Dear Ms. Carla Hall of the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board

In the October 7^th issue of the Huffington Post  in the article entitled “Latest Attack on California’s Humane Livestock Standards Struck Down by Judge” you were quoted saying “farmers in Missouri — and the other states that joined the suit — will finally get the message that it’s time to stop fighting the law and start complying with it.”  If it were as simple as that, there would be less angst among the livestock community.  But those of us who know the behavior of chickens flocking together understand the law in California will not lead to increased welfare, but just the opposite.  And the   poorer people, those on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program [food stamps], will pay the price.

No one begrudges California’s right to enact laws governing the production of eggs in their state, but specifying production standards in the other states is taking on the role of determining the commerce of eggs which we feel is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3.  California is claiming “food safety” for its added regulations.  California Title 3 Section 1350 requires out-of-state egg farmers selling eggs in California to implement that state’s food safety regulations that go beyond the federal regulations under FDA’s food safety standards for eggs [21 CFR Part 118], “Production, Storage, and Transportation of Shell Eggs”. FDA’s food safety standards for eggs says states may not require “standards of quality [or] condition” that are “different from or in addition to” federal requirements. . The key is the “in addition to” requirement meaning that states can’t come up with new quality standards that the federal government hasn’t spoken to.” So what is the real reason?  Food Safety News reported that in 2012, the University of California at Davis estimated that changing the hen housing infrastructure to comply with Proposition 2 was going to cost egg farmers $385 million.  The California Assembly Bill 1437 added three additional sections to the 2008 law.  Under AB 1437, as of January 1, shell eggs for human consumption cannot be legally sold in California unless the involved laying hen was kept in facilities that meet California’s animal care standards.  It’s a requirement to merely “level the playing field so that in-state producers are not disadvantaged.”  That quote was from a California Assembly committee report for AB 1437. In other words, the states argued that California was not acting to make food safer nor animals healthier, but to advance its own purely commercial interests. 

California’s new space requirements for chickens may appear to improve welfare, but it doesn’t.

The Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply, a group of animal behavior scientists including a representative from California, noted an increased incidence of wing and leg breakages in the larger enclosures.  Startled chickens will injure themselves more frequently in larger enclosures when they rush away to avoid what has startled them. They pile up in corners, suffer bone breakages and suffocate the ones on the bottom.  Certainly this is a welfare consideration. Consider also the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) in 2010 released a report on the welfare implications of various kinds of housing. The report concluded consumers need to balance the hen’s freedom against exposure to potential hazards such as disease vectors and the cannibalism caused by pecking. Certainly cannibalism and pecking are welfare issues, and in conventional cages of 67 square inches where the number of chickens is minimized, these concerns are also reduced compared to other systems.  Research at NC State University demonstrated chickens reared in conventional cages had significantly greater numbers of Grade A eggs, significantly greater numbers of total eggs produced, and significantly better feed conversion rates (meaning a lower carbon footprint), and a better immune response (meaning better able to resist disease).  Certainly these are indicators of a healthier chicken and thus better welfare. Research released in June 2014 at Michigan State University examined the impact of stocking density on enriched colony cages. This study shows minimal impact on welfare in a comparison between 72 sq. in. per bird and 144 sq. in. per bird.  So why did California pick 116 square inches?  There is no science supporting this space requirement.

 Now it appears that A.B. 1437 will be enforced January 1.  California will see a shortage of eggs like never experienced before.  With 39 million consumers in the state and only 19 million laying chickens, the eggs from 20 million chickens that currently are being imported into the state will stop.  Some farmers outside of California are rushing to develop comparable standards, but to assume there won’t be a major disruption in the marketing of eggs in California is naïve.

