Farm Bureau files brief in Proposition 2 case

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) believes a California law that regulates agricultural production in other states is unconstitutional for multiple reasons, and a lower court ruling that barred other states from bringing suit against California on behalf of their citizens should be reversed.
In a friend-of-the-court brief filed March 11 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (State of Missouri, et al. v. Harris, et al.), AFBF urged the court to find that six states have standing to challenge California’s egg law.
A federal district court in California dismissed a lawsuit brought by officials from Missouri, Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska and Oklahoma on behalf of their citizens in October 2014, months before a new California law imposed hen cage size restrictions on any shell eggs sold in the state, including those produced out-of-state. California’s legislature enacted the law to protect California egg producers from a competitive disadvantage resulting from the Proposition 2 ballot initiative that imposed cage size restrictions on California egg producers.
“It is unfortunate that California’s voters put egg producers in their state at a clear competitive disadvantage, and we sympathize with the California farmers who will bear the brunt of that action,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman. “Freedom from unreasonable restrictions on interstate commerce, however, is a hallmark of our nation and the federalist system of government established in the U.S. Constitution. Without a legitimate health or safety justification, the California Legislature simply does not have the authority to regulate how eggs are produced in other states. A foreign trading partner attempting this kind of trade-barring action would cause an outcry all across the world trade arena.”
The California law presents out-of-state egg producers with an untenable situation and, because all “consumers will suffer,” the states of Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma should be allowed to file suit against California on behalf of all their citizens, AFBF said. According to AFBF’s brief, the law would have detrimental effects on the national egg market, since California accounts for one in every eight eggs sold in the U.S.
As for out-of-state egg producers, they “are placed between a rock and a hard place,” deciding whether to opt out of that sizeable market, or comply by incurring enormous capital costs associated with installing cage systems required by California law. The Congressional Research Service estimates compliance costs between $25 and $30 per hen. For a medium-sized farm with 300,000 hens, costs would be between $8 million and $9 million.
“It is more than sufficient to establish … standing to allege that one state has enacted a law that threatens broad-based harm to an entire industry within another state,” according to AFBF’s brief.  “The injury to each state’s egg-consuming public assuredly is enough (to warrant the suit against California),” according to AFBF. “The claim is straight-forward: By playing with the levers of the national supply of shell eggs, California’s legislation is likely to drive up the cost of eggs for consumers within the plaintiff states.”

Missouri mulls resolution condemning Proposition 2

Missouri Sen. Mike Kehoe has asked his fellow state lawmakers to support a two-page resolution that condemns “in the strongest possible terms” California’s Proposition 2 and AB 1437 in an effort to make California’s state government know just how badly the egg laws have hurt the agriculture industry in Missouri.
While introducing his resolution, Kehoe told the Missouri Senate: “Many people know that they’ve had some crazy laws and edicts (in California) on their agriculture industry out there, that has affected many others — but now it has come far enough to where it is affecting the state of Missouri.”
Kehoe’s resolution, according to the News Tribune, includes the accusation that “together, California Proposition 2 and AB 1437 violate the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution by preventing free trade amongst the states.”
And, his resolution says, “Forcing Missouri farmers to utilize ‘enriched cages’ or non-confinement operations in order to do business in California will negatively impact the Missouri economy and food supply.”
The resolution follows a lawsuit filed in 2014 by Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster that challenges the California laws. The states of Iowa, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Alabama and Kentucky joined in the lawsuit.
Iowa’s legislature, also in 2014, passed a special resolution calling for the repeal of Proposition 2. 

Iowa legislation calls for repeal of California’s Proposition 2

The Iowa House of Representatives on April 3 passed a resolution calling for repeal of California's Proposition 2 law that forbids the sale of eggs produced by hens kept in cages that don't meet certain size and space requirements. Iowa lawmakers are challenging the California egg law because it means most Iowa eggs cannot be sold in California, and that the legislation is unconstitutional.
The Iowa bill calling for the repeal of Proposition 2 seeks that "immediate action be taken by the State of California, the United States Congress, the United States Attorney General, state legislatures, state governors, and state attorneys general to effectuate the repeal of California legislation enacted as AB 1437 that unconstitutionally infringes upon the Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States to the detriment of this nation's consumers and farmers."
The Iowa legislation, known as House Resolution 123, also points out that California's law is bad for its own state. The bill states: "In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 2, a ballot initiative that prohibits California farmers from employing a number of agricultural production methods in widespread use throughout the United States, including the use of industry standards used in egg production."
Copies of Iowa House Resolution 123 are being sent to California legislative leaders, Vice President Joe Biden, House Speaker John Boehner, Senate Agriculture Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow, House Agriculture Committee Chair Frank Lucas, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, and all members of Iowa's congressional delegation.
Additionally, copies of the bill were sent to the attorneys general from Missouri, Nebraska, Alabama, Kentucky and Oklahoma. Iowa had previously joined those states in a federal lawsuit, urging the court to declare the California egg rules invalid. 

