Salmonella, Egg-laying Cages, and Prop 2

There is something to be said about the role that agricultural subsidies have in the scale of farming, and thus in the existence of factory farms where cramped conditions can lead to higher risks of infection. But the most you'll hear about it is the cursory comment in a documentary or at a book talk. The policy proposals made by food justice advocates always include subsidies for local and urban small-scale organic farms and gardens; they never talk about getting rid of agricultural subsidies all together, and I personally have never seen or heard any support in the food justice movement for even slightly cutting federal spending on big ag (if any of you have, please send me a link!). Guess it's less of an uphill battle to get pork for the good guys than it is to get rid of bad guys' pork. This is a problem that both sides of the aisle face. Even Tea Party candidates would be reluctant to propose slashing Big Ag welfare (this isn't to suggest that Tea Party candidates would ever propose federal subsidies for urban agriculture).

So I'm not surprised, or even all that disappointed, that tax subsidies for Big Ag weren't mentioned in the Chronicle's article on inhumane farming and the egg recall.

Now, a few words on Prop 2, since that's what I originally wanted to write about in this post:

The Chronicle's article linked to above mentions that animal rights/welfare advocates, including the head of the Humane Society's anti-factory farming campaign, are under the impression that Prop 2 will prohibit egg-laying cages completely. But that's not what I get when I read the text of the new law. Prop 2 mandates that farm animals including egg-laying hens be allowed to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs, and turn "in a complete circle without any impediment...and without touching the side of an enclosure." There isn't a single word in the entire poposition even suggesting a prohibition of all egg-laying cages. A plain, straightforward reading of the new law shows that come 2015, egg-laying cages that are packed in a way that hens have enough room to lie down, stand up, and turn in a complete circle without any impediment and without touching the side of the cage would be perfectly legal (assuming a more strict law doesn't get passed and come into effect before then).

Granted, those cages would probably still be inhumane by most animal welfare advocates' standards (and by my standards). Instead of standing flat on a floor, the hens would probably have to constantly cling to wires below them, and foot and joint problems might still be a normal fact of an egg-laying hen's life. But Prop 2 doesn't say anything about being able to stand on a flat, solid surface. If the Humane Society wants to make a court case out of this, they would have to be doing some legal gymnastics to get a prohibition of all egg-laying cages out of Prop 2.

Let me be clear that I'm not defending bigger egg-laying cages as an alternative to battery cages. I oppose all egg-laying cages. I oppose animal agriculture. I don't think sentient beings can legitimately be owned as property. I just think that Prop 2 is a small step forward (some abolitionists disagree) which does not ban all kinds of animal abuse, and one of those kinds of abuse it doesn't ban is egg-laying cages.

And while we're on eggs and salmonella, here's a neat post by David D. Friedman on voluntary certification and safety measures in egg production in the UK.