New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here


by: Vance Bahringer


Vance Bahringer
GPA 3.89

Stephen Sapp

Almost Ready


These notes were just uploaded, and will be ready to view shortly.

Purchase these notes here, or revisit this page.

Either way, we'll remind you when they're ready :)

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

Stephen Sapp
Class Notes
25 ?




Popular in Course

Popular in Sociology

This 13 page Class Notes was uploaded by Vance Bahringer on Saturday September 26, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to SOC 415 at Iowa State University taught by Stephen Sapp in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 47 views. For similar materials see /class/214460/soc-415-iowa-state-university in Sociology at Iowa State University.

Similar to SOC 415 at ISU




Report this Material


What is Karma?


Karma is the currency of StudySoup.

You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!

Date Created: 09/26/15
California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Page 1 California Proposition 2 2008 From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Proposition 2 was a California ballot proposition in that state s general election on November 4 2008 It passed with 63 of the votes in favor and 37 against Submitted to the Secretary of State as the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act the initiative39s name as with others such as Proposition 8 was amended to officially be known as the Standards for Confining Farm Animals initiative The official title of the statute enacted by the proposition is the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act The proposition adds a chapter to Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code to prohibit the confinement of certain farm animals in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely lie down stand up and fully extend their limbs The measure deals with three types of confinement veal crates battery cages and sow gestation crates Having been passed by the voters on November 4 2008 the key portion of the statute will become operative on January 1 2015 Farming operations have until that date to implement the new space requirements for their animals and the statute will prohibit animals in California from being confined in a proscribed manner thereafter The California Secretary of State39s summary from the Official Voter Information GuideU of Proposition 2 is as follows I Requires that calves raised for veal egglaying hens and pregnant pigs be con ned only in ways that allow these animals to lie down stand up fully extend their limbs and turn around freely I Exceptions made for transportation rodeos fairs 4H programs lawful slaughter research and veterinary purposes I Provides misdemeanor penalties including a fine not to exceed 1000 and or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days Summary of Legislative Analyst s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact I Potential unknown decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses possibly in the range of several million dollars annually I Potential minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs partly offset by increased fine revenue 1 Contents I 1 Similar laws enacted in the United States and Europe I 2 Similar legislation attempted in California and other states I 3 Health and food safety I 31 Bird u 4 Economic effects 5 Animal welfare 6 Assertions by proponents 7 Assertions by opponents 8 Supporters of Prop 2 9 Opponents of Prop 2 California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Page 2 10 Legal actions involving Prop 2 opponents 11 Campaign donations 12 Field Poll Results 13 Results 14 See also 15 Notes 16 External links Similar laws enacted in the United States and Europe On November 5 2002 Florida voters passed Amendment 10 an amendment to the Florida Constitution banning the con nement of pregnant pigs in gestation crates The Amendment passed by a margin of 55 for and 45 against 2 On November 7 2006 Arizona voters passed Proposition 204 with 62 support The measure prohibits the confinement of calves in veal crates and breeding sows in gestation crates On June 28 2007 Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski signed a measure into law prohibiting the confinement ofpigs in gestation crates SB 694 74th Leg Assembly Regular Session3 On May 14 2008 Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed into law a bill SB 201 that phases out gestation crates and veal crates45 Germany Switzerland Sweden and Austria have all banned battery cages for egglaying hens The entire European Union is phasing out battery cages by 20126 Similar legislation attempted in California and other states The Humane Society and other animal protection advocates have been working with the California legislature over the last twenty years to achieve the passage of laws to prohibit cruel treatment of farm animals They say that the bills for animal protection that they supported have been repeatedly killed in committees where agribusiness has great power 7 On January 14 2004 the bill AB 732 died in the California Assembly39s Agriculture Committee8 The