Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics

Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board

[1368 posts] [65 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: 1)
Rate this topic:

Started 2 years ago by Mercurius
Latest reply from Red Sun Rising

Tags:

12…69 Next »

Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM

I plan to vote no on issue two which would create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board. This amendment was written by agribusiness to prevent certain animal care reforms proposed by The Humane Society of the United States. Linked here is the language of the amendment.

The Board would be composed of a majority of members interested in maintaining the status quo of animal treatment on feedlots and factory farms. The name of this board is nothing but manipulative jargon pulled out of the Karl Rove playbook. It is meant solely to conjure a positive emotive meaning to garnish votes, when in fact, it just continues the status quo. I personally am looking forward to real reform but I'd be interested to hear what you think.

Read More
The Looming Battle
Some background

Posted 2 years ago #
pez

Login to Send PM

Does anyone know whether a 'yes' or 'no' vote will raise meat prices? I'm still reeling over the increases from a couple years ago.

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

Aw hell.

Thanks, Merc. I hadn't had time to dig into this... but when I tallied the members of this proposed board and did the math, I was afraid that it was something like this.

Posted 2 years ago #
Anne
King Lincoln
Login to Send PM

I think there is an awful lot of propaganda out there from 'animal lovers' and this could be a way to help combat that. Not all modern agriculture is evil to animals. And factory farms do have to comply with many regulations. I think this board could take steps to make sure consumers in Ohio have good information. I do think the board should contain some representatives from the Humane Society so they also have a voice on it. (Looks like it will have one. From a local humane society chapter.) The HSUS and OFBF did have a discussion on Open Line. I haven't had a chance to listen to it, but they are talking.

However, I'm not sure what this board would truly accomplish. Better PR? But things like the EPA suddenly deciding (although it does not seem like it will pass) that dairy farmers (and hog farmers and others as well) need to pay something like $125 per cow per year for methane gas offsets is BS. I don't think putting smaller farmers out of business is a good result of regulation.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Ummm.. is the frontline link supposed to go to something on clean water? Not that it's not an important subject, but it's not factory farms.

pez, this link from Mercurius' post, there's this:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“They clearly stated they want to do away with animal agriculture and large-scale farming, which is how we produce food now for efficiency. If they get their ways, food prices will go up and weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll have to import meat and eggs from other states or countries,Ã¢â‚¬Â Isler said.

That's from the vice president of the Ohio pork producers council. Might be a bit biased but that speaks directly to your question.

From the yes on 2 there's this:

Why the Board is Necessary
Out-of-state activist groups have signaled they would like to bring an initiative to Ohio that would set rigid, inflexible and impractical rules for how livestock and poultry are housed. This would lead to higher costs for consumers, put food safety at risk, increase the amount of food imported to Ohio, cause thousands of farmers to go out of business, and endanger the overall health and well-being of OhioÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s flocks and herds.

OhioÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s agriculture community believes the best regulations for animal care will be achieved when all interested parties join together to develop a framework that is both effective and practical for consumers and for farmers. The Board is the right approach to reach that goal.

In five minutes of googling I didn't see a specific list of reforms the humane society proposes; probably out there somewhere but didn't see it right off. The press release cited above might indicate a lower density housing of animals; if so, that's a reduced supply of meat which would indicate higher prices.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>
In five minutes of googling I didn't see a specific list of reforms the humane society proposes; probably out there somewhere but didn't see it right off. The press release cited above might indicate a lower density housing of animals; if so, that's a reduced supply of meat which would indicate higher prices.

That is mostly right but I also believe a majority of Ohioans would vote to abolish inhumane practices (as they did in California, Arizona and Florida) if that came up for a vote. I believe this is intended to thwart reform that othewise would be supported by a majority of Ohioans.

The Frontline link was more related to unsustainable farming practices correlated to animal density leading to water pollution. It was a bit tangential, so I removed it.

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

pez wrote >>
Does anyone know whether a 'yes' or 'no' vote will raise meat prices? I'm still reeling over the increases from a couple years ago.

Actually, there's a good Time magazine article out that makes a nice case that industrial food isn't particularly cheap -- it just involves lots of hidden costs. An argument that's made the rounds, admittedly, but it's well put. (And it doesn't seem to have sunk in yet.)

