Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > October > 01
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Editorial: Ignore the propaganda; No on Issue 2
2009 ELECTIONS
Often when voters are confronted with a proposed constitutional amendment whose purpose isn’t obvious, they’re skeptical. They suspect something is up. That reflex is the right one when it comes to Issue 2 on your Nov. 3 ballot.
The proposal would create a Livestock Care Standards Board and give that group total authority over standards relating to the care of farm animals.
Why? Why do it at all, and why do it through a constitutional amendment?
Because agricultural interests in Ohio are scared to death
(NOTE: A misspelling in the headline of this post was corrected.)
that the Humane Society of the United States is going to come to Ohio voters next year and with a proposal to restrict the use of cages, specifically to prohibit farmers from keeping egg-laying hens, veal calves and pigs in tiny crates and pens.
If this year’s amendment passes, it would trump any future law on livestock care and complicate the Humane Society’s job.
Agri-business then would argue: Let the experts decide what are good farming practices. Voters just approved creating a panel to make these decisions. Let them do their job.
A couple of big points:
But agri-business shouldn’t get this sort of constitutional protection. Chances are good that the board would be dominated by farming interests and could become a rubber stamp for corporate farms especially.
The democratically elected legislature and the agriculture department shouldn’t be shut out.
Also, the way this amendment proposal was put forward smells. The idea of putting it on the ballot was rammed through the legislature in a matter of days. If the Ohio Farm Bureau and poultry and livestock associations are as dedicated to transparency and public accountability as they say they are, there was no need for the secrecy or the rush.
The Ohio Farm Bureau’s Jack Fisher wants to make this a campaign about extremists trying to impose their vegan ways on others. Speaking of the Humane Society, he has written, “They want no pet ownership, no circus acts, no biomedical research. And no meat, milk or eggs.”
Jeff Wuebker, the co-owner of a farm in Versailles, says he worries that if the Humane Society’s views on confining farm animals prevail, his sows will be hurt and even killed, because cages protect powerfully aggressive animals from each other.
He also complains that his cost of doing business will increase significantly. He says farmers can be trusted to do the right thing. They have every reason to want what’s best for their animals and their customers.
The other side — the Humane Society’s Paul Shapiro, specifically — says research shows that certain farming practices are not just inhumane for the animals, but dangerous to the food supply.
With arguments like this, you can picture the television commercials that will be coming your way as the election nears.
Turn off the propaganda — from both sides.
The issue voters have to decide is not whether livestock cages are good or bad, not whether farmers or the Humane Society are better Americans, not whether your bacon and eggs are going to cost more or make you sick.
The question is much less complicated:
Should Ohio have a board, set in the constitution, to decide agriculture policy, thereby insulating some decisions from the give-and-take that is required on other big and small public policy issues?
Sometimes the creation of a board is necessary, but this one’s power would be too sweeping. Moreover, no need for change has been demonstrated. After all these years without a special board, it’s a good bet the state can continue without one.
Vote no on Issue 2.
Permalink | Comments (80) | Post your comment | Categories: Editorials, Elections, Ellen Belcher, Ohio government, Rural Communities
