Skip Nav
Food Video
Microwave Mug Pumpkin Pie in 3 Minutes
Food Video
The Truth Behind Costco’s $5 Rotisserie Chicken
Giada De Laurentiis
Giada De Laurentiis Reveals the 1 Surprising Ingredient She Adds to Pasta

Animal Rights Proposition Passes in California

Yesterday, California passed the most far-reaching farm animal treatment measure to ever be placed on the ballot.

Proposition 2 passed with an estimated 62 percent of the vote in early returns and will affect 20 million farm animals in California, America's largest agricultural state. It requires farmers to give animals space to turn around, spread their wings, stand up, and lie down.

This ballot measure, which was sponsored by the Humane Society of America, goes into effect in 2015 and will entail, among other things, phasing out gestation crates for breeding pigs and veal cages for calves. Opponents, however, fear that the measure will actually bolster the market for cheaper, out-of-state agriculture where farmers aren't under the same regulations.

Did you vote on this measure? How do you feel about this animal rights victory? Do you think it sets an example for other states?


Around The Web
Join The Conversation
epskionline epskionline 7 years
This is not an animal RIGHTS proposition. It is a WELFARE proposition. They are two very different things. Welfare reinforces the property status of animals, whereas rights remove the property status of animals (property cannot have rights). Please, please, please help prevent this conflation from continuing. It's in the best interests of everyone if we define this issue properly.
CaterpillarGirl CaterpillarGirl 7 years
I hope they dont ban Foie Gras, its too yummy to go away.
PiNkY-PiNk PiNkY-PiNk 7 years
I voted yes!
foxie foxie 7 years
Considering that HSUS employs tons of animal psychologists, vets, and specialists, I'd certainly be prone to trust their judgement as to what is best for chickens. Comparing my belief ALF to my belief in laws in general doesn't make sense. I believe in laws, but I also believe that some laws are worth breaking and worth facing the consequences for. I'm vegan, but my family and my husband eat eggs. My neighbors and friends eat eggs. The vast majority of the country eats eggs. Of course I care about egg prices. You haven't given a single real reason why the people of California should have voted this proposition down. You've still only given stretched hypotheticals and random paranoia.
Poultry-Princess Poultry-Princess 7 years
Foxie, As you can tell, I feel pretty strongly about this law. Perhaps this quote will help you understand. "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent... The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." - Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis People who don't know chicken psychology probably think that chickens are happier in giant flocks, freely walking around with hundreds of other chickens, getting their butts pecked off. As for objectivity on this matter, you've stated that you approve of Animal Rights terrorists because they do what you believe in. Since you just stated that you don't believe laws should be obeyed, why push this one? And if you are truly vegan, what does it matter to you what eggs cost? Was that calculation on the increase of 1 cent per egg based on costs this week, last week, before the stock market crash, before or after the price of oil changed? Take into account international trade on steel? Wood? Coal? Cost of labor? No one is ever really completely objective -- as human beings, we tend to have preconceptions about things. We also have complex brains, able to remember the past and envision the future. And notice that other human beings also have preconceptions.
foxie foxie 7 years
Yes, those poor mice. I'm sure they'd much rather stay in labs, going stir crazy and developing tumors after being injected with toxins. I don't dispute that liberators are thieves or terrorists. They are. I just happen to agree with the things they steal and why they steal them. That, of course, has nothing to do with the subject at hand. I said I was objective as far as what I have to gain or lose by this proposition, and I am. I'm not affiliated with any group, and I'm not a farmer. I've not promoted vegetarianism or anything of that matter anywhere in this thread, so don't act like I'm trying to force everyone to live my lifestyle. I also didn't say you like to keep your animals in filth, I just think it's ridiculous for you to act as if that doesn't happen in farms across the nation. If laws are bent in the future, we should deal with that when it happens. But obviously the solution isn't to not have any laws at all. This proposition will cost LESS than one penny per egg to implement, which is MORE than affordable. It will require living standards that are MORE than reasonable. It's supported by small farmers and health officials across California. So WHAT is so threatening to you about the proposition?
Poultry-Princess Poultry-Princess 7 years
