Source: https://propertibazar.com/article/table-egg-production-and-hen-welfare-federation-of-american_5b6931d7d64ab2b2f122baa5.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 12:25:40+00:00

Document:
included Section 12312, known as the King amendment, which would have prohibited states from imposing standards on agricultural products produced in other states. The final Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79) did not include the amendment.
Introduction The relationship between the livestock and poultry industries and animal protection groups is an antagonistic one, at best. The table egg industry, led in the United States by the United Egg Producers (UEP), has been widely criticized for decades for raising laying hens in cages. Many have argued that conventional cage systems widely used in the United States and elsewhere provide little or no welfare for laying hens because hens are not able to express natural behaviors. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is one of many animal protection organizations that have led campaigns advocating cage-free egg production and the elimination of all cages. Given the history between the egg industry and animal protection groups, UEP stunned the animal agriculture community in July 2011 with an announcement that it would work jointly with HSUS to push for federal legislation to regulate how U.S. table eggs are produced. The agreement between UEP and HSUS was signed July 7, 2011, and called for legislation that would set cage sizes, establish labeling requirements, and regulate other production practices. The goal of the agreement is to have federal legislation in place by June 30, 2012. As part of the agreement, HSUS agreed to immediately suspend state-level ballot initiative efforts in Oregon and Washington to end the use of conventional cages. Legislation—the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012—was introduced in both the Senate and House during the 112th Congress to address the UEP and HSUS agreement and goal to establish federal table-egg cage standards. No action was taken on these measures. Almost identical bills—the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2013 (S. 820 and H.R. 1731)— were introduced in the 113th Congress on April 25, 2013. These bills also reflect the 2011 agreement between UEP and HSUS and would establish uniform, national cage size requirements for table egg-laying hen housing over a 15- to 16-year phase-in period. The bills also include labeling requirements to disclose how eggs are produced, and air quality, molting, and euthanasia standards for laying hens. UEP views the bills as being in the long-term survival interest of American egg farmers, and a wide range of groups have expressed support for the legislation. However, some agricultural and livestock producers, including some egg farmers, strongly oppose the bills, viewing them as an intrusion into their farming practices. Some animal protection groups have also opposed the bills. This report provides an overview of the U.S. egg industry, the UEP-HSUS agreement, and the provisions of S. 820 and H.R. 1731 introduced in the 113th Congress. The report also discusses supporting and opposing views of the bills, and some animal welfare issues for laying hens.
Tom Steever, “Egg producer favors proposed farm bill measure,” Brownfield, May 1, 2013, http://brownfieldagnews.com/2013/05/01/egg-producer-favors-proposed-farm-bill-measure/; Ken Anderson, “Nebraska Farm Bureau: Keep egg measure out of the farm bill,” Brownfield, May 2, 2013, http://brownfieldagnews.com/2013/ 05/02/nebraska-farm-bureau-keep-egg-measure-out-of-the-farm-bill/. 2 “Animal rights legislation further complicates farm bill debate,” Agri-Pulse, May 1, 2013, p. 2. 3 Senator Johanns interview on Agri-Talk with Mike Adams, May 3, 2013, http://www.agweb.com/multimedia/ agritalk.aspx. 4 §12314 of House reported H.R. 1947. 5 The definition is comprehensive in 7 U.S.C. 1626: “the term ‘agricultural products’ includes agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and dairy products, livestock and poultry, bees, forest products, fish and shellfish, and any products thereof, including processed and manufactured products, and any and all products raised or produced on farms and any processed or manufactured product.” 6 Text of Denham amendment available at http://agriculture.house.gov/sites/republicans.agriculture.house.gov/files/ farm%20bill/101DenhamSecondDegreeAmendToKing71.pdf.
Section 12314 of H.R. 1947 with the text of the egg bill, H.R. 1731.7 The Rules Committee rejected the Denham amendment.8 After the House failed to pass H.R. 1497, the King amendment was included in the new House version of the farm bill, H.R. 2642, which the House passed on July 11, 2013.9 The Senate farm bill, S. 954, had no similar provision. The farm bill conference committee, which commenced October 30, 2013, considered the King amendment, but the conference report (H.Rept. 113-333) to H.R. 2642, released January 27, 2014, did not include it.
