Blog

Prop 2's Eventual Effect on California Egg Prices

I've seen a number of stories in recent weeks about the effects of Prop 2 on California egg prices (e.g., see here or here). To recap, in 2008 California voters passed Prop 2 which essentially outlawed the use of "battery" cages in egg production in the state.  California producers, fearful they would be put out of business by cheaper eggs from out of state, then secured passage of a state law in 2010 that also banned grocery stores from selling eggs that didn't meet the new California standard.  Several state attorney generals challenged the law, on the grounds that it violated the interstate commerce clause, but their initial attempt was unsuccessful.  

In any event, all this finally went down on January 1, 2015.  It seems California consumers are noticing higher prices (Note: it seems egg prices were already rising throughout the country before this).

One of my students, from California, passed along this picture one of his friends recently took at a California grocery store.

Animal Welfare Conditions for Hens Making Eggs for Whole Foods

I ran across this story in the New York Times via a Facebook link from Marc Bellemare to a blog post by James McWilliams.  

The story is interesting for a number of reasons.  First, an animal advocacy group uses the same sorts of undercover video tactics to expose animal welfare problems, but this time does so for a cage free, organic egg producer that sells to Whole Foods among others.  Second - and this is the issue that bothered McWilliams - the New York Times story was relatively dismissive of the video and gave the egg producer's side of the story a "fair hearing" (something presumably they wouldn't have done had this not been a cage free, organic producer).  

I think it's actually a good lesson on both counts.  Cage free or organic does not necessarily guarantee high animal welfare.  There are many variables related to management and monitoring, among others, that are important. But, secondly not all undercover videos are what they seem.  As the 3rd sentence in the NYT story begins:

“The hens in the video belong to Petaluma Farms, whose owners assert that the group is distorting and exaggerating the conditions under which its organic and conventional eggs are raised . . . ”

That may be true or it may not; we simply don't know based on the evidence presented.  The video does appear to show some disturbing images but it also doesn't provide much context.  Clearly, this was in the dead of night, when presumably the birds are less mobile perhaps not due to living conditions but because they're sleeping.  And, yes the video shows many chickens in manure, which seems disgusting.  But, I've been on small family farms that have chickens that are as free-range and un-industrial as it gets - and where do those hens like to hunt for food?  In the dung piles next to the cattle pens.  And, even in these "natural" contexts that have any sizable group of birds, one or two will likely be missing a good deal of feathers.  I'm not necessarily defending the farm in this video or the conditions shown , but what I am saying is that without more information and context it's hard to know what to make of it, though it would seem to warrant some further scrutiny.  

Sometimes its stories like this that don't quite fit the prevailing narratives that can get us to think more deeply about an issue, regardless of our initial biases.  

Rolling Stone and Agricultural Journalism

By now, I suspect most of you are aware of the Rolling Stone, rape story saga (here's a timeline of the events).  To recap, Rolling Stone ran a story about a gang rape at a University of Virginia fraternity.  The story caused a national outcry, leading to vandalism of the fraternity, protests across the nation, and a suspension of the fraternity system at UVA.  However, after the initial outcry, a number of news sources began to question the veracity of Rolling Stone's account.  Most prominently, the Washington Post ran a number of stories, and eventually showed that the victim's story (at least as initially reported) was fallacious.  Rolling Stone has apologized for running the story.

Reading various accounts of the on goings, it seems that Rolling Stone, and the journalist - Sabrina Erdely - who wrote the story, got at least two things wrong.  First, the journalist went into the story with an agenda. It seems the magazine's editors were predisposed to believe there was a "rape culture" and only needed a good story to back it up.  Sources suggest that Erdely wanted to do a story on campus rape and went from campus to campus to find the "right" one. As one source put it,  

“But Erdely was committed by her own admission to finding a story that would confirm her preconceptions about a campus violent crime wave against women.”

Second, the journalist only told one side of the story.  As Megan McArdle put it:

“Unfortunately, reporting by others suggests that Erdely didn’t do one of the basic things that reporters do to try to keep fabrications or exaggerations out of our stories: Check with the other side.”

A number of people have said that the details of the case are a distraction and it is the bigger issue that one should focus on.  But, as McArdle wrote:

“Nor am I very convinced by the people — including Erdely — who have argued that focusing on Jackie’s story is getting us “sidetracked” from “the real story,” which is about the rape culture at UVA and the slothful institutional reaction to Jackie’s story. The story was headlined “A Rape on Campus.” The first thousand words are devoted to Jackie’s horrifying story, and much of the rest of the story is devoted to Jackie’s descent into depression and her interactions with the deans. If the story is so irrelevant to the real point of the article, then it should have been pulled out when the victim refused to provide details that would have permitted the author to contact the accused for comment.

