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.
The Farm Bureau and the agri-industries they represent are working
overtime to pass this amendment. The language they use and the ways in
which they position their arguments are misleading, if not absolutely
false. This amendment is not an effort to protect farmers. It will not
address issues of animal husbandry. Instead, it will guarantee that
industrial farming, which includes confined animal feeding operations
known as CAFOs, will be legitimized and protected by our state
constitution.
If the 13-member, politically appointed board created by Issue 2 is
put in place, it will have unprecedented power. Citizens will no longer
be able to petition their legislators to write and pass legislation
affecting agriculture and our food supply. Instead, the power will be
in the hands of 13 people, who for the most part will be chosen from
the very industry they are supposed to regulate. Truly the fox will be
guarding the hen house.
Those who oppose the industrial model of food production have made
animal cruelty the major issue. The Farm Bureau and the agri-industries
insist that this is an emotional issue and that those who oppose Issue
2 are vegetarians and vegans who want to eliminate animal products from
our diet. This is a case of over-simplification, if not a bold-faced
lie.
I am not associated with the Farm Bureau, and I am not an
animal-rights advocate in the PETA model. I am, however, very familiar
with both sides of food and farming. I grew up on a farm. I owned a
restaurant where local, sustainably produced food was the foundation of
the menu. I now work on special projects for Innovative Farmers of Ohio
and other sustainable farming groups. In my work, I have seen the
ravages of industrial-type agriculture. And despite what the Farm
Bureau tells us, we do not need an industrial system to meet the
demands of our citizens.
Animals are sometimes restrained. Animals, like humans, are
sometimes in need of medication and care from veterinarians. Animals
are sometimes physically altered in ways that will make their lives
better and safer and healthier as they grow. Docking the tails of lambs
is hardly more serious than male circumcision. Similarly, horns are
removed from some animals so that they can live comfortably with
others. We put braces on our teeth and sometimes endure oral surgeries
when we are young to prevent dental problems in adulthood. Is this a
form of cruelty? Calves are separated or restrained to prevent their
bullying each other, overeating and, worst of all, engaging in some
rather gross behaviors caused by the sucking instinct. Children are
strapped into car seats to protect them. Do we call the restraining
cruel?
The point is, none of this is being challenged by opponents of Issue
2. We are opposing harsh, unnecessary treatment of animals for the
purpose of increasing production and lowering the cost of food
products.
Consumers should understand the powerful role that the USDA has in
our food system, which is based on corn. Corn production is subsidized
by the USDA. Our tax dollars are at work in the food system — at
work for agri-industries. Corn provides cheap, abundant animal feed.
Poultry, beef, lamb and pork can be produced easily and in less time if
the animals are confined and force-fed. But because these animal
production systems are unnatural, the animals are kept alive with the
aid of mass quantities of antibiotics. When we eat animal products from
these industrial systems, we ingest the residue from the
antibiotics.
Rural economies and rural communities have been devastated by the
advent of factory farms. A confinement dairy of 1000 cows can be
managed by several low-paid hourly employees. Factory farms are more
often owned by corporations than by farmers. Factory farms contribute
very little to local economies. Trucks bringing mass quantities of
cheap corn to the CAFO damage roads that rural communities cannot
afford to repair or maintain.
But the worst impact of a factory farm is its effect on the
environment. The volume of waste from a large CAFO can equal that of a
small city. Feed lots where large numbers of animals spend months being
fattened on cheap corn create mounds of waste in which they must stand.
Rain washes waste from these feed lots into the soil and eventually
into streams and rivers. This run-off will eventually reach a major
river and an ocean. The result of continued run-off from the Midwest is
an 80-mile-wide dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where aquatic life is
no longer viable.
Corn plays a role in this too. The CAFOs’ demand for corn results in
mono-cropping, meaning that the land is never rejuvenated with cover
crops that can put nutrients into the soil. There is no crop rotation.
Corn is planted and raised with artificial inputs year after year, and
run-off from these farms includes staggering amounts of fertilizer and
pesticides.
Cheap corn produced in abundance has also become a major ingredient
in our food. Corn syrup is ubiquitous. Many products — snacks,
salad dressings, ice cream, sauces of every kind, breakfast cereals and
especially soft drinks — are all laced with high-fructose corn
syrup.
