Take Note: The" King Amendment" to the Farm Bill WILL Endanger Animal Welfare (at a minimum, it's ludicrous and cruel)

I navigate this terrain on tenterhooks. It's a very personal choice to be an animal activist or not. I don't wave a flag in front of my friends' faces proclaiming my lifestyle over theirs is better. I simply wish for a kinder approach to our existence as it relates to food production and consumption. Sure I'd love it if the world went vegan. But I am not naive. It's for this reason a piece in this morning's paper gave me pause. I thought I'd share some thoughts with you all as this holiday season ratchets up full speed and eating takes center stage.


This morning's paper included this story on the close call we are about to face should the King Amendment, put forth by Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, be allowed to pass in the Farm Bill. Currently, the House Agricultural Commission added the language to its version of the Farm Bill. So far, the language is not in the Senate Agricultural Committee's version. They are in in committee this week. The House version is H.R. 2642 and includes section 11312, or the "King Amendment". 

As a member of the Vegan Lobby (King's moniker for the likes of people like me--thank you, it is a wonderful label and I am proud to wear it)--I strongly oppose this measure. Overall the argument he raises is that too many agricultural state laws in too many places will make it too hard for the federal government to monitor interstate commerce (invoking the Commerce Clause). His measure is designed to prevent states from imposing their own "humane" agricultural regulation on agricultural products being brought in from other states. (Read more on it here.)

I am adamantly opposed to the King Amendment to the Farm Bill. Why? Let me count the ways:

1. The amendment would block state laws protecting animals--not least of which includes state laws banning dog breeders from irresponsible dog breeding practices. Being from the Puppy Mill state, I have grave concerns. 

2. Laws governing cage size for chicken raising would be in jeopardy. He opposes states regulating the size of cages for raising chickens for consumption, i.e., wingspan width and standing space for raising chickens would be at risk. It may disrupt commerce--having one state passing humane legislation for raising poultry and others not would create a hardship on chicken farmers. A. Hardship. On. Chicken. Farmers.   

3. Laws banning dog fighting in some states would also be in jeopardy. He believes dog fighting should be allowed because, well. . . because we allow humans to fight. Um, first things first here--and this observation has been shared by other rational animal advocates, but for clarity, let's review. The last time I asked my dogs whether or not they wanted to fight, I didn't get an answer. The last time a welter weight fighter was asked whether he'd like to fight, he was able to say YES. (You know this was almost too unbelievable for me to contemplate.) Well, I found this. Please view, it's priceless.

4. The language also impacts horse slaughter. As a citizen living in a state who is a gossamer hair thread away from starting a horse slaughtering plant, but has been stopped by state mandated water waste treatment guidelines (thank god)--I find this portion of the amendment very worrisome. No one in their right mind should be defending the slaughtering of horses for consumption.  

5. The current federal level laws regulating the transporting of agricultural animals (not including poultry) is something called the 28-Hour Law (read more about it here), which requires carriers of livestock to offload their "shipment" (i.e., animals on their way to slaughter) every 28 hours for food, water and rest. The law is the "minimum". Should the King Amendment be passed, those states wishing to introduce more strict laws into place regarding handling of animals prior to slaughter would be possibly prohibited from doing so. The most egregious act of inhumanity occurs against chickens--as this rule does NOT apply to them.