Jump to content

Statewide: Issue 2 - Livestock Care Standards

Guest Etheostoma Caeruleum
Guest Etheostoma Caeruleum
in Ohio Politics

Featured Replies

Posted

Vote NO on Issue 2: Don't allow special interests to hijack the state constitution

 

Don't allow special interests to hijack the state constitution: Vote NO on Issue 2 in November!

 

 

Issue 2 is not simply a new law. It would amend Ohio's constitution. The League of Women Voters of Ohio opposes Issue 2 because this measure is an inappropriate use of the state constitution. By voting to amend the constitution, a dangerous precedent is created which sets a permanent place for special interests.

 

 

This proposed constitutional amendment would create a Livestock Care Standards Board to develop guidelines for the raising of livestock in Ohio. Once cemented into the state constitution, this livestock board would have the power to override acts by  the state legislature. This chills public debate and infringes on our democratic rights, the foundation our country was built on.

 

 

For more info, contact me!

 

laurel hopwood, [email protected]

 

http://www.ohioact.org

 

 

Can you explain the part about "override acts by the state legislature"?  Because the text of the amendment says (emphasis mine)

(B) The Board shall have authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state, subject to the authority of the General Assembly. In establishing those standards, the Board shall consider factors that include, but are not limited to,

agricultural best management practices for such care and well-being, biosecurity, disease

prevention, animal morbidity and mortality data, food safety practices, and the protection of

local, affordable food supplies for consumers.

and

(D) The General Assembly may enact laws that it deems necessary to carry out the purposes of

this section, to facilitate the execution of the duties of the Board and the state department that

regulates agriculture under this section, and to set the terms of office of the Board members and

conditions for the Board members' service on the Board.

That reads to me as if it's the other way around.  If the real argument is the hijacking of the constitution by special interests, that horse left the barn a long time ago.

^ Look, I posted this for the information sake. It was shared with me by an associate and I said  would post it here. If you want to debate it... I suggest you not slice it apart here, and call or email her yourself. That individual, much more than I, should be able to give you the debate you seem to crave.

Then why post it if you don't want to discuss it?

Source: The Humane Society of the United States (www.hsus.org)

 

Title: November 3, 2009: Vote NO on Ohio's Issue 2

 

LINK: http://www.hsus.org/legislation_laws/ballot_initiatives/ohio_issue_2.html

 

On November 3, 2009, Say NO to Big Agribusiness’ Power Grab

 

If you oppose animal abuse, vote NO on Issue 2 this November.

 

Why is The Humane Society of the United States opposing Issue 2? 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.

 

Because it’s designed to favor large factory farms, not family farmers, Issue 2 is opposed by the Ohio Farmers Union, the Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, League of Women Voters of Ohio, and the Ohio Sierra Club. The editorial boards of Ohio’s major newspapers—including the Columbus Dispatch, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Akron Beacon Journal, and Dayton Daily News—all oppose this effort to enshrine the agribusiness lobby’s favored oversight system in the state’s constitution.

 

Issue 2 is a classic example of bad public policy-making and should be rejected by voters.

 

Ohio is one of the top veal production states in the nation, with many calves chained by their necks inside crates so small they can’t even turn around for months on end. As well, the state has 170,000 breeding pigs, many of whom are confined in two-foot-wide crates barely larger than their bodies for almost their entire lives. And 28 million egg-laying hens in Ohio are confined in barren, wire battery cages so restrictive the birds can't even spread their wings. This type of extreme confinement is cruel and inhumane, environmentally damaging, and poses severe public health threats. These problems have prompted six U.S. states—and the entire European Union—to criminalize certain kinds of extreme confinement of farm animals.

