The New York Times Magazine had an interesting
profile this weekend of Wayne Pacell, the aggressive president of the Humane Society and the driving force behind California's
Proposition 2 (the livestock protection initiative I've been following on this blog). The article is a good look at the rapid political maturation of an interest group long derided as a bunch of woolly-headed hippies, and I recommend giving it a read. I want to focus in, though, on one of the odder parts of the argument against Proposition 2:
Ryan Armstrong, an egg producer in Valley Center, Calif., says Proposition 2 would be the end of his three-generation family business. Not only would it be too expensive to convert to new hen housing, he says; if he were to go cage-free, he also wouldn’t be able to compete against lower-priced battery-cage eggs trucked in from other states and from Mexico. “This is the cheapest, healthiest way to make eggs,” he says. “Do we want chickens to flap their wings? Or do we want to eat?”There’s no consensus on what the cost to consumers will be if Proposition 2 passes, although both sides agree that there will be a price increase. Proponents of Proposition 2 estimate an increase of 12 cents per dozen; opponents have claimed that prices could double. In fact, no one really knows the additional cost because the price of eggs is, in part, dependent on whether other states follow California’s lead and on how much the demand for cage-free eggs, currently about 5 percent of the market, increases in the future.
Implicit in all this is a sort of odd argument that eggs should be as cheap as possible. But no one seems quite willing to explain
why they should be so cheap. After all, if egg prices jump by, say, 30 cents a dozen, and
some consumers purchase
slightly fewer eggs on the margin, it's not like they'll starve. They'll substitute. They'll eat more Cheerios, or have another piece of toast. The waffle industry will rejoice. So will many public health experts.Conversely, you could imagine a situation in which society identifies a pressing need for cheap eggs, and also decides chickens should be able to enjoy such creature comforts as occasionally, during the course of their productive lives, spreading their wings and turning around. In that scenario, the government might regulate the way egg producers treat their chickens but also offer them heavy subsidies to keep the price down. But no one is suggesting that, either. So no one is suggesting people will starve due to slightly higher egg prices and no one is suggesting society has a serious interest in dirt cheap egg prices. Nor is anyone suggesting serious public health or general welfare costs if consumers eat slightly less in the way of eggs and slightly more in the ways of morning grains. Instead, the basic argument here appears to be that the egg industry doesn't want anyone to eat more waffles, because more waffles=less profit. Fair enough, but they're causing a lot of suffering in order to ensure that Eggo share prices don't rise by three cents. And it's not clear, at least to me, why we should indulge them.
Photo used under a CC license from Sir Chalky. 
