The LA Times editorial recommending a "no" vote on Proposition 2 is about as good an example of the overwhelming cruelty incentivized by our current food system as I've seen. Proposition 2, for those late to the party, is a California ballot initiative that would "require that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely." Read that again: It does not require access to sunshine or natural feed. It does not require exercise time or days spent on the field. It just states that the confinement in which they are to spend their miserable lives must allow the to stand, sit, lie, and extend their limbs."The egg industry is rife with cruelty to animals. Millions of hens in California are kept in cages so small that every natural instinct is thwarted: They cannot perch, walk or spread their wings. On some farms, cages are stacked and hens on the bottom live in waste. All creatures, even those bred to provide food, deserve to be treated humanely. That's the appeal of Proposition 2," says The LA Times. Sounds good so far. They continue: "[But] as much as we support the decent treatment of animals, we doubt that passage of the measure would start a national trend. In fact, we fear that it would have an unintended consequence: Because it only regulates eggs produced in California and not eggs that are sold here, it would likely bolster the market for cheaper out-of-state eggs produced where farmers have no similar bans on cages.""As a result, we fear the result of Proposition 2's passage would not be better treatment of hens but merely the export of their mistreatment. We recommend a no vote."In other words: The animals are cruelly and brutally mistreated because it is cheaper for the farmers to do so. This, the LA Times agrees, is wrong. But voters should reject Proposition 2, because even slightly more humane standards might drive producers from the state, depriving it of business. And the moral imperative to treat living, feeling things with even minimal compassion -- an imperative I don't think Proposition 2 actually satisfies -- is not worth the loss of a couple chicken farms.One day, when humanity grows its meat in labs, folks will look back on the industrial agriculture of our time with a mixture of awe and horror. They'll look back on editorials like this one with disbelief. They will not judge us kindly.Image used under a CC license from Fuzzy Gerdes. WHAT ARE ETHICS WORTH?
The LA Times editorial recommending a "no" vote on Proposition 2 is about as good an example of the overwhelming cruelty incentivized by our current food system as I've seen. Proposition 2, for those late to the party, is a California ballot initiative that would "require that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely." Read that again: It does not require access to sunshine or natural feed. It does not require exercise time or days spent on the field. It just states that the confinement in which they are to spend their miserable lives must allow the to stand, sit, lie, and extend their limbs."The egg industry is rife with cruelty to animals. Millions of hens in California are kept in cages so small that every natural instinct is thwarted: They cannot perch, walk or spread their wings. On some farms, cages are stacked and hens on the bottom live in waste. All creatures, even those bred to provide food, deserve to be treated humanely. That's the appeal of Proposition 2," says The LA Times. Sounds good so far. They continue: "[But] as much as we support the decent treatment of animals, we doubt that passage of the measure would start a national trend. In fact, we fear that it would have an unintended consequence: Because it only regulates eggs produced in California and not eggs that are sold here, it would likely bolster the market for cheaper out-of-state eggs produced where farmers have no similar bans on cages.""As a result, we fear the result of Proposition 2's passage would not be better treatment of hens but merely the export of their mistreatment. We recommend a no vote."In other words: The animals are cruelly and brutally mistreated because it is cheaper for the farmers to do so. This, the LA Times agrees, is wrong. But voters should reject Proposition 2, because even slightly more humane standards might drive producers from the state, depriving it of business. And the moral imperative to treat living, feeling things with even minimal compassion -- an imperative I don't think Proposition 2 actually satisfies -- is not worth the loss of a couple chicken farms.One day, when humanity grows its meat in labs, folks will look back on the industrial agriculture of our time with a mixture of awe and horror. They'll look back on editorials like this one with disbelief. They will not judge us kindly.Image used under a CC license from Fuzzy Gerdes. 
