The Defeat of the Animal Rights Referendum - 

 "Save the Family Farm" 



by Diane Baedeker 



The 1988 election ballot in Massachusetts included four 

 referendum questions. Question number three, a 

 question relative to the humane treatment offami animals, 

 asked voters if they approved of a law that would require 

 the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of 

 Food and Agriculture to issue regulations to ensure that 

 farm animals are maintained in good health and that cruel 

 or inhumane practices are not used in the raising, han- 

 dling or transportation of farm animals." The question 

 was put on the ballot through the initiative petition pro- 

 cedure in which the proponents of the referendum col- 

 lected enough signatures to bypass the normal legislative 

 process. 



Question Three did not receive as much pubhc atten- 

 tion as the questions concerning the prevailing wage (#2) 

 and nuclear power (#4). To many, it was not considered 

 a serious issue. To Massachusetts farmers, it was a very 

 serious issue. 



Its proponents claim that inhumane farming practices 

 exist in Massachusetts; especially in the raising of veal 

 calves and poultry. They contended that veal calves are 

 kept in enclosures that do not allow them to stand up. He 

 down, groom themselves or turn around. They also 

 claimed that laying hens are housed in overcrowded 

 cages and that male chicks, of no use to the egg producers, 

 are disposed of by grinding them alive or suffocating them 

 in plastic bags. Furthermore, they demand the use of 

 anesthetics or the presence of a veterinarian for surgical 

 procedures such as castration and dehorning. 



Opponents of the bill asserted that the state already 

 has sufficient regulation in this area. Any new regulations 

 would prove so expensive to Massachusetts family 

 farmers that many would have to go out of business. The 

 implications of this are far reaching; if farms go out of 

 business, the state economy would suffer, food prices 

 would rise, and farmers would be forced to sell out to 

 developers thus diminishing the amount of open space in 

 the state. 



The issue received much national attention within the 

 agricultiu-al sector. Other states were watching what 

 would happen in Massachusetts because of the precedent 

 that would be set for similar legislation in their own states. 

 They feared that the referendum would pass be cause 

 Massachusetts is not a "major agricultural state and its 

 citizenry largely unaware of agricultural practices and 

 issues, and the implications of such a law. 



The Players 



The issue was raised by animal rights activists, many 

 of whom are members of organizations such as the Coali- 

 tion to End Animal Suffering and Exploitation (CEASE) 

 and Citizens for Humane Farming, an offshoot organiza- 

 tion of CEASE. 



Formed about 10 years ago in Massachusetts, CEASE 

 claims to have a diverse membership of about 20,000 with 

 a core of 20 to 30 volunteers. According to Steven Ronan, 

 one of the organization's leaders, members include 

 professors, students, housewives - anyone who is con- 

 cerned about animal welfare. 



CEASE is a fund-raising organization and is one of 

 some 20 regional groups. Ronan said that their efforts in 

 Massachusetts are not part of a national scheme but they 

 hope for spillover effects to other states. The group is also 

 involved in opposing the use of animals for laboratory 

 testing, and their fur and skins in the manufacture of 

 clothing. 



On the other side of the issue were several factions. 

 The primary group opposing the referendum were those 

 that would be directly affected - the farmers. The many 

 organizations that represent the agricultural interests 

 stood behind them; groups such as the Department of 

 Food and Agriculture, the Farm Bureau, United 

 Cooperative farmers. Trustees of Reservations and the 

 Vcirious local farm and commodity groups. 



The national and local Grange also opposed Question 

 3. The official Grange response summed up the views of 

 many opponents, "The Grange shares everyone's respect 

 for humane treatment of all animals, and we beheve that 

 livestock and poultry producers are in the most ad- 

 vantageous position to determine the most humane treat- 

 ment of animals. Millions of dollars and countless hours 

 have been spent doing in-depth research which has 

 resulted in today's modern husbandry practices. The 

 well-being of farm animals is essential to the success of 

 the livestock and poultry operation. Moreover, the Mas- 

 sachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture has an 

 existing system of animal protection, along with the exist- 

 ing network of humane agencies in Massachusetts, that 

 effectively addresses the concerns outlined in the referen- 

 dum." 



Members of Farm Bureau and other agricultural or- 

 ganizations combined their opposition efforts under an 



28 