Five states join Missouri lawsuit challenging California egg restrictions

Alabama, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska and Oklahoma, through their representatives, have joined the Missouri Attorney General's federal lawsuit asking the court to declare invalid and enjoin enforcement of California statutes that would allow the state to enforce Proposition 2 provisions on all eggs sold in California. The lawsuit was brought because the representatives of these state maintain that the California statutes (AB1437 and 3CA ADC) violate the commerce and supremacy clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
In the amended lawsuit, the representatives for these six states say egg producers face a difficult choice regarding California AB1437:
"Either they can incur massive capital improvement costs to build larger habitats for some or all of their egg-laying hens, or they can walk away from the largest egg market in the country. For example, Missouri farmers - who export one-third of their eggs to California each year - must now decide whether to invest over $120 million in new hen houses or stop selling in California. The first option will raise the cost of eggs in Missouri and make them too expensive to export to any state other than California. The second option will flood Missouri's own markets with a half-billion surplus eggs that would otherwise have been exported to California, causing Missouri prices to fall and potentially forcing some Missouri farmers out of business."
California, the most populous state in the nation, is the largest single egg market in the U.S. According to the lawsuit, Californians consume 9 billion eggs per year, with 4 billion of those eggs coming from other states. The lawsuit claims that nearly 30 percent of the eggs imported into California come from Iowa, around 1.07 billion eggs per year. Missouri sends one-third of its total egg production to California, and this represents 13 percent of the eggs imported into California.
Proposition 2 is scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2015, for all eggs produced in California. California AB1437 was enacted to protect California egg producers from competition from egg producers outside the state who would not have to comply with Proposition 2. The lawsuit contends that the public health aspects of AB1437 are not the real reason for the legislation and the legislation's impact of restricted interstate commerce should invalidate it.

California egg farmers challenge Proposition 2 in state court

The Association of California Egg Farmers has been trying since Proposition 2’s passage four years ago to get resolution on what type of hen housing meets the law’s requirements.

The Association of California Egg Farmers filed suit on November 16, 2012, in Fresno County Superior Court asking the court to find that the language of Proposition 2 is unconstitutionally vague according to California law. The association contends that the law's lack of clarity in size and density requirements for housing laying hens prevents egg farmers from modifying their housing facilities in time to comply with the January 1, 2015, implementation date.

Prior legal challenges


Proposition 2 has already has faced two court challenges. The first unsuccessfully tried to clarify the type and dimensions of housing for hens required by the law, and the second lawsuit, filed by egg producer William Cramer, challenged Proposition 2 under the U.S. Constitution. The Cramer lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge with prejudice in September. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John Walter wrote, "The court concludes that the Proposition 2 is not impermissibly vague in all of its applications, or even in a single application, as argued by plaintiff. Proposition 2 provides a person of ordinary intelligence more than a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited and provides explicit and objective standards to prevent discriminatory enforcement." The Association of California Egg Farmers tried unsuccessfully to intervene in Cramer's suit and now challenges Proposition 2 under the California Constitution. Dale Stern, attorney for the Association of California Egg Farmers, explained that the standard of proof for a void for vagueness challenge is different under the California constitution than it is under the federal constitution in some respects. “Challenging under the federal constitution on a charge of void for vagueness means you have to allege and prove that the statute is vague in all of its applications,” Stern said. “Under the California Constitution, you have to allege and prove that the statute is vague under all of its reasonable and practical applications. The burden of proof is different. In some cases it isn’t more or less; it is just different.”


