Chickens are arguably one of the most exploited animals on the planet. In the United States alone, approximately 9 billion chickens are slaughtered and ‘[t]he vast majority of these animals spend their lives in total confinement—from the moment they hatch until the day they are killed’ (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). Most people believe that sentient animals deserve the protection from cruelty, and freedom from needless pain and fear; so it only makes sense that the sentient animals we habitually mass consume would also deserve these protections. Animals used for consumption in California are still routinely kept in cruel conditions; however, there is a growing demand for change among the population. This demand for change is why many states have introduced and passed propositions to change the environments these animals live in.
California had been the head of the movement to better animal confinement, passing Proposition 2, Standards for Confining Farm Animals (2008) which forbade battery cages and maintained that animals must have space to “turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their wings or limbs.”(Ballotpedia). Proposition 2 was a great place to start for bettering the treatment of chickens, but there were a few noticeable flaws. One criticism was that it was too vague, although it had stated the animals must have enough room to stretch out entirely, it failed to state the exact space requirements for the animals. There was also a lack of information and transparency regarding how California would implement and enforce this proposition.
However new grounds have been made. In 2016, Massachusetts banned products from confined animals that do not follow new and improved space requirements, which passed with 78% approval among its voters(Conway). With such a high approval percentage this shows that there is a high and growing demand for increased animal welfare. California has also introduced a new proposition in order to help better the treatment of farm animals: Proposition 12. Proposition 12 was approved in 2018, showing that people do disagree with the way animals are raised for our consumption. This proposition created new minimum requirements in hopes that these specifications will, in turn, provide more space for chickens, pigs, and calves that are raised for veal.
This proposition also claims that it would ensure that California businesses would not sell chickens, pigs, or calves that did not meet these conditions even if they were raised out of state. Although this proposition makes many promises, it is ultimately laden with flaws that subsequently worsen the conditions for the very farm animals it aims to help. Proposition 12 claims that it will ban the ‘worst’ factory farming practices used in California; such as the battery cages used for chickens and the small spaces for breeding sows, however, this is far from the truth. This proposition does not ban “the worst factory farming practices,” nor does it create “cruelty-free” conditions, it merely develops a bare minimum space requirement; which is not an improvement.
The minimum requirement is one square foot; which is no better than and truly worse for hens in factory farms because it allows for much smaller spaces. As seen in the image below one square foot is less than the estimated space that would have been provided by Proposition 2, which required animals to have enough space to “turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their wings or limbs.”(Duggan). Additionally, when Californians voted “yes” on Proposition 2, cages were supposed to be banned in 2015. However, proposition 12 legalizes the small and cruel one square foot cages until at least 2022. However, a new and improved version of Proposition 12 was just created: Proposition 12.5. Proposition 12.5 offers better solutions to the current cruelty that is occurring to farm animals, offers improved transparency regarding the ways it will change animal agriculture without blatantly misleading the public by feeding people lies, and it will have about the same economic imprint on Californians that would have come with proposition 12, but with additional benefits.
However, in Proposition 12.5 the minimum space requirement will be raised to one and a half square feet per chicken. This change, although seemingly insignificant, it is very significant to the lives of millions of chickens. With the addition of an extra half of a square foot, this will aid in giving chickens space actually to move and stretch their wings fully. The additional space effectively improves conditions for chickens, animals that are notoriously mistreated in our current farming system. This small change allows chickens kept in cages to have the extra room until cage-free systems are required. Similarly to Proposition 12, Proposition 12.5 will require chickens to be housed in cage-free operations.
Proposition 12.5 will also ensure that eggs from other states also conform to California’s confinement criteria if they are to be marketed and sold in California, but instead of it becoming effective in 2022, it will become effective in 2023. So, not only will chickens have improved conditions during the waiting period, but it will also help aid farmers in the process as well because they will have more time to transition their cage farms to cage-free ones. The extra year will lessen the financial burden as they will have added time and resources with an additional year to change their practices effectively.