But of course, if Jackie’s story had been pulled out, the article wouldn’t have received anything like the attention it got”

OK, so what does any of this have to do with the sorts of things I normally discuss on this blog?

I'd argue that something analogous often happens in the reporting of stories related to food and agriculture, particularly animal agriculture.  It is not a perfect analogy, and I am in no way drawing a moral equivalency with rape.  What I am getting at is the way journalists tell stories and how their editors choose whether to run them.

It is not as if Rolling Stone is too removed from food reporting.  They ran their own expose on meat and animal cruelty just last year.  In a story titled In the Belly of the Beast the lede goes as follows:

“A small band of animal rights activists have been infiltrating the factory farms where animals are turned into meat under the most horrific circumstances. Now the agribusiness giants are trying to crush them. ”

I'm not claiming that the stories told in the Rolling Stone piece aren't true (in some cases they likely have videos and pictures to back their claims).  Some of the events are horrific and may well be prosecutable offenses.   But to what extent are they symptomatic of a broader "cruelty culture" and of the industry more generally, as the story seems to suggest?  

Is there a more general pattern to how these stories are told? It is likely that the authors went in to the piece with a story to tell, and lo and behold they found one. It likely fit a preconceived narrative that the publishers believed.  To what extent did the authors reach out to get the "other side of the story?"  There seems to be little attempt to systematically do that (though they do cite an episode from Nighteline where a reporter confronted a dairy owner).  Again, I'm not saying the particular stories they tell are incorrect, but what I am asking is whether the article indicts the entire industry as the story seems to suggest?  After all, the story ends with an indictment of the present agricultural system and a call for an alternative sort of system.

This isn't just about this particular Rolling Stone story on animal cruelty.  Look, for example, at this piece by Jon Entine at Forbes.com, where he shows video footage of Michael Pollan, an ardent critic of today's commercial agricultural system, outright admitting that much of the journalism about food and agriculture doesn't have to tell both sides.  According to Entine, Pollan said in an interview:

“The media has really been on our side for the most part. I know this from writing for the New York Times where I’ve written about a lot of other topics. But when I wrote about food I never had to give equal time to the other side. I could say whatever I thought and offer my own conclusions. Say you should buy grass feed beef and organic is better, and these editors in New York didn’t realize there is anyone who disagrees with that point of view. So I felt like I got a free ride for a long time.”

That was precisely the problem with the Rolling Stone rape story.  The writer got a "free ride" because the story fit a narrative already believed to be true.  

I have no problems with journalists writing true stories of injustice or cruelty in food and agriculture.  And, I am not a fan of the "ag gag" laws.  What I caution is making broad claims about industry-wide behavior without the evidence to support it.  

Gestation crates hit The Dailyshow with John Stewart

A couple days ago John Stewart did a segment on the impending decision by New Jersey's governor Chris Christy to veto (or not) a bill that would outlaw the use of gestation crates in the state.  

While I wish Stewart would have given looked a bit more critically at the supposed statistic that 93% of New Jersey citizens want the ban, and no doubt hog farmers will be a frustrated that Stewart didn't give any serious discussion of why such crates are used (to prevent fighting, harm to human workers, etc.).  Nonetheless, it is funny.  And it does show how uphill is the battle many hog farmers face in trying to defend the practice.  

Regulating your food choices vs. retailers' food choices

Suppose the government made it illegal for you to buy sugared soda.  What would be your reaction?  How would you feel?  

Now, suppose instead that the government made it illegal for grocery stores and other vendors to sell sugared soda.  Is your reaction to the second law less visceral than the first?  

I suspect so.  But, here's the key: both laws impose the same restriction on your freedom - the outcomes are precisely the same.

Writing at Forbes, John Goodman notes this dichotomy in the case of California eggs (HT David Henderson)

“California has a new law that requires all eggs sold in the state to come from chickens that are housed in roomier cages. Specifically, the hens “must be able to lie down, stand up and fully spread their wings.”

So how many Californians have been arrested for eating the wrong kind of egg? Zero. Not even one? Not one. Actually, the law doesn’t take effect until January, but even then egg eaters will have nothing to fear. The reason: the law doesn’t apply to people who eat eggs. It only applies to people who sell eggs.

When you stop to think about it, that’s not unusual. Almost all government restrictions on our freedom are indirect. They are imposed on us by way of some business. In fact, laws that directly restrict the freedom of the individual are rare and almost always controversial.”

After discussing various reasons for the differences in the way we respond to individual vs. business restrictions, Goodman concludes:

“Finally, the idea being proposed here seems consistent with history. Over the past two hundred years, we have had a steady migration of people from agriculture to the cities, where they became employees of firms. Over the same period of time we have had a parallel increase in the intrusiveness of government.

Bottom line: if there were no firms, taxes would be much lower, there would be far fewer regulations and government would be a much less important institution in our lives.”