primary author of AB 732 was Loni Hancock of the 14th District The bill would have banned gestation and veal crates eventually being amended to include only veal crates9 On May 9 2007 the bill AB594 was withdrawn from the California State Assembly The bill had been effectively killed in the Assembly Agriculture Committee by the maneuver of gutting the contents of the bill and replacing them with language concerning tobacco cessation coverage under MediCal10 The primary author of AB 594 was Mervyn Dymally of the 52nd District AB594 was very similar to the current language of Proposition 211 In January 2008 Nebraska State Senator DiAnna Schimek submitted bill LB 1148 to ban the use of gestation crates for pig farmers It was withdrawn within 5 days amidst controversy and a kill motion was filed by State Senator Phil Erdman12 Health and food safety Animals under stress including the stress of intensive confinement have compromised immune California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Page 3 systems and thus higher levels of pathogens such as Salmonella in their intestines13 According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quotStringent procedures for cleaning and inspecting eggs were implemented in the 1970s and have made salmonellosis caused by external fecal contamination of egg shells extremely rare However unlike eggbome salmonellosis of past decades the current epidemic is due to intact and disinfected grade A eggs The reason for this is that Salmonella enteritidis silently infects the ovaries of healthy appearing hens and contaminates the eggs before the shells are formedquot14 Supporters of Proposition 2 claim that giving egghens more space can prevent this type of outbreak Contrarily previous research suggests that eggs from modern housing systems have superior structural integrity in their shells allowing for greater resistance to penetration by the Salmonella Enteritidis pathogen and decreasing the risk of egg contamination15 On the other hand the infection of freerange hens in the California study was caused via the fecaloral route through contamination of the feed through feces from rodents that had easy access to these hens16 In addition to being more vulnerable to exposure from rodents freerange hens did not have the same level of manure management as those hens kept in modern housing systems This is because the hens housed indoors had a manure belt that ran under their enclosures and transported the feces to collection receptacles common to modern housing systems in Califomia16 On the other hand according to a report by the Rural Industries Research amp Development Corporation the total number of bacteria on freerange eggs is 15 times greater than that found on eggs from modern housing systems17 The Rural Industries report also postulates that the very construction of the indoor housing systems precludes the possibility of poultry and rodents existing closely thereby potentially decreasing the possibility of crossinfection Supporters of Proposition 2 say that increased density of birds in battery cages leads to increased incidences of Salmonella in eggs19 They also say that housing battery cages are very difficult to keep clean and are often are infested by large numbers of ies and rats However opponents of Prop 2 say that modern housing effectively separates quotfeces and other uidsquot from eggs and that Prop 2 would quoteffectively ban modern housingquot The opponents go on to say that quotthere has not been a reported case of salmonella linked to California eggs in nearly a decadequot but noting that people get salmonella from eggs that are produced outside of California every year 3 Their claim about salmonella cases linked to California eggs is supported by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention20 An article entitled quotThe pros and cons of cagesquot published in the World39s Poultry Science Journal in 2001 concludes that cages result in increased hygiene and lower incidence of disease related to feces but can result in higher rates of metabolic disorders 4 A recent undercover investigation of Norco Ranch a Southern California egg ranch was completed in August and September 2008 That 39 quot quot ii i d badly J r J chicken carcasses in the same cages with hens which were still laying eggs for human consumption 21 The organization that performed the undercover investigation Mercy For Animals released the undercover video to the public whereupon the video and the investigation received wide coverage in the news media Proponents of Prop 2 imply that close confinement was a major factor in these birds deaths However Prop 2 opponents assert that Norco Ranch was in violation of many California laws already in place A 2004 study of California egg farms in the journalAvian Diseases finds comparatively low Salmonella prevalence in indoor housing systems commonly used in California as compared to cagefree and free range housing systems The researchers state that this low Salmonella prevalence in California egg California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Page 4 farms re ects the distinct geographic climatic production and management characteristics