Ohio Issue 2: Big Ag takes on the Humane Society of the U.S. over farm-animal treatment

[Algorem]

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/10/ohio_issue_2_big_ag_takes_on_t.html

By Jim Nichols, The Plain Dealer
October 23, 2009, 5:25PM



...Those two lobbying titans are the main combatants in a fight that’s drawing national interest because of implications beyond Ohio’s borders.

The subject: Big Agriculture’s proposed constitutional amendment that would create a new state “Livestock Care Standards Board.” That board, mostly appointed by the governor subject to Senate approval, would essentially dictate what kinds of confinements and treatment of farm animals the state will allow, and what crosses over into animal cruelty.

But what’s really at issue are these questions: Who should draw the lines that define cruelty — farming interests or animal-welfare activists? And in drawing those lines, what should be paramount — the physical and mental well-being of animals, or Ohio’s farmers and their ability to maximize profits?

The Humane Society of the United States contends many livestock operations are inhumane, and it plans to push for restrictions...

[Sinti]

1. I love the idea of creating a more clearly defined framework for acceptable treatment of livestock

Shouldn't the farming interests and animal welfare activists get together and talk? Farmer Joe and animal treatment activist John likely have a lot more in common than Exec Jim from BigAg. Big Ag should have to eat the costs of this, because Farmer Joe is already not getting enough.

Something similar happened in parts of Vermont regarding lumber harvesters and environmentalists. They sat down to talk and realized that they both wanted the same thing, only the lumber harvesters (who also love the forest) didn't see any choice but to work for the big lumber conglomerates. Now the woodsmen get paid well - replace what they take, and the environmentalists get to enjoy the forest and know it will be there for their grandchildren.

Shove the corporate behemoth's interests aside and everyone gets along just great and realizes they want the same thing.

[Ms. Toad]

2. Here are the constitutionally mandated members

of the proposed board.

# One member representing family farms
# One member knowledgeable about food safety
# Two members representing statewide organizations that represent farmers
# One member who is a veterinarian
# The State Veterinarian in the state department that regulates agriculture
# The dean of the agriculture department of a college or university in Ohio
# Two members of the public representing Ohio consumers
# One member representing a county humane society
# One member appointed by the Speaker of the House who shall be a family farmer
# One member appointed by the President of the Senate who shall be a family farmer


Think that composition really represents farming interests and welfare activists getting together and talking?

Unfortunately, it is being promoted as supporting animal welfare, rather than what it really is, which is a pre-emptive strike to prevent anyone with a true interest in making life more humane for animals headed for our plates from making any substantive laws such things as gestational pens in how such critters are cared for.

I agree with you - the issues are complex, and would be best solved by the stakeholders getting together to find the best path forward to make treatment of livestock more humane without making it so costly that family farmers, in particular, are driven out of business. This particular path isn't it.