112th Congress On January 23, 2012, H.R. 3798—Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012—was introduced in the House by Representative Schrader of Oregon. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Agriculture and then to the Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. There was no further action on H.R. 3798. On May 24, 2012, a companion bill, S. 3239, was introduced by Senator Feinstein of California. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. During the 112th Congress, 153 cosponsors signed on to H.R. 3798, and 19 Senate cosponsors signed on to S. 3239. Prior to the Senate floor debate on the omnibus 2012 farm bill (S. 3240), Senator Feinstein offered S.Amdt. 2252, which would have inserted the language from S. 3239 into the Senate farm bill. However, the amendment was not one of the 77 amendments considered during the Senate farm bill floor debate of June 19-21. Reportedly, the amendment was withdrawn with the understanding that the Senate Agriculture Committee would address S. 3239 and the issues confronting egg producers.10 On July 26, 2012, the Senate Agriculture Committee held a hearing on S. 3239 with testimony from Senator Feinstein and four egg producers. Three producers testified in favor of S. 3239 and one opposed the legislation.11 During the House Agriculture Committee markup of the 2012 farm bill on July 11, 2012, no amendment was offered to include the language of H.R. 3798 in the House farm bill (H.R. 6083). However, Representative King (IA) offered the Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA),12 an amendment designed to protect the U.S. Constitution’s commerce clause (see “113th Congress” and “King Amendment”). The House Agriculture Committee adopted the amendment by voice vote.
Text of Denham amendment available at http://amendments-rules.house.gov/amendments/ DnhmSchr617131349144914.pdf 8 H.Rept. 113-117, p. 2. 9 §11312 of House-passed H.R. 2642. The section was designated as §12312 when H.Res. 361 amended the text of H.R. 2642 to include H.R. 3102 as Title IV, Nutrition, on September 28, 2013. 10 “Senate pushes toward final farm bill vote this week,” Agri-Pulse, June 20, 2012, p. 1. 11 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012” - Impact on Egg Producers, hearing on S. 3239, 112th Cong., 2nd sess., July 26, 2012. Testimonies available at http://www.ag.senate.gov/hearings/hearing-on-s-3239-the-egg-products-inspection-actamendments-of-2012. 12 §12308 of H.R. 6083.
King Amendment According to Representative King (IA), the Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA) is necessary because of the 2010 California law that requires all eggs brought into or sold in the state to be produced in the manner required in California. King views California’s 2010 egg law as protectionism and constitutional overreach, with one state attempting to impose its standards at the national level, when only the federal government can regulate interstate trade.13 The King amendment garnered support from livestock groups such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the National Pork Producers Council. Supporters believed the amendment would have prevented a patchwork of states laws from setting agricultural production standards and protected free interstate movement of agricultural products.14 Opponents of the King amendment argued that it undercut state voters’ rights to determine their state laws.15 In addition, opponents contended that the definitions of agricultural products and production and manufacturing are broad and would preempt hundreds of state laws and regulations.16 Opponents pointed to a compiled list of 150 state laws, covering such areas as animal welfare, environment, public health, and labor, that they argued would have been affected by the King amendment. In addition, in a letter to Ranking Member Peterson, 151 Members of Congress expressed their opposition to the King amendment.17 Some analyses of the amendment concluded that the actual affect was subject to interpretation and uncertainty, with courts making the final decision on the effects.18 The King amendment was not included in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79), and the challenge to the California egg law has shifted to the courts. On February 3, 2014, Missouri filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in California to challenge the legality of the egg law (see “Missouri Lawsuit”). Other states that are large producers of eggs and ship eggs to California would be expected join Missouri in challenging the California egg law.
13 Representative Steve King, “The Fight Continues,” Beltway Beef, October 24, 2013, p. 3, http://www.beefusa.org/ CMDocs/BeefUSA/Media/Beltway%20Beef/BeltwayBeef102413.pdf. 14 Scott George, “NCBA Op-Ed: Protect interstate commerce, protect animal ag,” Drovers CattleNetwork, November 15, 2013, http://www.cattlenetwork.com/cattle-news/NCBA-Op-Ed-Protect-interstate-commerce-protect-animal-ag232098831.html. National Pork Producers Council, “Call to Action: Support the King Amendment,” Capital Update, November 22, 2013, http://www.nppc.org/2013/11/for-the-week-ending-nov-22-2013/. 15 Kim Geiger, “House agriculture panel threatens California animal safety laws,” L.A. Times, July 13, 2012, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-farm-bill-animal-safety-20120713,0,4895609.story, and Letter from National Conference of State Legislatures, to Chairman Stabenow, Senator Cochran, Chairman Lucas and Rep. Peterson, August 5, 2013, http://www.ncsl.org/documents/standcomm/sceta/king_amendment_letter.pdf. 16 Letter from Karen Steuer, Director, Government Affairs, Pew Environment Group, to Members of Congress, July 17, 2012, http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Other_Resource/Pew-FarmBillHouseLetter17July2012.pdf, and Letter from a Coalition of 80 organizations, to Members of Congress, November 7, 2013, http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/legislation/king_amdt_opposition_group.pdf. 17 Letter from Members of Congress to Ranking Member Peterson, August 2, 2013http://levin.house.gov/letterrejecting-rep-kings-provision-farm-bill. 18 “Scope and Effect of Representative Steve King’s Amendment to the Farm Bill,” Congressionally Distributed Memorandum, CRS, August 1, 2012, and Letter from 14 professors of law, to Farm Bill Conference Leadership, December 6, 2013, http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/legislation/king-amendment-legal.pdf.
Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Notes: Includes laying hens for table and hatching egg production.
National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA, Chickens and Eggs 2011 Summary, February 2012, http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/ChickEgg/ChickEgg-02-28-2012.pdf. Egg production is reported for the period December of the previous year through November of the following year; i.e., 2011 production is the sum of December 2010 through November 2011. Average bird numbers are for the same period.
Source: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA. Notes: Total includes table and hatching eggs. * Data not disclosed for confidentiality reasons. Georgia (16.7 million), North Carolina (13.1 million), and Arkansas (12.2 million) have laying hen flock numbers that rank in the top 10 of total laying hens. However, the majority of hens in these three states provide eggs for the broiler sector.
National Agricultural Statistical Service, USDA, Poultry Production and Value, April 26, 2012, http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/PoulProdVa/PoulProdVa-04-26-2012.pdf.
Production Systems An estimated 95% of all eggs in the United States are produced in conventional cage systems, sometimes called battery cages. Generally, conventional cages are wire cages that may hold 6-10 laying hens, and usually have automated feeding, watering, and egg collecting systems. According to UEP, conventional cage systems typically provide each laying hen an average of 67 square inches of floor space. In some egg operations, hens have less space. Egg producers started adopting conventional cage systems in the 1950s because they reduced disease and provided cleaner eggs compared with traditional barnyard production. Egg farmers also found that cage systems proved to be more economically efficient as systems were automated and more laying hens could be managed in less space.21 Over time, conventional cage systems have been heavily criticized for providing poor welfare for laying hens, especially in Europe (see “Europe’s Ban on Battery Cages,” below). The other 5% of eggs are produced in either cage-free or free-range systems. There are two principal types of cage-free systems—floor and aviary. In both of these cage-free systems, laying hens have access to the barn or housing floor, usually covered with litter, and nesting boxes for egg laying. Aviaries provide several levels of perches that allow laying hens to be off the floor. In cage-free systems, laying hens are kept indoors. The free-range system is similar to the cage-free system, but laying hens have access to the outdoors. The relatively new enriched cage systems—also called furnished, modified, or enriched colony cages—were developed in the 1980s in Europe in response to criticisms of conventional cages and legislation on cages.22 Enriched cages are larger and include perches, scratching pads, and nesting boxes designed to allow laying hens to express natural behaviors (see “Egg Production Systems and Hen Welfare,” below).
21 J. A. Mench, D. A. Sumner, and J. T. Rosen-Molina, “Sustainability of egg production the United States—The policy and market context,” Poultry Science, vol. 90, no. 1 (January 2011), p. 230. 22 Mench, pp. 231-232. 23 The Cooperative Marketing Associations Act (7 U.S.C. §§291, 292), also called the Capper-Volstead Act (P.L. 67146), was enacted February 18, 1922, in response to challenges made against cooperatives using the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §1 et seq.), the Clayton Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. §12 et seq.), and the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. §41 et seq.). The act gave “associations” of persons producing agricultural products certain exemptions from antitrust laws. The law carries the names of its sponsors, Senator Arthur Capper of Kansas and Representative Andrew Volstead of Minnesota.
2008 California ballot initiative, where voters chose to ban the use of cages after January 1, 2015 (see “California Proposition 2,” below). HSUS also has waged campaigns in other states that have resulted in laws on laying-hen cages. In October 2009, Michigan enacted a law to phase out cages by 2019, and in June 2010, Ohio agreed to place a moratorium on the construction of new conventional cages as part of an agreement to stop a ballot initiative.
prohibit the buying and selling of eggs and egg products that do not meet the standards.
(...continued) 31 See the National Agricultural Law Center, at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/farmanimal/index.html, for information on animal welfare provisions by state. 32 UEP and HSUS, “Historic Agreement Hatched to Set National Standard for Nation’s Egg Industry,” press release, July 7, 2011, http://www.unitedegg.org/homeNews/UEP_Press_Release_7-7-11.pdf.
