Analysis of Issue 2

Monday, October 19, 2009

By Jane Beathard
Staff Writer

It’s not the casino gambling issue, but it is the issue that’s most near and dear to Madison County farmers.

Issue 2 is a creation of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, the Ohio Pork Producers Council and some other livestock and sportsmen’s organizations to regulate the care and treatment of farm animals in the state. It amends the Ohio Constitution to set standards for livestock and poultry care by establishing a 12-member board to make sure those standards are met.

The Ohio Livestock Care Care Standards Board will consist of 10 gubernatorial appointees and one appointee each from the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate. The state’s agriculture director will serve as chairman.

The board’s make up is defined in the ballot language. It will include three family farmers, two veterinarians (one being the state veterinarian), a representative of a local humane society, a food safety expert, two representatives of statewide farm organizations, the dean of an Ohio agricultural college and two consumer representatives. All members must be Ohio residents.

A preemptive move

Why would Ohio’s farmers be anxious to self-regulate the care of their animals? The answer is simple — to avoid having strict animal-care regulations forced upon them by organizations from outside Ohio — specifically by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

Unlike local humane society chapters that are concerned largely with homeless and abused domestic pets, the national organization sets broader, more controversial goals.

According to their Web site, the HSUS is currently conducting a nationwide campaign against the mistreatment of animals on confined animal feeding operations, otherwise known as mega-farms or factory farms. They oppose places where hundreds of thousands of laying hens are confined to wire cages, where breeding sows spend most of their lives in gestation pens and where veal calves are chained by the neck in crates and force fed until they reach market weight. In each of these cases, it is the method of confinement that most offends the HSUS.

In recent years, the organization successfully sponsored the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act in California which banned veal crates, battery chicken cages and swine gestation crates. Colorado, Florida, Maine, Arizona, Michigan and Oregon passed similar legislation. Last year, the HSUS indicated Ohio, with its abundance of confined animal feeding operations, would soon be targeted.

Issue 2 is designed to get ahead of any HSUS effort to regulate livestock farming in Ohio by enacting animal care standards that both farmers and animal-rights activists can live with. But whether or not it accomplishes that objective remains a bone of contention between the two factions.

Farm Bureau spokesperson Joe Cornely said use of the term “factory farm or mega-farm” is an attempt by the HSUS to mislead voters into thinking its objectives would affect only large-scale operations.

“Ninety-eight percent of all farms are family farms,” Cornely said. “And that includes farms of all sizes.”

Cornely prefers to use the term “producer” when describing members of Ohio’s farm community. He said in California and other states where the HSUS set standards, the organization forced a higher cost system on all producers. That, in turn, made meat, eggs, milk and other foodstuffs produced in the state more expensive for consumers.

California’s small and mid-size producers suffered the most because they were unable to spread their increased costs over a larger number of marketable animals.

“It (California Proposition 2) was designed to stop big farms, but it hurt all farmers,” Cornely said.

Pork producers could lose the most

Ohio’s 4,000 hog farmers have the most at stake in Issue 2. The gestation crates that HSUS opposes and have outlawed elsewhere, are common managerial tools for both small and large producers, Cornely said.

Ohio ranks ninth nationally in pork production, producing more than 4 million hogs each year. Total impact of hog farming on the state’s economy is more than $800,000,000 annually, according to the Pork Producers Council.

The opposition

Among the opponents to Issue 2 are the Ohio Farmers Union, the Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, the Ohio Sierra Club and, of course, the Humane Society of the U.S (HSUS).

The HSUS calls Issue 2 a “big agribusiness power grab,” spearheaded by the Ohio Farm Bureau and special interests of the factory farm industry.

“While designed to give the appearance of helping farm animals, Issue 2 is little more than a power grab by Ohio’s agribusiness lobby. The industry-dominated ‘animal care’ council proposed by Issue 2 is really intended to thwart meaningful improvements in how the millions of farm animals in Ohio are treated on large factory farms,” according to the HSUS.

The organization contends the 12-member board created by Issue 2 would do little to advance farm animal welfare and is little more than a “handout” to big agribusiness interests in the state.

The Ohio Farmers Union believes Issue 2 “cements corporate agribusiness into the Ohio Constitution.” The 12-member board would, they say, give a dozen political appointees broad and unchecked power to decide rules on animal welfare…potentially reshaping regulations on how animals are raised, tracked or traced.”

The Farmers Union is also concerned that Issue 2 creates a constitutional amendment and not a new law. As a result, the 12-member board would have the power to override the state agriculture department and the General Assembly regarding any future legislation regulating animal care. The organization believes the board would have unchecked power over animal agriculture in the state.

The Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, an offshoot of the Ohio Environmental Council, also opposes Issue 2. Like the HSUS, the alliance focuses on mega-farms. Unlike the HSUS, the alliance is less concerned with animal welfare than in the impact of factory farms on Ohio’s soil, air and water. The alliance believes Ohio’s environment and rural quality of life have taken a back seat to corporate agribusiness interests.

“Virtually all industries seek to avoid regulation, but industrial livestock operations have been exceptionally successful in that regard,” said Joe Logan, alliance spokesperson. “The end result has been the continued deterioration of water quality in agricultural watersheds, languishing rural economies and quality of life that often includes oppressive odors, flies and depressed property values.”

The alliance proposes stronger laws at both the state and federal level to control factory farms and make them more accountable to local governments in their areas.

Support for Issue 2

Issue 2 is non-partisan and has widespread support from both Republicans and Democrats. Governor Ted Strickland and his director of agriculture, Bob Boggs, are proponents. Organizations as diverse as the statewide food banks, the Ohio Veterinary Medicine Association, some Catholic charities and even Gordon Gee, president of The Ohio State University, have voiced support for Issue 2.

Ohio Department of Agriculture Spokesperson Cindy Kalis said Issue 2 “does not create a policy, but rather a transparent process that will help assure livestock and poultry welfare in Ohio.”

She said Issue 2 will replace the existing 88 standards (for livestock care) in Ohio with a single set of criteria.

In addition, the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board will provide all Ohioans a forum where they can express their concerns about animal and environmental issues.

“It will be a diverse group of people who will bring a variety of differing ideas to the table,” Kalis said.

Cornely of the Ohio Farm Bureau said Issue 2 reaches beyond the state’s farming community.

“This isn’t just an agriculture issue, it’s an Ohio issue,” Cornely said. “Everyone who eats will be impacted.”