of the state s egg farms22 98 percent of egg farms adhere to the California Egg Quality Assurance Plan which is a pathogen reduction program for Salmonella in California 23 The study states The highest prevalence was in the freerange birds kept on the dirt oors 16 The California study notes that feral cats rodents skunks opossums wild birds and other wildlife were seen near the freerange hens feeding areas and that rodents were considered to be the biological vectors and amplifiers of salmonella on the egg farm in the study16 A 2003 study from the Journal oprpliedMicrobiology24 and a study published in the journal Applied and Environmental M icrobiologyp that wild animals are a significant and dangerous vector for salmonella support the conclusion Supporters of Prop 2 note that furnished cages for egglaying hens have already been developed in Europe26 which allow birds to move freely and display natural behaviors The waste material in these systems is far less concentrated than with battery cages and the animals are healthier and calmer with a stronger natural immunity to disease13 Opponents of Prop 2 note that a process called traceback is conducted by the Food and Drug Administration FDA and helps to maintain a safe food supply The FDA s guidance to its staff for conducting tracebacks has sections entitled Farm Investigations and Egg ProcessorPacker Investigations which contain detailed protocols explaining who goes on the farm how the investigation is carried out biosecurity procedures and other important steps to ensure that should an outbreak from eggs occur the traceback would successfully reveal the original source27 These opponents to Prop 2 say that California already has adequate and exemplary disease control techniques Bird u According to the United States Animal Health Association hens housed in cagefree and freerange housing systems have substantially higher risk of exposure to Avian In uenza Exotic Newcastle Disease Salmonella and other diseases from wildlife species of birds because they have access to the outdoors28 However Dr Kennedy Shortridge credited with the discovery of the first bird u virus in Asia warns that the outbreak of bird u in China was a result of that country39s conversion from small backyard poultry farms towards larger crowded industrialized farms over the last twenty years He strongly recommends that we quotdramaticallyquot change modern farming practices According to Dr Shortridge domesticated poultry on industrial farms are the source of the bird u virus not outdoor migratory birds 29 Economic effects In July 2008 the University of California Davis conducted a study through their University of California Agricultural Issues Center AIC The study concluded that quotthe best evidence from a variety of sources suggests that nonorganic noncage systems incur costs of production that are at least 20 percent higher than the common cage housing systemsquot This is due to higher feed costs higher hen laying mortality higher direct housing costs and higher labor costs The study also estimated that almost the entire California egg industry would relocate to other states during the 5year adjustment period The study does not analyze implications for animal welfare By demonstrating that most egg producers would leave the state the report estimates that the initiative would not affect how eggs are produced only where eggs are produced 30 A study done by Don Bell of the University of California Riverside estimated that eliminating battery California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Page 5 cages for egglaying hens will result in increased production costs of less than one cent per egg 31 and a recent economic study coauthored by former California nance director Tim Gage predicted quotUnder Prop 2 consumers purchasing conventional eggs will likely see no change in price consumers preferring California grown eggs could see around a penny per egg increase in cost while those preferring cagefree eggs will see a drop in cost with a new California providerquot32 According to a May 2008 study by Promar International and commissioned by opponents to Prop 2 95 of the California 648 million egg industry and accompanying economic output would be lost by 2015 including equally significant loss of the three and half thousand jobs the egg industry employs The study also stated that egg production costs would increase by 7633 Animal welfare Opponents of Proposition 2 claim that Califomia s current regulations ensure sanitary and healthy conditions for egglaying hens in the care of lawabiding organizations Proponents of Prop 2 say the best housing environments for farm animals must take into consideration freedom of movement and expression of normal behaviors The American Veterinary Medical Association supports greater attention to the behavioral needs of farm animals but has expressed concern that Proposition 2 is not sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that increases in behavioral freedom don t translate into increased risks of injury and disease ie a typical welfare tradeoff34 Furthermore although Proposition 2 offers hens additional space it doesn t address other behavioral