2012 senior class photos
2012 West Carrollton graduation
Home of the Week
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > July > 07 > Entry
Editorial: Animal lovers, farmers both wrong
The animal rights movement is coming to Ohio this fall.
Agricultural interests in the state are scared to death of a ballot proposal the Humane Society of the United States wants Ohioans to vote on a year from now, in 2010, that would prohibit farmers from keeping egg-laying hens, veal calves and pregnant pigs in the tiniest of cages and crates.
Voters have passed similar proposals in three states, most recently in California. Polling shows the idea would be an easy sell here, too.
In an attempt to head off that possibility, Gov. Ted Strickland and state lawmakers are supporting legislation that will ask voters this November if they want to amend the state constitution to create a board that would set rules about caring for livestock.
The hope is that this idea will pass and then Ohioans will be reluctant to turn around next year and vote against specific farming practices that the Humane Society says are cruel. Agricultural groups argue that a panel of experts knows better than voters how many inches of space a pregnant sow needs.
There’s also a more cynical consideration in play. If the amendment proposed by the governor and legislature passes, it arguably trumps any changes in law that the Humane Society could get enacted next year.
Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society, says his organization won’t be rolled over so easily. His group is investigating whether to take a harder position and likewise put its restrictions in the constitution.
You can love animals and farmers and think both of these campaigns are nuts.
Neither idea belongs in the constitution. But, in fact, it was the Ohio Farm Bureau and the state’s poultry and livestock associations that went nuclear first by looking for constitutional protection.
Consumers are becoming increasingly fussy about their food. They want to know more about growing and breeding processes, and many people are willing to pay more for products they think are better for them, better for the environment and, yes, that don’t involve what they consider mistreatment of animals (or workers).
The debates about what farming practices are safest and best are fierce. Some defenders of the crowding associated with factory farms, for instance, argue that new methods aimed at maximizing production actually prevent disease.
Critics say that’s ridiculous, and they insist that crating animals, for example, threatens the safety of the food supply.
The arguments have to be resolved according to the science — not emotion, and certainly not with profits being the only concern.
Ohio is important to both campaigns. We’re the second-largest egg-producing state in the nation; No. 9 in pork production and among the top five states in veal production.
The agri-business people insist the Humane Society’s measure will be a job-killer, while the Humane Society counters that, no, having stricter rules about how animals are treated will level the playing field for small farmers to compete and create jobs.
Meanwhile, the coming ad campaigns showing caged laying hens that aren’t ever allowed to spread their wings, and pregnant pigs stuffed in grates where they can take only a half-step forward and backward, will be hard to stomach even for carnivores.
Agriculture policy, like everything else, has to evolve. What worked or was acceptable yesterday won’t always be the way of the world. Deciding the rules requires all sides sitting down and looking at bona fide research and negotiating in good faith.
But nobody should be for settling food fights in the constitution.
Permalink | Comments (24) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Ellen Belcher, Ohio government, Ohio politics, Rural Communities
Comments
By Consumer
July 7, 2009 6:00 PM | Link to this
I agree wholeheartedly that the Ohio Constitution is not the place for this issue to be settled. It should be settled by me the consumer. If I, as a consumer, choose to eat meat that comes from a chicken that has been in a cage all of it’s life because it’s cheaper, then I should have that choice. Similarly, if I as a consumer want to eat meat that comes from a chicken that has been roaming outside for all of it’s life then I should have that choice as well. I just don’t feel comfortable having the state government telling me where my food should come from.
By Frank Russo
July 7, 2009 6:19 PM | Link to this
Right on Consumer!!! You can be range free eggs now. You can buy free range cattle, pigs, etc. Why do we need an amendment to promote this type of farming? WE DON’T!
By tommyv
July 8, 2009 7:42 AM | Link to this
Consumer…you absolutely “get it!” Let the consumers vote with their dollars.
By Melin
July 8, 2009 9:36 AM | Link to this
I am a farmer. I agree that we do not need to define these issues in our constitution. I will go one step farther…people that do not farm should not have the majority say in how I farm. I follow the environmental protection agency guidelines, I practice safe food policies and procedures. I work very hard to care for our dairy cattle and to provide a safe and high quality product for the consumer. Farmers feed the world 3 times a day every day. Thank a farmer for your meals today.
By ironmyke
July 8, 2009 11:05 AM | Link to this
The constitution isn’t the place to deal with this issue, but consumers now do not have sufficient information to make an informed choice about the processes used to produce their foods. Information on labels is often mostly oriented toward marketing the product. Agri-business has lots of freedom to do what it wants to do to maximize profits. As we have seen from the recalls, relying on the protection of FDA oversight doesn’t get you the protection you may think you have. Something does need to change to define acceptable practices in producing food or much more complete information presented in a convenient and easily understood manner needs to be readily available.
By daveb
July 8, 2009 12:00 PM | Link to this
I am from a small farm and I agree with the Humane Society that how animals are treated in these “meat factories” is disgusting. The Farm Burea and politicians only look out for the big corporations that put the family farmers out of business.
