Your editorial asking readers to vote "no" on Prop 2 is logically faulty. Even you are not willing to stand by your proposition. You cite one study that indicates caged eggs are 25% cheaper than range eggs, and Prop 2 “would likely bolster the market for cheaper out-of-state eggs.” Likely?
This is speculation. Have you checked on what happened to the price of pigs and veal in Arizona, Oregon and Colorado after their laws were passed? Did pig and veal farmers go out of business? Did these farmers relocate to California or Kansas? You don’t have the slightest idea, do you?
You also speculate that the demand for free range eggs will not increase from 5% to 20% or even 50% if more readily available and marketed, for example, as “California Cageless, Guilt Free Eggs.” Consumers do not always choose the cheapest similar product; they already pay a premium for green power and green vehicles and the demand for both is increasing because marketing and conscience made green the way to go.
You outline how terribly chickens are treated, opine Prop 2 is not the way to go, but do not offer an alternative to stop the brutality. Not all laws should be judged on finances and jobs. There are often far more important reasons to support a bill, as in this case as a matter of conscience.
Post a Comment