One in four America children is now classified as obese. Some blame
their parents. Others claim this is genetic. Lack of exercise is
another frequently cited cause. Who are we kidding? It is the kinds of
food these children eat, and we know where, how and why that food is
produced. It is the industrial system championed by the Farm Bureau and
the agri-businesses they support — the same forces behind Issue
2.
Rather than amending our state’s constitution now, we should engage
in debate. Both sides of this tug-of-war should come to the table,
listen to each other and make reasonable concessions. The ways animals
are treated is only one part of this very big issue. Both sides need to
reconsider their points of view regarding animal care and true animal
husbandry.
Until then, Ohioans should vote no on 2. Vote for our children, our
natural resources, our health and our future.
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.
This article appears in Oct 14-20, 2009.
In Ohio if someone does not like how farm animals are treated they have a right to buy their own, a right to buy ‘free range’ eggs, a right to choose a vegan lifestyle. Obviously many don’t object or the eggs would not sell in grocery stores, to restuarants, to bakeries, etc. Why do some people think they have the right to dictate the ownership and use of animals to others? HSUS thinks they have this right and I sincerely hope Issue 2 passes by a large margin to show animal rights activists and HSUS that Ohioans do believe in freedom- not just their own but others’ freedom to choose and own also.
your brain dead! yes, you have choices but the animals have NO choices! So you believe in freedom?? than LET the animals go FREE and stop torturing them, abusing them and stop bringing them in to a holocaust of pain and suffering or is your so called”freedom” only for those who think like you?
I don’t recall ever pushing anyone to eat meat or keep pets/animals of any kind so perhaps the “only for those who think like you” remark should be directed inward?
People downstream and downwind from manure lagoons – or within range of their fly infestations – won’t have a “choice.”
Let’s not forget (as the writer of this article apparently has) that the proposed amendment is not related only to animal care. It also takes farming out of the purview of the OEPA.
This is a public health issue, plain and simple. Big-business agriculture is out for profit, and they will do whatever they can to maximize it. It is up to us (as represented by our elected officials, called “the government”) to protect the common welfare by safely regulating food production systems so that we don’t all get sick and die. This is not about a bunch of hippies saying “animals should be free!” (even though some people do feel and think that way, and that’s their prerogative). This is about the fact that the big-business farms will keep doing things their way to make more money, even though the things they are doing are MAKING PEOPLE SICK and CAUSING PEOPLE TO DIE. Obesity, adult-onset diabetes, reproductive cancers, uterine fibroids, and on and on… the diseases linked to antiobiotics, growth hormones, and petroleum-based pesticides are documented, they are real, they are costing some people their lives and costing all of us more money for treatment. Regulation of food production is a job for health care folks, scientists and nutritionists, NOT for a board appointed by and controlled by representatives of big-business agriculture! NO ON ISSUE 2!
Read “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” and “In Defense of Food”. Real eye openers. Yeah there is corn in everything we eat and it is big business.
Issue 2 is an expansion of State Government that creates unchecked power and new layers of unaccountable bureaucracy over our livestock farmers.
What did it take to twist the arms of all the members of both the House and Senate to make them take such a draconian measure? If we change the Constitution every time the wind blows from the wrong direction, what value remains in it? What next? Change the US Constitution to remove free speech and religious freedom?
The text of issue 2 shows just how rushed the process was and how little thought went into doing the job right. The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board is not even an imperfect solution. It is not a solution at all. The correct solution is to add the proper language into Ohio Revised Code, a process that would require both the House and Senate to debate and agree on language and the Governor to sign the bill into law.
We are being told that this Board will protect farms from animal rights groups, but what will protect the farmers from the Board, a panel of bureaucrats without accountability?
After reading the proposed resolution, we have several questions regarding Issue 2.
Why did the Ohio Farmers Union decide to oppose issue 2 in their August meeting?
Will we need a license or permit to own and raise livestock in this state?
Will special training and classes be required to obtain the right to raise livestock?
Will someone come to our farm to ensure that we follow the guidelines set forth by this Board, without search warrants or probable cause?
Will we be criminals, and subject to fines/prison if we disagree with the standards set by the Board and fail to comply?
Will these board members be paid? If so, who decides their salary?
How will the actions of this board be funded: by taxpayers or farmers?
How will Board decrees be enforced?
How long will the terms of appointees be? Indefinite or limited?
Why is this Board given “excusive authority to establish standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state” instead of the farmer?