By People
July 9, 2009 3:48 PM | Link to this
The people do get to vote on this. All this bill does it create a ballot initiative that would let us, the people, vote on whether WE think this is a good idea or not. Anything to keep the HSUS out of my farm sounds like a great idea to me.
By aharddaysnight
July 10, 2009 8:44 AM | Link to this
What you fail to realize daveb is that if the HSUS has their way, ultimately you won’t be farming either.
By AJ
July 10, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this
I am a farmer and I do not believe that the constitution or Humane Society should tell a farmer how to raise their livestock, special people that know nothing about farming. However, I do agree that animals should be protected from cruelty, but why make things harder for people that do protect their livestock because of the few that do not. We take pride in having healthy and quality animals and most farmers do.
By AJ
July 10, 2009 2:34 PM | Link to this
I am a farmer and I do not believe that the constitution or Humane Society should tell a farmer how to raise their livestock, special people that know nothing about farming. However, I do agree that animals should be protected from cruelty, but why make things harder for people that do protect their livestock because of the few that do not. We take pride in having healthy and quality animals and most farmers do.
By daveb
July 14, 2009 1:26 PM | Link to this
I’m already not livestock farming anymore, since there’s no way that I can compete with the corporate operations that stack thousands of animals on top of each other in confinement buildings, where they never feel the sun on their back or the grass on their feet.
By Mary Gibson
July 31, 2009 2:04 PM | Link to this
I am a Farm Bureau member but one that Farm Bureau failed to protect the personal property rights of by allowing the ten poultry buildings owned by Park Farms to plant themselves down just 500 feet west of my property which not only destroyed its value but brought all the worst of the factory farms issues to my front door, ie. the chemicals coming into my home, the rodents, the flies and the all night noise as these broilers are harvested at night with the screeching of the semi brakes every two hours. I concur that the laws are not enforced and my home and its value plummetted due to the location when we had lived in it for 32 years. All of this has been brought to FB’s attention for years but this member was considered unimportant and the protection of the industrial farm was most important for Farm Bureau. All members are not created equal and that is sad! Perhaps one reason FB is losing members!
By Matt
September 24, 2009 5:25 PM | Link to this
The Humman Society of United States are wrong in doing this. If a bill like this would happen to pass it will cause a loss in many jobs in many agriculture place and not only that but if the Hummane Society of United States get their way the price of meat is going to go up treamendously. The idea to have borad of people to regulate livestock is a better idea if people on the borad know what the animals need best to live.
By food consumer
October 4, 2009 10:42 AM | Link to this
I oppose issue 2 and I will be skeptical of what the Humane Society proposes next year. However, prove to me that placing limits on CAFOs will cost jobs? Also consumers of food DO have a right to have a say in how their food is raised. The antibiotic resistance and environmental problems of CAFOs affect us all. However, if Agribusiness wasn’t running roughshod over state legislatures and Congress, we wouldn’t need any ballot initiatives at all. The solution here is to revoke corporate personhood, which the Founding Fathers never intended to exist but the US Supreme Court decided it should in a slew of bad decisions over the years. Revoke corporate personhood. Anything else is treating a symptom but not the disease.
By David Bair
October 5, 2009 9:50 AM | Link to this
The problem here is factory farming, big ag and the govt. and alltheir regulations. Farm Bureau is not about the farmer it’s about protecting big ag. No one has any business legislating how I run my farm. Likewise no one has any business legislating your choices as a consumer. Last time I checked this was still America where we are free to choose. People, vote with your wallets. If conefinement ag doesn’t have a market for their product, they must change or go out of business.
By Jen
October 6, 2009 9:34 AM | Link to this
Consumer posted and many agreed that they want the choice to choose what type of eggs such as free range or caged eggs. That is just what the Ohio Livestock Board is being created for, to ensure that choice and option in the grocery store should be up to the consumer. HSUS and PETA want to come to Ohio and push a vegan agenda. If Issue 2 does not pass out of state animal extremists will come in and lay down the law on how Ohio farmers will raise their food. HSUS does not want anyone to consume any type of meat. First on their agenda is to get rid of all caged eggs. When you go to the grocery, compare the prices between caged and free range eggs, the price more than doubles. The Board will help Ohio farmers continue to provide high quality care for their animals, which in turn will help ensure that food for Ohioans is safe, free from disease and locally grown. Many disagree that the board should not be in the constitution but why wouldn’t it be when we all eat and it affects our daily lives. Many say too many regulations are being pushed onto small Ohio farms and run them out of business then why do all farmers support Issue 2? Please do your research on HSUS and PETA and their real motives of ridding not just Ohio but all states of animal agriculture. We need to keep farming in the farmers hands and keep control in Ohio. Vote Yes on Issue 2 November 3rd.
