WENDELL — The 80-year-old Diemand Farm is the only farm in Massachusetts that would be affected if Question 3 on the Nov. 8 ballot passes, according to both sides of the “Act to Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals” referendum.
Depending on whom you ask, the 3,000 laying hens now individually caged at the farm are either clucking happily or giving cries of distress.
The ballot question, if passed, would prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any egg-laying hen “in a way that prevents the animal from lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely,” and would prohibit any business in Massachusetts from selling eggs knowing that the hen was confined in that way — whether on a farm in or out of state.
Simply reading the title of the ballot question is something of a no-brainer, said Diemand Farm co-owner Anne Diemand Bucci, who led a reporter through a henhouse where birds had constant access to clean food and water and room to move around and stretch.
“Who wouldn’t want a bill to have inhumane treatment of animals not be in Massachusetts?” she asked. “Who in their right mind wouldn’t want that?”
Bucci’s father started the farm in 1936 and kept chickens out of cages until 1968. Then the problems of hens cannibalizing each other, lying in their own manure or crowding in corners when frightened led him to develop a cage system in a well-ventilated coop, according to Bucci’s brother and co-owner Peter Diemand.
The farm raised 12,000 laying hens and sold its eggs at Stop & Shop, Big Y and other area supermarkets, cutting back to one-quarter of those egg-laying numbers in 2012 to comply with burdensome federal record-keeping requirements. It has been diversifying its operation, focusing on turkey and meat chickens as well as catering and its prepared foods at its retail store — the only place its eggs would be sold if the ballot measure passes.
The question sponsored by Citizens for Farm Animal Protection would also prohibit any farm owner or operator from knowingly confining any breeding pig or calf raised for veal in the same way, and would prohibit any business owner or operator in the state from selling any uncooked cut of veal or pork knowing that the animal was confined in a prohibited manner.
Yet, opponents say there are no veal gestation crates or field crates for pigs in the Bay State. Stephanie J. Harris, state director of the Humane Society of the United States, said Massachusetts was selected for the ballot initiative because there are no laws restricting animal confinement and, she noted, “In Massachusetts today, there are thousands of animals confined in cages.”
Those thousands are the 3,000 hens — one to a cage at Diemand Farm — where Bucci said the Wendell coop has been visited by people who came in anger because of the Humane Society’s “misinformation” but changed their minds after seeing the conditions.
“When I read ‘standing up, turning around, sitting down, lying down, being able to spread their wings,’ they can do that,” Bucci said. “People have a perception of a chicken spreading its wings like an eagle. They don’t spread their wings, they stretch, one side at a time. And they can do that.”
Harris maintained that at a legislative hearing, as her organization sought to bring about confinement legislation, “a pork corporation testified they were interested in bringing gestation crates into Massachusetts.” She also said the initiative is aimed in part at promoting public health by reducing the spread of salmonella.
The Massachusetts Veterinary Association opposes the ballot question, favoring instead establishment of a state livestock care and standards board to establish requirements on animal confinement.
“The ballot initiative … advocates only for specific, rigid animal housing space requirements but does not have any mechanism to adapt to changing needs on an ongoing basis,” the association says.
Massachusetts voters in 1988 rejected, by 71 percent, a ballot question that would have had the state Department of Food and Agriculture issue regulations to ensure that “cruel or inhumane practices are not used in the raising, handling or transportation of farm animals.”
This year’s measure, backed by a $1.7 million coalition led by the Humane Society of the United States, is supported by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and its Massachusetts affiliate, the Massachusetts Sierra Club and other organizations.
Bucci has called it a “David vs. Goliath” battle. An opposition group, Citizens Against Food Tax Injustice, was formed last month by the Massachusetts Farm Bureau Federation, New England Brown Egg Council, Northeast Agribusiness and Feed Alliance, and Retailers Association of Massachusetts, to argue that the proposal is not needed in the state and would hurt low-income families by raising the annual price of eggs, a relatively inexpensive protein source, by an estimated $60 per family.
How it would affect supermarkets is unclear, although food sellers are opposing the measure.
The Humane Society has estimated that consumers would pay only about $1 more per month if the new law takes effect.
Brad Mitchell, the Farm Bureau’s deputy executive director, said he believes the “largely emotional appeals” to voters will be used by the out-of-state backers of the proposal to restrict different kinds of farm operations “in successive steps” around the country.
Although the 1988 ballot measure was handily rejected by voters, he said, that was before the Humane Society was a $215 million “force to be reckoned with.”
Bradley Miller, national director of the California animal rights group The Humane Farming Association, calls the ballot measure “a publicity stunt in search of a lawsuit,” and as a proponent of cage-free laying hens, opposes the Humane Society’s “cynical exploitation of ballot measures.”
Miller said that despite overwhelming victory in his state, more than 10 million laying hens are still confined in crates, several birds to a crate, because the law is tied up in federal court.
“This flies in the face of the Interstate Commerce Clause,” he said, and a ballot victory in Massachusetts — as is widely expected — “comes at a cost to Massachusetts taxpayers who will have to defend the ballot measure” in expected legal challenges.
Although The Humane Farming Association, which has promoted veal boycotts and advocated for cage-free chickens, has taken no position on the Massachusetts ballot question, Miller said, “Our position is that nobody should be contributing by giving money, because it’s a farce. It’s going to pass without anybody spending money.”