1. The HSUS is not really dedicated to animal protectionism but rather has sided with animal exploiters for the HSUS’ financial gain.
Comment: Though Mr. Duvin himself acknowledges that the HSUS has done good work, this has been a major thrust of Bob Linden, Karen Davis, and other opponents of HR 3798. However, the HSUS has a long track record of efforts to improve animal welfare. Further, they have hired and placed in leadership positions some of the most talented and dedicated animal advocates, including Heidi Prescott, Paul Shapiro, and Josh Balk. Whether or not one believes that their strategies have been wise, I don’t think there is good reason to doubt their dedication to animal protectionism.

2. The HSUS “has lost its way.”
Comment: I have no idea where Mr. Duvin got this idea. The HSUS has never been an animal-rights organization, and I see their forays into farmed animal issues during the years of Wayne Pacelle’s leadership as a bold break from their traditional focus on dogs and cats. Indeed, before Pacelle became President, meat was served at HSUS events.

3 If the legislation passes, the HSUS will cease undercover operations and efforts to further reform the egg industry for 18 years.
Comment: This agreement is not binding on any other organizations, so I don’t see what the problem is.

4. The legislation is inadequate from an animal-welfare standpoint.
Comment: This is an opinion, and before animal activists aim to undermine the legislation, they should take a close look at what it does and does not accomplish. To my reading, it falls far short of any reasonable notion of “humane” treatment. However, the changes are significant, such as the reduction in crowding. Can we reasonably hope to do more right now or in the near future (keeping in mind that by “we” in this context I’m thinking about the animal–protection movement without the help of the HSUS)? I am very doubtful.

Some specific points with which I disagree with Mr. Duvin:

Mr. Duvin argues that this agreement terminates any chance for cage-free standards. There is nothing in the agreement that prohibits further improvements in animal welfare or other animal protection that might be promoted by other animal-protection organizations, industry, or Congress. Second, I don’t think it’s at all reasonable to expect improvements in federal standards of animal welfare to come at the behest of any other institution or organization other than the HSUS.

Mr. Duvin objects that the HSUS proceeded with this initiative unilaterally, without the support of other organizations. I don’t know whether the HSUS sought feedback from PETA or from other, much smaller groups such as Mercy for Animals, Compassion Over Killing, United Poultry Concerns, etc. However, at the end of the day, for better or worse, the HSUS is uniquely positioned to work with UEP because of the HSUS’ size and financial clout. If people don’t like what kinds of programs the HSUS promotes, then they should invest their donations elsewhere. But this is what the HSUS has always done – working with various institutions that exploit animals to ameliorate the conditions under which the animals suffer.

Mr. Duvin says that the legislation “mortgages our core principles to expediency.” This is not true. The legislation is an outgrowth of the HSUS’ focus on animal welfare and is not a manifestation “our core principles.” Rather, we’re really talking about the HSUS’ core principles. I don’t think the HSUS has mortgaged its principles to expediency – as best I can tell, this agreement is about the best that the HSUS can do given that they are going up against a multi-billion dollar industry that stands to lose a huge amount of money if intensive caging systems were abolished (and even more if their entire industry were rendered obsolete, as animal-rights proponents would like to see).

Mr. Duvin says that if this legislation passes, “UEP has no further mandate or incentive to ever reach a cage-free end point.” The UEP has never had an mandate or incentive to reach a cage-free end point and has historically vigorously opposed all efforts to ameliorate hens’ conditions. Further, there could be incentives for the UEP to seek a cage-free end point if consumers and/or an effective animal protection movement gave them such incentives.

Maybe someone can elucidate for me: what is the difference between compromise and concession, which Mr. Duvin says the HSUS has confused? I don’t see a difference, when it comes to legislation.

I don’t see how this legislation will result in confinement of chickens “forever,” but this conviction seems central to his opposition of HR 3798. Any legislation – and even the articles of the Constitution – can be altered or revoked.

