Prop 2 roundup

Proposition 2 in California would require certain farm animals, including battery hens, to be given more space to move around. From a strict policy perspective, I think this is a no-brainer: yes, animals should be able to fully extend their limbs, even while they are otherwise being mistreated. For most animal welfare advocates, this is a good enough reason to vote yes. This is the position of Amy at Animal Law Blog--she suggest it will reduce suffering now and create awareness that could foment future change. (She interestingly ties Prop 2 in with the more visible anti-marriage proposition also on California ballots. See also Queering Animal Liberation.)

For folks seeking the abolition of animal use, and not just its reform, there are reasons to be less excited, both in terms of the policy itself and the predicted effect of the proposition becoming law. As Gary Francione points out, the law would not take effect until 2015. This would mean a sizable delay in any reduction of suffering and time for the animal industry to try to undercut the law or get taxpayers to subsidize any improvements. Still, a delayed reduction in suffering is better than none at all. One plus policy-wise for abolitionists is that, arguably, the regulation of animal industries (a "one-two punch to the gullet of those Animal Ag-holes") would make it less profitable for them to continue to exploit animals. This is certainly something that animal industries wants their consumers to believe--they're practically promising to increase prices. They also claim, in somewhat hysterical tones, that Prop 2 would be bad for animals and would increase dependence on foreign oil, out-of-state eggs. At least one credible voice for animals, An Animal-Friendly Life, however, has also suggested a boon for out-of-state producers. For in-state egg producers (and veal producers and pig breeders), this might eventually require renovations, the cost of which would be passed on to the consumer. Prop 2 supporters admit it might add a few cents to the cost of a dozen eggs, which would not exactly regulate egg producers to death.

Francione lays out two strategic arguments for abolitionists to either vote "no" on Prop 2 or skip this item on the ballot. First, he says the passage of the proposition will make consumers feel better about animal use, and thus increase exploitation. I agree that Prop 2 would leave the exploitation of animals intact, and not challenge the basic assumption that animals are for our use. I don't see how this would increase exploitation in the long run though. It's not as if animal consumers' appetites for eggs will increase if they think the hens are treated better. I wouldn't think this would be the argument, but I'm not sure how else to interpret the claim that welfare legislation not only maintains the status quo, but opens up avenues for greater exploitation. Both this claim and the claim that welfare laws are a step towards greater liberation seem to me to be too speculative.

The other animal-rights argument against Prop 2 is that a "yes" vote would "send a message" to welfare organizations to keep up their efforts. Given that the mass of opposition to Prop 2 is from the animal industry, I doubt that message would be heard. Organizations like HSUS and Farm Sanctuary can't push more radical measures because animal industries are too powerful and the electorate frankly doesn't care about animals, with the exception of companion and some wild species. I agree that vegan education is the way to go, but I'm skeptical that a "no" vote on Prop 2 will bring that about.

P.S. After finishing the above, I came across a discussion of the pros and cons re: Prop 2 at Vegan Bits. That fine post, which is followed by some very insightful comments, deserves a visit.

Comments

[Barna]

"I agree that Prop 2 would leave the exploitation of animals intact, and not challenge the basic assumption that animals are for our use. I don't see how this would increase exploitation in the long run though."

If as a result of these campaigns, consumers feel better about the exploitation, than that indeed increases the willingness to partake in the exploitation. For example, we are increasingly seeing articles on former vegetarians going back to eating meat, because now that they have access to "happy meat", or "happy eggs", they feel OK with eating it.

But what else do we expect, if the animal organizations themselves portray these products as the "compassionate choice" and such nonsense? They are lying to people, as they know full well that the only compassionate choice is veganism. But in the interest of reaching to the largest possible donor base, they change their message into a misleading (and much more lucrative) one.

[Jonathan]

I don't think Prop 2 will convert vegetarians to meat and vegans to ovo-lacto. I'd guess that such reluctant vegetarians would find another "reason" (health, inconvenience, etc.) to abandon their diets. Although there might be stories of late about ex-veggies, the small percentage of vegetarians in the population and the recent interest in "happy meat" leads me to believe that the vast, vast majority of people buying "happy" animal products are people who were buying other animal products in the first place.

I'm also skeptical of the claim that animal organizations are so greedy for funds that they dumb down their efforts. Some animal advocates just don't care about farm animals, or have a different definition of "care" than vegans do.

[Daivd]

It's a quandary. The reason I'm inclined not to support it is that people concerned about animal suffering, who might otherwise have felt compelled to give up consuming animal products, will think the "animal welfare" guidelines mandated by bills like this make it a morally tolerable compromise.