Livestock-regulation issue on ballot in November

On their ballot next month, Ohio residents will consider a constitutional amendment that, whether passed or rejected, will undoubtedly affect Ohio's No. 1 industry, agriculture. And while proponents argue that its passage will lead to a healthy balance of interests when it comes to livestock care throughout the state, opponents claim it is little more than a power grab by Ohio's agribusiness lobby.

Issue 2 would create an Ohio Livestock Standards Board. The governor and Legislature would appoint the 13 members of the board, composed of family farmers, veterinarians, a food-safety expect, a representative of a local humane society, members of statewide farming organizations, the dean of an Ohio agriculture college and two consumers, with the state agriculture director chairing the panel.

The board would have the power to set standards for livestock and poultry care, supply and availability, food safety, disease prevention, farm management and animal wellbeing.

Ohio Farm Bureau Federation spokesperson Joe Cornely said that the issue originated with the Farm Bureau and a number of other farming organizations such as the pork and poultry producers, cattlemen, dairymen, and corn and soybean growers approaching the Ohio General Assembly about the concept.

"It's become exceedingly obvious that consumers need reassurance about the way their food is produced," Cornely said. "They have expectations that animals are well-treated, that their food is produced in a safe fashion. They prefer that it is produced locally."

Cornely said that consumer interests, animal welfare and the needs of farmers all need to be in the mix as agriculture decisions are made.

"The Livestock Care Standards Board is designed to have the discussion in a comprehensive fashion that takes in all aspects of these issues," Cornely said.

But opponents say that the proposed board is meant to allow agribusiness to avoid state laws banning common practices that confine pigs, chickens, veal calves and other animals in tight spaces. These regulatory state laws have been successfully passed in several other states with the advocacy of the Humane Society of the United States.

The national Humane Society claims that it tried to engage in cooperative dialogue with the agribusiness community in Ohio, but the Ohio Farm Bureau instead decided to "hastily grab more power than it already has."

"Unfortunately, this council is likely to do little to advance farm animal welfare," the Humane Society states. "It is little more than a handout to big agribusiness interests in the state, seeking to codify the abusive practices currently being used in the state constitution."

Advocates for Issue 2, on the other hand, say that these "out-of-state activists" would like to set "rigid, inflexible and impractical rules for how livestock and poultry are housed," according to a factsheet from Ohioans for Livestock Care.

"This (restrictive animal-safety rules advocated by some groups) would lead to higher costs for consumers, put food safety at risk, increase the amount of food imported to Ohio, cause thousands of farmers to go out of business, and endanger the overall health and well-being of Ohio's flocks and herds," the factsheet states.

Groups have been lining up on each side.

With the Ohio Farm Bureau stand Gov. Ted Strickland, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, U.S. Sen. George Voinovich, the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Livestock Coalition, the Ohio Poultry Association and the Ohio Cattlemen's Association, among many others.

Meanwhile, a partnership has been formed called Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover (OhioACT), including the Ohio Farmers Union, the Ohio Ecological Food and Farming Association, the Ohio Sierra Club and Food & Water Watch.

Also, newspapers including the Columbus Dispatch and Cleveland Plain Dealer have editorialized against the issue, claiming that amending the Ohio Constitution is not the "appropriate vehicle" for determining how the state should regulate the care of livestock.

The Dispatch editorialized that "agriculture policies should be set by statute, where they can be debated and changed relatively easily through the normal legislative process. Changing the constitution requires a statewide vote of the people, making it an unwieldy tool for day-to-day regulation."

OhioACT spokesperson Natalie Kee conceded that on its face Issue 2 seems like a good idea.

"It's not until you read into it a little further that you discover that, hey, there's some problems with this and there's some major concerns," she said.

Kee questioned why the board was being created, saying that farmers didn't approach the Ohio Farm Bureau asking for this.

"It's their attempt to cut HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) off before they get here," Kee said. "They want us to put this board in the constitution but we have no idea what kind of power it will have because all of that will come later through legislation. They want us, through blind faith, to put our trust in this board and know nothing about what they'll actually be able to do."

Local organic farmer Ed Perkins, who does not raise livestock, expressed his concerns about the issue as well, saying that when the governor and Legislature start appointing people to the board, they are going to appoint people with power and money.

"The people with power and money is the animal-confinement industry in Ohio, which is a very big industry," Perkins said. "So I have no doubt that even though it sounds good, this board will be slanted toward this group and write regulations in favor of them. And not one word is written about the environmental effects "“ the pollution that comes off these farms, and confined animals being fed grain is a major source of greenhouse-gas emissions, methane mainly. So I think the thing is just slanted toward this."

In response to concerns that the board would favor "big agribusiness," Cornely said that 98 percent of all farms in Ohio are family owned, with some 40,000 farms with livestock.

"What this board decides will apply across the board," Cornely said. "Why would these organizations, such as the Farm Bureau, the dairy producers, pork and so on, why would they advocate for something they thought was going to have the potential to harm the bulk of their membership? They wouldn't do that. We wouldn't do that."