By now if you’ve been following the situation in Greece, you know the main points of the new “Memorandum of Understanding” the incompetent Greek government has inked with the Troika. 130 billion Euros, most of which will NOT go to the Greeks (the banks now have first dibbs on EVERYTHING now), are to be given in exchange for a 22% cut to the already sliced minimum wage, many thousands MORE government workers to be laid off (though most have not received paychecks in months), $1.5 billion Euros MORE to be cut from Greek hospitals (which are already out of critical medical supplies), cuts to already decimated pensions, as well as many other horrors.

I wanted to bring to your attention however two other “insignificant” items in this agreement that have completely escaped mainstream media attention, because in these items, we can REALLY see what’s actually going on here.

The first of these is that in addition to the 22% cut to minimum wage, there is also a 32% (!!!) cut to the YOUTH minimum wage. I find this curious, because while some government workers may actually receive minimum wage (although I don’t know this for sure), these youth workers certainly do not work for the government. Why this is curious is because payments to youth workers (being private sector) will have NO IMPACT on Greece’s ability to service their government debt. So why even put this in?

The second item is this item taken directly from the Memorandum: “lift constraints for retailers to sell restricted product categories such as baby food.” So the Greeks apparently have laws regarding what sort of baby food can be sold, which would seem rather prudent to me. Except that the Troika doesn’t like these restrictions. Which brings up the obvious question: Why in hell would a minor item like baby food be specifically singled out in a MAJOR agreement over 130 billion Euros? Especially when lifting these restrictions would INCREASE Greece’s trade deficit, which is exactly the opposite of what Greece needs, and which WOULD impact Greece’s ability to service its debt, at least in a small way. Like the youth minimum wage cut above, this defies all logic as to what should be in this agreement. Unless of course the agreement isn’t really about Greece servicing its debt at all.

As it turns out however, BOTH of these fit neatly into the pet ideas of the Neoliberal Project; namely that both floors on wages and ANY restrictions on trade for whatever reasons are “bad” for the economy. The neoliberal dream economy, that is. One where people are subservient to profits, and where small businesses are an annoyance simply to be blown away for the sake of global corporate mega-giants.

Look, Greece can’t pay this new debt, and they couldn’t pay the debt incurred from their last bailout. In fact, they couldn’t pay their debt before any of these bailouts began, and it beggars belief that the entire Troika is so stupid that they didn’t know this up front. So these bailouts CAN’T be about Greece paying its debt, and they MUST be about something else. Something else that we can easily see simply by looking at these two items I’ve highlighted above. And that is this: Regardless of the pain inflicted upon the good people of Greece, the Troika is using Greece’s financial problems as an excuse to turn Greece into a neoliberal surf colony, forever indebted beyond the ability to pay, and reduced to groveling for even a mere subsistence existence. Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine writ large. No matter how much it hurts the Greek people.

From a distance, it may look like the Greek government is simply bowing its collective heads in obedience to its new corporate masters of international finance and industry. I hope not. I hope what we are seeing is their bowing of their heads in their collective shame.

Note: RONALD PIRES is a member of the Facebook group Links for the Wildly Left, created by editor Diane Gee.

Spending madly? Check out the stats: public expenditure is below the EU average. Inflating their currency? Impossible, they’re in the eurozone. And the parasites? Those are precisely the moneyed elite: the powerful shipping industry; non tax-paying, self-employed petit bourgeoisie; and the upper classes in general, those who refuse to pay corporate taxes or their swimming pool taxes. If you refer to people living on a 500 euro wage (in one of the countries with the highest living costs in Europe) as parasites, you must be at least mildly deranged.

Besides, no one wants to do business with Argentina? Eh. Where are you getting your facts from? Argentina may have been locked out of global capital markets, but their economy has been growing at spectacular 7-9% rates ever since their much-dreaded default and massive devaluation. The reason? Breaking the oppressive dollar-peso peg — which merely served the rich Argentine elites and powerful foreign financial interests — set the country free, liberated its exporting sector from the shackles of an overvalued currency, and restored monetary policy autonomy to a government that was actually (relatively) accountable to its people.

I don’t want to overdo the Argentine “success story” — Kirchner was way too reformist to be taken seriously as an agent for serious social change — but it is undeniable that Argentina (which suffered over 50% poverty rates in 2002, compared to less than 10% today) benefited MASSIVELY from its default and devaluation. Perhaps it’s time to get yourself informed on the facts for a change?

