And What About Proposition 2?
The hard part about animal welfare issues is that they’re complex in nature, and the answers or solutions are rarely black and white.
There’s an upcoming referendum in California known as Proposition 2 – or the Standards for Confining Farm Animals ballot initiative – that’s scheduled for vote in that state on November 4. The proposition deals with animals that are raised for food – like chickens and pigs and cattle -- and it would make some changes in the way they are housed so that they would be able to display what’s called “normal behaviors.”
The problem with Prop 2 – as it’s come to be known – is that food animal veterinarians and animal welfare scientists were never asked for their input on the new regulation. As a consequence, it appears that this well-meaning proposal could have some very negative consequences that will directly impact the very animals it seeks to help.
There’s a lot of discussion about Proposition 2 in the food community these days, and we’re getting some questions about what our position is on the issue. The AVMA is the oldest, largest and most respected veterinary association in the United States, and people want to know where we stand.
As California voters consider Proposition 2, the AVMA believes it is essential that they be given the opportunity to make informed decisions. That includes being provided all the pertinent information required to make an educated choice.
We are enthusiastic supporters of all efforts to improve animal welfare for all livestock, farm animals, wildlife and pets, but, as you will see in the full statement of the AVMA on Proposition 2, we believe this ballot initiative may create different welfare problems at the same time it seeks to solve others.
For more information about California Proposition 2, make sure you read our full statement. Also, check back on this site and on the AVMA homesite for occasional updates.
As with all votes and elections, it’s important to consider all angles and possible consequences before making a decision.
The AVMA's statement says that prop 2 would likely compromise the following welfare factors: "expression of normal behaviors; protection from disease, injury, and predators; adequate food and water; and proper handling."
If the AVMA had a chance to write this proposition themselves, how would they change it? In what way do they feel that giving animals a little more space could result in limiting the expression of normal behaviors, or exposure to predators, etc.? The AVMA's press release, and web site, is short on these details.
Posted by: Adam Durand | August 26, 2008 at 09:35 PM
Hi Adam, thanks for your questions and for contributing to the discussion. Animal welfare is a complex issue and rarely are answers black and white. For instance, here’s a couple of reasons why Prop 2 is problematic:
(1) It fails to take into account all aspects of animal welfare, and
(2) The language of Proposition 2 is unclear. Depending on how it is interpreted when regulations are written, it may not allow some housing systems with the potential to improve animal welfare to be implemented.
An assessment of the ability of various animal care systems to protect welfare must take into consideration all relevant factors, including whether animals are free to move; whether the system allows them to engage in normal behaviors; whether they are protected from disease, injury, and predators; whether food and water are available in the appropriate amounts and type, and are of high quality; and whether the animals are handled properly. Proposition 2 does a great job in addressing animals’ behavioral needs; unfortunately, it doesn’t adequately consider the animals’ other needs.
Maintaining good welfare with animal housing systems usually involves trade-offs. For example, housing systems that allow the full range of normal behaviors (e.g., nest building), may, in fact, result in more challenges for disease and injury control. Conversely, improving disease and injury control by more intensively confining animals can limit the animals’ ability to engage in normal behaviors. All aspects of animal care and housing systems must be assessed simultaneously to avoid unintended negative consequences resulting from changes to part of the system. It is important to avoid trading one set of animal welfare challenges for another.
Furthermore, Proposition 2 indicates that covered animals must be able to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn around freely. Fully extending the animal’s limbs is defined as fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the case of egg-laying hens, fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens. What is not clear is whether the intent of allowing sufficient space to extend their limbs/wings would calculate that space on the basis of standing next to each other with limbs/wings extended (e.g., in a line), turning around when their limbs/wings are extended, extend their limbs/wings when other animals are huddled together, or something else. Legally the language may be clear; scientifically, it is not. Because this is not clear, it is difficult to determine what type of housing systems may or may not be permitted should Proposition 2 pass.
It is possible that some housing systems that seek a more equitable compromise between meeting behavioral and other needs, and thereby have the potential to improve overall welfare, may not be allowed under the space criteria set by Proposition 2.
Posted by: Keep Our Food Safe Moderator | August 27, 2008 at 11:06 AM