toledoblade.com --

ON NOV. 3, Ohio residents will vote on a constitutional amendment that would create the Ohio Livestock Care and Standards Board "… to prescribe standards for animal care and well-being that endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally grown and raised food and protect Ohio farms and families."

While this seems like an innocuous and even noble proposal, it is in reality a thinly veiled pre-emptive strike aimed at stopping real reform of our state's agricultural practices.

Issue 2 raises many questions. First, why do we need a constitutional amendment to ensure appropriate oversight of livestock management? Why is the Ohio Farm Bureau pushing for this ballot initiative now? And how was Issue 2 placed on the ballot by the Ohio legislature after only two days of debate - an amazingly quick action by our elected officials in Columbus? To those familiar with the history of this initiative, the answers to these questions are obvious; to those unfamiliar with Issue 2's history, the answers are eye opening.

Issue 2 was proposed to prevent the passage of real, substantive reform of farm practices in Ohio.

The Ohio Farm Bureau used its considerable influence in Columbus to push it through the legislature after learning that a coalition of animal advocates was considering a ballot measure that would allow farm animals the simple freedom to move - that is, stand up, lie down, stretch, and turn around - by phasing out battery cages for chickens, gestation crates for hogs, and veal crates for calves.

Also, passing a constitutional amendment rather than simply enacting new laws makes any future efforts to change agricultural standards and practices much more difficult.

Battery cages, a common method used on large factory farms, keep chickens confined for their entire lives in a cage where each hen has space smaller than a single sheet of standard office paper. Gestation crates confine pregnant pigs in two-foot-wide cages which only allow them to stand motionless or lie down. Veal calves are kept chained in crates too small to allow them to take more than a single step.

While these practices may be efficient ways to raise meat and eggs as cheaply as possible, it is hard to argue that cages that do not let a bird spread her wings or allow a hog or calf the opportunity to turn around are anything but obvious animal cruelty.

Agribusiness insiders argue that nobody is better qualified to oversee livestock production than those who work in the industry. We have all seen how effective that type of self-oversight was for the U.S. banking and insurance industries.

Many agriculture organizations, including the family-farm friendly Ohio Farmers Union, Ohio League of Women Voters, Food and Water Watch, and the Center for Food Safety, oppose Issue 2.

Animal welfare and protection groups like the Capital Area Humane Society in Columbus and the Cleveland Animal Protective League have joined the Toledo Area Humane Society in opposing Issue 2.

Ohio's laws protecting animals are notoriously weak. Ohio is one of the nation's top states for puppy mills because of a lack of effective legislation.

We are one of only 11 states where cockfighting is a misdemeanor rather than a felony, and most other animal cruelty cases in Ohio are also prosecuted as misdemeanors.

Repeated attempts at state regulation of ownership of dangerous exotic animals like tigers, bears, and poisonous snakes have also failed.

It's time for Ohio voters to tell our elected officials that we care about the welfare of animals, including those raised for food.

Defeating Issue 2 and allowing for meaningful reform of farm practices like those enacted in Michigan, California, and Colorado is an important first step.

On Nov. 3, vote no on Issue 2.

John Dinon is executive director of the Toledo Area Humane Society. He has a bachelor's degree in dairy science from Michigan State University and is a lifelong meat eater.

Permanent Link