 

In the wake of California’s overwhelming passage of the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act—which  banned veal crates, gestation crates and battery cages in California—The Humane Society of the United States sought to engage in cooperative dialogue with the agribusiness community in Ohio. We hoped to be able to continue that dialogue and work cooperatively with the state’s farming leaders—both large and small—to collaboratively advance animal welfare statewide. But rather than discussing potential solutions to these problems, the Ohio Farm Bureau is now trying to hastily grab more power than it already has. The lobby group persuaded the legislature to refer a measure to the November 2009 ballot that would enshrine in the state’s constitution an industry-dominated council to “oversee” the treatment of farm animals.  Unfortunately, this council is likely to do little to advance farm animal welfare. It is little more than a handout to Big Agribusiness interests in the state, seeking to codify the abusive practices currently being used in the state constitution.

 

Don’t let Big Ag get away with this power grab: Vote NO on Issue 2.

 

Updated on August 28, 2009

Then why post it if you don't want to discuss it?

 

Yep.

^ Look, I posted this for the information sake. It was shared with me by an associate and I said would post it here. If you want to debate it... I suggest you not slice it apart here, and call or email her yourself. That individual, much more than I, should be able to give you the debate you seem to crave.

I was thinking a more reasonable solution might be to invite your friend to discuss Ohio politics on a discussion board named 'Ohio Politics' but that's just me.  As one might imagine, there are those who hold an opposing view on this topic and may wish to do so given the proper forum. 

 

So basically then, your post is an advertisement in a place I've paid to have them removed.  How nice.

Issue 2 would decide who regulates animal care in Ohio's biggest business

 

Sunday,  September 6, 2009 3:59 AM

By Alan Johnson

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Jim Heimerl is among relatively few people in Ohio who know what State Issue 2 is about.

 

That's because Heimerl, 52, has a 2,500-acre, family-owned hog and cattle farm outside of Johnstown. He says his farm would be severely affected if a livestock-standards constitutional amendment is not approved in the Nov. 3 election.

 

Furthermore, the board would be quite balanced by design,

 

(1) The director of the state department that regulates agriculture who shall be the chairperson of the Board;

 

(2) Ten members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The ten members appointed by the Governor shall be residents of this state and shall include the following:

 

(a) One member representing family farms;

 

(b) One member who is knowledgeable about food safety in this state;

 

© Two members representing statewide organizations that represent farmers;

 

(d) One member who is a veterinarian who is licensed in this state;

 

(e) The State Veterinarian in the state department that regulates agriculture;

 

(f) The dean of the agriculture department of a college or university located in this state;

 

(g) Two members of the public representing Ohio consumers;

 

(h) One member representing a county humane society that is organized under state law.

 

(3) One member appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall be a family farmer;

 

(4) One member appointed by the President of the Senate who shall be a family farmer.

 

Not more than seven members appointed to the Board at any given time shall be of the same political party.

 

 

Looks like YES is the proper vote.

VOTE YES!!!

This is a weird issue as it is not exactly necessary but is a pro active effort to fend off future ballot initiatives like those HSUS has passed in other states like California (Proposition 2?) & Florida.

Obviously, having the board doesn't stop out of state activists from putting an issue on the ballot.

HSUS is an animal rights organization that has no ties to Ohio humane societies. They promote vegetarianism, discourage pet ownership and condemn animal breeding. They are not an animal welfare organization.

They have a strategy of pulling on the heartstrings of urban voters, who tend to be ignorant of farm practices, to foist their agenda on rural farmers. The result of their initiatives are loss of jobs, a higher incidence of food contamination, higher prices and less food.

Ohio is a major egg and pork producer.

I understand why small organic farmers might feel threatened at the prospect of a board creating standards they can't afford. The board also doesn't seem to address the issue of water pollution from the farms.

Regardless of how this issue goes, there is likely going to be a bigger fight down the road.

Check out the message boards & newsletters put out by Ohio farmers & learn about this issue.

 

Proponents website:

http://www.safelocalohiofood.org/

 

My concern is that the Board would be heavily weighted with corporate farm interests, and that the rules they create will be too expensive for small organic farmers.  The large owners have no problem keeping reams of paperwork tracking all their animals (but they cannot ever let them outside to walk or get fresh air.)  The Amish farmer from which we get raw milk, eggs and fresh chickens cannot keep a computer database on the lineage and feed given each animal, and there is no reason for him to start giving phamecueticals to his animals when they are naturally healthy.

