 This Business of Farming 
A critical, oft-times irreverent look at cutting edge issues that impact U.S. farmers.
|
|
|
 |
|
| Taking on the Animal Activists |
|---|
|
| Posted on October 23, 2009 at 10:59 AM |
|
| Click here to view recent posts |
|
The Humane Society of the United States is targeting farm states Ohio and Michigan as their latest battleground over how farm animals should be raised.
Agricultural representatives from both states met with HSUS earlier this year to talk about alternatives to a ballot initiative similar to the measure HSUS pushed through in California last year.
Michigan ended up with a compromise. To some, it looks like Michigan agriculture gave in to activists' demands. The state's new legislation says livestock owners can not cage a pregnant pig, a calf raised for veal or an egg-laying hen in a way that would prevent them from laying down, standing up or turning around. It also prevents tethering these animals or preventing them from stretching their legs for a majority of the day. The Michigan Pork Producers Association and the Michigan Allied Poultry Industries supported the bill, which passed by an 87-20 margin.
Ohio, instead, will try a pre-emptive move to ward off HSUS-directed measures later on. Ohio had a ballot initiative approved by the Ohio General Assembly, signed by the governor and will be put to Ohio voters early next month as a constitutional amendment. If approved it would establish a 13-member board of Ohio experts in animal care, livestock, poultry and food production and food safety, and would include representatives from Ohio farms, farm organizations, veterinarians, consumers, and county humane society officers.
What happened behind the scenes? My colleagues Tim White, who edits Ohio Farmer magazine, and Jennifer Vincent, editor of Michigan Farmer magazine (both pictured below), followed the issue closely. Here's the low-down on the different approaches the two states took as they battled HSUS' demands.
How did this begin?
 Jennifer: This spring HSUS put its mark on Michigan and Ohio. In response, several broad-based agricultural interest groups formed a coalition and drafted two bills, the original HB5127 and HB5128. In short, they were an attempt to preempt and possibly thwart a HSUS ballot campaign in 2010. Like Ohio, the bills adopted industry-written standards, called for third-party audits and developed a 13-member review board.
Several livestock farmers balked at the legislation, questioning the cost and need for third-party audits. That, compounded with opposing pressure from environmental groups, made it clear the original bills would never make it to the House floor.
It was no surprise that HSUS strongly opposed the original legislation, but the substitute bill’s introduction and quick passage caught many by surprise. Not even Michigan Farm Bureau, a strong voice behind the original set of bills, was aware that Michigan’s pork and poultry groups were negotiating with HSUS.
 Tim: Ohio chose to put its collective muscle and money behind a ballot campaign as a pre-emptive measure and get something passed by the voters to make it that much harder for HSUS to come back a year later with an overriding ballot proposal.
The Ohio governor and speaker of the house came to a rally in support of the new board. It's been presented as something hard not to support. In fact, the Akron Beacon Journal reversed its position from no to yes in support. Really, the only questions are whether it is necessary to have a constitutional amendment, which is how Ohio does things. The referendum vote by the voters ends up being an amendment.
Jennifer: I think the reason Ohio is doing this as a constitutional change instead of legislatively is, it's extremely hard to override a Constitutional amendment; that's how HSUS has been impacting other states. They go for a constitutional amendment so the legislators can't go back and touch it.
Tim: Exactly. Interestingly, HSUS has been very quiet in Ohio now. The feeling is in 2010 there will be big opposition and they will come forward to voters to overturn it.
Why do you think Michigan compromised?
Jennifer: The problem in Michigan is that we did not move quickly enough. Ohio got notice HSUS was putting them in the crosshairs; they moved quickly and got something on the ballot.
Michigan had a broad coalition of 60 groups, including corn and soy groups because they are the feed suppliers to the livestock industry. They got together to draft legislation to create a board. The contentious part was that it included third party audits of all livestock farms, regardless of how many animals you had.
The legislators were not totally on board with it, and even some of the farmers weren't. But this was the path these groups chose to try to get something in place before HSUS could go to the voters. It basically stalled.
Unbeknownst to all the other groups, the Michigan poultry and pork groups got together with HSUS to make a deal. They said to HSUS, in effect: Uncle. They gave them pretty much everything they wanted.
What is the compromise in the legislation?
Jennifer: The only concession they got is it's in legislation, which means it could be amended. So HSUS now has to play watch dog on this. Plus, HSUS wanted to get rid of gestation stalls, battery cages for chickens in six years; instead, farmers have 10 years to make those changes. The legislation says three years for veal huts. New regulations call for one square foot per chicken vs. 1.5 square foot, which is what HSUS said it would ask for. It spares other segments of animal agriculture from making any major changes and it eliminates a nasty animal welfare campaign in front of the general public.
If the livestock care board passes in Ohio, will it be considered a victory for agriculture?
Tim: In Ohio, through Farm Bureau leadership primarily, but with all the groups united behind them, there was a groundswell of opinion. People basically said, 'We ain't doing it the (HSUS) way.' By having a board, made of six people appointed by the speaker, six appointed by the president of the senate and one appointed by the Governor, we will have specialists in animal care and animal welfare who will take a scientific, more local approach to animal welfare and standards farmers need to be aware of.
Even so, it's clear agriculture is going to have to deal with this.
Jennifer: It means to me that Ohio recognizes the economic contribution agriculture makes to the state, and it's not just some cause we're speaking out about.
What's the lesson learned for other states?
Jennifer: I think in Michigan we lost the battle starting as many as 10 or 20 years ago. We started losing a whole generation of people who were no longer involved in farming. There's been no communication as to why we do certain practices, and why it's not just about money but it's also about animal care.
Meanwhile we have a billion people in this world going hungry because governments don't invest in agriculture. While we're divesting, they're investing.
(Please comment below)
Don't forget to register for the 2010 Farm Futures Management Summit - Jan. 6 & 7 in St. Louis. Learn more at FarmFutures.com/summit
|
|
| Add a Comment |
|
|
|
|