Egg Products Inspection Act The Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970 (EPIA; 21 U.S.C. §1031 et seq.) regulates the safety of shell eggs and egg products. The EPIA provides authority for the Secretary of Agriculture (USDA) and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to inspect shell eggs and egg products. The responsibility for egg safety is shared by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), both of USDA, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of HHS. The EPIA prohibits restricted eggs, such as cracked, leaky, or dirty eggs, from entering the shell egg supply for human consumption. The EPIA requires that shell eggs be refrigerated at a temperature of no more than 45 degrees Fahrenheit and use labels that indicate refrigeration is required for shell eggs. The EPIA also requires that egg products—defined as liquid, frozen, and dried—be pasteurized before entering commerce for human consumption and include a label with an inspection legend and the plant number where processed. An estimated 30% of eggs are consumed as egg products, most often in the food service and food manufacturing sectors. FSIS continuously inspects the processing of egg products and ensures that they are produced under sanitary conditions and are pasteurized. FSIS also inspects egg product imports and verifies that imported shell eggs are refrigerated at the proper temperature. AMS conducts USDA’s egg surveillance program to make sure proper temperatures are maintained at shell egg storage facilities and when eggs are transported. AMS also provides quality grading for shell eggs. FDA is responsible for the safety of shell eggs at the farm level and for shell eggs that enter food manufacturing, food service, and retail. As part of its responsibility, FDA ensures that shell eggs are properly refrigerated and labeled. In July 2010, FDA issued the Egg Safety Rule (74 Federal Register 33030; 21 C.F.R. Parts 16 and 118) to prevent Salmonella enteriditis in eggs. After the rule was promulgated, FDA began a comprehensive inspection of all egg facilities that are covered under the egg rule. The inspections may include environment and egg sampling and testing, as well as inspection of bio-security, pest control, cleaning and disinfecting practices, refrigeration, and records.
Besides the California differences, S. 820 and H.R. 1731 include a new provision that allows for excess ammonia levels because of special circumstances. Also, three exemptions are added to the legislation. Educational and research institutes and cages with one egg-laying hen are exempt, and the legislation explicitly states that the provisions apply only to commercial egg production, and exempt other livestock and poultry production.
Housing Requirements S. 820 and H.R. 1731 would prohibit the commercial buying and selling of shell eggs and egg products from laying hens that are not raised according to the new housing requirements. For California, the bills contained different standards during the phase-in period in recognition that California state law, adopted through the ballot initiative process in 2008, has laying hen requirements that are scheduled to go into force on January 1, 2015 (see “California Proposition 2,” below).
environmental enrichments for new cages would need to be in place three months after enactment, and enrichments for existing cages must be in place by January 1, 2024.
Source: S. 820 and H.R. 1731.
For California, S. 820 and H.R. 1731 would require that cages have 116 square inches for white hens and 134 square inches for brown hens from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2023. Beginning January 1, 2024, California cages would need to be 124 and 144 square inches, the standard for all laying hen cages, but California would reach the national standard about four years earlier than other states.
Other Requirements In addition to environmental enrichments and floor space measures, the egg legislation would require that within two years of enactment of the legislation egg producers (1) keep ammonia levels in the air in egg-laying houses to less than 25 parts per million, except for temporary periods due to extraordinary weather or unusual circumstances; (2) not withhold feed or water to force laying hens to molt (lose their feathers to rejuvenate egg laying); and (3) follow the guidelines set out by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) for euthanasia.
Brown hens are larger than white hens. H.R. 3798 and S. 3239 established minimum floor space requirements for each type of laying hen.
Current law also gives USDA the authority to inspect egg imports.39 Egg and egg product imports, like meat and poultry, are allowed into the United States under equivalency agreements. This means that imported products are produced and inspected in foreign countries in a manner that provides equivalent food safety as in U.S. domestic production. S. 820 and H.R. 1731 would amend import provisions to require that imported eggs and egg products be produced according to the standards of the EPIA.40 This import aspect potentially could become a trade issue in the future if foreign egg and egg product imports were required to meet U.S. production standards. However, U.S. egg imports are relatively small and from few countries, and this likely would not arise as a trade issue until the U.S. egg industry has fully transitioned to enriched cages in the future. Also, the legislation would prohibit the introduction of new conventional cages that have less than 67 and 76 square inches for white and brown laying hens, and to which environment enrichments could not be added.
