. 2 drew attention and money from around the country.
Donors in Riverside and San Bernardino counties contributed more than
$1 million of the nearly $9 million opponents raised.
Supporters, led by the Humane Society, raised more than $10.3 million
and filled the airwaves with graphic images of chickens in small cages
and other animals purportedly being mistreated.
Opponents said the footage was "dubious and cynical."
Critics said Prop. 2 would significantly raise the price of eggs,
something proponents disputed.
The election was a rout.
Prop. 2. passed everywhere except in several Central Valley counties.
Afterward, some critics started calling for splitting the state
because "uneducated city dwellers" were dictating agricultural rules.
There also were less strident conversations. Assemblyman Jared
Huffman, D-San Rafael, was among those who participated.
Huffman authored AB 1437 and said his bill closes a "gaping hole" that
would let out-of-state producers sell eggs to California consumers.
"I'm sure the industry would love to wake up tomorrow and not have
Prop. 2 be the law of the land, but the voters spoke pretty loudly and
clearly that they want these minimum anti-cruelty standards," Huffman
said. "This levels the playing field and gives effect to what the
voters thought they were doing when they passed Prop. 2."
The Assembly Agriculture Committee unanimously approved the bill last
week. Besides Berryhill, a yes vote came from the panel's chairwoman,
Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani, D-Merced, who last year rallied her
colleagues to oppose Prop. 2 because she said it would eliminate
hundreds of jobs.
For California's egg industry, the new legislation offers potential
pitfalls and rewards.
The bill could emerge as a vehicle for the industry to get clear
guidance on what Prop. 2 requires. Or it could solidify the
initiative's legal position against any potential industry lawsuit.
The bill could lend momentum to congressional efforts to craft
national animal-confinement standards. But any support by California
producers' for the legislation would put them sharply at odds with the
national egg industry.
United Egg Producers, an Atlanta-based national industry group, did
not respond to a request for comment on the California bill.