Myths vs. Facts

The big agribusiness industry is trying to mislead Ohioans with outlandish myths about our measure. Below are some of those claims and an explanation of why they’re myths rather than facts.

MYTH: “This is being pushed by out-of-state extremists.”

FACT: This initiative is supported by numerous Ohio organizations, including the Ohio SPCA, the Toledo Area Humane Society, the Ohio Sierra Club, the Geauga Humane Society, and the Humane Society of Greater Dayton. It’s also supported by mainstream, national organizations like The Humane Society of the United States, which has more than 400,000 supporters in Ohio, and other reputable and credible groups such as Farm Sanctuary, the Center for Food Safety, United Farm Workers, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Consumer Federation of America.

MYTH: “Issue 2 already settled this in the 2009 election.”

FACT: This is not a “counter-measure” to last year’s Issue 2, and we respect the election results. Voters approved Issue 2 and created the Livestock Board, and voters should also have the opportunity to give direction to the Board to set a baseline of minimum standards. Remember, Ohio has some of the weakest laws in the nation on animal welfare. Cockfighting, puppy mills, and factory farm abuses are rampant and lawmakers and other politicians have failed to address these problems year after year, even though the people want animal welfare improvements. The time for delay by politicians and the special interests is over. In this case, voters will have an opportunity to give the Livestock Board some needed direction.

MYTH: “This doesn’t belong in the constitution.”

FACT: The agribusiness lobby chose to put the Livestock Board in the state’s constitution with Issue 2 in the 2009 election, triggering the need for future constitutional amendments to address farm animal welfare and food safety issues. Because this issue is already in the state constitution, it’s the only route available to voters who want to provide the Livestock Care Standards Board with set a baseline of minimum humane standards.

MYTH: “This doesn’t let the Board do its work.”

FACT: This measure doesn’t prevent the Livestock Board from doing its work. We fully support it taking a serious look at animal agribusiness and requiring meaningful improvements from the status quo. At the same time, it’s a good idea for Ohio voters to ensure that the Board has some very basic rules of the road. The Board will undoubtedly work on other issues, but this measure will set a baseline for minimum humane standards and require the Board to act on some of the most critical issues within the next six years.

MYTH: “Food prices will skyrocket if this initiative passes.”

FACT: The egg industry knows that it doesn’t cost much more to use cage-free housing than to use battery cages. An economic study produced for the United Egg Producers (the battery cage egg industry trade organization), shows that the added cost of production is less than a penny per egg. You can view that study here (pdf - see page four). While it's possible that giving these animals better living conditions may increase prices by a few pennies per dozen, the hidden cost of such inhumane confinement is increased cruelty and food safety risks, and it's the animals and consumers who are paying those hidden prices. In fact, egg industry trade groups have been accused of a massive price-fixing scheme for gauging consumers, and surely can afford less than a penny per egg more to protect animals, the environment, consumers, public health, and food safety.

MYTH: “Jobs will be lost if this measure passes.”

FACT: Cage-free egg producers have been reported to employ more than five times as many people per bird as producers who cram egg-laying hens into tiny wire cages. It's the very confinement systems that this measure would phase out which have allowed factory farms to become automated and have dramatically reduced the need for human labor.

This intensification of agriculture in the state has meant there are far fewer, but far bigger, farms in the state than in the past. For example, in 1978, there were 9,100 egg farms in Ohio, with the state having less than 10 million hens. Today there are 5,200 egg farms in the state but 27 million hens.

MYTH: “The crates prevent sows from rolling on top of their piglets and injuring them.”

FACT: This measure only addresses gestation crates, not farrowing crates. A breeding pig is confined in a gestation crate for nearly four months. Right before giving birth, she’s moved from the gestation crate into a farrowing crate, a metal stall where she nurses her piglets. The farrowing crate is exempted from this initiative. Seven other states have banned gestation crates, while none have banned farrowing crates.

MYTH: “This measure will just drive these abuses out of Ohio, merely moving the problem rather than addressing it.”

FACT: Simply because abusive practices may still occur elsewhere doesn’t mean we should continue allowing them in Ohio. Seven states have already passed laws to phase out types of extreme confinement addressed in this proposal, and Ohio can join those states by providing leadership in animal welfare and moving the market in a positive direction. For example, just three months after Arizona voters banned veal crates and sow gestation crates, the largest veal producers and pork producers in North America announced they would phase out the crates entirely.

Further, an increasing number of major retailers like Burger King, Denny’s, IHOP and Wendy’s are phasing-in cage-free and crate-free products. Passage of this amendment would accelerate this trend, meaning that there will be even less incentive for Ohio’s producers to relocate. It would be penny-wise and pound-foolish for agricultural producers to relocate to de-regulated states, since retailers and consumers are going to demand higher animal welfare standards anyway.

MYTH: “Animals wouldn’t produce if they weren’t healthy and happy. Farmers who mistreat animals go out of business.”

FACT: To respond to this myth, we will rely on the words of animal scientists:

Says poultry welfare expert Dr. Joy Mench: "It is now generally agreed that good productivity and health are not necessarily indicators of good welfare.”

"[E]fforts to achieve earlier and faster growth, greater production per individual, efficient feed conversion and partitioning, and increased prolificacy are the causes of some of the worst animal welfare problems,” stated Dr. Donald Broom, former professor of animal welfare in the Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine at the University of Cambridge and former chair of the European Union Scientific Veterinary Committee.

And, agricultural ethicist Dr. Bernard Rollin states: "[I]n industrial agriculture, this link between productivity and well-being is severed. When productivity as an economic metric is applied to the whole operation, the welfare of the individual animal is ignored."

MYTH: “Cage-free hens necessarily have higher mortality rates than caged hens.”

FACT: Poultry welfare scientist Dr. Joy Mench, a professor in the Department of Animal Science at University of California - Davis, was quoted in the May 11, 2006 San Jose Mercury News as saying, "Mortality and disease rates can be similar under both systems if management is good." Click here (pdf) for more information on why this opposition claim is false.

MYTH: “Only vegetarians would support this measure”

FACT: This is a common sense measure supported by both meat-eaters and vegetarians alike. No matter what our diet, we can all agree that animals raised for food ought not be forced to live in cages barely larger than their own bodies for their whole lives.

MYTH: “This issue should be addressed in the legislature, not by the voters.”

FACT: Most efforts to address many of the most basic animal welfare reforms, including farm animal welfare, have generally failed in Columbus. For example, Rep. Yates introduced a similar bill to this ballot measure, but it stalled because of some powerful Columbus politicians’ unwillingness to change the status quo. Because the legislature failed to act, engaging in direct democracy by allowing Ohio voters to provide guidance to the Livestock Board is the only way to address these pressing issues. The time for delay by politicians and the special interests is over. In this case, voters will have an opportunity to give the Livestock Board some needed direction.