PROP 2 PASSES IN CALIFORNIA

News Date November 10, 2008

       By a 63 to 37 percent margin, California voters approved an animal welfare proposition that, if enforced as the proponents of the measure intend, is expected to outlaw many current housing systems for egg-laying hens used within the state's egg farms. This action may very well eliminate almost all modern egg production in California.
       Proposition 2, which takes effect in 2015, amends the California Health and Safety Code  to make it illegal for farmers to tether or confine animals covered by the law in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up and fully extend their limbs. Proposition 2 applies to swine during pregnancy, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens kept on farm.
       Californians for Humane Farms, a group funded by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Farm Sanctuary and other animal rights groups, was the principal advocate of the measure. It was patterned after a similar ballot initiative approved by Arizona voters in 2006 that banned the use of gestation crates during farrowing of pigs.
       A coalition, consisting of public health and food safety experts, agricultural organizations, labor unions, consumers, family farmers and veterinarians, opposed Proposition 2. Among other things, the groups argued that humane treatment of animals, including farm animals, already is required by California law. Enclosing animals without proper care and treatment is prohibited. California law already requires that animals have adequate space when being housed. In addition, 98 percent of California egg farms adhere to stringent food safety standards. The California Egg Quality Assurance Plan requires that egg farms use the most modern, safe and practical egg farming techniques and standards. It was estimated by the coalition that Proposition 2 will require California poultry producers to build eight to 16 times more hen houses as currently in use to comply with the new law's requirements and maintain current egg production. Buying the land and securing the necessary capital to accomplish this may be prohibitively expensive and economically infeasible.  (Contact: Bob Ehart)