needs such nesting foraging and dust bathing A Canadian study r39 J in 2008 39 J A that quot 39 battery cages could easily be converted into furnished colony cage systems and asserted that perches increased hen welfare It went on to say that hens in battery cages did not have significantly higher levels of stress measured by the hormones in blood and fecal matter The study qualified that finding by stating quotIt is possible however that these stress measures may not be sensitive enough to detect the differences in housing conditions It is also possible that the space allocated to each bird in the conventional cages ie the battery cages in this study may have affected the results as the battery cage birds received nearly double the oor space of a commercial birdquot The study also concluded that hens in the enriched cages lost feathers quot35 because of quotwear on furnishings rather than feather pecking Egg farmers assert that the egg production methods that the industry has developed are meant to ensure that fundamental components of sound animal care are provided to egglaying hens optimal feed light air water space and sanitation for egglaying hens36 Animal welfare advocates assert that in order to maximize profits hens in factory farms are treated like units of production rather than as living beings The instinctual needs of each hen are denied and most spend their entire lives indoors in filthy cramped conditions in immense dark warehouses Most hens never feel the sun never walk on grass and many are never able to turn around without hitting cage bars or another hen37 Approximately 95 percent of Califomia s egg farmers are part of the UEP certification program in which farmers assert they must place top priority on health safety and comfort of their hens and submit to independent United States Department of Agriculture USDA audits3839 Animal welfare advocates however assert that UEP certification deceives shoppers by conveying a false message of humane animal care They say that UEP certification permits routine cruel and inhumane factory farm practices40 such as intensive confinement in restrictive barren cages such that the hens cannot perform many of their natural behaviors such as perching nesting foraging or even fully stretching their wings 41 California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Page 6 Assertions by proponents Prop 239s supporters say42 it is a modest measure that ends the cruel and inhumane confinement of specified animals on factory farms requiring their living spaces to be big enough for them to turn around lie down and fully extend their legs andor wings The initiative does not require that they be kept outside of cages or live outdoors Supporters of proposition 2 say that smaller local family farms will have an increased competitive edge over larger factory farms They say that the agribusiness industry maximizes their own profits by compromising on animal welfare and human health Assertions by opponents Prop 239s opponents say that quotProposition 2 is a risky dangerous and costly measure banning almost all modern egg production in Califomiaquot43 They further claim that Proposition 2 jeopardizes food safety and public health wipes out Californians access to locally grown fresh eggs and harms consumers by driving up prices at grocery stores and restaurants and creates a dependency on eggs shipped from other states and Mexico Supporters of Prop 2 Key endorsements as of October 27 2008 l The Humane Society of the United States Sierra ClubCalifomia California Veterinary Medical Association California Democratic Party Green Party of California Peace and Freedom Party Center for Food Safety Consumer Federation of America the ASPCA United Farm Workers Family Farm Defenders Union of Concerned Scientists and the California Council of Churches Healthcare Professionals The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine author John McDougall MD and nearly 60 California medical professionals including general practitioners cardiologists pediatricians chiropractors dentists optometrists registered nurses and more California veterinary professionalsiThe California Veterinary Medical Association more than 700 California veterinarians more than 150 California veterinary medical students the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association the San Diego County Veterinary Medical Association and more than 90 veterinary hospitals and clinics California farmersiMore than 100 California farmers including Bill Niman Prather Ranch Dobson Dairy Ranch Eatwell Farms Flores Ranch Lunny Ranch and US Farms Inc Journalists The New York Times44 San Jose Mercury News7 The San Diego UnionTribune 45 Los Angeles Daily News La Opinion Santa Barbara NewsPress Metroactive Sacramento News amp Review Oakland Tribune Alameda TimesStar Santa Cruz Sentinel Marin Independent Journal Palo Alto Weekly San Jose Inside The Almanac Mountain View Voice San Mateo County Times Fremont Argus TriValley Herald Hayward Daily Review Whittier Daily News Contra Costa Times Alameda Journal Berkeley Voice The Montclarion The Piedmonter San Joaquin Herald San Ramon Valley Times Pasadena StarNews San Gabriel Valley