Asking for clarity


Stern said that if the case survives demurrer from the state, and the Cramer case did not, he expects that the trial wouldn’t be completed until late 2013 or early 2014. Then, even if egg producers prevail, there could be an appeal from the state or another party, such as the Humane Society of the United States. He said that the Association of California Egg Farmers has been trying since Proposition 2’s passage four years ago to get resolution on what type of hen housing meets the law’s requirements. “The lawsuit is the last option,” he said.

Arnie Riebli, president of the Association of California Egg Farmers, said, "California's egg farmers have spent the last four years attempting to gain a clear understanding of how to comply with Proposition 2, but, unfortunately, we are no closer today to knowing how to comply than we were when the law first passed in 2008. Given the ambiguity in Proposition 2 and the risk of criminal prosecution for violating it, egg farmers have no choice other than to challenge the validity of the law."


The Cramer lawsuit was dismissed before the Association of California Egg Farmers was allowed to participate, and Stern said that the current lawsuit will be the Association of California Egg Farmers’ first opportunity to make their arguments in court. "With the law taking effect in just over two years, egg farmers cannot afford to wait any longer to begin construction of new hen enclosures, but their dilemma is making a multi-million dollar investment in new housing systems that could end up being considered illegal,” Stern said. “The California Attorney General has been unwilling or unable to take a position on this key point. The State Department of Food and Agriculture commissioned a study at the University of California at Davis, which concluded that the law is unclear. As a result, the Association of California Egg Farmers has no choice but to reluctantly seek invalidation of this poorly drafted proposition."


Enclosure size hinges on an assumption


Stern said that the University of California’s expert told the state Department of Food and Agriculture, “I can’t tell you because it is ambiguous, but if we assume that only one bird at a time needs to be able to perform the pirouette behavior than here is the math to figure out how much space you need.”
Stern contends that the key defect in Proposition 2’s language is the assumption that only one bird needs to be able to perform the behavior at a time. He said that the judge needs to tell the industry that the law is either ambiguous, or if the ruling is that the law is “crystal clear,” the judge needs to say what the law means. “The key ambiguity of Proposition 2 is how many birds need to be able to perform the prescribed behaviors at the same time,” Stern said.


Shipping eggs into California
When asked whether or not Proposition 2’s requirements for housing hens could be enforced on egg producers outside of California who want to sell eggs in California, Stern used the example of standards that have been set for milk sold in California. “There are dairy requirements that make it difficult for producers outside of California to send milk into the state based on food safety, health and wholesomeness,” Stern said. “That law is challenged from time to time. So far it has survived. But it is not a slam dunk each time it is challenged.” He said that he wouldn’t be surprised if sometime around January 1, 2015, an out-of-state interest tried to challenge Proposition 2’s requirements for out-of-state egg producers. Stern said that he wouldn’t predict how that legal challenge might turn out, but said that it “wouldn’t be a slam dunk either way.”
“This of course concerns the California [egg] industry,” Stern said.

California egg producers challenge Proposition 2

California egg producers, through the Association of California Egg Farmers, are filing a motion to intervene in a federal lawsuit which challenges the legal validity of Proposition 2 — a law regulating egg-laying-hen enclosures. The suit was filed by William Cramer, an egg farmer who is not a member of the association.
The Association of California Egg Farmers is focused on the claim that Proposition 2 is unconstitutionally vague and does not inform egg farmers how to confine their hens so as to avoid the criminal penalties that are part of the law. The decision to enter the lawsuit was not made lightly, said the association, but time has become a major issue for California egg farmers who need to know the requirements for the enclosures they must build prior to the law taking effect on January 1, 2015, when compliance with Proposition 2 becomes mandatory. The lack of clarity regarding hen enclosure standards will require an investment of $400 million from the state's egg farmers and three years to construct new facilities in California.
The recent passage of the "King Amendment" to the 2012 Farm Bill by the House Agriculture Committee will also create challenges, according to the association. The King Amendment exempts out-of-state egg farmers selling eggs into California from complying with Proposition 2, something which will threaten the interests of California consumers as well as place California egg farmers at an economic and competitive disadvantage, said the association.
"Passage of the King Amendment will devastate California's fresh egg industry by removing all quality and safety standards and enable out-of-state egg producers to avoid having to comply with Proposition 2," said Arnie Riebli, President of the Association of California Egg Farmers. "Given the risk of criminal prosecution for violating Proposition 2 and the risks created by the King Amendment, we have no choice but file this motion to enable our industry to survive."
The association has said it supports the goal of providing appropriate space to egg-laying hens, and has joined with the Humane Society of the United States and the United Egg Producers to support Senator Dianne Feinstein's Egg Products Inspection Act amendments, which would establish preemptive national standards on egg-laying-hen enclosures, including dimensions and other key elements that are not found in Proposition 2. "We simply cannot wait until ACEF members are criminally prosecuted to find out what Proposition 2 means and we cannot live with the King Amendment which would effectively put California egg farmers out of business," said Debbie Murdock, executive director of the Association of California Egg Farmers.

