Bio
I'm a mom, a wife, and a fledgling internet retailer. As a navy spouse, I've made friends all over the country. Through blogging, I've made friends al...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Choice for Chickens? How California's Prop 2 is a little (a tiny bit) like the pro-life movement

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 4
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Here in California, there is a proposition on the ballot that could change the way laying hens, pigs, and calves are treated. Proposition 2 would require farms to "allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs."

Tuesday's Oprah episode was about the farming of these animals. Lisa Ling took cameras to both convential and cage-free chicken farms, as well as showed some pig farms and calves being raised for veal.

The conditions in the conventional farms wwould surprise most consumers, I think. The hens are kept 5 or 6 to a cage, stacked five or more rows high. The chicken are thin and white, or they would be white if they weren't covered in chichen waste all the time. They never see the light of day. they spend their entire life in the crowded little cage, and the farm's stench is overwhelming.

Contrasting this was a cage-free farm, where the fat, colorful chickens are housed in one big open coop, and then let outside for much of the day to roam free, eat, and spread their wings. They all go back to their coop, on their own, when the sun goes down.

I'd bet most of us would like to think this is where our eggs and chickens come from. But this farm only produces 900 eggs per day. The conventional chicken farm produces 80 times that amount each day. And the difference shows up in the price of the dozen eggs we buy at the store.

They show some filthy and inhumane conditions for calves and pigs too, but a representative from Californians for Safe Food says that there aren't many of those farms in California, but that California's huge egg industry would be wiped out. She says farmers can't afford to refit their farms, and don't even have the space for housing the prop would require. The cost of farming that way would drive the cost of eggs up so high, retailers and consumers would buy cheaper eggs from Mexico, or even as far away as China.

Now that does scare me. I really do try to buy local, and all the eggs I buy are produced in California. Not only to save on gas and trucking, and because the more local the more fresh, but also because I don't trust the standards of food from Asia or Central America.

But the chickens!

Read the rest of this post at Small Things

  • 4
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
shesautomatic 5 pts

If eggs are expensive (and they are) why not replace them with cheaper, higher quality sources of protein? For example, tofu has a higher protein content, is much cheaper (.99 for 12 oz, while a 24 oz carton of eggs goes for around $3.00), and lower in saturated fat. You can do almost anything to tofu you can do to an egg, including bake with it and scramble it. It's now readily available in almost all grocery stores. 

As for chickens being 'on the level' of a human fetus, I think if we look at the things that are generally considered to comprise a 'person', we would see that adult chickens fulfill more criteria than a fetus does. They are sentient (capable of feeling pain), reasoning, self-determined, self-aware and capable of communication, which are considered to be five out of five criteria generally used to conceptualize a 'person' without looking to religion or arbitrary (genetic) criteria. 

The relationship between woman and fetus is different from the one between farmer and chicken. Fetus use the woman's body to sustain life, while farmers use the chickens bodies and lives for profit. The fetus cannot exist without the woman, while the chickens would probably be better off existing without the farmer. In some cases, the woman may have chosen her relationship with the fetus, but the farmer always chooses to enter into a relationship with the chickens. That's not to say there aren't some similarities; both the fetus and the chickens are considered property, and as such have no rights under the law. Neither the chickens nor the fetus have any say in what happens to them. 

I agree that giving the farmers monetary support to treat their chicken's better is a fantastic plan, but that money has to come from somewhere as well. Why not combine legislation with incentives? No one is forcing them to treat the chickens inhumanely right now. They have the option to choose to do something else right now, but many don't because it's hard, if not impossible. I think a big part of this legislation will be forcing the big conglomerates to respect individual farmer's choices to be compassionate, because right now it's the giant companies that have structured the market in such a way that it's impossible for a farmer to maintain his contracts and still treat the chickens like they're more than objects. 

The truth is that we legislate morality constantly. We have laws against rape and murder, and indecent exposure and public drunkenness. We have laws against abusing our children and spouses. We even have laws attempting to protect 'food' animals against 'unnecessary suffering'. What are those except legislating morality?

MrsWsKitchen 5 pts

I know so many people who are going hungry.  Middle-class people are going hungry in my neighborhood.  We're having to make some serious choices about what food to buy, even when it does not coincide with the ethical choices we'd make if food prices weren't so darned high.

I used to buy free-range eggs exclusively.  I've had to switch to the cheap ones, and I cringe every time I crack one open.  It was the last place I cut--every other budget issue was addressed before this one.

I would LOVE to see more attention to subsidizing the everyday farmer.  Subsidies--yes!  More realistic measures--yes!  I communicate with many local farmers and understand that the requirements for becoming certified organic or cage-free are often cost-prohibitive, so they don't do it.  But I can visit, see how their animals are treated, and decide whether or not to buy direct from them if I like how their small family farm is run.  THAT's the true spirit of supporting the local farmer and encouraging more ethical treatment of the animals that become our food.

Amanda
Mrs.W's Kitchen ( http://mrswskitchen.blogspot.com )

Kpvega 5 pts

It really does boil down to (hard-boils?) an individual's interpretation of the least of us. Oprah said the least of "beings" which is more inclusive than "us."

 I could never say a fetus is on the level of a chicken. I believe all human life is sacred, and it would have to be pretty miraculous chicken for me to call it sacred. But still, we do have a responsibility to respect animal life as well.

The parallel I see between chicken farming and abortion is the matter of legislating morality. Legislating respect for life. The use of the word choice on Oprah really made it impossible to ignore the analogy. If you oppose conventional chicken farming, you can choose not to buy those eggs. Should that be the end of it?

If we really believe the practice so wrong to the chickens, shouldn't we act to protect them? As pro-lifers would protect unborn life, despite the very real hardships to women with crisis pregnancies. I'm not being flip, I think the analogy clarifies the dilemma.

And then the part about social change, about support and resources for chicken farmer, parallels the support we need for pregnant women. Legislation aside, women in crisis need more help if pro-lifers want them to keep their babies.

Do we ignore the inhumane treatment of chickens just to keep eggs "safe and legal?"

The part about a comedy sketch of clay-mation chickens quoting Martin Luther King, well, that just makes me chuckle. ;-)

Thanks for clicking through to finish reading my post! I really meant it when I said, "But the chickens!" I for one will spend more for cage-free.

Kristi Vega BabyPhilosophy.com -- diapers, slings, & babythings

Heather Clisby 5 pts

I replied earlier without reading the entire post - my bad. Still, your theory here holds water here for me - and I am vehemently pro-choice. Which means it scares the crap out of me ... which means well done here.

So, in this theory, an unborn fetus is on the level with a chicken? I don't see why not. But then, if we accept that mankind equal to all animals (which I do), this changes ... um, just about EVERYTHING. Modern society would have to accept all kinds of uncomfortable truths, especially when it comes to any use of an animal, now akin to human slavery. 

Anyway, this is a great point too. I keep going back to that phrase "the least of us." An individual's interpretation of that seems to be at the core of this issue. In any case, if we don't change things soon, mankind is about to get some bad karmic lessons. 

~ClizBiz

BlogHer Contributing Editor, Animal Concerns, Proprietor, ClizBiz ( http://www.clizbiz.blogspot.com/ )