Reached an Argentina moment? You mean they aren’t in enough trouble NOW that they wish to join the circle of nations that NO business of any sort will do business with without serious upfront hard (foreign) currency?

Greece got to this period in their history by doing exactly what Argentina, Zimbabwe, N. Korea, Venezuela, Cuba etc has done (and the US/most of the developed world is currently doing) by spending madly, inflating their currency, expanding their government, and in general meddling with their economies. The longer they try to put off the moment of truth of the necessity of downsizing government, removing it’s presence from the economy, and in general accept the fact that subsidies to everyone is bankrupting them-Greece will continue to burn.

Parasites will fight hard to keep their share of others money so I don’t see things getting better there anytime soon. I also doubt the other nations elsewhere facing similar walls of reality will slow their race to expand government activities and control.

The foreign bankers should be arrested for the bond crisis they promulgated, advanced, conspired for, committed fraud for, murdered for, and should die for as a debt to society for their crimes against humanity on behalf of the US, Germany, France, Holland Britain, for corporate parasitism.

2. You can see a letter from nearly all of the major agribusiness groups on why they oppose this bill
It is a big assumption that they are against the CONTENT of the bill or its “humane” leanings (by industry standards), rather than the precedent of national legislation.

3. How Prop 2 will be applied by state officials is still an undecided outcome.
AND there is NO certainty how HR 3798 will be applied as there is virtually no monitoring, and there is an AGREEMENT by HSUS to do NO undercover monitoring (according to UEP’s sales pitch What Does the Egg Industry Get Out of the Deal – PowerPoint Presentation by Gene Gregory http://egg-cite.com/documents/GeneGregoryPresentation.pdf:
- Stops all state legislation and ballot initiatives.
- Clarified the acceptable housing for California, Michigan, Ohio, Oregon, Washington and all other states.
- HSUS accepts enriched colony housing.
- HSUS would stop lawsuits and undercover farm videos of UEP and UEP members.
- Allow eggs to continue flowing across state lines.
- Time to use existing conventional cages.
- Allows a phase-in schedule that avoids market disruptions.
- Allows a phase-in that will assist with cost averaging and therefore more affordable.”
4. As to setting a national space standard for space, it’s important to avoid the illusion that states are lining up to ban cages for laying hens. The vast majority of U.S. egg-laying hens live in states where we have no pathway to provide them with any legal protection whatsoever
Never heard of BOYCOTTS, PICKETS, LETTER WRITING, and a hundred other ways that people make their will known to both business and legislators? Is the HSUS argument that HR3798 is “short cut” to “better” conditions? Really?
5. While Prop 2 dealt only with a space standard for hens, the federal legislation will not only require more space but also other improvements to make it a more comprehensive policy for hen welfare.
It is my understanding that the other “improvements” – namely ammonia levels and euthanasia – are already being used by virtually all of the egg producers (because of consumer pressure), and that the AVMA guidelines are a low bar.
6. This legislation offers the opportunity not just to help millions of birds in one state, but hundreds of millions of birds in all 50 states in one fell swoop, including big egg production states where we are very unlikely to be able to provide any relief at all for hens otherwise.
AND in the process it undermines ANY legislative effort to do anything BETTER. It also takes HSUS monitoring of the industry off the table. The “improvements” are in part cosmetic, and according to the “HSUS Report Welfare Issues with Furnished Cages for Egg-Laying Hens:”

“However, similar to conventional battery cages, furnished cages provide an
unacceptably limited amount of space per bird; prevent many important locomotory activities, including running, jumping, flying, and wing-flapping; and constrain perching, dustbathing, and nesting. The severe locomotory restriction of cages also prevents hens from obtaining normal amounts of exercise, which in turn leads to poor skeletal strength and other pathologies. While allowing for some natural behavior denied in conventional cages, furnished cages remain unable to adequately provide for an acceptable level of welfare for hens kept in commercial egg production.”

Further, the industry has 15-18 YEARS to get to this continued INHUMANE standard, and NO motivation to move beyond it.

