IN DEPTH

Voters exercise their power to influence agriculture policy

Voters are concerned about how their food is produced and are actively using their votes to make changes. The most recent election cycle brought about another animal welfare voter initiative in California, Proposition 12, which establishes minimum space requirements based on square feet for calves raised for veal, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens and bans the sale of products from operations that don’t meet the requirements.

The initiative passed with a 61% “Yes” vote. Some might remember Proposition 2, a similar measure passing in 2008 in California, which this bill expanded on by specifying exact space requirements and explicitly banning the sale of the products. The most recent initiative was created to close what was seen as loopholes in the 2008 proposition.

Both initiatives were sponsored by the Humane Society of The United States, an animal rights non-profit organization. The bill follows a growing trend of the voter ballot initiatives which directly affect production agriculture, bypassing traditional legislative processes.

Will new laws affect pricing?

For California, the effects and merits of the both the 2008 law and now the 2018 version are debatable. Economists published a study in American Journal of Agricultural Economics which showed the price of eggs climbing 33% higher when the law first took effect; the price has now dropped from that level to 9% higher than if the law wasn’t in effect. For a state which imports much of its pork, securing enough of a supply which meets the new 2018 regulations could increase prices.

A Coalition for Sustainable Egg Production project, conducted by researchers from University of California, Davis, Iowa State, Michigan State, and Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service found mixed results for “cage-free or aviary” hen production merits. Aviary hens had better bone quality in some bones, but more bone damage in others possibly due to more failed landings after flight.

Hens in all systems shed Salmonella at similar rates. There was more particulate and ammonia air pollution from the aviary systems, which exposed workers to significantly higher levels of endotoxin and particulate matter than conventional systems. And aviary systems had a 36% higher cost of egg production.

Fears of GMOS drive some legislation

In several western states, there are active movements to ban GMO crops, often starting at the county level, with mixed results in terms of bills passing, as well as holding up against litigation.

The trend has resulted in areas as large as a 13,734 square-mile zone in Northern California, spanning six counties, where genetically modified plants can’t be grown, the largest in the United States.

These measures are driven by fears of genetically modified organisms having effects on the environment and health of consumers, with little scientific basis. Scientists and plant experts worry that the ban’s extension to pest resistant strains and other genetic manipulation technologies could endanger the farming industry and food supply.

Ballot initiatives may create single-issue focus

While the long-term effects of these initiatives and measures will hopefully not affect food supply or public health, they are worth closely monitoring for their potential to do so. Ballot initiatives are often created with a single-issue focus, and the wider effects could be overlooked.

Hypothetically, what if switching to cage free eggs did create a much larger Salmonella risk? What are the economic and health effects on workers and farmers in rural communities who make their livelihoods working with animals or plants affected by the bills? And, as new advanced technologies are banned out of fear, how does that effect the sustainability and resilience of our food systems?

The sponsors of the initiatives and measures are not required to examine these consequences before adding them on the ballot. There could be real dangers associated with putting agricultural issues (and other health issues) directly to the public, who often don’t have direct access to experts informing them of the nuances of the bills such as would likely be the case in a legislative or government agency environment.

Health officials and scientists need to be proactive in making their opinions heard on these issues, address the voters’ concerns effectively, and encourage that decision making be left to the bodies created for that purpose.

American Journal of Agricultural Economics
Coalition for Sustainable Egg Production