I’ve been looking into “Issue 2″ in Ohio and there’s some pretty fascinating political maneuvering going on. If you live in an ag state, I advise you to familiarize yourself with the fight surrounding this issue, since, chances are, it’s coming to your legislature, too.
What is it? Issue 2 is an initiative seeking to change that state’s constitution to create a 13-member Livestock Board, which would be appointed by the governor and would oversee all matters concerning livestock management practices in the state of Ohio.
The initiative goes before voters today.
Those in favor of the constitutional amendment are not shy about saying that this measure is a preemptive strike against the Humane Society of the United States (video), which has taken credit for passing bans in seven states on certain livestock farming practices, such using gestation crates and poultry battery cages. By creating a governor-appointed board of experts (veterinarians, farmers, etc) that has final say over livestock practices in the state — a say that even a ballot inititative from citizens couldn’t undo – Ohio would effectively shut HSUS out of its democratic process. It would also keep prices down by maintaining practices as they are, according to Safe Local Ohio (a pro Issue 2 site):
The [Livestock] Board, which was placed on the ballot through a bipartisan resolution passed in July 2009 by the Ohio House of Representatives and Ohio Senate, will enable Ohio livestock and poultry farmers to continue to provide excellent care to their animals, while also protecting our food supply and keeping affordable, locally-raised food available for consumers.
The “no” camp on Issue 2 is made up of the usual gang of environmentalists and animal rights groups, of course: Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, Food & Water Watch, Center for Food Safety, and so on. But worthy of note in the “no” camp is the 5500-member Ohio Farmers Union, which doesn’t like the idea of a Board with that much power in Ohio. President Roger Wise told the Delphos Herald:
“Farmers don’t typically embrace more bureaucracy and, if this passes, the board would be pretty much unchecked. They’d be able to make rules without public input or appeal, so these are the big reasons the Ohio Farmers Union opposes Issue 2,” he said.
Wise said that Ohio should have gone the same route as Michigan, which courted discussion and debate from farmers and HSUS alike, eventually deciding to “enact laws requiring that laying hens, breeding hogs, and veal calves have room to maneuver or spread their wings inside their cages or pens” (Toledo Blade).That law will not go into effect until 2015.
But while HSUS was a primary player in the Michigan law, according to Jim Byrum, president of the Michigan Agri-Business Association, their presence wasn’t the main driving force in the state’s decision-making .Indeed, Byrum sees the marketplace as the bellwether actor here, not HSUS.
“[T]he marketplace has been driving decisions like this a lot more rapidly,” he said. “Major companies like Kroger, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, and Wendy’s have requested that producers change how they do certain things.”
There’s some “writing on the wall” in Byrum’s observation that leaves Ohio’s Issue 2 sounding like a desperate maneuver. Even if Issue 2 does pass today (and the astute and erudite Tom Laskawy at Grist thinks it has a good chance), in the current market place, consumers are pushing for greater transparency and tighter ethical practices behind their meat products. In that light, this Livestock Board is a step away from consumer trend and, indeed, seems like the voice of a previous generation refusing to admit that the landscape has already changed under their feet. National fast food chains are listening to what eaters want, according to Byrum. Will state farm bureaus eventually listen, too?
Not likely. As reported in ABC (via Tom Laskawy’s link above):
“We’ve tried to model this [constitutional amendment] in a way that other states can look at it,” said Jack Fisher, executive vice president of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation.
In other words, whether it passes or not, Ohio’s Issue 2 is probably just the beginning of a sharper fight between Big Ag and HSUS. Heads up, ag states, this war is coming to a battlefield near you.
UPDATE: Issue 2 Passes in Ohio
I am a full time 5th generation farmer in Ohio, my wife and I also have 30 purebred Simmental beef cows that we raise for breeding stock. I am a strong supporter of Issue 2 because after working with my local humane society for the past year I have found that their is a lack of guidelines in Ohio for them to refer to when investigating animal abuse. Currently the best resource for them is to look at what is industry accepted practice, sometime this does not give them enough information to decide what is or is not abuse.