Posted 2 years ago #
Anne
King Lincoln
Login to Send PM

Bear wrote >>

pez wrote >>
Does anyone know whether a 'yes' or 'no' vote will raise meat prices? I'm still reeling over the increases from a couple years ago.

Actually, there's a good Time magazine article out that makes a nice case that industrial food isn't particularly cheap -- it just involves lots of hidden costs. An argument that's made the rounds, admittedly, but it's well put. (And it doesn't seem to have sunk in yet.)

Some are arguing that article was not a very good representation of objective journalism; rather an opinion piece posed as news.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rocknrolloutlaws
German Village
Login to Send PM

I'm with Merc on this one. This is a clear attempt to preempt any move to change or otherwise improve the quality of care for livestock in Ohio.

Agribusiness has a pretty terrible record in the state (Buckeye Egg anyone?) and if this passes, it will give them an even stronger hand. Whether one thinks that Ohio should follow California, Florida etc or not, Issue 2 is bad news. It will entrench the established order and power brokers to such a degree that it could make any future reform, even moderate reform, impossible.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM

Anne wrote >>
I think there is an awful lot of propaganda out there from 'animal lovers' and this could be a way to help combat that. Not all modern agriculture is evil to animals.
I certainly agree but in this case, the HSUS was proposing to only prohibit the confinement of certain farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. I don't see them as an extreme group like PETA.

Anne wrote >> But things like the EPA suddenly deciding (although it does not seem like it will pass) that dairy farmers (and hog farmers and others as well) need to pay something like $125 per cow per year for methane gas offsets is BS. I don't think putting smaller farmers out of business is a good result of regulation.
Agriculture is the largest producer of greenhouse gases. The largest sector in agriculture is livestock production. While I agree with you that it should be implemented very gradually and incrementally to allow the market to adjust, there is currently an externality in the market that needs to be considered.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

When people say "reform" in this particular case, what are they advocating?

In those places where similar changes have been made, what's been the effect on food prices, quality of food, or other metrics related to the product? Have smaller farms shut down as a result of these changes?

As to the legislation, I got an authorization screen for the text, but found this from the state legislature.

The text indicates a variety of backgrounds, but a humane society representative is listed as a required member ( item 2h ) along with veterinarians, food safety specialists and farmers.

What more does the humane society want? Guess I'm asking what changes they want to make that they think this legislation would prevent.

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>
What more does the humane society want?

I think the concern is that there is a movement afoot to improve the conditions under which livestock are kept when they are raised, for a variety of reasons -- not all of them humane: environmental and health reasons are often offered -- and that conventional farm interests have concluded that, if left to its own devices, that movement will eventually bear fruit in Ohio. They have therefore decided to attempt to short-circuit that process by introducing a board, the composition of which is incorporated into the Ohio Constitution, with majority representation set in favor of conventional agricultural interests, that will have a mandate to oversee livestock care.

If that is, in fact, the case, a single member of the Humane Society on that board wouldn't be able to do very much except vote in the minority, again and again and again -- and be used by conventional agriculture to say "See? The Humane Society has a voice in setting animal care standards in the state."

Posted 2 years ago #
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>
When people say "reform" in this particular case, what are they advocating?
In those places where similar changes have been made, what's been the effect on food prices, quality of food, or other metrics related to the product? Have smaller farms shut down as a result of these changes?
As to the legislation, I got an authorization screen for the text, but found this from the state legislature.
The text indicates a variety of backgrounds, but a humane society representative is listed as a required member ( item 2h ) along with veterinarians, food safety specialists and farmers.
What more does the humane society want? Guess I'm asking what changes they want to make that they think this legislation would prevent.

The Open Line link that Anne provided actually gives a good overview of what the HSUS is looking for. Thanks Anne.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Well, in the case of environmental or health reasons surely if the reasons are valid more than just the humane society would be concerned?