Phase-In Conversion Requirements S. 820 and H.R. 1731 would establish several benchmarks for the egg-laying industry to meet as it transitions to new enriched cage systems. The goal is to have at least 25% of the commercial egg-laying hens in cages that afford 90 and 102 square inches for white and brown laying-hens six years after enactment of the legislation. In the period 12 years after enactment, the target is for 55% of commercial egg-laying hens to have 113 and 130 square inches of floor space. Then in the final phase, all egg-laying hens would have to have a minimum of 124 and 144 square inches and environmental enrichments as of December 31, 2029. The phase-in periods would be different for California. The first phase-in period would be 2½ years after enactment of the legislation and would require that 25% of cages provide 116 and 134 square inches for white and brown laying hens. Five years after enactment, 50% of cages would have to meet the first phase-in period space requirement, and after 7½ years, 75% would have to meet the space requirement. Finally, 10 years after enactment, all California cages would have to provide 124 and 144 square inches of floor space. At the end of the six-year phase-in period, the Secretary of Agriculture would use data from an independent national survey of the industry to determine if the phase-in targets have been met. If the targets have not been achieved, then existing conventional cage systems that had been in operation prior to January 1, 1995, would have to meet the 90 and 102 square inch requirement beginning January 1, 2020. If California has not met its requirement, then one year after the Secretary’s finding, all cages would be required to provide 124 and 144 square inches for white and brown laying hens. The legislation also would require the Secretary of Agriculture to submit compliance reports to the House and Senate Agriculture Committees after the 12-year mark and after December 31, 2029.
Eggs from caged hens—eggs or egg products from laying hens housed in cages without adequate environmental enrichments and less than the minimum of 101 and 116 square inches of individual floor space per white and brown hens.
The responsibility for ensuring that shell eggs and egg products were properly labeled with the method of housing would fall to USDA. The housing label requirement would go into force one year after the enactment of the bill.
Exemptions S. 820 and H.R. 1731 would provide six exemptions to the new requirements: (1) egg farmers who installed new cages between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2011, would have until December 31, 2029, to meet the floor space requirements; (2) laying-hen flocks that are in production when the bill was enacted would be exempt from the provisions until the flocks are removed from production; (3) small egg producers—defined as those with less than 3,000 laying hens—would be exempt from the requirements; (4) the provisions do not apply to educational and research institutions; (5) the enrichment provisions do not apply to cages with one egg-laying hen; and (6) the provisions of the legislation do not apply to production of pork, beef, turkey, dairy, broiler chicken, veal, or other livestock or poultry.
(...continued) 2012/03/27/avma-board-supports-enriched-hen-housing-legislation/. AVMA’s policy on laying hen housing systems states, “Laying hen housing systems must provide feed, water, light, air quality, space and sanitation that promote good health and welfare for the hens. Housing systems should provide for expression of important natural behaviors, protect the hens from disease, injury and predation, and promote food safety. Participation in a nationally recognized, thirdparty audited welfare program is strongly advised,” Available at http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/ housing_chickens.asp. 43 UEP Certified, “Consumers Overwhelmingly Support National Legislation Sought by Egg Farmers,” news release, January 30, 2012, http://uepcertified.com/pdf/consumerresearchnewsrelease-final.pdf. Michael Fielding, “Survey says: Consumers support “enriched cage bill,” Meatingplace, January 31, 2012. 44 Terrence O'Keefe, “Making the case for enriched colony housing for layers,” Egg Industry, December 2011, pp. 6-7. 45 NCBA, “NCBA Statement on United Egg Producers-Humane Society of the United States Agreement,” press release, July 12, 2011, http://www.beefusa.org/newsreleases1.aspx?NewsID=366. 46 NPPC, “Statement of National Pork Producers Council,” press release, July 7, 2011, http://www.nppc.org/2011/07/ statement-of-national-pork-producers-council/. 47 Letter from Egg Farmers of America, NCBA, and NPPC et al. to Frank Lucas, Chairman House Committee on Agriculture and Collin Peterson, Ranking Member, December 6, 2011, http://www.beefusa.org/CMDocs/BeefUSA/ Issues/Lucas-Peterson%20Letter%20-%20Final.pdf. In addition to the three cited organizations, the other signees were the American Farm Bureau Federation, American Sheep Industry Association, the National Farmers Union, The National Turkey Federation, and the National Milk Producers Federation. 48 HFA, “Egg Industry Bill Would Keep Hens in Cages Forever,” Stop the Rotten Egg Bill, http://stoptherotteneggbill.org/site/c.8qKNJWMwFbLUG/b.7867921/k.C798/About_Us.htm.
Opponents argue that pursuing legislation at the federal level had consequences that could impact all livestock and poultry producers. In addition, the costs are likely to be high and especially costly for small egg farmers. Several issues are highlighted below.