The economic impact of other states shipping eggs into California is significant exceeding $150 million annually.  This can be extracted by the data provided by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. Between January 2012-January 2014 Iowa sent 4.9 million cases of eggs. Assuming the average per year would be 2.45 million cases of eggs or 3,266 truckloads at an average sales price of $25,000 per truckload, that’s $81.6 million. Minnesota sold 45% of that total from Iowa while Missouri sold 35% of Iowa’s total. Illinois sold 10% of Iowa’s total. That’s the equivalent of $150 million worth of eggs.  That means an estimated increase of $3.6 million per year just for California consumers.   The Wall Street Journal reported food costs increased 2.2% from a year earlier in August. That was the strongest annual gain in food prices since June 2012. On a monthly, seasonally adjusted basis, food prices have increased in six of the past seven months. One category driving the gains: meat. California will add “eggs” to that price increase impacting the poorer people in communities throughout the state.

We know this outreach to you will have little difference in the enforcement of the California law, but our efforts to inform the media is an important step toward informing the consumers in California that starting January 1 will be the start of more changes in our food supplies and prices without the benefits touted by some in the press.

Trent Loos’ Rural Route Radio broadcast from Iowa on August 13 to multiple Midwestern states (Iowa, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado, Montana, Texas) included a 50-minute interview of Ken Klippen, NAEF, concerning the lawsuit against the California egg law and how animal agriculture needed to fight animal activists.  Here are the highlights of what Klippen said on air:

·                     The oral arguments on the lawsuit against the California egg law, California Judge Mueller who heard the motions to dismiss from the California Association of Egg Farmers and the HSUS believed at the onset the plaintiffs (the 6 states bringing the lawsuit against the California egg law) had stated a claim under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but was not convinced at first the six states could sue for a perceived injury to the egg industry alone.  Missouri’s AG stated the issue is not just an injury to the egg industry but to the entire population of the six states because the California egg law imposes California’s policy choices on egg farmers in other states while those citizens have no political recourse to change that policy since they can’t vote in California.  

·                     Applauded the office of the Attorney General in Missouri along with the other states serving as Plaintiffs in upholding the U.S. Constitution.  He especially noted the courage and conviction of Iowa Governor Terry Branstad in joining in this fight with the Attorneys General.

·                     California has the right to enact laws or regulations governing the production of eggs in their state, but it cannot specify production standards in the other states.  By doing so, California is assuming the role of determining the commerce of eggs which is a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

·                     California Title 3 Section 1350 requires out-of-state egg farmers selling eggs in California to implement that state’s food safety regulations that go beyond the federal regulations under FDA’s food safety standards for eggs [21 CFR Part 118], “Production, Storage, and Transportation of Shell Eggs”. That is why the 6 states are in support of the lawsuit against A.B. 1437. 

·                     FDA’s food safety standards for eggs says states may not require “standards of quality [or] condition” that are “different from or in addition to” federal requirements. . The key is the “in addition to” requirement meaning that states can’t come up with new quality standards that the federal government hasn’t spoken to.”

·                     In commenting on the mistaken opinion of California that increased space leads to better welfare, Klippen cited the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) in 2010 released a report on the welfare implications of various kinds of housing. The report concluded consumers need to balance the hen’s freedom against exposure to potential hazards such as disease vectors and the cannibalism caused by pecking. Certainly cannibalism and pecking are welfare issues, and in conventional cages where the number of chickens is minimized, these concerns are also reduced compared to other systems. 

·                     Research at NC State University has demonstrated chickens reared in conventional cages had significantly greater numbers of Grade A eggs, significantly greater numbers of total eggs produced, and significantly better feed conversion rates (meaning a lower carbon footprint), and a better immune response (meaning better able to resist disease).  Certainly these are indicators of a healthier chicken and thus better welfare.

·                     Research released in June 2014 at Michigan State University examined the impact of stocking density on enriched colony cages. This study shows minimal impact on welfare in a comparison between 72 sq. in. per bird and 144 sq. in. per bird.  

·                    Critical of companies or groups who compromise with animal activists by giving in to their demands for production changes. He quoted the objectives of some leaders in the animal rights community including:                                                                                                            

“Eating meat is not your personal decision, any more than whether somebody beats their children is their personal decision.” Bruce Friedrich, Farm Sanctuary, formerly PETA.