Ah! Foxie! I have checked out your profile and now have another idea of where you are coming from on the issue of Proposition 2. You state that you are a vegan, and among your heroes are "animal liberators." From my point of view, you don't sound very objective. For instance, one person's "animal liberator" is another persons thief, terrorist, or heartless person who turns an innocent white mouse out into the world where it can not fend for itself. How we see things depends a lot on where we are viewing it from. OK, I accept that we have different views on this. I care very deeply about animals. I raise heritage birds and animals to keep the old breeds alive and to raise healthy, wholesome food for myself and others in as natural and kindly a manner as I can. It seems disrespectful of you to label me as being on the side of filth, cruelty or whatever -- just because I question the motives of the organization that wrote Proposition 2. I respect another person's right to eat or not eat what they want, and to believe or not believe as they want. I do object when people force their beliefs down my throat, or make excuses to disrupt my honest work, because my honest work does not fit into their religious belief. If you decide that it is a sin for YOU to eat or use animals, I can accept that, but let's be clear about this -- it is a sin for you in your eyes, and not for me in mine. I should not have to have your beliefs forced on me. If you decide that animals are as important or more important than people, for you, I can accept that; but it would be wrong to require others to bow to your spiritual or religious beliefs. No one is FOR cruelty, filth, and disease. However, senseless laws have been passed and abused in order to give honest, decent and innocent people a hard time. People with an agenda have been known to twist and abuse the law to get their way -- by hook or by crook. Not so long ago, many states and counties had laws to restrict a person's right to vote. The law may have been that a person had to be able to write in order to vote, but may have been interpreted so that if a person made a spelling mistake they could be denied the vote. In one of her books, Maya Angelou wrote about taking a literacy test on applying for a job -- one person was asked to spell the word "cat" and another person was asked to spell something more complicated, and told that they did not pass when in fact they spelled the word correctly. Hmmm. There are already laws on the books that cover animal cruelty -- many of which were carefully thought out by the HSA (NOT the HSUS) so many years ago. If those laws are not ENFORCED, that might explain a lot. In which case the answer is better enforcement, not more laws. I worry that Proposition 2 is not what it appears to be, and really has nothing to do with cruelty or kindness at all.
foxie foxie 7 years
That's not the only source I can find or have read, it's the source I gave you for the exact wording on the proposition. Nice spin though. Do you ALWAYS like to put such a big spin on things? You can't even keep your stance straight. The crates are for the safety of pigs/the crates are evil; the bill will bring down farmers/the bill will make no difference at all; people who support the proposition don't know what's it's about/YOU haven't read the proposition. The ONLY constant is that you seem to be harboring serious disdain for people who dedicate their lives to protecting animals.
NatashaAlexis NatashaAlexis 7 years
yea! I vote yes :)
Poultry-Princess Poultry-Princess 7 years
Foxie, I'm trying to keep this discussion above-board and respectful. No one is arguing that animals be kept in filth. You do not sound like an objective source of information. The only source you could find on proposition 2 was the PRO-proposition site funded by HSUS? How do you figure that you even have objective information? Let's look at some history here. HSUS's board are mainly former PETA (and ALF) employees and board members, who decided to take a softer approach at peddling their propaganda. HSUS is not to be confused with the venerable old HSA which did most of the work in making life better for animals in the USA. Perhaps there is some confusion with "brand names" here. HSUS is good at claiming credit and raking in the money. Or drumming up support for strange laws that are not exactly straight-forward in doing what they are purported to do. Meanwhile the organization gets richer and richer. BTW, I read the actual wording of the law, and it appears that Proposition 2 DOES allow the use of birthing or "gestational" crates for pregnant pigs up to 7 days prior to birth of the piglets. Hmmm. So the evil crates ARE OK, some of the time. What was the purpose of passing Proposition 2 again??? Oh, right. Don't want chickens touching other chickens. Who knows, maybe those hens are lesbians. ;) Gosh, California is really in trouble.
foxie foxie 7 years
I believe YesonProp2 dot com has the wording. I read it somewhere, and I think that's where it was. There is plenty of proof that factory farms do not give their animals enough room to move and stretch, so people who believe that the cruelty happens are probably the same people who watch the news and read about farming practices. If you honestly believe all farms already provide this courtesy to their animals, then why oh why would you be so threatened by the proposition? First you act like this proposition will prohibit farmers from being able to keep their business afloat, and now you're acting like the proposition will make zero difference whatsoever. AND you haven't even read the proposition? Yet you're telling ME it's not what I think it is? I think this ridiculous conversation has gone far enough.
Poultry-Princess Poultry-Princess 7 years
