OH Issue 2 review piece (WKYC News)‏

Sent: October 8, 2009 2:30:19 PM



WKYC-TV News (Cleveland, OH)
State Issue 2: Livestock Care Panel, What would it do?
by Tom Beres
Updated: 10/6/2009
http://www.wkyc.com/news/local/news_article.aspx?storyid=122956&catid=3

BURTON/WINDSOR -- State Issue 2 is an important debate that will
affect farm animals, farmers and Ohio consumers.

It's pitting political leaders, farm and business groups against
animal rights' groups and others who want to keep overly specific
issues out of the state Constitution.

A "yes" vote on Issue 2 is in favor of creating a 13-member board of
Ohio farming and food experts to make rules about caring for
livestock.

It is on the ballot as a way to pre-empt initiatives from the Humane
Society of the United States to phase out keeping pigs, veal calves
and chickens in crates and cages.

The group claims millions of animals live in inhumane conditions on
big "factory" farms, mostly in Northwest Ohio.

Seven states have adopted such measures by popular vote or legislative action.

Opponents of such measures in Ohio rejected animal protection groups'
overtures to discuss similar regulations here.

Brenda Hastings is the face on commercials being run by Issue 2
supporters, promising a "safe, affordable and local supply of food."

She and her husband raise 600 dairy cattle in Burton in Geauga County.

She is not in favor of more regulations.

But if new regulations are coming because of consumers' greater
interest in what they eat, she wants them made by Ohioans and based on
"the best management practice and science."

She feels animal rights groups' "ultimate goal is a vegetarian
society. We would got out of business. You would not longer be getting
milk from dairy farms in Northeast Ohio. It would be coming from other
states or other countries."

Mardy Townsend raises a small herd of grass-fed cattle in Windsor in
Ashtabula County.

She opposes Issue 2 on political principle and practical fears of a
body creating policy for "affordable food." She also supports
eliminating confinding crates and cages.

"I don't think this belongs in the constitution at all. It would
create another layer of government....There is no definiiton of
affordable food. Anything that comes out of large factory farms will
be less expensive than something I raise on my farm. It takes me about
twelve months longer to get cattle to market, " she said.

Both sides claim they are trying to protect an ever-dwindling number
of Ohio family farms.

There are other important issues dealing with animal disease control
and pollution.

The Humane Society vows to push for a ballot initiative on animal
confinement regulations if Issue 2 passes.

We have complete interviews with Issue 2 supporter Brenda Hastings and
opponent Mardy Townsend if you click on the video at the right.

© 2009 WKYC-TV

Cage-free regs could prompt environmental, economic disaster (3 items)‏

Sent: October 8, 2009 2:06:18 PM


Farm Futures
Egg Producers Firing Back at Animal Rights Activists
Prices could rise 25% if only non-cage eggs allowed.
Compiled by staff
Published: Oct 6, 2009
http://farmfutures.com/story.aspx?s=32102&c=17

The United Egg Producers have released a study that shows if animal
rights activists are successful in outlawing caged hens in the U.S.
consumers will be forced to pay 25% more for eggs, costing consumers
$2.6 billion more each year.

Also hit would be the food assistance programs such as the school
lunch and breakfast programs, Woman, Infants and Children, and the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which would mean an
additional $169 million in federal spending.

The study, which was conducted by Promar International, a Washington,
D.C. economic consulting firm, says such a sharp increase could mean a
significant rise in egg imports.

"If we have to start importing eggs into this country we will increase
our food safety risks," said Gene Gregory, president of United Egg
Producers. "I don't think American consumers really want to play
Russian Roulette with every carton of eggs they buy, which is
essentially what would happen if we allow special interest groups to
force a ban on the most modern, sanitary egg housing systems in the
world. Those systems are used to produce 95% of the eggs that American
consumers buy every day."

An increase in imports would also increase the carbon footprint for a
dozen eggs due to the added transportation necessary. California is
converting to non-cage systems over the next five years and several
other states are as well under pressure from animal rights activists.
If all U.S. egg producers were forced to change the study estimates
the cost to farmers would be $7.5 billion.