“Meat consumption is just as dangerous to public health as tobacco use.”  Neal Barnard, Physicians Committee on Responsible Medicine (PCRM).

“[about eggs] We want to get rid of the industry.” Miyun Park, GAP, formerly HSUS.  These are the leaders in the animal rights community.  They don’t want to negotiate a peaceful coexistence with animal agriculture.  They want to eliminate it.

·                     Agricultural groups in Washington, DC (DC Barnyard) had come together to fight against the National Egg Bill that never made it into the Farm Bill.  He said that bill would have put the smaller egg farmers out of business, but the farm groups also got involved because they could readily see that compromising with HSUS is similar to negotiating with terrorists.  The DC Barnyard rallied behind the King amendment (introduced by Rep. Steve King [R-IA] who introduced an amendment upholding the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution in the Farm Bill.  Although it passed the House, the conferees in the Farm Bill striped it out.  Klippen noted that in time, all farm groups would be pressured if one group gave in and compromised their production standards.  Animal agriculture can learn from the experience of others in dealing with terrorists in response to animal rights groups (i.e., animal activists or environmentalists are defined by the FBI as domestic terrorists). So why do companies producing meat, milk, or eggs think giving in on eliminating cages or farrowing crates will placate the animal activists and allow those companies to continue operations asked Klippen on air? 

·                     Associations representing animal agriculture must maintain a vigilance in refuting each and every false claim made about modern production practices.

·                     Commended the people in Missouri for voting in support of the Right to Farm.  A ballot initiative known as “amendment one” had opponents like the HSUS advertised heavily against the measure, but the amendment was defeated by a huge margin. Thus far, North Dakota is the only other state where voters have approved farming as a constitutional right. 

1. Opposing Testimony April 5^th before RI Legislators on Cage-Free Bill

On April 5^th in Providence, Rhode Island, there were several supporters joining the sole egg farmer, Eli Berkowitz, Little Rhody Farms, Foster, RI in testifying before the House Environment and Natural Resources Committee considering the cage-free egg bill H7456 . The others included Will Coggin with HumaneWatch, Ken Klippen with the National Egg Farmers, Dianne Sullivan from Massachusetts who works with the National Pork Producers Council. (Sullivan led the effort that National Egg Farmers joined in opposing the Massachusetts ballot), and Dr. Scott Marshall, RI State Veterinarian. Berkowitz explained how he inherited the farm from his father and that consumers are not demanding cage-free with only approximately 15% of the production nationwide cage-free. His answers to legislators questions cleared up much confusion about egg production. Coggin attacked HSUS as lacking credibility and continues to face challenges for misconduct. Klippen showed a picture of round worm infestation from cage-free and as well as Red Mite problems for cage-free. He also referenced the research on broken breast bones from perches and the Coalition for Sustainable Egg Supply did not conclude cage-free to be the ideal form of producing eggs. Sullivan cited the economic impact on federal programs like WIC and SNAP. Dr. Marshall noted how veterinarians familiar with egg production are opposed to the legislation.

II. Supporting Testimony on RI Cage-Free Egg Bill

HSUS, ASPCA, “Humane” Veterinarians, and one person who has chicken pets testified in support of the RI cage-free egg bill H7456. Citing the egg industry’s own economic analysis (dating back to 2008 and California Prop 2) HSUS said the economic impact would only be one cent per egg. They also refuted claims that the cost of eggs in California continue to remain higher than the rest of the country, saying the increased cost initially was due to the outbreak of Avian Influenza. (The data Klippen provided last year in this same hearing was California egg prices were 90% higher in 2016. The year of the AI outbreak 2015, those prices were 49% higher). Other claims by the bill’s supporters were the incidence of Salmonella being higher in “battery” production. The cited the 2010 outbreak (DeCoster) resulting in a recall of millions of eggs. They claimed research has shown Salmonella is more prevalent in “battery production”. The most blatant effort by the animal activists was a veterinarian who tried to refute Klippen’s testimony saying round worms are not a food safety concern since humans cannot pick up round worms from chickens.