However, similarly to Proposition 12, Proposition 12.5 will encounter the very same criticisms regarding the possible drop in state income tax revenues from farms because of the expenses to meet the space requirements. It would not likely be more than ten million dollars annually to enforce the measure, which is not much in comparison to the billions the United States regularly uses to enforce other laws (The League of Women Voters of California). A study published by Purdue University last year had also concluded that Proposition 2 had increased egg prices by nine percent by the fall of 2016 from what they had previously been. This nine percent increase is approximately an added twenty-seven cents on a three dollar carton of eggs (Purdue University).
So yes, like Proposition 2, Proposition 12.5 will raise the prices for eggs, but it is a small price to pay for better living conditions for the animals we use for our consumption. The prices will also raise for pork and veal, but not to anything unreasonable. Understandably, many Californians may be off put by the price spikes and taxes that they may encounter, so in order to account for and reduce the effects of such costs the date cage-free operations will become effective is moved to a later date: 2023. This extension will give farmers time to adapt to the new changes and will lower the cost of such changes, as they can gradually progress their operations, as stated previously. This extension will also help reduce the effects of egg shortages which worried some Californians with Proposition 12, however, unlike proposition 12, 12.5 will not nearly have the same scope of problems as there is an additional year for cushion.
Proposition 12.5 will also redefine the conditions regarding what it means to be “cage-free.” Currently, cage-free means that chickens are allowed outside, the Food Safety and Inspection Service defines it as the“[p]roducers must demonstrate to the agency that the poultry has been allowed access to the outside”(Food Safety and Inspection Service). Nevertheless this does not mean that chickens can go outside and forage; instead, this is easily manipulated and has many loopholes because of its vague definition. There are no specifications on how many chickens can be confined together, the type of space provided, or how much time is spent outside. The conditions are simply not defined clearly. In proposition 12.5 “cage-free” will have more specific guidelines regarding what it means to be cage-free, clearly defining the specifics.
These specifications will include limits to the stocking density, and it allows for animals to be exposed to natural light. Each chicken must also be allowed one and a half square feet of space, so when stocking the warehouses or barns, the density will be calculated by the size of the enclosure. So, rather than “cage-free” just being a marketing ploy, it will be an indication of how well the animals are being treated. This change will also lessen disease and prevent high mortality, as chickens now have more space. Cage-free systems are the closest thing to reaching the highest welfare for the animals, and by adding more guidelines this leads to uniformity among farms, ensuring there are no loopholes for farmers to go through.
With the change to cage-free farming, some argue that it is not more humane and it is still inherently cruel. Both cage-free and caged systems take part in appalling practices as they routinely buy their chicks from hatcheries that habitually kill around 200 million male chicks every year needlessly, as they are deemed useless. They also both kill their chickens within two years of their life, which is half of their average lifespan; but these cage-free systems generally offer hens a significantly improved level of animal welfare than do battery cage systems if done right. Dr. Michael Appleby, a leading poultry expert, argues that: Battery cages present inherent animal welfare problems, most notably by their small size and barren conditions. Hens are unable to engage in many of their natural behaviors and endure high levels of stress and frustration.
Cage-free egg production, while not perfect, does not entail such inherent animal welfare disadvantages and is a step in the right direction for the egg industry(The Humane Society of the United States). Although being cage-free does not guarantee it to be “cruelty-free” it does provide better conditions. All of their natural behaviors such as moving around freely and laying in nests should not be undermined. As our society evolves, the way we treat animals should as well. Animals raised for our consumption live in horrifying conditions, and they are owned by large corporations whose only goal is to maximize profits at the expense of animal welfare.
If Proposition 12.5 passes it will dramatically change the conditions of billions of farm animals lives for the better. They will be in less cramped spaces, and new specifications will prevent large corporations from not complying to the new standards ceasing the perpetual cycle of corruption. Proposition 12.5 also cares about the farmers, which is why this proposition gives them extra time to adjust to the changes unlike proposition 12; it is good for the animals and good for the people caring for them. This proposition is transparent, and although it does not promise completely “cruelty-free” conditions, it guarantees that the animals will have significantly better lives. For once in a long time factory farmed animals will be able to break out of the wires of confinement and move about with a new found freedom.
