" So the plan is to continue to allow an industry to trim costs via unfettered cruelty because otherwise the cruelty will move elsewhere?
I'd think astute farmers would be considering ways to market their new and less cruel methods. Make it a selling point, it's the American way.
Besides, California's never been shy about being first to change accepted practices, as illustrated by California's pioneering efforts to reduce air pollution. You may recall "the industry" saying it was impossible and too great a burden. Oh, yeah? Automakers who did not find it impossible to reduce pollution were handsomely rewarded with increased sales.
To argue that the same outcome is impossible should Prop 2 pass seems more like the typical, "let business do whatever it wants or the sky will fall" mentality that has led to our current state of government by corporate interests.
I'm reading headlines every single day that show me how well government by corporations has worked out.
Do what is right. "

" The argument that this will just shift production from one state to another is misguided.

During a similar ballot initiative in Arizona in 2006, the pork industry attempted to scare voters with the same assertion. In reality though, the opposite happened. Not only did the major pork factory farm remain in the state, but the landslide vote (62-38) was a catalyst for national reform in the veal and pork industries. Within just three months of the vote, the top two veal producers announced they'd phase out their use of veal crates and the largest pig producers in the US and Canada announced they'd be phasing out gestation crates.

Arizona vote set a path not only for improved animal welfare in the state, but it encouraged reform in the rest of the nation, as well. A similar experience will likely take place in the egg industry when Californians pass Prop 2 – and industry leaders seem to agree. Further, an increasing number of major retailers are demanding that their suppliers move away from extreme confinement practices. Prop 2 will accelerate this trend, meaning that there will be even less incentive for production to relocate.

Prop 2 will lead to higher animal welfare standards in both CA and the rest of the nation.

www.YESonProp2.com "

" Veal farming is disgusting.

I'll pay more for eggs in order to give the hens more room. "

" Just consider the unintended consequences. Cesar Chavez caused the cost of fruit and vegetables to skyrocket because people voted for his labor idealism. Have you noticed tomatoes at $3 a pound in the super market? If you vote for this you are voting for the cost of food to keep going up.
We have a market economy - let it work! "

" [BIG sigh]
Sure, let the market economy work BUT with regulations as needed in a civilized society.
Unregulated GREED is a very ugly cancer and ultimately kills its host. "

" Right.... It's all about money...

Who cares about the animals... They're no different than any other crop we harvest...

Certain types of people get their jollies from abusing and torturing animals, so let them have their fun...

Money Money Money.... That's what the human conscience is all about... "

" I'll be gathering signatures for a 2010 ballot initiative to make sure that Napa Register editors aren't required to be able to turn around and stretch their legs in their cubicles. Anyone interested in signing? "

" Editor - There are two glaring holes in your argument. First, you claim that anti-cruelty regulations will be a burden on multi-million dollar corporations, and that they might move out of state. The argument here is something like, "well, it's the right thing to do, but it's too expensive. Let's just be cruel, it's cheaper." Not very enlightened.

Second, the implication of the first argument is that such regulations would increase costs that could not be recouped by the industry because folks don't care where their meat comes from, so long as it's cheap. But then you go on to say that "consumers are willing to pay a higher price to support these practices." You can't have it both ways here: either consumers want cheap meat, or they are willing to pay a higher price to support anti-cruelty measures. I happen to think you're right about consumers paying a higher price for guilt-free foods. So it stands to reason that if California meats are "cruelty free," they would command a higher price at the market, thus encouraging farmers to stay in California.

Wait a second . . . doing the right thing might actually be economically beneficial? How about that . . . an easy choice on November 4 - Yes on Prop. 2. "

" There are fewer ways to show how idea-indentured to corporate PR flackery the media is than this recommendation.

If farmers don't want to raise their animals humanely by 2015 -- PLEASE LEAVE!

It actually improves the 'Grown in California' brand if farm, dairy and meat products grown in California STAND FOR QUALITY AND HUMANE TREATMENT.

The Bushite US Agriculture Department is so corporate enslaved that it regulates against 100% 'mad cow' testing for cattle ranchers who want to sell to high-profit Asian markets that are willing to pay... that's about as asinine and as allowing animal torture to destroy the 'Grown in California' brand.

~Ruff "

" Your editorial research seemed shallow and your agruments are weak. I would not consider factory farming one of Califonia's "greatest industries."
Consumers are showing the farming industry that where their food comes from does matter. This is not about the penny an egg that the egg industry says it will cost to implement this measure, it is about doing the right and humane thing. Oregon, Florida, and Arizona have all passed similar measures and as the previous comment states, the farms did not leave the state.
Please note that most of the money raised in opposition to this proposition is coming from out of state which one could possilblly conclude that small farmers are not opposed to this measure.
Note to editor, I will be canceling my subsciption due to your stance on Prop 2. "

" I would hardly call Cesar Chavez's work "labor idealism"--unless it's idealistic to expect fair wages and working conditions for everyone--but that's beside the point. Were I old enough to vote, I would be voting for Prop 2. I am a vegetarian, so it doesn't really apply to me, but all animals--regardless of their purpose in life--deserve humane treatment. "

" If fire mike is correct, then we don't NEED Prop 2. The consumers will force the producers to do the right thing without the law.

