An `Animal Farm' Referendum

BALLOT Question 3, which calls for new restrictions against "cruel and inhumane treatment" of farm animals, appears harmless and charitable; merely a small thing to help ease the pain of our fellow creatures. But this innocence is entirely illusory. In reality, Question 3 is a measure that is unnecessary and undesirable.

The referendum does little to extend protection beyond what is provided in current anti-cruelty statutes and works at the cost of instituting oppressive regulations on farmers, especially small ones. It is important not to defeat it, but to do so resoundingly, in order to discourage similarly ill-considered initiatives. In particular, many animal activists see this as a trial run against a much bigger foe, the biomedical research establishment.

The proposal calls for the immediate banning of certain practices and mandates more comprehensive and stringent regulations over the next few years. Some of the practices being prevented--such as the grinding up of baby chicks--are not even used in the state and haven't been for several decades. They are included mainly for their shock value, in hopes of provoking a visceral rather than reasoned response to this problem through lurid distortions.

The language of Question 3 makes it appear to be a public health measure, and the initiative is peppered with references to animal health, as if that were its primary goal. Of course, all farmers have a vested interest in keeping their animals in good shape. Nor do government inspectors take a kindly view of farmers who try to sell sick animals for public consumption. The health provisions of the bill are redundant--a smokescreen for the introduction of vague regulations calling for "sufficient" or "adequate" environmental conditions and "humane treatment" and the threat of $1000 fines.

WHILE "cruelty" is one of those legal concepts difficult to define, clear and extreme cases are generally agreed upon and covered by current laws. But many animal "rights" decisions are subjective, requiring personal ethical choices. Will the time come when the production of animals for meat is considered "cruel" and punished by the state? Who will determine the real meaning of the strictures put forth in Question 3? Luckily, this proposal has a clear answer.

The referendum calls for a "Scientific Advisory Board" to recommend standards in accordance with the provisions of the proposed law. Four out of the five members of this board would be nominated by animal welfare organizations, thus assuring them a role as the arbiters of morality. Even more pernicious, the proposal contains a "citizen suits" clause that allows for and encourages "citizens" (read: animal activists) to barrage the state and the legal system with lawsuits on behalf of animals they feel are maltreated.

Farming, while important to those involved, is not big business in Massachusetts. Biomedicine, on the other hand, is one of the largest, most rapidly growing industries in the state. Should this question get significant support, it will give a justification for a possible future measure that replaces "farm animals" with "research animals."

If Question 3 actually passes, it will establish legal precedents allowing the wholesale harassment of the research community. From the point of view of animal rights extremists, this is perhaps the bill's most desirable aspect, and it is certainly one of its greatest dangers to the Massachusetts economy and the progress of science.

THE philosophical merits of the animal rights movement are far too scant to outweigh these considerations. Even those who share their presumably deep respect for the natural world should think again before voting for Question 3. By restricting farmers, it makes farming less efficient and forces society to put more land into production, severely exploiting the environment. Furthermore, the intiative is likely to hurt small family farms--who take the best care of their animals--more than anyone, and thus will actually turn domestic animals even more into mere components in the industrial processes of huge corporate agrobusinesses.

Animals have the right to be free of extreme cruelty, and that right is currently protected by law. Farmers, of all people, respect these rights, both out of economic self-interest and a familiarity gained from long association. Animal rights advocates see certain practices as intrinsically wrong, and justify their beliefs with arguments no more (or less) valid than those of religious devotees who eschew the killing of certain creatures, but which are wholly subjective. These activists would like, through Question 3, to become the ethical decision makers for all of us. With the power of government and lawsuit behind them, we would all pay for the personal convictions of a few.

If one disagrees with specific farming practices, like veal production methods, the proper response is to use persuasion and publicity to convince others to share that position and abstain from the offending product. If enough agree, the market will force a modification of the unwanted behavior. Question 3 chooses the unfair and undemocratic route of coercive government meddling and destructive litigation, while it hides its true agenda with deceptively innocuous language. The state House and Senate have already rejected this measure by votes of 2 to 150, and 0 to 34. The public needs to repudiate this extremist initiative by a similarly emphatic margin.