 

I also noticed that Sherrod Brown has not endorsed this, and I respect his opinion more than Voinovich or Strickland.

 

I'm voting no... at least so far.

If folks against issue 2 don't start some issue 3 level advertising soon this issue is going to pass on the "well, that certainly sounds like a good thing" effect when folks get to the polls.

 

Personally, I don't like that voting no would be supporting the national Humane Society group for basically the reasons listed by Quimbob.  Ohio to them is just another low hanging fruit where they can push their agenda upon a state with significant metropolitan areas that are largely ignorant of what goes on in the sticks, just like Florida and California.  But I'm also not too keen on letting corporate agriculture control the system.  A majority of my family still derives their living from working or leasing their farms, just not in Ohio.

Prop 2 ads from California:

 

 

 

I'm pretty sure the HSUS has some cash in the coffers, but we'll see how much they spend in Ohio...

There is a PR spin going on right now that makes looking like voting "Yes" on Issue 2 will assure food/animal/family farm/environment safety and/or sustenance. Actually, that is the opposite of what is true. The vote "Yes" propaganda has big bucks backing it and is very deceptive.

Amending the state Constitution to expand government and allow it to micromanage agriculture in a manner that less efficient under, all under the guise of treating animals ethically sounds like an excellent idea to me.

What is wrong with Ohio's Livestock and Poultry industry that we need this amendment?  I haven't seen or heard of any stories about inhumane treatment or livestock or poultry ever in Ohio.  None that I can think of at least.  I grew up working on farms near Lima and I've never seen farmers inhumanely treat their animals.  It is in their best interest to care for their livestock and poultry.  A good product sells for more and brings return business.

 

If it ain't broke don't fix it.  I'm voting NO on this unnecessary expansion of government and additional regulation on the already hurting Ohio farmer. 

Posting anything with a declarative stance on any of the issues IS an invitation to debate. Obviously that debate will be under scrutiny from UrbanOhio's Admins/Mods and participants are expected to express their opinions respectfully - failure to do so will have consequences.

 

That's fine and fair, but I'm not debating it. I've read it, and decided what I'll vote. I posted it for others who may want to do their own research and discussion about it, full stop.

What is wrong with Ohio's Livestock and Poultry industry that we need this amendment?  I haven't seen or heard of any stories about inhumane treatment or livestock or poultry ever in Ohio.  None that I can think of at least.  I grew up working on farms near Lima and I've never seen farmers inhumanely treat their animals.  It is in their best interest to care for their livestock and poultry.  A good product sells for more and brings return business.

 

It's not so much the family farmer that I worry about, it's the "megafarms" and "agribusiness" industry that are pushing Issue 2.  Have you ever heard of Buckeye Egg Farm?  It was one of Ohio's worst agricultural polluters, with 14 million hens.  They were cited numerous times, and finally ordered to cease production in 2003, although their facilities were sold to other egg producers, so some sites are still in business. 

 

BTW, Ohio ranks #2 nationally for egg production with 25 million chickens (Iowa has 52 million)

- source: http://www.unitedegg.org/useggindustry_generalstats.aspx 

 

The Dayton Daily News did an excellent series called "Down on the Factory"  back in 2002 discussing the megafarm or CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) industry in Ohio and elsewhere.  Some of the links are dead, but here's the link to the series:

 

http://www.daytondailynews.com/project/content/project/farm

 

The link to the article on Buckeye Egg Farm:

Buckeye Egg Farm violations among worst in country

 

Buckeye Egg Farm from Ohio History Central: http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1672

Since Buckeye Egg Farm ceased operations, its "farms" have been taken over by Ohio Fresh Eggs (a partnership of Hillandale Farms LLC and Ohio Ag Investors LLC), which has also been fined this year by the US EPA for environmental violations:

 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/454FD3A89C7CBC77852575BB005E5013

 

Their record on humane treatment of animals isn't any better:

 

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050227/NEWS24/502270382

 

Two quotes from the article ("Mr. Hershey" is Don Hershey, president of Ohio Fresh Eggs; "Mr. Runkle" is Nathan Runkle, director of Mercy for Animals):

Mr. Hershey said as a member of the Animal Care Certified program, Ohio Fresh Eggs has reduced the number of hens per cage, increasing the amount of space from 53 square inches per hen to 67 square inches by 2008.

