After a bruising campaign last fall, Californians voted by a 27-point margin in favor of what was billed as an effective ban on cages for egg-laying hens.
The Humane Society of the United States, which sponsored the measure, may have won that battle. But the war over Proposition 2, it seems, is just getting started.
The egg industry says the proposition might allow it to use cages, and wants an interpretation from the state to support that idea. The Humane Society isn’t budging. It says voters meant to enact a ban on cages, and that’s what they should get.
Meanwhile, the fighting has moved to other fronts.
The society is backing Assembly Bill 1437, which would require all eggs sold in the state – not just those laid in the state – to comply with the ballot measure. And it has organized a sweeping class-action suit alleging massive price-fixing by egg farmers.
The University of California, hoping to insert itself as a peacemaker, formed a new animal welfare council last month. But at the same time, the university is being sued by the Humane Society over what the group says was an industry-biased analysis of Proposition 2 during the campaign.
While the Humane Society presses its advantage, the egg industry is seeking to find some leverage of its own in the language of the proposition.
While billed as a ban on the wire boxes that house most of California’s egg-laying hens, Proposition 2 doesn’t explicitly prohibit cages.
“It doesn’t say anything is specifically allowed or prohibited,” said Fiona Hutton, spokeswoman for the Association of California Egg Farmers.
Instead, it guarantees hens the space for some basic behaviors, including extending their wings – which average 28 inches, tip to tip – without touching another bird or the side of a cage. That’s not possible in today’s standard cages, in which eight hens typically share a 4-square-foot cage.
Egg farmers say they intend to comply with Proposition 2’s standards. But they also say there’s more than one way to do that.