Economies of Shame

History is replete with examples of industries that have thrived in spite of – nay, because of – lax economic and social policies and moral and environmental irresponsibility. Chemical companies like Union Carbide in India, clothing companies like Fruit of the Loom with factories in Central America, and energy companies like Enron in this country that gouged consumers with price increases while enjoying record profits, are just three examples. Land O’ Lakes subsidiary Moark, with its practice of cruelly confining four or more chickens into small battery cages not even big enough for a single hen to spread its wings, is yet another.

Economies of scale represent the cost advantages to companies when they expand. By virtually all measures, such economies have been very kind to large agribusiness interests in the United States like Moark, which posted these financial figures for the current year:

• Six month sales of $320 million, compared to $231 million for the first half of 2007 (an increase of 39%);
• Earnings of $11 million during the second quarter, compared to $2.7 million for the same quarter last year (an increase of 307%);
• And pretax earnings that are more than six times higher than the same period in 2007.

Land O’ Lakes officials attribute “strong markets” to the improved earnings, with retail egg prices over the first six months averaging $1.43 per dozen, versus $1.01 per dozen in for the same period in 2007 (an increase of 42%).

Strong markets?? Clearly, mega-sized agribusinesses like Moark don’t trade in the same markets as the rest of us. While we all struggle to make ends meet, giant agribusiness concerns are charging historically high prices and reaping the rewards in the form of record profits. Trouble is, these profits come at the expense of millions of animals that are laying the golden eggs. And they want to blame the proponents of Proposition 2, who seek to end the barbaric confinement practices of companies like Moark, for rising egg prices. Come again?

Proposition 2 is a modest measure on the November ballot in California that seeks to phase out extreme confinement practices like those used by opposition-funder Moark. It’s simple: calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens should be given enough room to stand up, turn around, or extend their limbs. The industry has until 2015 to convert to these more humane housing practices.

As the battle over Proposition 2 intensifies, there will be many stories of collapsing industries and sky-rocketing prices that are purportedly caused by Prop 2’s passage. These stories will prove to be nothing but fictions of doom. Such were the dire predictions surrounding similar propositions in other states. None of them came true.

So, Californians – two-thirds of whom support Prop 2 according to the most recent Field poll – should vote their conscience in November, free from concerns of economic peril. That’s precisely what farm workers, veterinarians, clergy, food safety groups, and environmental organizations all around California are doing. Reducing the suffering of animals raised for our consumption is a reasonable and common-sense reform that will not only help the animals but improve food safety, support family farmers, and protect and safeguard the environment. It just makes sense.

Something there is that doesn't like a wall

My 2-year old knows better. She's not enthusiastic about it, but she begrudgingly will accept the responsibility of putting her stuffed animals and dolls back into her toy chest at night. She knows mama and papa don't like a mess. Conveniently enough, she's learning not to like messes either. It bothers her, and she's not sure why. We'd like to think she's developing taste, a conscience, an aesthetic rule, a pitch, an angle... or maybe it's just instinct.

Something there is that doesn't like a... mess.

Which brings me to Proposition 2 (The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act) on the California ballot this November. I've heard some other bloggers (Charles Hartley on KPBS.org) ask the obvious question, "Why?" Why?!? Why should we prevent farm animal cruelty? Hmmmm.... let's see.

Something there is that doesn't like... cruelty, perhaps?

When you have to ask the question, you've already gone the way of Dante in the middle of a wood: you have lost your way.

My two year-old knows better. She knows not to step on a Rolly Polly bug when we got out walking the cul-de-sac. She knows she shouldn't hit our dog just because. She knows it's not nice to torture butterflies. She would also know, if we cared to show her, that it's not nice to tether young calves by the neck to a chain and stick them in a cage just big enough to stand up or lie down... in their own feces... their entire life. She'd know, if we cared to show her, that it's really not nice at all to keep a pregnant sow in a crate not much bigger than the veal calf's confinement for months on end, until she finally gives birth, and then wean the little piglets from her after only three weeks, only to start the process over again, month after month after month. She would clearly know, if we dared show her, that it's not nice to stuff a bunch of hens into a cage not even big enough for a single hen, then expect them to get along for months on end while they're forced to lay eggs and an unnaturally high rate and can never extend their wings. Once. Their entire lives.

Even if this Proposition passes, it doesn't mean the end of all farm animal cruelty. But it does mean the end of the worst of it. And a little less cruel is a whole lot better.

Even my 2-year old knows that. And if she could, she would vote "Yes" on Prop. 2.