 

But Mr. Runkle said at least 303 square inches are needed for a hen to flap its wings.

 

Mr. Hershey said Ohio Fresh Eggs sells eggs to several grocery store chains including Food Club and Food Lion, but he said the company is not a supplier to Kroger because of Buckeye Egg's "poor reputation."

67 sq in is less than the area of a shoebox.

This is a tough one. I've been to Buckeye Egg and other Ohio egg farms with hundreds of thousands of hens in rows upon rows of cages. I've been to hog barns where hundreds of hogs live their lives on slatted metal floors through which their excrement drops and later is held in big manure lagoons. I've been to dairy farms where the giant Holsteins stay in barns and are fed grain instead of grazing in the grass, which is what they're designed to eat.

 

I don't like it. But neither do I like letting a group such as HSUS set the agenda on agricultural practices. HSUS is not forthright, and it seems to be a radical organization that doesn't want to stop at regulating confinement agriculture. It wants to stop meat-eaters.

 

I'm skeptical of Issue 2. On one hand, the makeup of the panel looks like it could be pretty balanced. But it also could be selected in a way that follows the letter of the amendment, but not the spirit; that is, it easily could be stacked by industry. Dissenting voices could be rendered to token status. Also, I don't like using the Constitution to put together a panel that ought to be done through legislation. But I think what bothers me even more is that this is all done on the defensive -- it's being pushed to stave off a likely future threat. But if it's so important, it should be done thorugh extensive public deliberation. Likewise, I wouldn't want to see HSUS take its notions to the ballot either.

 

These things are too important to be debated through shrill TV ads designed to play off the fears of a public that is too uneducated about where its food comes from.

 

We all support modern ag practices by electing to buy the cheapest food -- which comes from a system controlled by industry, and leaves just a pittance for the farmers. Fortunately, there are efforts across the state to address these issues through alternative methods of production and an emphasis on buying local.

Sounds like another poorly worded amendment that people will regret one way or the other, sort of like the smoking ordinance.

 

So what is the correct vote if you are against the anti-meat eaters?

Fear of the HSUS tactics should not be the main driving force to amend Ohio's Constitution.  I plan to vote NO on Issue 2, and if HSUS were to put forth an ill-conceived amendment, I would vote against that too.

 

I don't think the proposal even belongs in the Ohio Constitution - there are no provisions in the state Constitution to regulate doctors, lawyers, barbers, etc.  IMO, the correct way to regulate the agriculture industry is just like every other industry - in the Ohio Revised Code.  Bring me a referendum on legislation to amend the ORC, and I'll sign right up.

 

Disclosure: My cousins are dairy and grain farmers in Penfield in southern Lorain County, and I'm a member of the Ohio Farm Bureau because it gets me a discount on my insurance policies through Nationwide.  I believe in humane treatment of animals; I find the conditions in mega-farms abhorrent.  However, I have no interest in becoming a lacto-ovo-vegetarian.  My eggs are free-range; I shop regularly at local butchers and farmers' markets; I belong to a CSA; but I still eat at Wendy's and other junk-food restaurants occasionally.  I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite or what.

Thanks for the explanation Buckeye!  I don't think that makes you a hypocrit, FWIW.

I agree. You're not a hypocrite, Buckeye. Those are thoughtful comments. Note, however, that the Ohio Farm Bureau is one of the biggest supporters of Issue 2.

 

I am against the anti-meat-eaters, and I lean against Issue 2. I want to see Ohio act out of reasoned discussion, not act out of fear.