By Jen
October 6, 2009 9:48 AM | Link to this
Consumer posted and many agreed that they want the choice to choose what type of eggs such as free range or caged eggs. That is just what the Ohio Livestock Board is being created for, to ensure that choice and option in the grocery store should be up to the consumer. HSUS and PETA want to come to Ohio and push a vegan agenda. If Issue 2 does not pass out of state animal extremists will come in and lay down the law on how Ohio farmers will raise their food. HSUS does not want anyone to consume any type of meat. First on their agenda is to get rid of all caged eggs. When you go to the grocery, compare the prices between caged and free range eggs, the price more than doubles. The Board will help Ohio farmers continue to provide high quality care for their animals, which in turn will help ensure that food for Ohioans is safe, free from disease and locally grown. Many disagree that the board should not be in the constitution but why wouldn’t it be when we all eat and it affects our daily lives. Many say too many regulations are being pushed onto small Ohio farms and run them out of business then why do all farmers support Issue 2? Please do your research on HSUS and PETA and their real motives of ridding not just Ohio but all states of animal agriculture. We need to keep farming in the farmers hands and keep control in Ohio. Vote Yes on Issue 2 November 3rd.
By David
October 7, 2009 10:01 AM | Link to this
Not all farmers are for issue 2. I am one of them. The constitution is no place for something like this. Issue 2 is not about the farmer choosing what’s best, the bulk of the people on this board are going to be those that are working for or heavily influenced by industrial ag. Doesn’t sound like the farmer has much input to me. Why is cheap food so important anyway? Has anyone stopped to think that cheap food is one of the things that has created our food safety mess? THE ONLY WAY TO ACHEIVE CHEAP FOOD IS TO PRODUCE IT INDUSTRIALLY. Ask Henry Ford why he developed the assembly line. Our food production system is little more than an extension of this. Very few farmers are independant anyway. Almost all hog producers do not raise hogs for themselves. The hogs are owned by a large corporation and they pay the farmer so much per hog for caring for the animals, chickens and turkeys are similar to this also. This so called food has very little health benefit to it also, because of the way it was produced. If you purchase food from a local farmer whom raises his livestock more like what God intended then you are purchasing good health. That means you stay away from the doctor and don’t get sick. If cheap food lands you in the hospital with medical bills you can’t afford, then how cheap is this food anyway? I don’t like HSUS myself, but the constitution is not the place to fight this out. Join this farmer in voting no on issue 2.
By kym
October 7, 2009 1:58 PM | Link to this
Someone please explain this…Why is the constitution not the right place to protect our rights & choices in how our livestock is cared for and to protect my choice as a food consumer? BUT…The constitution is the appropriate place to dictate where I can smoke?
By Consumer
October 20, 2009 4:38 PM | Link to this
I did indeed search the FBI website and found that these animal right activists are on their terrorism list. There are several notices. Voting on Issue 2 is like voting for a president. I don’t like any of them but I end up voting for the lesser of evils. I will be voting YES for Issue 2 because I would rather have farmers locally grow my food then to have clueless consumers open the door to these wacko animal rights. I am sure that the board will be watched closely.
By sls2000
October 22, 2009 11:34 AM | Link to this
Consumer: Do you REALLY think that this constitutional amendment is about protecting “Local Food?” This has NOTHING to do with local food. This board is set up to protect industrial ag, NOT local, direct-to-consumer farmers. In fact, if this measure is passed, the so-called “Livestock Care Board” could determine that fre-range eggs, chickens, beef, pigs, etc., are “bad” animal practices (which they are NOT). Has anyone thought of that? ISSUE 2 is a direct threat TO Local Foods, NOT a protection for it. That is laughable….
By sls2000
October 22, 2009 11:35 AM | Link to this
Consumer: Do you REALLY think that this constitutional amendment is about protecting “Local Food?” This has NOTHING to do with local food. This board is set up to protect industrial ag, NOT local, direct-to-consumer farmers. In fact, if this measure is passed, the so-called “Livestock Care Board” could determine that fre-range eggs, chickens, beef, pigs, etc., are “bad” animal practices (which they are NOT). Has anyone thought of that? ISSUE 2 is a direct threat TO Local Foods, NOT a protection for it. That is laughable….
By kym
October 22, 2009 1:36 PM | Link to this
The livestock care board will NOT have unfettered power over Ohio livestock owners. Any proposal by the board will be subject to review through the public rule making process…this means that The Ohio legislature ultimately retains authority over the reach of the Board. Additionally the board cannot include more than seven members from one political party. How would it only look after industrial Ag? If the HSUS has their way the ONLY farms that will be able to put the money into meeting the HSUS standards would be industrial Ag. (SEE FLORIDA & CALIFORNIA pork & egg production numbers in comparison to five years ago…& they don’t have to meet HSUS standards until 2012!)
By ajlewis
November 1, 2009 8:54 AM | Link to this
I can’t believe some of the crap that is going around about the opposition to Issue 2. Many of the opposing arguments sound like the reasons to support it. If this a smokescreen then someone with some sense please tell me. I will vote according to my own conscience and research, NOT IDIOTIC IDEALISTIC BLATHER about government control. If a panel doesn’t set standards standards for responsible animal husbandry who will? Tyson? Hormell?