United Egg Producers

CONTACT:
Mitch Head
(520) 398-7379

U.S. CONSUMER EGG PRICES COULD RISE BY 25 PERCENT IF ANIMAL RIGHTS
ACTIVISTS GET THEIR WAY

Gov’t Spending on Food Assistance for the Needy Would Increase by $169 million
Cheap Imports Would Increase Food Safety Dangers

WASHINGTON (October 6, 2009) – Consumers would be forced to pay 25
percent more for eggs soon if animal rights activists succeed in
getting only non-cage eggs sold in the U.S., according to a new study
by a respected economic consulting group. That increase would cost
consumers $2.6 billion more each year for eggs, a nutritional staple
in the American diet. The higher costs would strain Americans’
budgets during a difficult economic climate.

Federal spending on food assistance programs for children and the
needy also would increase by $169 million annually if the government
could only purchase cage-free eggs, according to the study by Promar
International, a Washington, D.C. economic consulting firm.
Significant amounts of eggs are purchased for the school lunch and
breakfast program ($47 million annually); Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC-$100 million);
and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP-formerly the
Food Stamp Program).

The study predicts that such a dramatic consumer cost increase could
open the door to a sharp rise in egg imports from other countries that
have far lower food safety and animal welfare standards than the
United States. Egg imports could rise from virtually zero today to 7
billion eggs annually, seriously straining the ability of the U.S.
government’s food safety inspection system.

“If we have to start importing eggs into this country we will increase
our food safety risks,” said Gene Gregory, president of United Egg
Producers, a national cooperative of U.S. family egg farmers. “I
don’t think American consumers really want to play Russian Roulette
with every carton of eggs they buy, which is essentially what would
happen if we allow special interest groups to force a ban on the most
modern, sanitary egg housing systems in the world. Those systems are
used to produce 95 percent of the eggs that American consumers buy
every day.”

“More imports would also likely increase the carbon footprint of a
dozen eggs since they would be transported over long distances,”
Gregory added.

Bans on modern cage housing systems already are being implemented in
California over the next 5 years and several other states because of
pressure from animal rights groups.

Similar bans are being implemented in Germany next year and in many
European countries in the next few years, which will not necessarily
improve the health and welfare of chickens and may have negative
consequences for the environment, consumer and government costs, and
endangering food safety.

USDA statistics indicate that on average during early September 2009,
one dozen grade A “regular” eggs were advertised at retail for $1.00
per dozen compared to $1.59 per dozen for cage-free. Cage-free eggs
cost more because they require more land, more labor, more energy and
more food per hen, Tom Earley, the author of the study, explained.
Cage-free chickens also tend to have more diseases which need to be
treated with expensive medicines, and they have higher mortality
rates.

American consumers currently have the right to choose (and buy)
whatever type of egg they prefer and can afford: “regular” eggs from
modern, sanitary cage housing systems; cage-free (no access to
outdoors); or free range (at least some access to outdoors).
Approximately 95 percent of American consumers choose “regular” eggs
when they make their purchase decisions at the grocery store and eggs
are among the lowest cost sources of high-quality protein, making them
an ideal meal solution for low-income Americans. The need for food
assistance nationwide has increased 30 percent throughout the last
year, according to the website for Feeding America, the nation's
leading domestic hunger relief organization, which says that 35
million people are at risk of hunger in America.

Eggs are produced commercially in 48 states (exceptions being Alaska
and Hawaii). Nearly all commercial egg farms in the U.S. are
family-owned farms or farmer co-ops; there is only one publicy traded
company. Approximately 95 percent of egg-laying hens in the U.S. are
housed in modern cage facilities. The cost to farmers of converting
their modern hen houses into cage-free facilities would be $7.5
billion, the study estimates. The availability of credit and local
permits could be a major obstacle for many farmers.

