Senate scrambles plan to protect egg-laying hens
Leaders of the U.S. Senate chickened out this week. Yielding to paranoia from beef and pork producers, they nixed a bipartisan amendment that would lead to more humane treatment for the hens that produce most of the eggs consumed by Americans.
Hopes for the measure now reside with the House, which is considering a similar amendment to the new farm bill. Passage there could encourage the Senate to reassess an opportunity to improve the nation’s food supply.
In a welcome show of detente after years of conflict, the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the U.S. forged an agreement that would phase in larger cages and better treatment for egg-laying hens, as well as require labeling to inform consumers about the conditions in which a hen was raised. The changes would be expected to add 10 cents to the price of a carton of eggs by 2025.
That’s a small price to pay for more ethical food production. About 250 million hens currently exist miserably in cages too small to extend a wing or turn around. Some states have laws requiring more humane conditions. But the reforms are unpopular with lawmakers in agricultural states, and a patchwork of regulations has hampered interstate marketing and distribution.
Lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. Senate and House had agreed to co-sponsor amendments that would enshrine the provisions of the agreement into law.
But the groundbreaking and sensible measure failed to make the cut when sponsors of a new farm bill, including Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, whittled the number of amendments down to 73.
Senators were unwilling to do the right thing in the face of opposition from other livestock groups, which irrationally contend that humane conditions for one species might force reform on their industries. That would be a great development, actually. But if lawmakers are too cowed to pass an amendment that the egg industry has signed off on, it’s implausible to think they would require reform of industries that don’t want to change.
The House should do the right thing and keep the amendment alive. This opportunity for positive change may not come up again any time soon.
Kent Mueller
11 months, 1 week agoThat comment is actually pretty funny, Kay, being next to your “non-picture”.
Phil Cardarella
11 months, 1 week agoUs lib’rils buy cage-free eggs. They TASTE better.
I’m no vegan. Nor do I think steaks come from cattle who commit suicide for the privilege of feeding me. Living animals are SLAUGHTERED for my food.
On the other hand,I have no reason to want them to suffer unnecessarily — and adding an additional marginal profit to the MegaCorp that has replaced actual farming is unnecessary.
To eat animals, it is necessary to kill them. It is not necessary — nor is it ethical — to torture our food first.
Benjamin Fordham
11 months agoAnyone concerned about factory farm cruelty should OPPOSE this legislation. Not only would it keep laying hens IN battery cages forever, it would eliminate the rights of states and voters to do anything about it. This measure will allow the egg industry to avoid ever having to answer the public’s call for REAL anti-cruelty reform. Check out http://www.StopTheRottenEggBill.org/ campaign—they’re getting it right.