I'm voting no on this one.... "

" Boycott it if u dont like it.
No more regulations Bro!
The government is not the answer its the problem "

" YES ON PROP 2 is endorsed by the UNITED FARM WORKERS. I doubt they'd endorse if they felt they'd lose jobs.

Nothing in YES ON PROP 2 mandates outdoor access for the Animals. They can easily be housed indoors...currently, 90% of broilers (chicken raised for their flesh/meat) are raised indoors and are cage-free...they seem to be okay selling that product to the public as healthy.

The way things are now for hens crammed in stacked cages, they defecate on the lower rows and more easily spread disease. Which is why the use of Antibiotics is so strong in the Factory Farming Industry...so strong that recent reports have talked about the resistance humans are building up to the antibiotics they're ingesting from their 'food'.

Factory Farming puts family farms out of business, it destroys the environment...it treats animals very inhumanely.

We Californians are better than this!

Don't believe the scare tactics! VOTE YES ON PROP 2!!! "

" Unfortunately you're wrong Kevin. There are too many people who do not care about the welfare of living things, even in California. They would probably care if they were exposed to photos of farm animal cruelty before ordering their big burger. But the majority of people tend to gravitate toward what's cheapest as long as they aren't exposed to what happens behind barn doors.

I already buy organic free range eggs so I am one of those in the minority. I strongly believe that our treatment of animals (especially mammals who belong in the same class as humans) reflects our degree of civility.

I'm seriously disappointed in the NVR. "

" Prop 2 is, quite simply, the right thing to do. It is the LEAST that the animals we use for food deserve!

The industrialized egg industry has become consistently worse in terms of animal welfare. Voluntary standards and attempts to pass legislation have not worked. That's why voters must stand up to fight animal abuse directly.

There is clear evidence that Prop 2's standards will benefit animal welfare, food safety, and the environment, as well as evidence that coverting to the new standards need not be costly. (An CA egg industry economist estimated it would cost about 1 penny per egg to go cage free.) Since many of the producers opposing Prop 2 already have cage free operations, and since we already import nearly half of our eggs, the claims of catastrophe ring false.

Prop 2 is endorsed by veterinarians, the Center for Food Safety, the Pew Commission on Industrial Agriculture, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Sierra Club, family farmers, religious leaders, and more.

Learn the truth--and the myths--at YesonProp2.org. "

" When considering your position against Prop 2 I find your reasoning faulty but, unfortunately, not surprising. It is not all about money and I think that in the big picture people will support processes that involve humane treatment of animals even if the final product costs more. In the much bigger picture I find it totally irresponsible that you, a community newspaper, would support an act that inflicts such misery on so many living creatures - often for the animal’s entire lifetime. I think it’s sometimes forgotten that humans are not the only living things that count on this glorious planet we all share. We humans are not necessarily the be-all/end-all creation although it does seem that we inflict more unnecessary pain than all the other creatures combined. I know this is may be a bit of a stretch but it reminds me of water-boarding and the people who have deemed that it’s not torture. Would they feel the same way if it was happening to them? In this case, would you be opposed to this proposition if it were you inside the cage? I think not. We, the “higher thinking” creatures, are obligated to improve the welfare of those we can so easily dominate (and don’t get me started on the issue of foie gras!). On the other hand, not being a vegetarian, much less a vegan, I find it ironic that we want animals treated humanely right up until we eat their unborn children (the chickens) or have them killed so we can eat them. Nonetheless, I’ll vote Yes on Prop 2 because it is my responsibility to do what I can to improve the living conditions of animals that will eventually provide the food I eat. "

" I find it hard to believe that we have to vote on the fact that animals should be treated humanely,why isn't this just common sense and regular practice. I am outraged at the Napa Register to oppose a proposition that may actually lessen some of the torture that these animals have to endure. If it was your household pets or animals you love being treated badly or locked in cages would you feel the same? Does it make a difference that they are being raised for food?
I live on a very tight budget, supporting a family on a single income and I would not mind paying a little more at the grocery store if I thought that it would make a difference, maybe prop 2 isn't the answer but it could be a start. "VOTE YES ON 2" "

" " I'll be gathering signatures for a 2010 ballot initiative to make sure that Napa Register editors aren't required to be able to turn around and stretch their legs in their cubicles. Anyone interested in signing? "

...outstanding... "