United Egg Producers

CONTACT:
Mitch Head
(520) 398-7379

NATIONAL CAGE-FREE EGG PRODUCTION REQUIREMENT WOULD BE
AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER, NEW STUDY WARNS

WASHINGTON (October 6, 2009) – A requirement that all eggs in the U.S.
be produced in non-cage systems could be an environmental disaster, a
new study warns. Regular eggs are better for the environment than
cage-free eggs, says a new study by Promar International, a
Washington, D.C. based agricultural economic consulting firm.

“Regular eggs have smaller environmental and carbon footprints than
cage-free eggs, in part because chickens in cage-free systems eat
15-25 percent more food to produce the fewer, smaller eggs,” explains
the study’s author, Tom Earley of Promar International.

“An all-cage-free U.S. egg industry would gobble up an additional 3
billion pounds of corn and soybean meal compared to the amount of feed
required for chickens laying ‘regular’ eggs,” stated Earley.

“Additionally, 580,000 more acres of cropland would be needed just to
grow the additional corn and soybeans needed for an all-cage-free egg
industry, with the potential for increases in air and water pollution
from the farming of those 580,000 acres, the additional fertilizers
and pesticides needed for those crops, plus the transportation and
processing of those crops,” Earley added. “All these new costs would
increase demand for fossil fuels.”

Animal rights groups are pushing for requirements that all eggs
produced in America be “cage-free.” Bans on modern cage housing
systems already are being implemented in California over the next 5
years and are pushing for bans in several other states. Similar bans
are being implemented in Germany next year and in many European
countries in the next few years.

Such a ban in the U.S. would not necessarily improve the health or
welfare of chickens and could have negative consequences for the
environment as well as endangering food safety and increasing
government spending and consumer costs, says the study’s author.

“Regular eggs require less land, less feed, and less energy than do
their cage-free counterpart,” Earley said. “The modern cage system
permits better control of air quality and has been shown to better
protect the health and welfare of the chickens than cage-free and free
range.”

Earley also stated that it doesn’t make sense to abandon the modern
sanitary cage system and if you do there are a lot of consequences,
intended or not, to the environment, to government spending, to
imports and potential food safety, as well as consumer costs. Gene
Gregory, president of United Egg Producers, a national cooperative and
trade association representing American family egg farmers which
commissioned the study, said “The modern, sanitary cage system that
America’s egg farmers use today along with our animal husbandry
guidelines provide for the very good care of our chickens and their
welfare, and is considered humane by the scientific community
including the American Veterinary Medical Association.

Now that we can see all of the other benefits to the environment, to
consumers and government spending, it makes us even more committed to
protecting the consumers’ rights to choose which type of eggs they
buy: regular eggs, cage-free, free range, organic or others.”

According to the study, restricting shoppers’ choices to only
cage-free eggs available would increase consumers’ costs by $2.6
billion annually, a 25 percent increase, because of the higher cost
for cage-free eggs.

Federal spending for food assistance programs would increase by $169
million annually, the study says, if the government could only
purchase cage-free eggs because those eggs cost much more.

The study also highlights that 7 billion eggs would be imported each
year, primarily from Mexico, if U.S. egg farmers are forced to switch
only to cage-free egg production. That amounts to almost 25 eggs per
person and could increase the risk for food safety and food security.

If all commercial egg farmers had to convert their modern hen houses
into cage-free facilities, it would cost them a combined $7.5 billion,
Earley estimates. This includes the cost of converting the modern
sanitary cage system used to produce almost 95 percent of all eggs in
America to cage-free, as well as the cost for the extra land needed.
Almost all commercial egg farms are family-owned farms or farmer
co-ops; only one is a public company.

About United Egg Producers

United Egg Producers (UEP) is the nation’s leading farmer cooperative
for U.S. egg farmers, representing 97 percent of U.S. egg farmers,
whose members produce eggs including modern cage production,
cage-free, free range, organic and other specialty eggs. UEP is based
in Alpharetta, GA. To learn more about the egg industry visit
www.uepcertified.com.
# # #

This is an area folks need to stand up and say no more. To do this we need to educate the public. Grass roots is the only way since the media has sided with the antis.

I have to look in favor to Ohio for taking the fight head on.

Drifter