Here's the full composition from the legislature:

Section 1. (A) There is hereby created the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board for the purpose of establishing standards governing the care and well-being of livestock and poultry in this state. In carrying out its purpose, the Board shall endeavor to maintain food safety, encourage locally grown and raised food, and protect Ohio farms and families. The Board shall be comprised of the following thirteen members:

(1) The director of the state department that regulates agriculture who shall be the chairperson of the Board;

(2) Ten members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The ten members appointed by the Governor shall be residents of this state and shall include the following:

(a) One member representing family farms;

(b) One member who is knowledgeable about food safety in this state;

(c) Two members representing statewide organizations that represent farmers;

(d) One member who is a veterinarian who is licensed in this state;

(e) The State Veterinarian in the state department that regulates agriculture;

(f) The dean of the agriculture department of a college or university located in this state;

(g) Two members of the public representing Ohio consumers;

(h) One member representing a county humane society that is organized under state law.

(3) One member appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall be a family farmer;

(4) One member appointed by the President of the Senate who shall be a family farmer.

Not more than seven members appointed to the Board at any given time shall be of the same political party.

Doesn't strike me as particularly biased...

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

Anne wrote >>
Some are arguing that article was not a very good representation of objective journalism; rather an opinion piece posed as news.

I've seen a fair number of these counterarguments, and a strikingly high percentage of them come from farm bureaus or conventional farmers. I'll grant that, often, the people who do something for a living are best positioned to know a lot about it -- but they're also in just about the worst position to claim that they're being objective. So I've tried to sift through the objections in search of concrete arguments, and while they're not completely absent, they're hard to find -- and when I do find them, the objections are often as questionable on factual grounds as the original article. (Example: Time claims that cheap calories, fueled by subsidized corn, lead to obesity, diabetes, etc.; the author of the piece I just linked to counters that they're the result of diet, genetics, and exercise. Well, arguably the answer is, both sides are right -- but that's not a very popular answer, because farm bureaus don't want to give up corn subsidies and Time readers don't want to exercise.)

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>
Doesn't strike me as particularly biased...

Right, but the wording makes it hard to parse. (Opponents would probably say, intentionally so.) A substantial percentage of industrial farm production actually takes place on family-owned farms, for example, and my guess is that industrial family-owned farms outnumber organic or sustainable ones by an overwhelming margin.

A prior question is, why is this going in the Constitution?

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Mercurius wrote >>

The Open Line link that Anne provided actually gives a good overview of what the HSUS is looking for. Thanks Anne.

Nice. Just downloaded it. Have to find an hour to listen to it.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mercurius
First Avenue
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>
Doesn't strike me as particularly biased...
Once you really delve past the superficial and disingenuous language put up by the farm bureau and understand the players, you will see this creates a 7-6 majority for agribusiness. I implore you to give the Open Line a listen and actually participate in the debate as more than your usual shallow contrarian self.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Bear wrote >>

A prior question is, why is this going in the Constitution?

Yeah, it seems a number of laws show up as constitutional amendments. Odd. Didn't the smoking ban ( or an attempt to prevent the smoking ban ) show up that way?

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Mercurius wrote >>

rus wrote >>
Doesn't strike me as particularly biased...

Once you really delve past the superficial and disingenuous language put up by the farm bureau and understand the players, you will see this creates a 7-6 majority for agribusiness. I implore you to give the Open Line a listen and actually participate in the debate as more than your usual shallow contrarian self.

If I was simply shallow and contrarian, you'd have just convinced me to vote for this issue.

How do you get a 7-6 majority for agribusiness? A quick count shows 8-5 not directly related to farmers or farmers groups. I counted them like this, where A = agribusiness and O = other.

O (1) The director of the state department that regulates agriculture who shall be the chairperson of the Board;

(2) Ten members appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate. The ten members appointed by the Governor shall be residents of this state and shall include the following:

A (a) One member representing family farms;

O (b) One member who is knowledgeable about food safety in this state;

AA (c) Two members representing statewide organizations that represent farmers;

O (d) One member who is a veterinarian who is licensed in this state;

O (e) The State Veterinarian in the state department that regulates agriculture;

O (f) The dean of the agriculture department of a college or university located in this state;

OO (g) Two members of the public representing Ohio consumers;

O (h) One member representing a county humane society that is organized under state law.

A (3) One member appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall be a family farmer;

A (4) One member appointed by the President of the Senate who shall be a family farmer.

Posted 2 years ago #