What this board will do is establish a set of guidelines using sound research for both livestock owners and animal cruelty investigators to refer to. It is a huge step for Ohio’s livestock industry to step up to the plate ask for a board that represents all parties to come up with acceptable practices that they must follow.
It bothers me that opponents have made this issue into a large vs. small farmer battle. This is not the case, issue 2 is about insuring that facts and research are used when determining what kind of animal care is put in our constitution. In other states that already adapted animal husbandry practices they only looked at emotion, and while that needs to be considered, it may not mean that what is decided is what is best for our flocks and herds.
This is why the American Humane Association, and the local shelters that deal with livestock cases in Ohio and the Ohio Catholic Conference have all stepped up in support of creating a livestock care board in Ohio.
I do agree that no farmer wants any more regulations to follow, but sometimes they are needed in order to move forward.
Thanks,
Mike Haley
Thanks for stopping by, Mike!
This is one of those situations where, if all the actors on the Livestock-Board-to-be are good people with clean intentions, nothing may go wrong. No power will be abused, one style or scale of farming will not be regulated more heavily than another, and the Board will be forward-looking on behalf of the state’s livestock industry. We’ve certainly never seen an abuse of power in Ohio before!
But should a similar measure come to Minnesota, I’ll fight hard against it because I’m a Jeffersonian democrat. I don’t like the idea of any private industry amending the public’s constitution to stifle discussion or the democratic fireproofing of ideas. If you’re for this measure, then, at the end of the day, you’re saying, “We’ll never again debate the ethics of livestock practices on voter ballots or referendums This is not a public matter. Case closed.” And I strongly disagree with that approach.
I have no problems protecting farmers from harassment. However, the purpose of the Ohio State Constitution is to set up the government and protect the rights of individuals. It should never be used to protect any special interest groups, farmers included. I will be voting against Issue 2 and I encourage everyone else to vote against it. If the farmers want protection, lobby the state legislature for it.
Are there any libertarian or pro-constitution groups that have come out against Issue 2 in Ohio? Seems a nice, juicy target for them.
The Ohio Constitution is set up to protect Ohio citizens rights, safety, and well being. There is no greater issue than food that effects all of us. We should all have the choice to purchase the food that we feel is best suited for our families, whether that be from a small or large farmer, its a personal choice. To limit a person on a limited income from purchasing food that was produced in a safe, cheap affordable humane way would be a social injustice to Ohio citizens.
To all Ohioans, please join me in supporting all farmers in Ohio by voting for a board that will use research and facts to determine what we consider inhumane pratices in Ohio.
A vote Yes is a vote for farmers and consumer choice!
Thanks,
Mike Haley-5th generation Ohio family farmer
You’re speeding past the issue of whether Ohioans have the right to debate the ethics of how meat is produced in your state. If you don’t think they have that right, that’s fine, Mike. But that’s the first question to answer beforeyou start talking about cost.
El Dragon,
Right now they do have the choice. Issue 2 is designed to protect that choice. This board of veterinarians, food safety experts, farmers, consumers, and a humane society representative is designed to look at research and facts about the well being of farm animals. HSUS has successfully passed legislation in other states that are based purely on emotion, even Pacelle said that the only research they do before they campaigned in those states was public perception. While emotion is important, we must make sure any reform we make is what is really best for our flocks and herds.
HSUS has made it clear that they will pursue an emotional ballot initiative next year that will restrict how we raise our food, as I said before a social injustice for those that chose to buy cheap affordable food that was raised in a humane matter.
Neither I or most farmers condone abuse, it is not nor should not be accepted!
This board will be just like the numerous other boards in this state that are subject to all sunshine laws. To say that the public will not get a chance to voice its views in front of this board is a weak argument. I have talked to several of my legislators about how this board will operate, and I find it funny that all the arguments against it are completely opposite of what will happen if issue 2 passes.
Mike
Mike said: This board will be just like the numerous other boards in this state that are subject to all sunshine laws. To say that the public will not get a chance to voice its views in front of this board is a weak argument.”