^Should push it up if anything.  There's nothing in the bill that makes these farms more efficient and it creates more requirements that will cost farms money to abide by.  I'm sure they will also create a new series of fines to enforce the new regulations, which would, again, hurt the farms bottom line. 

 

Can anyone think of any reason why this bill wouldn't increase the price of food?  Can anyone argue that it would actually decrease the price of food?

  Can anyone argue that it would actually decrease the price of food?

 

Certainly.  Agents of the agriculture business have proposed this measure.  They wouldn't do that unless they were afraid of the longterm issues related to the vegans coming in and getting the general public to vote in likely punitive anti-livestock measures.  So voting yes would presumably keep food costs down over time if you think the state one way or another would pass tougher laws down the road.

^Well, what you're saying is that this bill is presumable less harmful to the farmer than some future bill could be.  You're not saying that this bill will decrease the cost of a chicken or steak, but that any increase in the cost of food due to this bill would be less than some future "tougher" bill.

 

I'm not sure there is a solid argument out there that says this bill will reduce the cost of food.  It's not what the bill is meant to do.  I would expect a small, incremental increase is the cost of chicken, beef, etc... over the course of several years as the regulations begin to take effect. 

It might increase the price of food. On the other hand, our food is artificially cheap. It is, in reality, much more expensive than what we pay in the grocery store. And only a tiny fraction of what we pay at the grocery store goes to the farmer. Many of our commodities are subsidized by the federal government -- and those crop subsidies enable more production of the corn and soybeans that are fed to cattle that do not naturally eat grain. Also, the environmental costs of excess manure at large-scale confinement farms are not paid at the grocery store, nor are the costs of the Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" from agricultural runoff or the degradation of Chesapeake Bay. Nor is the threat to antibiotics' effectiveness in humans caused by routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock to protect them from ills they probably wouldn't be exposed to if they were raised more naturally.

Fear of the HSUS tactics should not be the main driving force to amend Ohio's Constitution.  I plan to vote NO on Issue 2, and if HSUS were to put forth an ill-conceived amendment, I would vote against that too.

 

I don't think the proposal even belongs in the Ohio Constitution - there are no provisions in the state Constitution to regulate doctors, lawyers, barbers, etc.  IMO, the correct way to regulate the agriculture industry is just like every other industry - in the Ohio Revised Code.  Bring me a referendum on legislation to amend the ORC, and I'll sign right up.

 

Disclosure: My cousins are dairy and grain farmers in Penfield in southern Lorain County, and I'm a member of the Ohio Farm Bureau because it gets me a discount on my insurance policies through Nationwide.  I believe in humane treatment of animals; I find the conditions in mega-farms abhorrent.   However, I have no interest in becoming a lacto-ovo-vegetarian.  My eggs are free-range; I shop regularly at local butchers and farmers' markets; I belong to a CSA; but I still eat at Wendy's and other junk-food restaurants occasionally.  I don't know if that makes me a hypocrite or what.

Most fast food doesn't use American beef.

I agree with a lot of your post. I think the Ohio consumer should have choice when buying food. If nobody supports the big businesses, so be it.

^ Where do you get your information that most fast food doesn't include American beef?

I think every meat eater should visit a factory farm and a meat packing facility at least once in their life, just to be a more informed consumer.

 

I'm still confused about Prop 2, though. I'm leery of all proposals that amend the constitution, and if the last few election cycles here in Ohio are any indication, it seems like the voters in general are, too.

  • 2 weeks later...

DON'T SWALLOW THAT

The Issue 2 misinformation campaign chokes off real debate over food

by Parker Bosley

 

Like the animals trapped in the feed lots and the cages of Confined Animal Feeding Operations, we are trapped in the finely woven web of an industrial food system that dominates our grocery stores, limits our food choices and controls the family dinner table. The promoters of Issue 2 want to keep it that way.

 

Amending the Ohio Constitution is a serious matter. Yet this is what the passage of Issue 2 would do. Although Ohio's major newspapers have all written in opposition to Issue 2, many urban folks remain confused and uninformed about it, with only a few weeks before the November election. The slick promotional materials of the Farm Bureau have carefully disguised their agenda...

