Proposition 2

Opponents of Proposition 2, that would mandate living standards for food animals, include a number of factory-farm chicken producers, a chemical company, and me.

Even though I would like it if the animals that become our food, including laying chickens, meat chickens, pigs, cattle (includng calves for veal) and dairy cows, could be raised in roomy conditions that minimally allow them to stand, turn around and stretch, legislating this is not the right way to make it happen.

I support our local producers of organic free-range chickens and grass-fed (and grass-finished) beef by buying it whenever I can. I appreciate what they're doing, and I wish all meat could be raised this way.

I know that the conditions under which meat and laying chickens usually live are not ideal. They are indeed confined in metal pens and no, they don't have room to stand, turn around or stretch.

All of us who bite into a juicy roast chicken or scramble an egg are complicit in their suffering.

At the same time, a factory-raised animal probably meets a quicker and less painful death than a family farm animal. Just ask somebody who has lived on a farm. Ask them how the chicken actually got from barnyard to their dinner table.

And of course, modern production methods are in part accountable for the low food cost and high standard of living we enjoy in this country.

While the choice is not necessarily this simple, I will choose human prosperity and well-being over animal comfort.

Legislating the conditions under which our food animals are raised is likely to have unintended consequences, such as forcing small producers out of business, moving large producers out of state, taking their jobs with them, and raising the cost of a staple of the current American diet.

Unfortunately, a lot of the claims of the opposition to Proposition 2 are bogus. Birds would not in fact be required to have access to the outdoors, they would only be required to have more roomy cages. So the opposition claim that the birds would be more vulnerable to infection with bird flu by migratory birds doesn't hold up.

Neither does the claim that they would be more subject to salmonella, which can be transmitted to humans. Salmonella is likely to arise in confined quarters, and the new regulation would not likely make much difference. Humans can protect themselves from it by using correct preparation techniques.

It's too bad the opposition can't just stick to the facts, because the public are capable of understanding the truth: more humane conditions for food animals are a good idea, but should not be legislated. We should be allowed to choose how our food is grown, by buying what we want and can afford, and let the workings of the free market decide in the long run.

(And by the way, the supposedly unregulated banking industry whose running amok has caused so much damage is not an example of the free market.)