None of that is described in the actual language of Issue 2. There are no stipulations placed on the Livestock Board’s power. No mention of public hearings or referendums. Either your legislators are lying to you or they didn’t read the proposed amendment to their state’s constitution. If the point is to head off HSUS’s emotionalism and pandering, then this amendment does exactly that…by ending the debate before it begins.
El Dragon said: If the point is to head off HSUS’s emotionalism and pandering, then this amendment does exactly that…by ending the debate before it begins
You are misinformed, this board in no way prohibits HSUS from bringing information to the board. More than that it also does not prohibit HSUS from a ballot initiative next year (you can learn about this on HSUS’s own website if you wish). I think you should read more of Ohios constitution and ORC to learn more about the laws that govern the boards that are established in this state, then you will fully understand were I am coming from on this.
End of debate, by no means, its only the beginning.
I’m reading the very document you sent me, Mike: The language of the amendment itself. I’m also reading commentary about the Livestock Board in your state’s two biggest papers; there seems to be no disagreement that the Board will be beholden to no one but the governor. If making the Board’s power absolute were not the very goal of Issue 2, it would have been a bill, not a constitutional amendment. You are the one who is minformed, sir.
As for HSUS bringing it up next year, yes, they probably will. But,necessarily, it will be on the battleground of your state’s constituition, instead of in the legislature where democratic debate belongs.
I need not argue with you about the power of the board, but I would point out two points in the legislation 1 – the 10 members that the governor appoints must be appointed and 2. paragraph b states that the decisions made by this board are subject to the general assembly, not the governor.
Well now that this has passed we will just have to see how it all works out. I am confident that adequate public input will be provided. I also hope that HSUS brings there concerns to this board, we will see if they do that or just go straight for a constitutional amendment to give rights to animals as they have in Arizona and California. I
The goal of this board is to bring animal welfare issues to the forefront of discussion to be looked at in a factual based way. The way they should be.
While I hold that there’s no real check on the Board’s power as described in the legislation, I think you’re right, Mike, that we will just have to see how it plays out.
For those of you listening in on this conversation, Mike sent me a link to a YouTube video made by Waybe Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. In it, Pacelle says that HSUS is pressing forward with a statewide ballot initiative. Mike wanted to know if I still thought that the HSUS couldn’t bring a ballot initiative up in Ohio, after listening to Pacelle speak.
Before I answer you, Mike I just want to back up.
The real question, at this point, is what will the reach of the Livestock Board’s power actually be? I honestly don’t know but by my read of Issue 2, the Board’s power is designed to prevent the HSUS, and any non-expert Ohio citizens for that matter, from having say over the Board with a state ballot initiative (the standards are subject to the legislature, as you say, but not to voters by ballot). By amending the Ohio constitution in order to create this Board, rather than simply passing a law in the legislature, this Board has a final trump card that ordinary citizens and the HSUS don’t have: The consitution. Undoing the Board’s power would take another constitutional amendment like this one, if there was a serious enough disagreement.
And that serious disagreement is coming, according to Pacelle and the HSUS.
So I guess I stand by what I said upthread. If HSUS wanted to debate livestock practices with the now legally recognized Board, they would wait until it was formed and submit their request to have confinement crates and battery cages banned by the state’s experts. But they aren’t doing that. I read this as the HSUS taking the issue to the people with a ballot, and avoiding the Board altogether in order to force another constitutional amendment to undo the Board’s power.
And to me, that’s why Issue 2 should have been avoided altogether. Now the fight is on the precious ground of Ohio’s constitution and that’s an inappropriate place to have an ugly battle about farming practices.
You do realize that the ballot initiatives in Florida, Arizona, and California were all to amend their state constitutions? In order to place it in the Revised Code it would have to go through the state legislature, HSUS has tried that in Illinois, and North Carolina unsuccessfully. Therefore no matter what happened, unless agriculture groups would agree to HSUS demands beforehand, it would have been a constitutional amendment.
Mike
No I didn’t know that, Mike. You don’t happen to have a link? Not that I can’t Google.
That information doesn’t convince me that changing a state’s constitution is the right thing to do. For either side. But it certainly does change my understanding of agribusiness’s tactics in Ohio.
I’ll do some research today. This raises a couple questions in my mind. Thanks, Mike.