Tribune Columnist Gary Bogue Columnist Tom Hennessey Columnist Nicholas Kristof and Syndicated petcare columnist Gina Spadafori California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Page 7 Religious organizations and leaders National and state leaders from across the religious spectrum including California Council of Churches IMPACT the National Catholic Rural Life Conference Marc Handley Andrus Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of California Bishop Beverly J Shamana California Nevada Conference United Methodist Church Bishop Mary Ann Swenson Califomia Pacific Conference United Methodist Church The Right Reverend James R Mathes Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Diego Dr Richard Mouw President of Fuller Seminary and nearly 80 leaders of individual California congregations California businesses and business owners Nearly 300 California businesses from all walks of commerce including restaurants artists petrelated stores and services real estate brokers grocery stores health care professionals construction and more Leading nonprofit and advocacy organizationsiMore than 45 organizations across the country that are working to address the public health environmental social justice and animal welfare impacts of factory farming including the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production Center for Science in the Public Interest Compassion in World Farming United Farm Workers the Cesar Chavez Foundation Defenders of Wildlife Greenpeace USA the Organic Consumers Association National Black Farmers Association Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Farm Forward Animal protection charitiesiMore than 100 organizations including more than a dozen California humane societies and SPCAs in Los Angeles San Francisco Sacramento and beyond the State Humane Association of California and leading national organizations like Farm Sanctuary the National Federation of Humane Societies Best Friends Animal Society and Animals and Society Institute Elected officials and local govemmentsiThe city councils of Los Angeles San Francisco Davis Santa Monica Santa Cruz West Hollywood and Berkeley US Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O39Connell US Representatives John Campbell Orange County Elton Gallegly Santa Barbara Barbara Lee East Bay Brad Sherman San Fernando Valley and Maxine Waters Los Angeles Mayors Gavin Newsom San Francisco Marty Blum Santa Barbara and Craig Litwin Sebastapol state Senators Dean Florez BakersfieldFresno Sheila Kuehl Los Angeles Christine Kehoe San Diego and Carole Migden San Francisco Assembly Speaker pro Tem Sally Lieber Mountain View and Assembly members Mike Davis Los Angeles Merv Dymally Los Angeles Loni Hancock Albany Paul Krekorian Glendale Mark Leno San Francisco Lloyd Levine Van Nuys and Jose Solorio Anaheim and former Mayor Richard Riordan Los Angeles and former US Representative John Burton San Francisco Celebrities amp public figuresiNearly 70 wellknown experts actors actresses chefs and others Robert F Kennedy Jr Dr Jane Goodall Matthew Scully Eric Schlosser Ed Begley Jr Bill McKibben Tobey Maguire Ellen DeGeneres Daryl Hannah Alicia Silverstone and Ed Asner Authors Michael Chabon Emily Deschanel Jared Leto JM Coetzee Jonathan Safran Foer Jonathan Franzen Nicole Krauss Michael Pollan Alice Sebold and Alice Walker See complete list of endorsements at httpwwwyesonprop2comindexphp optioncom7contentampviewarticleampid52ampItemid85 Opponents of Prop 2 California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Page 8 Californians for SAFE Food is a coalition of companies and associations Key endorsements as of October 16 2008 are Food Safety amp Public Health Experts amp Veterinarians Titles and affiliations are used for identification purposes only Alex Ardans DlYlI MS Former Director University ofCalifornia Animal Health amp Food Safety Laboratory System Art Bickford 39DlYlFormerAssociate Director Turlock University of California Animal Health amp Food Safety Laboratory System Patricia Blanchard DWlI Branch Chief Tulare University of California Animal Health amp Food Safety Laboratory System Bruce R Charlton DlYlI PhD Branch Chief Turlock University of California Animal Health amp Food Safety Laboratory System Roy Curtiss 111 PhD Director C enter for Infectious Diseases amp Vaccinology Arizona State University and Craig Reed DlYlI Former DeputyAdministrator Food Safety amp Inspection Service United States Department of Agriculture among many other experts Labor Unions California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union California Teamsters Public Affairs Council General Teamsters Local Union 386 UNITE HERE and United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Newspapers San Francisco Chronicle The Los Angeles Times The Sacramento Bee The Bakersfield Californian Orange County Register The Fresno Bee The Modesto Bee Antelope Valley Press The Press Democrat Napa Valley Register Chico EnterpriseRecord Eureka Reporter Visalia TimesDelta Long Beach PressTelegram Colusa County SunHerald Hollister Free Lance Redding Record Searchlight and The Milpitas Post Veterinary amp AVian Poultry Organizations American