Ohio's Issue 2: Not what it seems | Bread & Butter

On the heels of successful documentaries like “Food, Inc,” which question the food safety, ethical and animal welfare practices of our nation, its farmers and the Food and Drug Administration (that is supposed to be watching out for us); food awareness is running at an all-time high.

People are going green, eating local and buying organic, cage free, free range, grass fed, loved, petted and protected. It’s more chic than ever to care about where your food comes from and how it’s raised.

State legislatures are finally starting to reflect the consumer (voter) demand for higher standards and tougher regulations concerning how safe our food is and how we treat the animals we harvest it from.

Both California and Michigan recently passed laws, regulations or measures through ballot initiatives banning the factory farm practiced use of battery cages to contain hens, veal crates to confine calves and gestation crates to house pregnant sows. All of which inflict needless cruelty and prevent the animals from turning around, standing up or laying down.

But if happy cows really do come from California (or one of the other seven states with similar measures in place) where does that leave our Ohio breds?

On Election Day this Tuesday, Ohioans will have the opportunity to vote on Issue 2, a proposed state constitutional amendment that alleges it will: “maintain and promote food safety, ensure the care and well being of livestock and protect Ohio consumers and family farmers.”

And let me tell you up front, it’s backed by just about everyone. The Ohio Democratic Party, The Ohio Republican Party, Gov. Ted Strickland and the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation (mouthpiece for the mega farms) have all thrown their name behind it. The list of supporters is seemingly endless on the safelocalohiofood.org Web site, as they’ve drummed up every county auditor, recorder and treasurer they can to throw at you.

But things are never that simple or one-sided. Perhaps the very fact that everyone seems to be in agreement (politicians and “farmers” alike) might suggest there could be some cause for concern.

Not to mention the proponents of the amendment, big agribusiness, really hasn’t made a secret about why they scrambled to put it together in the first place.

In February, riding high after helping to organize voters to push through a livestock animal welfare measure in California last November, the Humane Society of the United States sat down with Ohio livestock industry members to discuss passing similar measures here.

The livestock industry, fearing a successful campaign by the Humane Society of the United States, or HSUS, decided to take matters into its own hands to control and circumvent it in one big power grab.

The amendment seeks to appoint (not elect) a 13-member Livestock Care Standards Board that will be the sole governing body that determines and defines how every cow, chicken, sheep or pig in Ohio is be treated and what are and are not humane living conditions and farming practices.

The board is to be composed of people like the director of the department of agriculture, a family farm representative, the State Veterinarian and the dean of an Ohio college or university’s agriculture department, said Peggy Kirk Hall, the director of agricultural law at Ohio State University, in a legal fact sheet.

Those who oppose the amendment assert that, given it was lobbied for in the Ohio House and Senate by agribusiness, the appointed Board will be industry dominated. And with the lone Humane Society representative hopelessly outnumbered, will operate only to placate animal welfare concerned voters, scare off the HSUS and ultimately serve the industries bottom line.

The opposition points to the vague and maneuverable language the amendment is written in as providing for it. For instance, the term “family farmer,” which is used throughout the language of the amendment, is never defined, nor is it by Ohio’s statutory laws. This means those in charge of appointing the “family farmers” to the Board can do so subjectively – say the head of large factory farm?

Issue 2 and its backers assert that a “yes” vote is one cast in favor of higher animal welfare standards and stricter food-safety regulation in an effort to pull the wool over Ohio voter’s eyes. While, in fact, it’s a vote cast in favor of providing a buffer to an industry that definitely could use a second look and some reforming.Voting for Issue 2 is no better than putting the fox in charge of the hen house. Vote NO on Issue 2.