Why are the members of this Board appointed (10 by Governor) and not voted into their position by the farmers themselves?
What appeal process will be available for those who wish to challenge the standards set by this Board? Will that appeal require a fee also?
Why only three “family farmers”? Won’t they be outnumbered by the other 10 non-farmers?
What effect will the approval of the Board have on organic and all natural farms?
Why is Farm Bureau using fear to provoke the acceptance of this amendment?
Will this Board view livestock as the private property of the farmers with Divine right to govern them as their own conscience directs? Or is livestock the property of the State?
Will this Board establish rules regarding vaccines?
Will we be required to keep updated farm records and submit them annually to this board?
Will the Amish of Ohio be exempt from any rules that contradict their religious beliefs?
Why would we want to establish a government entity to “protect us (farmers) from special interest groups” when the very way these groups achieve their goals is to lobby and control government entities?
Doesn’t this proposed amendment contradict the original FFA Creed. paragraph three, which states:
I believe in leadership from ourselves and respect from others. I believe in my own ability to work efficiently and think clearly, with such knowledge and skill as I can secure, and in the ability of organized farmers to serve our own and public interest in marketing the product of our toil. I believe we can safeguard those rights against practices and policies that are unfair.
If we have sworn the oath of the Pledge Of Allegiance, which professes “Liberty and Justice for all,” since this amendment takes the liberty to raise livestock from an individual farmer and gives it to the direct control of the State, would we be committing hypocrisy according to our spoken oath?
Are horses included under the authority of this Board? If not, shouldn’t they be protected from animal rights groups too and be subject to the standards decreed by this Board?
Is forfeiture of liberty the only way to protect livestock farms in Ohio from animal rights groups? Are there other options available?
In conclusion, we support the opposition to Issue 2 as expressed by the Ohio Farmers Union, The League of Women Voters, Ohio Food and Water Watch, The Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, and all the major newspapers in Ohio.
No on 2! It’s easy to see why big factory farms don’t want to get off their FAT asses and make needed change! How can ya miss all the FAT asses.
Thank you Parker. Makes sense to me. I’ll vote NO.
Thanks Parker, I’ll vote NO. Those people that talk about obesity, etc, don’t have anyone forcing the fork to their mouths!!
The proponents of Issue 2 have very cleverly framed Issue 2 as being all about family farmers with small herds and kids with their 4-H goats and calves. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Issue 2 is about protecting the interests and the profits of the giant agri-biz companies who operate egg-laying, poultry, pork, and cattle operations in Ohio.
Family farmers, you won’t have to worry about any of your concerns if Issue 2 is passed or is not passed. Why? Because the proponents of Issue 2, the factory farm operators, don’t give a damn about farming operations on small and medium-sized farms. In fact, they don’t give a damn about the animal welfare on any farm, no matter how big it is. That’s the point. The whole idea of this proposed measure is to protect the interests and the profits of those huge corporate entities who stand to gain if Issue 2 is passed, granting them immunity from ever having any law or regulation governing their operations in any way.
These giant agribiz companies are throwing huge amounts of money into this Issue 2 campaign. Who do you think is paying for all those slick and fancy TV, radio, newspaper and billboard ads? Who do you think is paying for all those yard signs? Whenever you want to know what a legislative issue is all about, FOLLOW THE MONEY. Wherever the cash comes from, those are the people who stand to gain or lose. When a political ad campaign looks professionally produced and expensive, that’s a big “A-Ha!” moment — a tip-off that somebody wants to get an even bigger slice of the pie than they already have — and they’re willing to pay BIG for it. It’s all about the MONEY, and it’s all about CONTROL.
The big factory farms, with their multi-million-dollar profits to protect, want to wrest control from the voters and legislators of Ohio, to make sure that NO ONE ever tries to regulate their operations in any way — whether for animal cruelty reasons or environmental pollution reasons or public health reasons. They’re a clever bunch, those execs at the top of the multi-national factory farm agri-biz corporations. They really know how to manipulate public opinion and scare people into voting out of fear and trepidation. Divide and conquer. Confuse and obfuscate.
So don’t worry, farmers of Ohio. Your farm is safe from “the bogeyman.” Nobody will be coming to your farm to monitor your practices or any of that. They don’t care about you or your farm. They don’t care about creating farm animal “welfare” standards. The CAFOs and their allies care only about one thing: keeping anyone from infringing on their operations and their profits. FOLLOW THE MONEY.