 |
by Laurel Hopwood
 Did you know? Most animals on your dinner plate are raised in
extremely small crates or cages where they can barely move around.
Big agribusiness wants to keep it this way through political maneuvering
and streamlined action through the Ohio General Assembly. As a
result, Ohio voters will consider a proposed constitutional amendment
on the Nov. 3rd ballot that would create an industry-dominated
board to develop and enforce guidelines for the care and shelter
of livestock and poultry.
Although it sounds good on paper, unfortunately, it isn't for the
following reasons:
- An industry-dominated board would oversee the treatment of
livestock in animal factories.
- The action was taken with limited debate.
- The big issue is that this action thwarts efforts to bring
about significant change in Ohio.
- Also, the Ohio Constitution is an inappropriate place to conduct
business.
The Ohio Sierra Club opposes this big agribusiness power grab.
Sierra Club has endorsed the efforts of the Humane Society of
the United States to get laws passed in six states (California,
Colorado, Florida, Arizona, Maine and Oregon), which ensure reform
on industrialized animal factories.
Here's what a 6/6/09 Plain Dealer editorial had to say...
"The
General Assembly's rush to add a livestock standards amendment
to the Ohio Constitution is as unseemly as it is questionable.
Someone at the Statehouse needs to be an adult ... The proposed
amendment is a classic Statehouse pre-emption. Agribusiness
lobbies fear that the Humane Society of the United States may
in 2010 initiate
by voter petition a law or constitutional amendment on farm
animal care ... No sooner did the livestock measure surface than
Gov.
Ted Strickland irresponsibly endorsed it. There seems to be
more going on here than meets the eye -- but more than enough
that meets
the nose. The amendment and the 'process' that produced it
invite a pungent description. But this is a family newspaper,
so we'll
just call the whole thing hogwash."
A 6/26/09 Columbus Dispatch editorial had this
to say ...
"Don't
use state constitution to set livestock-care rules or other detailed
policies ... Consumer views on how food is raised are evolving
and will continue to do so. That's why government's agricultural
policies should be set by statute, where they can be debated
and changed relatively easily through the normal legislative
process.
Changing the constitution requires a statewide vote of the people,
making it an unwieldy tool for day-to-day regulation."
It's expected that agribusiness will allocate megabucks for
advertising to get this measure passed. Activists are needed
to counter the
slanted information. To help, please contact me, Laurel
Hopwood.
|
|
