Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
other livestock groups became concerned that this would
set a bad precedent, and might lead to federal legislation
affecting other livestock farmers. Just when egg producers
and animal advocacy organizations seem to have settled on
an agreement, other livestock producers have now entered
the debate, because the manner in which the egg contro-
versy is settled impacts how, say, the pork controversy is
settled. As the time of this writing, the egg controversy is
still unresolved.
This HSUS-backed legislation would set a dangerous
precedent that could let Washington bureaucrats dictate
how livestock and poultry producers raise and care for
their animals . . . . We don't need or want the federal gov-
ernment and HSUS telling us how to do our jobs.
—Doug Wolf, president of the National Pork Producer
Council, “Livestock Groups Equate HSUS / UEP Bill
to Government Takeover of Farms,”,
January 24, 2013, accessed November 25, 2013,
at http://
legislation_012312. asp.
Producers in other industries may oppose federal legisla-
tion on egg production because they believe that mandating
a “one size fits all” federal bill would (1)  take away produc-
ers' freedom to operate in manners they see fit for the best of
their animals, (2) make it challenging to respond to consumer
demands and choices, (3)  increase food prices, (4)  negatively
impact niche markets and small-scale farmers, and (5)  redi-
rect budgeted funds from enhancing food safety and US com-
petitiveness to regulating on-farm practices for reasons other
than public and animal health. Thus, industries other than egg
production fear this agreement would set a “dangerous prec-
edent” for the future of their own industries; and not only for
the reasons mentioned, but also for the fear that animal rights
groups, like HSUS and PETA, could dictate on-farm practices
Search WWH ::

Custom Search