Effect on Other Animal Agriculture Sectors In order to avoid affecting the production practices of other livestock sectors in the legislation, UEP and HSUS pushed their proposed legislation through an amendment to the EPIA, which only addresses the egg industry and not the livestock or poultry sectors. Both UEP and HSUS pointed out that the egg legislation could succeed in Congress only if the industry was in agreement. Similar legislation for other livestock or poultry industries seemed unlikely. Reportedly, UEP and HSUS agreed that if any similar legislation or amendments were proposed that involved other livestock or poultry sectors, the two groups would abandon their support for the bills. Although cage requirements would have been embedded in law that applied only to eggs and egg products, opposition groups believed that successful enactment of H.R. 3798 and S. 3239 would have encouraged future federal legislation mandating other animal husbandry practices. This view probably was held most strongly by many hog producers, whose use of sow gestation crates (small confined crates where sows birth their piglets) has been under attack for several years. The use of gestation crates is already being phased out by some state laws, and is banned in the EU in 2013.
Basis in Science One of the main criticisms of the egg legislation is that cage requirements are not based on specific scientific research that says the requirements are optimal for laying-hen welfare. But as the AVMA pointed out when evaluating its position on H.R. 3798, the available science suggests that the proposed standards of H.R. 3798 would likely still improve the lives of egg-laying hens.53 The AVMA also recognized opposition to the agreement among egg producers, and stated that it would work to make sure the legislation results in welfare improvements with minimal impacts on producers, associated industries, and consumers.54 Opponents were also concerned that the egg legislation would be a move away from the long established position shared among animal agriculture groups that animal husbandry decisions affecting welfare should be based on the best available science. Opponents argued that U.S. producers already raise and manage their animals with practices that are science-based and overseen by veterinarians, and that animal welfare is a priority for livestock and poultry producers. Most livestock and poultry groups have established voluntary programs, such as the pork producers’ Pork Quality Assurance (PQA) and the cattlemen’s Beef Quality Assurance (BQA), that include animal welfare guidance.55 Furthermore, opponents of the egg legislation argue that if standards were codified into law, then future science-based innovations in animal management and/or welfare could be limited, and that Congress would end up regularly amending federal standards as the science changed.
R. Scott Nolen, “Congress considers US egg production standards,” JAVMANews, March 15, 2012, http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/mar12/120315h.asp. 54 Ibid. 55 For information on PQA and BQA, see http://www.pork.org/Certification/Default.aspx#.T6v0WtVGh8F and http://www.bqa.org/.
56 Terrence O'Keefe, “Social, economic forces will cause more changes in egg industry,” WATTAgNet.com, January 6, 2012, http://www.wattagnet.com/Social,_economic_forces_will_cause_more_changes_in_egg_industry.html. 57 Estimate by Minnesota egg producer Amon Baer, member of Egg Farmers of America and UEP. Email to CRS from representatives of Egg Farmers of America, April 30, 2012. 58 Terrence O’Keefe, op. cit., January 6, 2012. 59 Promar International, Impacts of Banning Cage Egg Production in the United States, Prepared for United Egg Producers, August 2009, p. 3, http://www.unitedegg.org/information/pdf/Promar_Study.pdf. 60 “First egg colony data finds improved performance,” Feedstuffs, January 19, 2012.
feed use per dozen eggs was 3.19 pounds for the enriched cages vs. 3.00 pounds for the conventional cages.
These limited data suggest that feed costs may be somewhat higher in an enriched cage system because of increased feed use, but there appear to be offsetting productivity gains that could make up for higher feed costs. On June 1, 2012, UEP released a new study of the economic impacts of converting to enriched cages.61 The report estimated a baseline for capital investment, production costs, and consumer prices that will occur over the next 18 years under current table egg production methods. The study also estimated this for production under the provisions of the bills. In summary, the study found that production under enriched cages would require an additional $2.6 billion in capital investment ($3.1 billion v. $5.7 billion). The production costs for eggs from enriched cages are estimated to be about $0.06 (+8%) per dozen higher in 2030, the end of the phase-in period, than under current production methods. For retail eggs, the per-dozen price in 2030 is also estimated $0.06 higher, but would be a 3% increase over expected prices from current production methods. It should be noted that this study examines the table egg industry in aggregate. Egg farmers could face different costs depending on individual circumstances.