Parker Bosley was owner and chef of Parker's New American Bistro in Cleveland, which closed in 2007, and an early leader in the sustainable food movement.

 

FULL ARTICLE: http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/dont-swallow-that/Content?oid=1678444

 

Everything the propaganda supporting issue 2 promotes is actually the opposite of what its real hidden agenda is.....there is not one local food/safety, etc... group that supports this thing.

Okay, sorry I am making a stupid post on this thread, but why should I vote no on this?

 

I read in the DDN that it was a bad deal, and I believe what they stated was that farmers could regulate themselves if this was passed? But, I'm not sure.

 

I like the idea of tougher animal safety regulations. Every creature should have the right to stand up, turn around, and fully extend themselves, which this bill seems to support the practice of. But, is this really the case?

 

Or am I misinformed completely? I would like to know how I should vote on this before Nov. 3rd.

This is easily the most confusing issue on the ballot.  I've been told to vote 'no' because this bill would force local farmers out of the equation through regulations that they could never meet.  They've said it would benefit only megafarms because the fines and/or cost of implementing needed changes would drive small farmers out of the industry.  There are also those, like myself, that think the 11 member board (or whatever it is) is an unnecessary expansion of government.  There is already a department of agriculture that should create and enforce regulations, right?

 

On the other hand, I've been told to vote 'yes' on this issue because some believe that this bill will be better than whatever the humane society forces into the state.  These people believe that the humane society is going to do what they did in California (I have no idea what they are referring to) and it will be even more damaging to agriculture in Ohio.  I think this has been discussed a little bit in this thread. 

 

I've already voted and I chose to vote 'no' on the issue, but this issue really is confusing and I have no idea what the final tally is going to be on this one. 

I hope the link below answers some of your questions. You're right: Issue 2 is confusing. I lean against it not because I oppose a board to look into ag practices, but because I think it should be legislative rather than constitutional and because I think it should look more broadly at ag practices, and not just at livestock care.

 

http://bwilli910.wordpress.com/

 

^Do we not already have a legislative body that deals with agriculture?  How can a state like Ohio not have a department of Agriculture?

^Thank you.  So we have a Department of Agriculture... why are we trying to jump over them?  Shouldn't we let them do their jobs instead of creating a new body to oversee one small group of regulations in the Agricultural industry?  We have a group out there that should handle issues like these.  This seems more and more like an attempted power grab by someone.

I'm voting no. Too many referenda trying to do the job of the legislature.

 

+1... and I really know next to nothing about Issue 2. 

I'm divided on this issue, and may refrain from voting on that issue.

 

That said, I was in rural areas for much of the past week on vacation, and I saw a LOT of "Yes on 2" signs and billboards. It is vastly pro-2 in the rural areas. Not a single anti-2 sign to be seen, and I added nearly 600 miles on my vehicle.

I'm divided on this issue, and may refrain from voting on that issue.

 

That said, I was in rural areas for much of the past week on vacation, and I saw a LOT of "Yes on 2" signs and billboards. It is vastly pro-2 in the rural areas. Not a single anti-2 sign to be seen, and I added nearly 600 miles on my vehicle.

 

This is what I'm hearing from my very rural parents and friends as well.  Many of them are concerned about tougher amendments being passed in the future.  They see this issue as a pre-emptive strike.

I think i am against it. It seems like an unnecessary change to the constitution. I don't like referendums to amend that don't originate in the legislature. I feel like there really isn't time or information enough to fully discuss this before the vote.

 

Constitutions and charters shouldn't be changed on a whim but through the vehicles of government that we already have. They aren't sacred, but i'm not a fan of governing through referendum.

Add me to the No column.  Thanks for the discussion above.

Talking this over with my source in the Statehouse, a Yes vote on 2 creates a bureaucratic quagmire in order to stymie regulation. So, in a sense, it's creating big government for the benefit of corporate interests. Something for everybody, I suppose.

Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.