Association of Avian Pathologists American College of Poultry Veterinarians Association of California Veterinarians Association of Veterinarians in Egg Production Association of Veterinarians in Turkey Production California Chapter of American Registry of Professional Animal Scientists California Food Animal Veterinary Medical Association California Poultry Federation Pacific Egg and Poultry Association and Poultry Science Association Latino Organizations California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce Latino Voters League Mexican American Political Association and National Latino Congreso African American Organizations amp Opinion Leaders Pastor Amos Brown Third Baptist Church The Black American Political Association of California The California Black Chamber of Commerce California State Conference of the NAACP Greater Sacramento Urban League Los Angeles African American Women s Political Action Committee Minority Health Institute Inc Oakland NAACP Branch Sacramento NAACP Branch Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Los Angeles Stockton NAACP Branch Western Regional Council on Educating Black Children and Youth and College DiVision of the NAACP View a larger list of opponents of at httpwwwsafecalifomiafoodorgnode20 Another opponent is animal rights philosopher and law professor Gary Francione4647 Legal actions involving Prop 2 opponents The American Egg Board an egg industry funded promotional group has been barred by a US District Court Judge from using 3 million allocated to it by the USDA until after the 2008 November election This ruling came after a lawsuit by supporters of Prop 2 claiming the USDA improperly set aside the 3 million in federal funds into the Egg Board s coffers to oppose Prop 248 The lawsuit asserted that the California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Page 9 Egg Board s planned use of the money would be an illegal political use of public funds49 United Egg Producers the US egg industry39s national trade association leading the ght against Prop 2 is currently under a criminal investigation by the United States Justice Department for pricefixing and intentionally driving up the cost of eggs Campaign donations A total of 106 million was donated to the Yes on 2 campaign and a total of 89 million was donated to the No on 2 campaign Field Poll Results According to a Field Poll released on 722200852 after hearing a description of Prop 2 63 oflikely California voters polled said they would vote quotyesquot 24 said quotnoquot and 13 were undecided Prop 2 opponents disparaged that poll by noting that few respondents 16 per cent had been aware of the issue53 They also claimed that polling was skewed by the measure s original title The California Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act which was later changed by the attorney general s office to Standards for Con ning Farm Animals54 However results of a more recent poll were quite similar to the first A 9252008 SurveyUSA poll55 of likely California voters who have either decided or are leaning towards voting a certain way on Prop 2 gave the following results quot72 Yes 10 No 17 still not certain Support for the proposition is strong among all demographic groups and in all regions of the statequot A Field Poll released on 1031200856 shows that quotthere has been very little change in voters39 initial support for Prop 2quot This latest Field Poll found that 60 of likely California voters polled said they would vote quotyesquot 27 said quotnoquot and 13 were undecided Res ults Proposition 257 Yes or no Votes Percentage I Yes 8203769 6342 No 4731738 3658 Valid votes 12935507 9412 Invalid or blank votes 807670 588 Total votes 13743177 10000 Voter turnout 7942 More Californians voted for Prop 2 more than 8 million than for any other initiative in state history 5 8 Callfomla Proposluon 2 2008 e wlklpedla the free meyelopedla Page lo See also Anlmal law Anlmal Welfare Callfomla Pmal Code sectlon 59739 Faclory Farmlng Aglculmml law Call a omla l w Callfomla state electlons November 2008 Llst of Callfomla ballot proposluons ZOOOrpresmL A a 7 Callfumla Secretary uf State Prepared by the Anemey GenEral 2m Pmpusmun z rTlde and Summary 7 Vuter Infurmauun Gmde ZEIEIB sumhtm RemevedunZUUBrlUrll A FurkNet Newsletter Memiv m cam Inc ZEIEIZrllrEI7 hclp www purlmet eumarehlvejllm z mamasx7 Remeved un zuuaemeuz 3 A Bark deer armlsls gam mumentum Lear eld Cammumeanm b1 znu7eu7eus z 4397U78DB6U633U7 RemevedunZUUBrUTUK A me San Renter ZEIEIBrEISrH ll WwwreuterseumamelepressReleasdldUSZ39l ZlArMayr znn8BWznn8n514 Remevedun znnxemem A arm easure Beeumes Law Federamm afAmmalSexenee Soexener ms znnxense 14 http wwwfass erypage aspvpagelwzlz Remeved un znnxemem a A Esznsbattery hen rages BBCNewr 1999Mer mp neWS ElbeeuukZhlukineWsZ A Wstm em I911 1 a r 3 E 2 x E 7 A b Merlury News Edltunal Sanfaxe IermryNew Z xrlnrnz httpWWWmereuryneWseumelil z4423 RemevedunZUUBrl rZA mfe sen ea guypuma a nab U7UlrU7SUab 732 efa ZUU4U11471224517asm7Eumm html ID A Z 7 Mld Year Summary Callfu mla ssembly emmmeeenAgleulmre znm ll pl www asm ea uvaeseumm teeESKpuhheanunsZUU7ZUMldquotaZUYe g amanummary due ll A 7594 Analysls CallfumlaState