This has been a great conversation for me, Mike. Thanks for hanging in there and talking to me.
So I guess I’m growing to understand why this debate is happening at the constitutional level (even though I don’t believe that it belongs there). I did some more reading and, yes, HSUS and its followers obviously believe that these livestock management practices are unethical, and that such ethical questions should be decided at the constitutional level, where we do build a moral and just society (it’s where we delineate who can vote, the abolition of slavery, placing parameters on child labor, etc). I’m not saying HSUS’s position is right. I’m saying that’s why one could argue that animal protection laws belong in the constitution and as referendums before The People.
So I get why Ohio Farm Bureau made this a constitutional fight. They had to. I suppose you and the Farm Bureau might even agree with HSUS that livestock safety/care really is a constitutional matter. (Either way, I got to hand it to Ohio Farm Bureau on a purely strategic level for pulling off Issue 2. HSUS telegraphed their shot with that meeting back in February, agribusiness saw where this was headed, what battleground the war would be fought upon, and then took that ground in bold, hard fashion. Gotta admire the no-prisoners political maneuver.)
But at the end of the day, I think this state-be-state battle between agribusiness and HSUS is irrelevent and even performs a disservice to farmers. I don’t like HSUS’s scare tactics, I don’t like the images of abused animals shoved in everyone’s faces, and smearing all farmers with that b.s. I think HSUS ultimately, like so many non-profits, have their own coffers in mind by making this such a stark, good-versus-evil debate, and I don’t dig that. But simultaneously, the Farm Bureau isn’t doing farmers any favors if they allocate so many resources to fights like this that will be decided in the free market anyway. A livestock board isn’t going to stem the nationwide sea-change of concern about how our meat is produced. Consumers are speaking with their dollars, and Wendy’s and McDonald’s are listening, as the fellow from Michigan said in the above blog post. Rather than fighting to create tribunals that shield farmers from changing their practices, the Farm Bureau would do better to figure out how to transit Ohio’s current livestock system into one that takes advantage of a market place that values a different set of practices.
But that’s beside the point for now. Y’all in Ohio are going to have a long-winded battle with HSUS anyway, and I don’t envy anyone with televison in your state. But for the sake of Minnesota, I’ll be watching Ohio to see how this plays out.
It would be nice if the free market system would work, and if it were not for special interest groups on both sides then it would have a chance. As far as a constitutional battle, I think we can both agree its were we ended up, right or wrong is up to the interpretation of the propose of Ohio’s constitution.
First I would like for you to think about why farmers of all sizes use the practices that they do. Sometime around the 1980′s meat producers margins began to shrink, perhaps due to a larger supply due to new production practices that were becoming more accepted. For the farmer that only had a handful of animals he was forced to get bigger or find a specialty market. Unfortunately times were different then, there was not as many consumers that cared about were their food came from, it was hard for a small livestock farmer to find his niche and if they decided not to increase their numbers most of the time they ended up selling their livestock as it was no longer profitable.
Back to today, the new interest growing in were people get their food presents a huge opportunity for individuals looking to start a farm, or even farms that are struggling and looking for a niche. To say that all current farms should adapt would be an unfair approach to those that are already producing food for this growing market segment. I truly believe that there will always be a marketplace for both large and small farmers, but to make the large producers grow their products the same way some of the smaller producers are would put a small farmer out of business in a second.
I always forget to sign my name, would it be to much to ask for you to add google sign in? guess I could always create an account on your site.
Mike
http://www.youtube.com/user/OhioLibertyCouncil#p/u/33/bFOpdJJwysM
Issue 2 in no way stops the HSUS from a ballot innitiative next year, it does allow them to bring facts before the board before hand though.
Who does the Livestock Board answer to?
Congrats on the win, Mike.
I just want to be clear about one thing — the second part of your statement is true, not the first. HSUS and Ohio citizens really can’t bring up ballot measures about livestock practices now that Issue 2 has passed. That democratic action is a dead end, now that a Livestock Board has final say. That’s what I mean by stifling debate — every day Ohioans concerned about ag practices now have no opening for a say in such matters.