Animal Ag on the ballot last week: how did we fare?

In Massachusetts, the measure (inaccurately) titled “An Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals” which defined how pigs, veal calves and laying hens could be housed passed by a large margin. More than three-quarters of voters supported the measure, which appeared on the ballot as question 3.  The wording on the ballot said: “This question, if approved, would phase out what advocates say are “extreme” methods of farm animal confinement.” It is not surprising that a population with little exposure to or knowledge of animal agriculture would vote “yes” to that statement.  In Oklahoma, HSUS worked to oppose the passage of a constitutional amendment protecting “the rights of citizens and lawful residents to engage in farming and ranching practices” – also known as “Right to Farm.” The amendment was intended to protect farmers and ranchers, as well as ensure consumers have access to different food choices. As explained by the support campaign, the constitutional Right to Farm is needed because of extremist groups targeting agriculture. Proving that statement true, HSUS was one of the loudest opponents of the amendment and the second-largest donor to the opposition campaign, giving over $150,000 in cash as of Oct. 1.  The amendment unfortunately failed, with 60 percent of citizens voting “no.”