Assembly znnaensena httpAnfu seneaguvpubIT lah banshim rEI IDab75947efaiz 7 5 87l33457iasm7eumm lz A arm al Welfare Blll Kllledln Leglslature Omaha WarldDmly znnxenzen 13 n rl r z quotl u m mmmnmen A r r m Mm D 14 A Salmunella Entenudls Centers fur Dlsease Cuntrul and Frevenuun ZEUSVIEIVIK m e A r 15 ADawsun RCM Rur L Rlsk ManagEment ln leferent Egg Pru dumun 315th 16 AN dKlnde H etal 1996 Salmunella Entenudls phageTypeAl m Suuthem Callfumla Bactenulu re and Epldemmluge Fmamgs quot 17 A Dawstln R 3 OVhrHHVF a My nfeeum m a Cummernal Layer Flerk g Aylan DrseasesAu 655ml C et al Rur lmlusmes Researrh amp Dev upmem Curpuratlun Oetuberz l Fund Safety Rlsk Man Ement m Different Egg Predurum SysLEmS 18 ADawsunRCM Rur A L Olhr lF a My California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia D N N N N W N 4 N U N 6 N 1 N 00 N D W O z 4 W U W 6 W 1 40 41 4 w 4 4 Page 11 Risk Management in Different Egg Production Systems A quotThe Public Health Bene ts of Proposition 2 An EvidenceBased Analysisquot PDF yesonprop2com 2008 httpyesonprop2com lesPubliciHealthiBene tsiFullReportpdf Retrieved on 20080921 A California Department of Food amp Agriculture CDFA 2004 Docket Comments to the FDA httpwwwfdagovoh1msdocketsdockets00n050400n0504000035901vol27pdf A quotNew Ammunition for Prop 2 Supportersquot abc7newscom 20081013 httpabclocalgocomkgostory sectionnewsiteamampid6447851 Retrieved on 20081014 A Castellan DM et al 2004 Descriptive Study of California Egg Layer Premises and Analysis of Risk Factors for Salmonella enterica serotype enteritidis as Characterized by Manure Drag Swabs Avian Diseases 48550561 A httpwwwcdphcagovHealthInfodiscondDocumentsSalmonellapdf l publisherState of California Department of Health Services 2008 A Liebana E et al 2003 Molecular ngerprinting evidence of the contribution of wildlife vectors in the maintenance of Salmonella Entiritidis infection in layer farms Journal of Applied Microbiology 941024 1029 A Refsum T et al 2002 Salmonellae in Avian Wildlife in Norway from 1969 to 2000 Applied and Environmental Microbiology Vol 68 No 11 55955599 A quotFrequently Asked Questionsquot RSPCA Australia httpwww rspra nro I 39 39 39 39 f l l E 39 39 39 Retrieved on 20081031 A Food amp Drug Administration 2003 Guide to Investigation of Eggs and Farms Implicated In Foodbome Outbreaks of Salmonella Enteritidis httpwwwfda 39 r 7 f39 39 39 39 39 A World Health Organization December 5 2005 Epidemic and Pandemic Alert and Response EPR Avian In uenza Frequently Asked Questions httpwwwwhointcsrdiseaseavianiin uenzaavianifaqsen A quotBird Flu A Virus of Our Own Hatching Foreword by Kennedy Shortridge PhD DScHon CBiol FIBiolquot Bird Flu Bookcom httpbird ubookcomaphpid115 Retrieved on 20080924 A I Sumner Daniel A et al Economic Effects of Proposed Restrictions on Egglaying Hen Housing in California University of California Agricultural Issues Center July 2008 A quotA Review of Recent Publications On Animal Welfare Issues For Table Egg Laying Hensquot PDF AnimalScience UCDavisealu 20060111 httpanimalscienceucdaviseduAvianWelfareIssueslayingHenspdf Retrieved on 20080921 A quotProp 2 s Cageless Potentialquot The California Majority Report 20031003 httpwww 39 39 mm inde l 39 l 39 39 39 39 quot f quot r39 39 39 3u37ampptid9 Retrieved on 20081003 A 2 Economic Impact on California of the Treatment of Farm Animals Act Promar International May 16 2008 A quotAVMA Passes Groundbreaking Animal Welfare Policiesquot MarkeiWaich Ina 20080719 httpwww 39 39 a ma ya quot 39 39 animal 39f y astguid 7BCA3386B715144225B8C1C1E3844ADCF17Dampdisthppr Retrieved on 20080921 A quotWelfare Considerations of Laying Hens Housed in Furnished Cagesquot Government ofAlberia 200805 12 httpwww1agricgovabcaDepartmentnewslettnsfallagnw13370 Retrieved on 20080921 A United Egg Producers 2008 United Egg Producers Animal Husbandry Guidelines for US Egg Laying Flocks A quotLearn About Factory Farmingquot The Humane League of Philadelphia httpwwwthehumaneleaguecomleamhtm Retrieved on 20081031 A Bell D et al March 15 2004 UEP Uses Scienti c Approach in its Establishment of Welfare Guidelines Feedstuffs Volume 76 No 11 Pp 12 A Sumner Daniel J et al July 2008 Economic Effects of Proposed Restrictions on EggLaying Hen Housing in California University of California Agricultural Issues Center httpaicucdavisedupublicationseggsegg7initiativehtm A quotEgg Labelsquot EggInalusiry com httpwwweggindustrycomc faq Retrieved on 20081031 A quotquotAnimal Care Certi edquot A Case of Animal Abuse and Consumer Fraudquot Compassion Over Killing httpwwwcoknetcampacc Retrieved on 20081031 A quotThe Factsquot PDF Yes on Prop 2 Californiansfor Humane Farms 2008 httpyesonprop2com lesThefactspdf Retrieved on 20081107 A quot Sign Up to Join the Coalitionquot Californians for SAFE Food 20080618 httpwwwsafecaliforniafoodorgnodel 8 Retrieved on 20081107 A quotEditorial Standing Stretching Turning Aroundquot The New York Times 20081008 California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia 4 u 4 6 4 1 4 Do V O U u 5 u 5 U U u l U 00 Page 12 httpwwwnytimescom20081009opinion09thu3html Retrieved on 20081031 A quotEditorial Ban on inhumane con nement is sensiblequot The San Diego Union