I was just reviewing the descriptions of Proposition 2 (haven't located the actual wording - if anybody has the actual wording, please share). This is just idiotic. There was no need for this law, as no one in their right mind will keep an animal in a situation which threatens that animal's life. OF COURSE farmers let animals stand up, turn around and stretch! What sort of idiot thinks that an animal can live without standing up, turning around and stretching???? You think farmers (or even businessmen) strive to compact, smother and destroy their means of livelihood??? Do you regularly sit on your pet and smother it? Need a law to tell you not to do it? This law will not change the quality of life for farm animals one bit (or if it does, the quality of life will be worse). I know that PETA and HSUS have an agenda against the use of gestational crates for pregnant sows -- which are crates which keep a sow from rolling over on her newborns or ripping off the arm of the person who is attending their birth. Lets be honest about this -- most people don't have a clue where their food comes from -- but sows can get cranky during labor and a 700 lb sow can casually rip your arm off while you are assisting her in giving birth (I know a lot of women who would have liked to do that to someone during labor -- but didn't have the strength to do it!). You want farmers to take more risks in producing your breakfast? You better be ready to pay for it. Health insurance and liability insurance go way up when people are assisting free-range pigs give birth. Or else, the pig just dies, as do its piglets. That is real life. People also get maimed or die. That is real life too. Oh, by the way, for the readers outside the USA, from New Zealand and Europe, you should know that we in the USA do not have universal health care or benefits for the partially disabled -- injured and sick people either pay up or go without. Only a small percentage have any insurance at all, and it is often inadequate. Don't mind me. I like facts. I like to use my brain. My heart is there, too, but the heart and the brain need to balance each other. Proposition 2 is NOT what you think it is, and the full damage it does (or does not) do will not be clear for some time. Meanwhile millions of dollars went into promoting it. To whose benefit? Watch and wait.
foxie foxie 7 years
Have an opinion all you want. All I'm saying is that you are just as guilty as being part of a "propoganda machine" as anyone who works for PETA is. You have your interests, they have theirs. I, on the other hand, am objective as far as what I stand to gain... or lose. I can understand being worried about regulations on farming, but if farming can't be done responsibly and without taking dangerous and unsanitary shortcuts then SOMETHING is wrong and it's NOT the regulations. I support having companion animals, I even support small farming. That doesn't mean I can't also support organizations like HSUS that do so much to better the lives of animals. But that's neither here nor there, the people of California passed this bill, not HSUS. BTW- falsifying pictures? That's quite an accusation you have there.
Poultry-Princess Poultry-Princess 7 years
Foxie, I'm wary of people passing laws promoted by organizations who have routinely falsified information and images to get their way. This is getting to be like bad politics -- the urge to win is so bad, that any falsehood will do, just so long as the "home-team" wins. I'm tired of people making false and arrogant assertions on what they do not know. You say you don't trust my objectivity on Proposition 2 or the AR activists because I have chickens on my farm? Why should anyone trust anyone's objectivity? Why should anyone trust yours? Is your agenda that no one has any right to an opinion unless their hands are unsullied by real work and real contact with animals? I can tell you from what I've read of "new guidelines" on keeping "free-range" chickens that in some cases, what looks good on paper becomes a nightmare in reality. It becomes a nightmare from the chickens' perspective. You fuss about hypothetical animals. I care about real animals. If you want to improve the life of animals, support the movement to keep backyard chickens; protest zoning laws that ban the keeping of hens in towns and cities; don't support organizations with agendas of ending all domestic ownership of animals on this earth. If you don't like the concept of "ownership" think of it as custodianship. That is, taking responsibility for something that could not survive without your participation in its life. Reality isn't as simple as propaganda.
foxie foxie 7 years
Oh, come on. So chickens WANT to be cramped and live in their own filth now? They're cool with that? You can't point the "propoganda" finger without taking a serious look at yourself first. The fact of the matter is that this bill was well supported by small farmers in California. Average people CAN afford to buy cruely-free eggs. Farmers CAN afford to implement cruelty-free standards. Is this a cost that farmers will want to pay? Of course it's not. It's a hassle, but it's a necessary one and it's not the end of farming as we know it. To suggest that this will bring down all farmers, large and small, is simply fear mongering. Factory farming has gone unchecked for too long. To dismiss cruelties given to animals used for food is asinine. It's an ugly fact. Your profile says the pictures and information released to the public is misleading. What's misleading about countless photos of crammed, diseased, injured animals? What's misleading about hidden camera footage capturing cruelty in action? If it happens at all it's happening too often. I don't assume that everyone who opposed this bill is cold hearted. You shouldn't assume that everyone who supported this bill is ignorant.
Poultry-Princess Poultry-Princess 7 years