California egg producer moving forward after Proposition 2

JS West installed enriched colonies in a purpose built building on one farm in an attempt to comply with California Proposition 2.

California Proposition 2, which passed in November 2008, takes effect on January 1, 2015. In essence, Proposition 2 states a bird must be able to sit down, stand up, turn around and extend her limbs without touching another bird or the sides of an enclosure, according to Jill Benson, vice president of JS West & Companies.
By January of 2015, all shell eggs sold in California will have to meet Proposition 2 requirements for rearing of the hens. The problem is that the state has not said what housing systems meet the standard.

Asking the judge
In July of 2010, JS West placed its first flock of around 150,000 hens in a purpose built house with a Big Dutchman enriched colony housing system. American Humane Certified announced that this enriched colony housing meets its science-based standards for humane housing and it can be certified. Enriched colony systems provide hens with a wide range of behavioral opportunities such as perching, nesting and dust bathing.
Because of inaction by the state of California, JS West decided that it needed to take legal steps to get a decision on whether or not its enriched colony housing systems will comply with Proposition 2. “JS West filed a lawsuit against the state of California and the Humane Society of the United States to get a declaratory judgment from the judge to say that the enriched colony barn that they built will comply come 2015,” said Benson. “The judge will not set a standard per se, but will look at the specific housing system and come to a decision on whether or not it complies with the vague verbiage of Proposition 2. The judge will also share how he came to that decision, which will allow other egg farmers to know what will comply or not.”
Benson said that JS West, which has 1.8 million layers in California, is committed to navigating its way through the regulations and uncertainty and staying in the egg business.
“We believe that California consumers will always want a California egg, and whatever that egg turns out to be, we hope to care for the hens that lay them,” said Benson. “That is why we have taken such an active role in trying to determine our future.”
Read the rest of the article on WATTAgNet.

California egg farmers want clarification on Proposition 2, join lawsuit

The Association of California Egg Farmers has filed an Application to Intervene in the Superior Court of California, seeking to become a party in the lawsuit brought by JS West Milling Company against the state of California and the Humane Society of the United States. The lawsuit seeks clarity on what Proposition 2 requires for egg-laying hen housing systems.
Last December, JS West filed the lawsuit seeking a clear understanding on whether its newly constructed housing system meets the requirements of Proposition 2. The lawsuit seeks a determination of the specific types of housing systems because the law does not provide the exact size or dimension for an enclosure. The law also fails to state the number of hens that can occupy the enclosure, the density or otherwise specify the furnishings within the enclosure. According to JS West, more specific information on housing standards is needed as soon as possible so California's egg farmers have sufficient time to fund and make the necessary changes to their facilities prior to the law going into effect on Jan. 1, 2015.
"The JS West lawsuit is of great importance to the state's egg farmers who need clear guidance on how much space and what types of housing systems will be legal, and ACEF needs to be a party in that lawsuit," said Debbie Murdock, executive director of ACEF. "Compliance requires the egg farmers to spend a significant amount of money on construction costs long before the law takes effect in 2015. Egg farmers will soon invest hundreds of millions of dollars on their facilities, and in doing so, they should not be forced to guess whether their new facilities will comply with Proposition 2." 

Controversy over enriched colony cages continues

The American Humane Association recently announced that it would endorse enriched colony cages in its certification program. Although the HSUS has announced its rejection of the system in according with an interpretation of California Proposition 2, there are hints from president and chief executive officer of the HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, that this decision may be reconsidered.
The HSUS wants to present a more reasonable and mainstream image, possibly resulting from the unpleasant revelations by HumaneWatch.org concerning lack of support for animal shelters and a liberal remuneration policy inconsistent with a non-profit organization.
However, there is strong opposition to any form of confinement of any livestock species. United Poultry Concerns, run by Dr. Karen Davis, has issued a statement opposing enriched cages and citing the HSUS report “Issues with furnished cages for egg-laying hens.”