Tribune 20080915 httpwwwsignonsandiegocomuniontrib20080915news7mzled15tophtml Retrieved on 20081031 A Gary L Francione 20020902 quotWhat to Do on Proposition 2quot Animal Rights The Abolitionisi Approach httpwwwabolitionistapproachcomp165 Retrieved on 20081022 A quotAudio le of a discussion of Gary Francionequot wgariradiacom httpaudioveganradiocomshowsaudioVeganRadio20081002mp3 A quotProp 2 opponents barred from using public fundsquot San Francisco Chronicle 20080922 httpwwwsfgatecomcgibinarticlecgi fna20080922staten174624D16DTLamphwame1icaneggboardampsn001ampsc1000 Retrieved on 20080922 A quotAmerican Egg Board Faces Lawsuit Over Illegal Political Expenditures in Opposition To California Anti Cruelty Initiativequot Humane Society of the United States 20080306 httpwwwhsusorgpressiandjublicationspress7 39 39 Retrieved on 20081031 A quotFederal Prosecutors Probe FoodPrice Collusionquot The Wall Street Journal 20080923 httpon1inewsjcomarticleSB122213370781365931html Retrieved on 20080923 A quotCalif initiative spending at a glancequot San Jose Mercury News 20090203 httpwwwmercurynewscomnewsciil1620838 Retrieved on 20090204 A quotTHE FIELD POLL LOW AWARENESS BUT INITIAL VOTER BACKING OF FIVE STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURES 7 PROPS 1 2 4 7 AND 11quot PDF Field Research Corporation 20080722 httpmediasacbeecomsmedia20080721170722rlssourceprod7af liate4pdf Retrieved on 200810 07 n 39n html A quotVoters Do Not Understand Proposition 0818 httpwwwthepoultrysite I on 20081007 A quotFull Text of Initiativequot PDF Of ce of the Attorney General 20070809 httpagcagovcmSdefsinitiatives20070809707004liInitiativepdf Retrieved on 20080924 A quotResults of SurveyUSA Election Poll 14440quot SurveyUSA 20080925 httpwwwsurveyusacomclientPollReportaspxg4165a71ac123489888e82da6a63b534 Retrieved on 20081007 A quotTHE FIELD POLL PROP 8 SAMESEX MARRIAGE BAN DIVIDING 49 NO 7 44 YES WITH MANY VOTERS IN CONFLICT VOTERS MOVING TO THE NO SIDE ON PROP 7 RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION YES SIDE STILL LEADS ON PROP 2 FARM ANIMAL CONFINEMENT PLURALITY FAVORS PROP 11 REDISTRICTING BUT MANY UNDECIDEDquot PDF Field Research Corporation 20081031 httpWWW CldCOllIF 39 391 quot quot 39 quot m39 7797 pdf Retrieved on 20081031 A quot Statement of Vote 2008 General Electionquot PDF California Secretary of State 20081213 httpwwwsoscagovelectionssov20087generalsovicompletepdf A Tracie Cone Associated Press Writer 20090529 quotCalif lawmakers rally around animal welfare issuesquot San Jose Mercury News httpwwwmercurynewscomnewsci712479188 Retrieved on 200905 29 u Retrieved r 2quot T hePoulirySiie 5M Enterprises Ltd Sheffield England 2008 yiiUWS 15 4 39 39 l I I 1 External links Text of Proposition 2 scroll down to the 3rd page Californians for SAFE Food 7 antiproposition website The Public Health Benefits of Proposition 2 An EvidenceBased Analysis executive summary a proproposition argument The Public Health Benefits of Proposition 2 An EvidenceBased Analysis complete text a pro proposition scholarly paper The Truth About Proposition 2 Putting Our Food Safety amp Public Health At Risk an anti proposition argument Bird Flu A Virus of Our Own Hatching health implications of factory farming Feedstuffs Magazine link to legal analysis at Foodstuffs magazine California Proposition 2 2008 Wikipedia the free encyclopedia Page 13 From the Official Voter Information Guide for the November 4 2008 California General Election final version I Title and Summary I Legislative Analysis I Arguments and Rebuttals More links I California Proposition 2 2008 Ballotpedia I Animal rights ballot initiatives Ballotpedia Retrieved from quothttpenwikipediaorgwikiCalifomia7Proposition7272008quot Categories California ballot propositions 2008 l Animal rights and welfare legislation l Animal welfare l California law l Agriculture in California Hidden categories NPOV disputes from November 2008 l Articles that may contain original research from November 2008 l Accuracy disputes from November 2008 l Articles with weasel words from November 2008 I This page was last modified on 30 May 2009 at 0038 I Text is available under the Creative Commons AttributionShareAlike License additional terms may apply See Terms of Use for details Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc a US registered 501c 3 taxdeductible nonprofit charity


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

25 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


You're already Subscribed!

Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'

Why people love StudySoup

Bentley McCaw University of Florida

"I was shooting for a perfect 4.0 GPA this semester. Having StudySoup as a study aid was critical to helping me achieve my goal...and I nailed it!"

Janice Dongeun University of Washington

"I used the money I made selling my notes & study guides to pay for spring break in Olympia, Washington...which was Sweet!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."


"Their 'Elite Notetakers' are making over $1,200/month in sales by creating high quality content that helps their classmates in a time of need."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.