Animal Welfare Issues Animal welfare has become an increasingly salient public issue over the past decade. More recently, social media publication of graphic videos of the treatment of laboratory animals (e.g., apes, cats, dogs), commercial pet breeding operations (e.g., “puppy mills”), and farm animals (e.g., slaughter houses, swine and poultry farms) has contributed to rising public awareness of how humans use animals, and how these animals are treated. Some of this awareness has been expressed in appeals for more vigorous enforcement of state and local animal abuse and cruelty laws. Other individuals and groups, citing animal welfare issues, environmental issues, and/or social justice issues, have called for significantly reducing or even ending the consumption of meat and animal products. As the UEP-HSUS agreement and H.R. 3798 and S. 3239 suggest, animal agricultural producers likely will face more animal welfare campaigns and growing public interest in farm animal welfare. The following sections discuss recent animal welfare issues as they pertain to hens. 61 Agralytica Consulting, Economic Impacts of Converting US Egg Production to Enriched Cage Systems, A Report for United Egg Producers, June 1, 2012, http://www.eggbill.com/images/ Economic%20Impact%20of%20Egg%20Legislation%20June%202012.pdf.
62 Battery cages compromise what the United Kingdom’s Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), a government organization, has identified as the “five freedoms” the council believes should be considered in policy discussion of animal welfare: freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from discomfort; freedom from pain, injury, and disease; freedom to express normal behavior; and freedom from fear and distress. FAWC considers these freedoms as ideal states rather than standards for policy prescriptions. The “five freedoms” were originally articulated in the Brambell Report, a 1965 report to the U.K. government (Command Paper 2836). 63 D.C. Lay, Jr. et al., Hen welfare in different housing systems. Poultry Science Association, Emerging Issues: Social Sustainability of Egg Production Symposium, Denver, Colorado, July 11-15, 2010, http://www.poultryscience.org/ docs/PS_962.pdf. 64 Ibid. 65 Ibid.
See Welfare Issues with Furnished Cages for Egg-Laying Hens. The Humane Society of the United States. 2010, http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/welfare_issues_furnished_cages.pdf. 67 D.C. Lay et al., op. cit.
U.S. Animal Welfare Legislation The Animal Welfare Act (AWA, P.L. 91-579, 7 U.S.C. §§2131-2159) is the primary United States statute governing the treatment of animals, including marine mammals, and animals used in research.69 The AWA is administered by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Animal health standards (e.g., medical treatment, feeding, watering, sanitation, enclosures, handling), transportation standards (e.g., carriers, primary means of conveyance, care in transit), animal exhibitions (e.g., zoos, carnivals, circuses), and animal fighting are major areas regulated under the AWA.70 However, the AWA explicitly excludes farm animals from its regulatory oversight.71 While most states have laws related to animal cruelty or animal welfare, most of these statutes also exclude farm animals from coverage. Farm animal welfare is, then, largely a matter of the actions of individual producers. Producer organizations (e.g., NCBA, NPPC, and UEP) may develop best-practice standards of animal care for their members, but these standards are voluntary and do not carry the force of law. Legislation has been introduced in the past several congresses to address farm animal welfare. In the 110th Congress, the Farm Animal Stewardship Purchasing Act (H.R. 1726) would have required that government purchases of animal products be restricted to livestock products from animals raised under specific welfare conditions. The Farm Animals Anti-Cruelty Act (H.R. 6202) would have promoted farm animal well-being by imposing fines on producers who abuse animals in food production. In the 111th Congress, the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act (H.R. 4733) would, like H.R. 1726, have required that government purchases of animal products be restricted to livestock products from animals raised under specific welfare conditions. None of these bills were enacted. With the exception of H.R. 3798 and S. 3239, no other bills addressing farm animal welfare have been introduced in the 112th Congress.
California Health and Safety Code, Div. 20, Ch. 13.8, Secs. 25990-25994. For background on Proposition 2 see http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ethics/Prop2.pdf. 74 California Health and Safety Code, Div. 20, Ch. 14, Secs. 25995-25997.1. 75 Text of regulation available at http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/Regulations.html#mpi4. 76 The variance in cage size is determined by the variety of hen: white breeds of layers require less space than brown breeds. The J.S. West and Companies “enriched colony” system has 60 hens housed in 4 foot by 12 foot off-ground enclosures. This enclosure meets the EU standards. 77 JS West Milling Company, Inc. v. State of California, et al., Tentative Rulings for July 7, 2011, http://www.fresno.courts.ca.gov/_pdfs/tentative_rulings/law_motion/07-07-11.pdf (California Superior Court 2011).
William Cramer v. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., et al., April 10, 2012 (United States District Court, Central District of California, Eastern Division 2012). 79 Dani Friedland, “Court rejects challenge to Calif. confinement measure,” Meatingplace, September 13, 2012, http://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/36030. 80 Terrence O'Keefe, “California egg farmers challenge Proposition 2 in state court,” Egg Industry, January 2013, pp. 14-15. 81 Rita Jane Gabbett, “California court upholds Proposition 2,” Meatingplace, August 30, 2013, http://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/44411. 82 “Missouri attorney general challenges California egg law,” WATT Poultry Update, February 5, 2014, http://www.wattagnet.com/166447.html. 83 Michigan Compiled Laws, §287.746(2)(a)(b), http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-287-746.