California bans imported eggs that don’t comply with Prop. 2

California Governor Arnold Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill 1437, backed by the HSUS, on July 6. This legislation bans importation of eggs from out-of-state producers that do not comply with the provisions of Proposition 2, which was passed in 2008.
The bill brings about questions of the potential compliance of enriched cages with the provisions of Proposition 2. J.S. West has taken the initiative of investing in a unit in anticipation of compliance. If this is in fact the case, the future of enriched cages may appear brighter as existing suitable facilities will be converted and new units will be erected.
AB1437 may stimulate recaging of birds in other states with the enriched system to supply the California market. The approval of enriched cages by the American Humane Association would help acceptance of the system and could represent a compromise in any subsequent proposition to repeal or modify Proposition 2.

United Egg Producers meets with legislators

The government relations committee of United Egg Producers will be reviewing a number of issues with federal legislators, according to the association’s newsletter, United Voices.
Topics to be discussed include welfare and implementation of the FDA rule on salmonella, which is due to take effect on July 9, 2010. These topics have been raised at the level of the House Agriculture Committee and with FDA regulators. HR 4733 would require the U.S. government to purchase eggs only from facilities meeting guidelines similar to those outlined in California’s Proposition 2.

Idaho prepares for egg industry growth

The chairman of the Idaho senate’s agriculture committee is planning to introduce legislation to help the state prepare for a possible influx of California poultry producers, who say that California’s plans to ban battery cages for hens by 2015 could raise their costs by 20%, the Associated Press reports.
Senator Tim Corder supports the use of cages but wants to revise regulations regarding the siting of poultry farms. He says he wants to avoid the pollution problems that accompanied the rapid growth of Idaho’s dairy industry over the past two decades.
"The time when agriculture can sweep in and do whatever it wants and nobody will say anything about it until it's too late, that time is past," Corder told the Associated Press. "If we're going to do this, let's do it right from the start."
Pam Juker, an Idaho Department of Agriculture chief of staff, said that, in the dairy industry, "The laws and rules had to be developed alongside the industry growth. … With this [Corder's] proposed legislation, it will help to have the regulatory structure in place before a new industry settles in."
The new regulations are necessary whether or not California farmers move their operations, Corder said, because Idaho’s poultry industry is already growing. For example, genetics company Hy-Line North America opened a hatchery in southern Idaho in 2009, and government officials recently took steps to help a 4-million bird broiler plant locate there, the news agency reports.

Is California dysfunctional?

The New York Times of Sunday, October 11, reported on a speech by the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court, Ronald M. George, to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The thrust of his speech was that the referendum process in California has created anarchy and "rendered our state government dysfunctional."
The legislature cannot amend or repeal specific laws without voter approval, rendering both legislature and the executive impotent. State officials may not raise taxes without a two-thirds approval of the electorate. This "places California lawmakers and the state itself in a fiscal straight jacket," said the Justice.
Justice George indicated that constitutional and legislative action in California is not the end point of "fact-gathering and deliberation, but rather by the approval of voter initiative measures." He emphasized that ballot outcomes are often manipulated by special interests.
Over the past few years it has become evident that states with voter initiatives incorporated in their constitutions are vulnerable to the effects of lobbying by activist groups. Nowhere is this more evident than the initiatives promoted by HSUS and its surrogates. ... Read the full blog.

Ohio passes livestock standards board initiative

Following a campaign with strong support from the agricultural community led by the Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio's State Issue #2 passed with support from nearly two-thirds of voters.
The ballot initiative aims to establish a 13-member board for science-based standards on housing and management of livestock. The measure is widely regarded as a preemptive approach to block a California Proposition #2-style initiative that would effectively ban confined housing of livestock, including caged hens.
The board will be chaired by the Ohio agriculture commissioner, with elected officials appointing the other members. The board must be bipartisan.
In a widely publicized debate November 2, John Fisher, chief executive of the Ohio Farm Bureau, said his opponent, Wayne Pacelle, president of the humane society of the United States (HSUS), promoted a vegan agenda under the guise of welfare.
“We're all about the humane treatment of animals, just not treating them as humans,” Fisher said.
With the adoption of Ohio State Issue #2, the HSUS will have to consider a subsequent constitutional amendment or attempt to advance its program through legislation. The passage of California Proposition #2 by a wide margin in 2008 created momentum for the HSUS and resulted in appeasement by the legislature of Michigan, which recently adopted HSUS wording in an amendment eliminating confined livestock within 10 years.
The November 3 Ohio reversal of the trend established by HSUS represents a model for other state farm associations to oppose attempts to stop intensive livestock production.

