Animal cruelty is indefensible in every regard. The act of intentionally harming a living creature is horrific and cannot be tolerated in today’s society. However, we currently live in a world that consumes all manners of living things daily, and those living things are raised somewhere and by someone. As a society, we disconnect ourselves from the process of delivering meat to a plate, but it is something that needs to be considered.
However, the wording of Massachusetts ballot question 3 is too overreaching for The Daily Free Press’ editorial board make a consensus decision on a vote.
The actual ballot question supports a ban of “the sale of eggs, veal, or pork of a farm animal confined in spaces that prevent the animal from lying down, standing up, extending its limbs, or turning around.” Essentially, the proposal is banning chickens being stuffed into minuscule wire cages — potentially smaller than a textbook — or gestation crates for pigs, which essentially eliminate movement during a pregnancy and potentially for an entire life. These behaviors are nothing less than horrible and should not exist. However, they do persist, just not necessarily in Massachusetts.
As outlined in a WBUR article, only one remaining farm in Massachusetts houses egg-laying hens in small wire cages. Massachusetts’s economy is not focused on large-scale agricultural production, therefore allowing smaller farms to thrive in a sort of niche market. There is something to be said for this more individualized market, and it could easily be expanded following this ban.
The argument of the ban only affecting one farm is also arbitrary. It is similar to comparing this farm to break-ins in a neighborhood. If there were only several attempted break-ins, it wouldn’t be said that break-ins should be legal just because that neighborhood is not a hotbed for break-ins.
Theoretically, looking at the economic impacts of the ban, prices will rise immediately in the short run. Then, smaller cage-free and humane farms will fill the market void. By doing so, more farms will enter this space, increasing competition and decreasing prices. Therefore, the argued price rise is inevitable in the short run, but could be potentially diminished in the long run, encouraging local businesses in the process.
It is a dangerous thought to consider trading animal cruelty for a cheaper product. It is not unlike trading child labor for a cheaper pair of shoes. As a society, we’re past the point where we can allow hens to live in cages where they can’t lift their wings. Vegetarian or not, consumers need to have respect for the animals from which the meat I eat comes. Passing this issue would reflect a state-wide dedication to respecting the lives of all animals
Voting yes on the question is endorsing a message similar to that of Chipotle when they made the decision to refuse to serve carnitas because of animal welfare standards not being met. Certainly, the behavior will continue elsewhere, but it is adopting a sort of “not in our house” approach. The message perhaps echoes stronger than the actual direct impact.
Despite theoretical economic evidence to suggest otherwise, rising prices will take immediate effect. Food prices are already exorbitant for some, and increasing them further could be debilitating. Those affected by higher food prices are those most vulnerable. Unfortunately, this is the case, and a ban on a wider selection of options can make a challenging situation even more so.
Another valid point is the role of government regulation in the ban. Consumers are currently unaffected for better or worse, so government intervention would be a direct impact on the government. If this ban is passed, it opens a Pandora Box for threats on the free market.
In short, there are other ways to achieve a similar effect. A tax, for example, could make these products less prevalent, but would most likely still raise prices.
Prices aside, animal cruelty is unacceptable, and despite a lack of consensus, our stance on animal welfare coming first and foremost is unwavering.
