RATTLING CAGES

The battles surrounding Issue 2 may be lost to some in an election
season dominated by county government reform and casino gambling. But
if you eat eggs, cheese and meat, and care about the price and quality
of your food, the controversial ballot initiative demands attention.
Cut through the rhetoric and the dueling images of idyllic farms and
maltreated pigs and chickens, and Issue 2 is about using Ohio’s
constitution to control the future of animal husbandry in Ohio.

The Ohio Farm Bureau, the 60,000-member force behind the November 3
proposal, does not deny that it wants command of how Ohio livestock
farmers produce meat, eggs and dairy. Issue 2, if approved, would in
essence give Ohio farmers the option to use the controversial livestock
cages — the veal, gestation and battery crates loathed by
animal-rights activists — that have been prohibited by voters in
California, Arizona and Florida. If the constitutional amendment
passes, a “livestock care standards board” of governor-appointed
food-industry experts would set the rules that impact animal rearing in
our state.

This, Issue 2 supporters say, is a pre-emptive strike to prevent
animal-rights do-gooders from demanding even more quality control from
Ohio farmers, burdens that could saddle food producers with extra costs
they’d then pass on to consumers.

Even Don Sprinkle, who raises veal calves and poultry with humane
techniques on his Valley City farm, supports Issue 2. Sprinkle, who
handed out stickers and brochures on the issue at a local farmer’s
market, calls the creation of regulation board as “the lesser of two
evils.” The greater evil: succumbing to demands from the Humane Society
of America. “I don’t want a radical organization coming in and telling
me I have to put my animals in a five-star hotel,” he says.

The Humane Society has been on a crusade to improve animal treatment
on farms across America, and the organization played a key role in the
ban of veal, gestation and battery cages in other states. The group met
with the Ohio Farm Bureauin February, making it clear that Ohio, with
its roughly 150 factory farms (a.k.a. concentrated animal-feeding
operations), was their next goal. One industry observer says the Humane
Society likely targeted Ohio because the state ranks second in the
country in egg production, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture
statistics. The state also ranks in the top 10 in pork and veal
production.

Oddly, the Humane Society did not return Scene’s requests for
comment, but the organization has stated publicly that it wants to
eliminate closed-quarter confinement for Ohio’s veal calves, pigs and
egg-laying hens. “This type of extreme confinement is cruel and
inhumane, environmentally damaging, and poses severe public health
threats,” says the organization in a statement against Issue 2 on its
website. “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.”

Proponents of Issue 2 say the industry polices itself and doesn’t
need an overhaul. Joe Cornely, a Farm Bureau spokesman, says the Humane
Society and other animal-rights groups have mislead people into
thinking that Ohio farmers are cruel to their animals. Cornely says the
Humane Society’s agenda goes beyond controlling livestock care
standards. “We do believe that their ultimate agenda is to end man’s
dominion over animal,” he says.

Dick Isler of the Ohio Pork Producers Council speaks in equally
histrionic terms, claiming that the standards proposed by animal-rights
groups could “decimate agriculture in Ohio.” “If the consumer wants
cage-free eggs, they can buy them,” says Isler. “But to force it on
society [is wrong]. Issue 2 lets Ohioans determine what practices are
best.”

But that depends on what you mean by “Ohioans.”

The amendment creates a 13-member board that promises to include
family farms, veterinarians, consumers and other food and animal
experts. The governor would appoint 11 of those members, and the House
and Senate would each chose one of the other two. One political party
could select up to seven members, a majority, creating wariness that
the board would be marred by politics. Neither the ballot initiative
nor the resolution that created it mentions term limits.

Delbert Yoder, an Amish farmer who uses his own husbandry techniques
to produce free-range eggs that he then sells at farmers markets, is
wary of concentrated power over farmers, but for different reasons. Too
much industry uniformity would devalue his specialty products, eggs and
cheeses produced with Earth- and animal-friendly techniques. “There is
a movement to farm this way, and we value the idea that it was our free
choice,” says Yoder. “When government makes it a law, we lose
freedom.”

Yoder says he is able to sell free-range eggs because there’s a
market for it. “The most powerful vote that can be cast is the one out
of your pocketbook,” he said.

The 5,200-strong Ohio Farmers Union, which opposes Issue 2, says not
all small-operation farmers are against stricter regulation. More rules
could bolster the competitiveness of farmers who shun low-cost
industrial farm practices. Roger Wise, the president of the OFU, says
many Ohio farmers don’t use veal cages that restrict the calves from
being able to turn around.

“The notion that the [Humane Society] is a boogeyman who is going to
control things is false,” says Wise. He has called for more negotiation
between all parties and says big industry players rushed the ballot
issue through the Ohio legislature in two-and-a-half days.

The state constitution should not be the vehicle for implementing
livestock standards, says Wise. In his eyes. Issue 2 passage would
result in an “autonomous, unchecked layer of bureaucracy” controlled by
Ohio’s largest farming operations, which make up less than 1 percent of
Ohio’s 75,000 farms.

And if Issue 2 passes, it won’t prevent the Humane Society from
going ahead with plans for a voter ballot initiative next year to ban
specific factory-farming practices.

The Ohio Farm Bureau and its allies are banking on the idea that
voters will reject a reform measure next year if they already approved
the creation of a governing board.

But neutral analysts make an important point: With this food fight
taking place in the constitution, the measures that make it in would
take a great effort to change in the long run, cementing control for
whatever special interest comes out on top.

dguevara@clevescene.com

Chef and sustainable food pioneer Parker Bosley opposes Issue 2.
See page 30.

This article appears in Oct 14-20, 2009.