Six states hold more than half US hens

The latest USDA figures show the top six states hold 56% of U.S. hens, led by Iowa and Ohio (see chart).
Following the 2007 passage of Proposition 2 in California, it is expected California will drop from the list with compensatory expansion in the Midwest and High Plains states. The status of Ohio will depend strongly on the outcome of a referendum.

J.S. West to build Prop 2-compliant hen housing

J.S. West & Company recently unveiled plans to build a commercial egg production facility in California that will be Proposition 2 compliant. It is reportedly the first in the industry to be started after the proposition's passage.
The new housing will feature an enriched colony system for egg-laying hens, a system Europe has used for more than a decade.
The housing will make room for more than 150,000 birds, or about 8% of the company's hen population, and it will cost more than $3.2 million. June 2010 is the expected completion date.

Compromise on California Proposition 2 evaporates

California House Bill AB 1437, which was introduced by Jared Huffman, Assemblyman for San Rafael, to attempt compromise between opposing parties with respect to Proposition 2 has been dissolved.
Both the Humane Society of the United States, which promoted Proposition 2 and the California Egg Industry which opposed it, rejected the bill. The bill would have allowed the Department of Public Health to develop standards for stocking density in cages in order to clarify the wording of Proposition 2, which passed with a 27% margin in November 2008.
HSUS objected on the grounds that AB 1437 would alter the intent of Proposition 2 to effectively ban cage confinement of hens and the industry was disinclined to allow any government agency to develop standards for housing flocks.

Egg farmers ask for clarification of Proposition 2

The Association of California Egg Farmers has asked the state Legislature to enact clear standards for housing egg-laying hens as the mandates in Proposition 2, a ballot measure Californians approved last year, are vague.
Californian egg farmers are not sure how much space they need to provide the hens to comply with the proposition.
Debbie Murdock, executive director, ACEF, said the farmers need clear-cut housing standards to determine how they can comply with the law.
If the provision is violated, farmers face fines up to $1,000 per violation and/or a jail sentence of up to six months.

Bill intended to extend Proposition 2 out-of-state

California’s $648 million egg industry is – so far – neutral on legislation that would extend the Proposition 2 ban on small cages for egg-laying hens to out-of-state producers. The bill is being championed by the same groups that backed Proposition 2 according to the report in PE.com.
Supporters, reportedly including legislators who opposed Proposition 2, say the bill will help California's egg industry compete with out-of-state producers who, under current law, will not need to comply with the ruling when it takes effect in 2015.
An Assembly committee analysis of the bill raised concerns that expanding Proposition 2's rules to out-of-state egg producers could violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution meant to prevent states from restricting imports from other states.
California egg producers are forming a new group, the Association of California Egg Farmers, mainly to deal with Proposition 2's implementation.

Preemptive responses to caged legislation

House Bill 2151 has been introduced into the Oklahoma Legislature stating “The Legislature occupies and preempts the entire fields of legislation in this State but concerns in any way the regulation and enforcement of the care and handling of livestock to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance, or regulation by any municipality or other political subdivision of this State.”
A similar motion was introduced into the Georgia House of Representatives reading “no county, municipal cooperation, consolidated government, or other political subdivision of this State shall adapt any ordinance, rule, regulation or resolution regulating crop management or animal husbandry practices.”
These initiatives are in response to California Proposition 2 which was a ballot initiative. It is presumed by some animal agriculture industry members that where animal rights and welfare activist have failed in their attempts to introduce legislation at the state level, that county and municipal action would be taken to prevent the establishment of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations including egg production facilities.
These actions in Oklahoma and Georgia should be followed in all states which do not have constitutional provisions for either statewide or countywide voter initiatives.