Michigan Agri-Business Association, and the HSUS.84 The legislation stopped the HSUS from pursuing a ballot initiative campaign in Michigan on animal confinement during 2010. The Michigan provisions for egg-laying hens go into force in 2019.
The EU Commission noted that noncompliance had animal welfare consequences, and also distorted the egg market. By November 2012, only Cyprus, Greece, and Italy were not in compliance with the EU hen cage rules.92 Some EU countries transitioned to enriched cages ahead of the 2012 deadline for compliance. Sweden banned the use of conventional cages by the end of 2002; Austria banned their use by the end of 2008; and Germany followed by the end of 2009. Austria and Belgium also plan to ban enriched cages by 2020 and 2024, respectively.93 Outside the EU, Switzerland banned battery cages in 1992. Battery cages are still legal in non-EU countries, and there is no current ban on the import into the EU of eggs produced in non-EU countries in battery cages. Such eggs will require a country-of-origin label and must indicate that the farming method used to produce the eggs is “non-EC standard.”94 Implementation of the ban has imposed increased costs for eggs in the EU. According to the EU Commission, egg supplies fell and egg prices “surged considerably” in the weeks following the implementation of the January 2012 ban. Data released by the Commission showed that table egg prices increased 44% by March 2012 from the end of 2011. Prices for eggs used by the food industry—normally as much as 50% less expensive than supermarket eggs—also increased 10%20% in price.95 The EU wholesale prices for whole pasteurized liquid egg increased 102% yearover-year.96 Based on the experience of Germany, which banned conventional cages in 2007, the Commission noted that they expected egg prices to stabilize by early May, even as they expect total egg production to fall by 2.5% in 2012. Indeed, EU egg prices peaked in March, remained relatively high in April, but moved lower throughout the rest of the year. Although 2012 EU egg prices were higher than a year earlier because of high input costs, the November 2012 price was 16% lower than the March peak.97 On February 15, 2012, the European Commission issued its general strategy for the protection and welfare of animals.98 The EU already had directives on various aspects of animal welfare including transportation; slaughtering; and specific requirements for housing calves, pigs, laying 92 “Despite Difficulties, the European egg market remains well supplied,” WattAgNet, November 13, 2012, http://www.wattagnet.com/155421.html. 93 “Upgrading Hen Housing: Latest Development in Europe,” The Poultry Site, October 23, 2009, http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/1533/upgrading-hen-housing-latest-developments-in-europe. 94 See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:163:0006:0023:EN:PDF. The European Commission in 2007 issued marketing rules for eggs. Paragraph 33 notes that battery cages are prohibited for Member states beginning in 2012, and the Commission “.. should therefore evaluate the application of the voluntary labelling provisions foreseen with regard to enriched cages before that date in order to examine the need of rendering this labelling compulsory.” Commission Regulation No. 557/2007: Laying down detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation No. 1028/2006 on marketing standards for eggs, May 23, 2007, available at http://eurlex.europa.eu/ LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:132:0005:0020:EN:PDF. 95 “Europe short on eggs as battery cage ban bites,” Deutsche Welle, March 22, 2012, http://www.dw.de/dw/article/ 0,,15826347,00.html. 96 Julia Glotz and Richard Ford, “Egg prices up after scramble to meet EU battery cage ban,” The Grocer, January 7, 2012, http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/topics/prices-and-promotions/egg-prices-up-after-scramble-to-meet-eu-battery-cageban/224792.article. 97 European Commission, “Monthly Market Prices for Eggs in the E.U.”, December 20, 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/ agriculture/markets/poultry/eggs_broilers.pdf. 98 European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on the European Union Strategy for the Protection and Welfare of Animals 2012-2015, February 5, 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/welfare/actionplan/docs/aw_strategy_19012012_en.pdf.
hens, and broilers. EU rules on organic production also include high animal welfare standards for cattle, pig, and poultry production. The new EU strategy will consider introducing a simplified legislative framework with animal welfare principles for all animals. This framework would use science-based animal welfare indicators to simplify the legal framework, provide more information to consumers on animal welfare, create a common set of requirements for personnel handling animals, and establish a EU network of animal welfare centers.
Acknowledgments Daniel T. Shedd, Legislative Attorney, provided input and review on the King amendment.

References: §12314
 §11312
 §12312
 §12308
 §1
 §12
 §41
 §1031
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §287