The Adobe Flash Player is required to view this multimedia interactive. Get it here.

Election 2009 Ohio Statewide issues

Issue 2 vital for livelihood, most farmers say

Amendment would create a state livestock care standards board.

Jim Witmer Tim Weaver of Weaver Bros., Inc. stands with 1950s-era egg carton labeled "Purina Cage Eggs." It reads, "They are always clean- the hens never touch the ground. In the 1950's, caged eggs were advertised to be cleaner and safer. Staff photo by Jim Witmer

ENLARGE PHOTO

Psychological evaluation ordered for teen accused of raping 64-year-old woman
Updated 6 min. ago
Lull in snowfall expected around rush hour
Updated 15 min. ago
Rape investigation stalls at Miami
Updated 16 min. ago
High school, college basketball makeup dates
New 29 min. ago
Waynesville schools to start using gift cards for fundraising
12:03 p.m.
> More headlines

By Ben Sutherly, Staff Writer 1:17 AM Sunday, October 25, 2009

If passed Nov. 3 by Ohio’s voters, Issue 2 ultimately could subject livestock and poultry farms to more regulation.

But in his 30 years with the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Keith Stimpert said he’s never seen a groundswell of support in the agricultural community like that he’s seen for Issue 2.

The proposed constitutional amendment comes in the wake of strong voter support in other states for ballot initiatives that limit or phase out certain controversial housing practices for animals. California voters, for example, handily approved a ballot measure in 2008 that mandates freer movement for egg-laying chickens, pregnant pigs and veal calves by 2015.

The Humane Society of the United States, which spearheaded that initiative, recently turned its attention to Ohio. Paul Shapiro, senior director of HSUS’ factory farm campaign, said farm animals in Ohio should be able to stand up, sit down, turn around and extend their limbs at all times.

Issue 2 instead would create a state livestock care standards board whose 13 members would have authority over such issues.

“I think we’ve brought forward a better idea for dealing more comprehensively ... with livestock care,” said Stimpert, vice president of public policy for the Farm Bureau, a 234,000-member group that supports Issue 2.

Tim Weaver, president of Versailles-based Weaver Bros. Inc., put it more bluntly. By passing Issue 2, he said, “I think it sends a strong message to the out-of-state extremists.”

Proponents of Issue 2 have dwarfed spending by opponents to date. As of Thursday, they had spent $2.81 million of $3.61 million raised so far. Food & Water Watch, part of an opposition group called Ohio Against Constitution Takeover, reported spending about $6,300 so far to defeat Issue 2.

The issue has bipartisan support from legislators, and Gov. Ted Strickland.

But even within the farming community, there are fissures over Issue 2.

“It’s a constitutional amendment,” said Roger Wise, president of the Ohio Farmers Union, whose 5,200 members tend to represent smaller farms. “We don’t believe that is the avenue we should go down to handle this issue. The constitution should be reserved for all citizens rather than dealing with narrow special interests.”

But Weaver said Issue 2 would create a board worthy of a spot in the state constitution. “What’s more important than the production of food by Ohioans for Ohioans?”

Fox guarding hens?

Issue 2 would create the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board to establish and implement standards of care for livestock and poultry.

The 13-member bipartisan board would be chaired by the director of the state Department of Agriculture.

The governor would appoint 10 members:

• A representative for family farmers.

• A member knowledgeable of food safety in Ohio.

• Two members of Ohio farm organizations.

• A veterinarian.

• The state veterinarian.

• The dean of the agriculture department of an Ohio college or university.

• A representative of a county humane society.

• Two representatives of Ohio consumers.

The leaders of the state House of Representatives and Senate would each appoint one family farmer.

The state Office of Budget and Management estimates the board’s annual operating costs would be about $177,000 the first year and $162,000 thereafter, expenses that would probably be paid out of the state’s general fund. The cost of ensuring compliance — and who would bear that cost — isn’t yet clear, Stimpert said.

Critics of Issue 2 question the proposed board’s necessity and motivations.

The board would add unnecessary bureaucracy to government and raise costs for producers already operating on thin margins, said the Farmers Union’s Wise.

Ohio doesn’t have a good history of real representation on boards when it comes to terms such as “family farmer” and “consumer,” said Sarah Alexander, the opposition group Ohio ACT’s spokeswoman. She said the board would have overly broad powers, and be unduly influenced by corporate agribusiness.

Shapiro of HSUS said farming interests would be too heavily represented on the board.

“The fox is guarding the henhouse,” he said.

Without board, ag, economy vulnerable?

After losing his job at NCR at the onset of the Great Depression in 1929, George Weaver moved from Dayton to his native Versailles.

He and his brother, Donald, began purchasing eggs from farmers who kept small flocks. In the basement of George’s house, their wives washed, cleaned and packaged the eggs, which were then sent by train to a customer in Pittsburgh.

Weaver Bros. grew, and as small flocks fell out of favor on farms during the 1960s, it eventually began producing its own eggs at farms that grew and grew.

Eighty years after Weaver Bros.’ founding, George’s grandson, Tim Weaver, 60, heads a business that employs 300, processes eggs from 7.5 million chickens in Darke and Logan counties (60 percent of which are owned by Weaver Bros.), and has annual sales of $80 million to $140 million, depending on the price of eggs.

Any future ballot initiative targeting the elimination of certain housing practices, including cages for hens, could unravel that progress, he said.

1 | 2 next page »

Issue 2

Proponents: Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, Ohio Corn Growers Association, Ohio Chamber of Commerce, Ohio Grocers Association, Ohio Soybean Association, Ohio Poultry Association, Ohio Cattlemen’s Association, Ohio Dairy Producers Association

Opponents: Ohio Farmers Union, Ohio Ecological Food and Farming Association, Ohio Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch, Progress Ohio, League of Women Voters, Humane Society of the United States, Organic Consumers Association

For more information: ohiolivestockcare.com, ohioact.org

Share this article

ADD COMMENT

Comments feed

If HSUS gets their way, the pork, veal and eggs will be produced in another state, they know this, there is no way farmers can compete with other states if HSUS gets their way. Farmers take good care of their animal, this is the way they make their money, why would they not, do not believe the snowball job the emotion based fanatic group of HSUS is trying to feed everyone, and wheh these producers move out of state, there goes jobs and tax money!

sam
3:38 PM, 11/6/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Does everyone forget that when an extension of govenrment is created it goes through the same checks and balances system that has been around for hundreds of years. Issue 2 is good for Ohio Agriculture. Voting yes ensures that we keep the decisions on Agriculture here in the state. Voting no would ensure that in the future our food prices will increase dramtically.

Farmallih1466
8:48 AM, 10/31/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Let's be progressive here for a change, Ohioans. There's no reason the food prices should increase. Voting NO is the right thing to do. It will be healthier in the long run...cleaner environment, good reputation, safe food.

here
9:20 PM, 10/30/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Vote No on Issue 2- I am an organic dairy farmer and opposed to Issue 2. I do not need an appointed State board with absolute power over the Ohio department of Agriculture to tell me how to care for my animals. I already have the National Organic Program that HSUS approves. Please note, there is no legal definition of what constitutes a "family farm" in Ohio. Without that definition in place, the door is open to all sorts of controversy as to who this political action is trying to protect.

Em T
4:53 AM, 10/27/2009

REPORT ABUSE

Vote yes on issue two to keep farming in ohio. If issue to fails farming will move to other states just like NCR moved out of dayton.

Keep Farming in Ohio
12:29 AM, 10/27/2009

REPORT ABUSE

There are 26 additional comments

SHOW ALL

We welcome your comments. Please remember this is a public forum and behave appropriately. Your comments must conform to our visitor's agreement.