I AM a small farmer, and I DO free-range chickens. The information you are being fed by HSUS, PETA and other propagandists does not reflect reality. It is mainly an exercise to see how easily they can manipulate voters who haven't a clue. They get their kicks and their money from manipulating You. Your vote gives them "clout" to do all sorts of underhanded things -- you give them credibility, where before, without the propaganda and hype, they had none. Very sad situation. I spend a lot of time with MY chickens, and quite honestly, there are individual chickens that would rather live in a cage. The larger the flock, the less stable the pecking order, and the more stressful the life of each and every chicken. Chickens can be bullies and cannibals. In a free range situation, you will always have more individuals at the bottom of the pecking order who live frightened, stressed lives. The kindest way to raise your eggs would be to dedicate a certain amount of space and time in your life to keeping one to ten hens of your own -- a tiny flock. A lot of towns won't allow people to do this. A lot of people think this is dirty work (it is). Then again, a lot of people think that their own shit doesn't stink. When PETA and HSUS and the fanatics have wrapped small and large farmers up in so much red tape and expense that they can not function (which is the agenda of these groups) -- average people will not be able to afford eggs, and stores will just outsource them from Mexico, Canada and China. Be careful what you wish for, and what you support. Demand honesty and transparency. Get the facts. Feel with your heart, but don't forget to THINK with your brain.
foxie foxie 7 years
How do you figure that caged chickens have more room than people in Tokyo? From what I'm guessing, you're counting their entire cage as their "living space," when in actuality with so many chickens crammed into one cage it actually ends up being a much smaller space. If anything, this bill supports small farms by implementing standards on factory farms that most small farms already use. It will level the playing field and keep factory farms from cutting so many corners that they shouldn't be cutting. Far be it from me to be overly suspicious, but you created your account immediately before posting on this thread. If you actually are a chicken farmer, your objectivity is certainly an issue to me.
Poultry-Princess Poultry-Princess 7 years
I think the description of Proposition 2 as given on this website is misleading. There are already standards for keeping animals unstressed and content in various forms of management. I don't care to cage my chickens, but honestly, the production-cage chickens have more room proportionally than the average inhabitant of a New York (or Tokyo) apartment! If you check the financial background of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), you will see an organization that uses misleading advertising to obtain millions of dollars in donations which benefit its board of directors and employees. Almost nothing actually goes to help animals. A lot goes into advertising, publicity and legal shenanigans to alter public opinion and destroy large and small farmers. Board members of HSUS used to admit that their agenda was to end all domestic ownership of animals within one generation. If you voted yes to this proposition, you were most likely fooled into thinking it was a "good" thing. First the horses, then the poultry, then the cattle, then your pet canary, hamster, cat and dog. I wish people showed more common sense. And to the best of my knowledge and belief, every single thing I have stated here is the absolute truth and can be substantiated in public records. Check it out yourself.
foxie foxie 7 years
Poultry- SERIOUSLY? You're comparing chickens with so little "living" space to 4 people sharing a small apartment? This is to protect chickens who can't MOVE. It doesn't matter HOW chickens behave, they deserve to be able to stretch their feet and wings. I mean, we take EVERYTHING from animals. Every little thing we want. Their skins, their eggs, their milk, their lives. And yet we are SO hesitant to give them even a few extra inches of room? Something is wrong with that.
Poultry-Princess Poultry-Princess 7 years
If you must compare chickens to people, think of four friends who share a small apartment, versus 400 people in a homeless shelter who don't have any particular place, friends or family of their own to watch their back. You think it is cruel to keep chickens in cages? How about throwing them into a situation where they have to fight for their lives every moment of the day? This law is wrong in so many ways. And why do chickens get more rights than flesh-and-blood human beings? I raise free-range heritage poultry, and I think this law is foolish and wrong-headed. Whatever you want to believe, real live chickens will behave as -- chickens. They attack those they don't know, and pick mercilessly on those who they see as low on the "pecking order." Something like Animal Rights activists.
quarian quarian 7 years
I'm not from the US but I'm glad and impressed this went true. And I think a lot of people against it don't realise how the health of the animal also affects us as we're eating it. Just look at NZ where the animals are raised with space, cows and lamb graze on grass etc. they haven't had all the mad cow, pig disease, chicken flu problems of the other countries who have been subjecting animals to terrible conditions.
lovelipgloss lovelipgloss 7 years
This is great news and I hope other states follow. I'm definitely willing to pay a bit more if animals are treated better. I also find that free range animal products are of much higher quality.
Meet the Clementiny, the World's Smallest Citrus Fruit
VeggieTrader Lets Home Gardeners Trade Produce
McDonald's and Wendy's Move Toward Cage-Free Eggs
Commercial Salmon Season Is Banned For a Second Year
Musician Sting's Career as a Winemaker and Farmer
Niman Ranch Founder Denounces Company's New Owners
Village Voice Article: Foie Gras Humanely Produced

POPSUGAR, the #1 independent media and technology company for women. Where more than 75 million women go for original, inspirational content that feeds their passions and interests.

From Our Partners
Latest Food
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds