ISSUE #2

[MeghanB]

Are there any resources out there pertaining to Issue #2 of this Novembers ballot? Im pretty sure it's a bad idea, but am looking to put together a 'cheat sheet' about benefits of local food and why to vote NO on issue #2...

[Laura Weldon]

~The bill is backed by agribusiness, setting up a "Livestock Standards" board (all political appointees). They can then create standards w/o public input or review, & w/ no appeal on their rulings.
~Agribusiness is afraid of a recent CA law that provided more humane farm livestock conditions. This is their "pre-emptive" initiative under the guise of improving conditions for animals.
~Factory farms & their lobbying groups (ie. OH Farm Bureau) back this issue. League of Women Voters, Humane Society, OH Farmers Union, OEFFA, Sierra Club, Organic Consumers Information -- all OPPOSE Issue 2.

Check out information offered by Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association http://www.oeffa.org/alerts.php

and by http://www.ohioact.org/


In my area, all the signs I see are pro-Issue 2. Great example of how well Big Ag has managed to blur the issue.

Laura Weldon
www.bitofearthfarm.com

[MeghanB]

Thanks, I did end up finding that ohioact.org site and printed it out for our fair. I really really hope it does not pass! trying to spread the word. Thanks for the response!!
Meghan

[Kathleen O'Neill Webb]

Meghan, some friends sent this link to me, it is an audio of an Issue 2 debate by a panel in Columbus. I've only listened to the first three speakers, so far it seems like a good way to hear some different perspectives on the "for" and "against". I am leaning toward a 'no' vote, myself...

http://www.ohiolibertycouncil.com/?p=862

[Kay Ryan]

Well, as you can see, the "Ohio Liberty Council" is a well-intentioned, earnest group of citizens who are definitely on the far-right-wing end of things.

Since they are very firmly in the "individual rights" camp, I hope that they see that an amendment to the Ohio Constitution is a very bad precedent.

[Melanie Johnson]

I thought issue 2 was supposed to be good for local food and animals. How is it bad?

[Kay Ryan]

Melanie, please see some of the other entries on this issue. The agribiz industrial meat and egg producers have cleverly framed their PR campaign to appear as if this is what Issue 2 is about. In reality, it is an ANTI-animl welfare campaign. Issue 2 is written for the benefit of the CAFOs in the state. The CAFOs are often cited as being cruel to animals in the way that they confine and treat the chickens, hogs and beef. The CAFOs don't want anyone in Ohio initiating legislation that would affect how they treat their industrial production animals. They don't want anyone telling them that they can't de-beak chickens anymore, or that they have to give animals more room, or that they can't pollute the ground, air and waterways with animal waste any more.

So Issue 2 is designed to ensure that no one ever makes any laws regulating the CAFOs. An amendment to the Ohio Constitution would overrule any local, county or state laws.

The ads funded by the CAFOs make it sound all flowery and lovely, with pictures of family farmers and their kids and their 4-H pets. They have created an "issue" of "animal "welfare" on family farms, where there really isn't an issue. The only issue is the CAFOs.

There has been some talk of the Human Society of the US. The Humane Society is interested ONLY in the CAFOs and their operations, not in what Ma and Pa Jones do with their small flocks and herds on family farms.

But the campaign for Issue 2 is a big old "shell game" designed to obfuscate the issues and to scare and confuse people into voting for it. Don't believe those slick TV ads and billboards for a second.

[Eric Stoffer]

Follow the money and you will see why issue 2 is a bad idea. Laura outlines the reasons very clearly. Here's a link to our blog with a few links to other information: http://baybranchfarm.com/2009/10/24/vote-no-on-ohio-issue-2/
Vote NO on 2!

[Mike]

The pros and cons of Issue 2 are not as clear as either side would like to make out. And that's probably the biggest problem. Each side is making simplistic arguments as to what is going on and the arguments tend to be slanted to favor their viewpoint.

For example, Laura calls the Ohio Farm bureau a factory farm lobbying group. I'm a member and certainly don't have a factory farm. All of the members I know in Carroll County where our farm is located are small farmers. The largest member farm I know is less than 200 acres (grass fed cattle) and I don't know a single member who is a CAFO (Confined Animal Feed Operation). Are there larger members? I'm sure there are but the accusation that OFB is a factory farm lobbying group is clearly false and intended to be perjorative.

On the flip side, not all of those who oppose Issue 2 do so for the same reasons. The League of Women Voters opposes Issue 2 because they don't believe it is appropriate to put this in the Ohio Constitution.

When Laura references "Humane Society" she is referring to the "Humane Society of the United States" which is NOT the same as your local Humane Society. Here is a link to the Wikipedia article section on HSUS that covers this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humane_Society_of_the_United_States#Cr...

HSUS came into Ohio basically saying "You can pass this legislation (California Proposition 2 type) or we will put it on the ballot and steamroll you." HSUS has a budget of $120 Million annually which is primarily used for lobbying and political efforts. No room was left for discussion and compromise among the various interests - including farmers. Having been successful in 12 states they were confident that they had a lock on the situation. Farmers groups responded with Issue 2.

One of HSUS stated goals is to reduce consumption of meat and "and replacing meat and other animal-based foods in the diet with plant-based foods." Now if people want to achieve this goal through education or do it themselves on a personal basis I have no problem with that. Using legislative means as a mechanism to do so is problematic for me. And because HSUS is the initiator of this political bruhaha in Ohio, this is mixed up in the equation.

No doubt about it, the groups supporting Issue 2 are doing so primarily with the intent of thwarting HSUS and their legislative intent.

So, is Issue 2 what I personally would want in an ideal world? Nope.

I am not comfortable with this as a Constitutional Issue. I also believe that the intent is to maintain the status quo or to control what standards and how they are set.

On the flip side I am not comfortable with the HSUS activities and initiative that will go on the ballot if Issue 2 fails. While I believe that one should treat animals well and look to their welfare, I believe that it is reasonable to raise them for eating.

Personally I say a pox on all their houses. The best way to address the issue of farm animal welfare is for people to buy local and to visit the places that raise the animals you consume. If you don't like the husbandry practices of a particular farmer then vote with your pocketbook and don't buy from them. If you do like their practices then buy from them and support them. This is the surest way for ensuring the food you eat comes from farms that raise and handle the animals in a way you are comfortable with.

So, having said all this, I will likely vote for Issue 2 even if I hold my nose while doing it.

Mike

[Kay Ryan]

Mike, just because many small farmers belong to the Ohio Farm Bureau does NOT automatically assume that the Farm Bureau isn't comprised of CAFOs. You don't see CAFOs in your area because they are located mostly in the western half of the state. The Ohio Farm Bureau is very much hand-in-glove partners with agribiz and CAFOs in this state.

This is NOT about small family farmers. It's strictly for the benefit of the CAFOs.

Also, HSUS has NOT come to Ohio to threaten anyone. That is a total fabrication. The HSUS has not funded any campaigns here in Ohio. While the HSUS has been active in campaigns in other factory farm states, they have not been active in Ohio -- including the Issue 2 campaign. They have not been active in the "No on Issue 2" campaign.

But the proponents of Issue 2 have very cleverly framed the Yes to 2 campaign by creating HSUS as the red herring, the "bogeyman" -- to scare farmers just like you. And it's worked.

[Kay Ryan]

Mike, Laura is correct that the Ohio Farm Bureau supports and promotes Ohio CAFOs. The CAFO owners are also members of the Ohio Farm Bureau and are huge contributors to its mission. The Ohio Farm Bureau is pro-chemical-based farming, and anti-environmental, pro-business, and anti-consumer (except in the consumers' role as a consumer of Ohio farm-produced commodities), and anti-regulation. The Ohio Farm Bureau is a very regressive organization, resistant to progressive ideas.

[MeghanB]

Hey Mike, any resources on where the funding is coming from? I'd love to see that.
Thank you so much for your outstanding response!

[Jody Lathwell]

Meghan,

Here's a link to the Ohio Act website that has an analysis of contributions/contributors and donations.

http://www.ohioact.org/downloads/