IF HSUS is putting its faith in the HOPE that the industry will move towards more humane practices on its own, that is pure speculation. It would be based upon the hope that CONSUMER pressure would make a difference (something already argued against in your comment) or MARKET DEMAND – which assumes in a permanently failing economy that consumers will be willing to pay more than a dollar more per dozen for cage-free or free range organic eggs. HSUS cannot argue FOR market and consumer forces in terms of moving PRACTICE beyond LEGISLATION, while arguing that the legislation is needed because there is NO OTHER WAY to improve the quality of life of hens in the industry.

Sorry, I am not convinced.

NOTE: Rowan Wolf is editor in chief of our sister publication, Cyrano’s Journal Today.

2. You can see a letter from nearly all of the major agribusiness groups on why they oppose this bill at this link: http://bit.ly/yB327w

3. How Prop 2 will be applied by state officials is still an undecided outcome. The industry—and its allies in the California government—are arguing that it means far less space than what this national standard would be. There’s a real question as to whether Prop 2 will be watered down by hostile state agricultural officials. It’s very far from given that Prop 2 will mean what we would hope. That should pains us—especially HSUS since it spent multiple millions on the campaign and the leaders you refer to devoted their lives to it.

4. As to setting a national space standard for space, it’s important to avoid the illusion that states are lining up to ban cages for laying hens. The vast majority of U.S. egg-laying hens live in states where we have no pathway to provide them with any legal protection whatsoever (i.e., there’s no ballot measure option and little political will among lawmakers in those states). If anything, these big egg production states (e.g., Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, etc.) are more likely to ban investigations of factory farms rather than cages on factory farms.

5. While Prop 2 dealt only with a space standard for hens, the federal legislation will not only require more space but also other improvements to make it a more comprehensive policy for hen welfare. H.R. 3798 requires enrichments such as nests and perches so hens can engage in natural behaviors; bans inhumane practices such as forced starvation molting; prohibits excessive ammonia levels in henhouses; and establishes a national egg labeling program so consumers can have more information about where eggs come from in the marketplace (e.g., “eggs from caged hens” or “eggs from cage-free hens”).

6. This legislation offers the opportunity not just to help millions of birds in one state, but hundreds of millions of birds in all 50 states in one fell swoop, including big egg production states where we are very unlikely to be able to provide any relief at all for hens otherwise.

It is correct that the legislation would not eliminate battery cages,
but it is totally incorrect to state that the bill would “enshrine”
cages. The bill defines the conditions that would have to be met in
order to label eggs “free-range” or “cage-free,” or from “enriched
cages” or from “caged hens,” so obviously the bill doesn’t require
that hens be kept in cages or “ensure they’ll never get out” of
cages, as is being claimed by some.

It’s not a perfect bill. An 18-year phase-in period is dismal.
There is also a problem about state and local authority, because the
bill would indeed prevent states from passing different legislation
for caging or coming up with their own regulations. It is worth
noting, though, that most states have no plans or even a desire to
regulate the chicken industry for animal welfare. In the HSUS/UEP
bill, California must be in compliance earlier than other states,
and I am not really sure in what other way the proposed federal bill
affects California. The cage-free concept was already nullified by
the American Humane deal, as I understand it, but I think that is in
dispute.

Forced molts would be prohibited by the legislation, and there are
other things that would improve the lives of laying hens. Over time
they would get a lot more space and comfort in the colony cages, but
the most important point I’m trying to make is that there is no
requirement in the bill that hens be caged at all. It would be up to
consumers to choose eggs from free-range chickens, cage-free
chickens, chickens in enriched cages, or chickens in the same old
awful cages that exist now (which would be phased out by the bill).

Kim Bartlett, President of Animal People, Inc.

As Mary Finelli stated above, big ag is opposed to ANY regulation or legislation that might result in even the tiniest decrease in their profits, now or decades from now.

The focus of this welfare legislation (and all of the time and money being spent) is on cage specifications rather than on procedures and methods and avenues to expand what’s needed to get millions upon millions of brutalized hens OUT of cages.

OPPOSE H.R. 3798
Stop the Rotten Egg Bill: Fight the Egg Industry’s Attempt to Keep Hens in Cages Forever
http://www.all-creatures.org/alert/alert-20120128-2.html