Farm Animal Welfare Campaigns


Published on

Published in: News & Politics
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Farm Animal Welfare Campaigns

  1. 1. Innocent Afuh Awasom, Stayton Bonner, Kelsey Hall, Maria Kalyvaki
  2. 2. Advocates public policies to decrease animal sufferingConducted campaigns in following states: 2002: Florida voters banned confinement of breeding sows in gestation crates 2006: Arizona voters banned gestation & veal crates 2007: Oregon Legislature banned use of gestation crates 2008: Colorado Legislature phased hotos/event/a/6/3/1/highres_9462 out veal crates & gestation crates 545.jpeg
  3. 3.  Created a new state statute prohibiting the confinement of farm animals in a manner that doesn’t allow them to freely turn around, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs First time voters asked to eliminate confinement for egg-laying poultry, gestation crates for sows, http://californiafaultline.files.wordpress.c and crates for veal calves om/2008/10/mutts.gif
  4. 4.  Jan. 4, 2008: Californians for Sound Farm Animal Agriculture (CSFAA) formed to oppose proposed ballot Feb. 28, 2008: Proposition 2 supporters submitted 790,486 signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot July 22, 2008: Secretary of State Debra Bowen released study stating the proposition’s economic impact was a potentially unknown decrease in state and local tax revenue from farm businesses, possibly in the range of several million dollars annually %20(1).jpg Sept. 2008: University of California Agricultural Issues Center, attached to UC-Davis, stated that non-cage systems would increase costs of production and increase consumption of eggs imported from out-of-state
  5. 5.  Sept. 26, 2008: Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi hosted a Proposition 2 fundraiser entitled “Making History Under the Stars” at the Bel Air mansion of philanthropist John V. Winfield, raising more than $1 million Oct. 7, 2008: Yes on Prop 2 campaign released two commercials in support of the ballot Oct. 14, 2008: Oprah Winfrey aired a show covering the debate Nov. 4, 2008: Proposition 2 passed with 63.5% of the vote Jan. 1, 2015: Proposition key statutes 081008/20081008_tows_animals1_350x263.jpg will become operative
  6. 6. PROPONENTS OPPONENTS  Californians for SAFE Food, a Animal Protection Groups coalition Celebrities  Agribusinesses Legislators  Agricultural Trade Organizations Environmental Groups  Editorial Boards Agricultural Organizations  Others Editorial Boards
  7. 7.  Feb. 2009: HSUS met with agricultural organizations in Ohio to discuss animal care concerns June 2009: Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance formed to oppose Issue 2 July 1, 2009: Ohio Farm Bureau contacted roughly 230,000 members to contact legislative leaders to urge final passage of Senate Joint Resolution 6 July 8, 2009: Ohio Farm Bureau and HSUS addressed Issue 2 questions on Open Line, a radio station program July 13, 2009: General Assembly approved SJR 6 to authorize Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board picture-96.png
  8. 8.  July 16, 2009: Ohio Farm Bureau and HSUS on Town Hall Ohio program Aug. 25, 2009: Ohio Farm Bureau interviewed on AgriTalk Sept. 22-24, 2009: Ohio Farm Bureau answered questions and recruited supporters at Farm Science Review Oct. 6, 2009: Jack Fisher of Ohio Farm Bureau and Paul Spapiro of HSUS interviewed during call-in radio program Oct. 14, 2009: Gov. Ted Strickland hosted rally at state 4-H Center Oct. 19, 2009: Debate at The Ohio State University Oct. 31, 2009: Literature drops for Yes on Issue 2 campaign in Columbus, Cleveland & Cincinnati Nov. 2, 2009: Final debate between HSUS & Ohio Farm Bureau Federation Nov. 3, 2009: Voters approved Issue 2 in general election cture-96.png?w=582&h=434
  9. 9. Proponents Opponents•Proactive stance in creating a board •Concerned with changing statethat makes decisions about food constitution by creating board focusingissues on agriculture•Keep regulatory control of Ohio’s •Rights and concerns of small familyfarms in the state farms interested in sustainable foods overlooked by agribusiness•Want decisions made by experts thatconsider the facts and science
  10. 10.  Ohioans for Livestock Care Political  Ohio Farmers UnionAction Committee  Ohio Ecological Food and Farming state leaders Association senators  Ohio Against Constitutional Takeover representatives county humane societies veterinarians county leaders
  11. 11.  Reactive versus proactive campaign strategies California agricultural industry reactive in approach against Proposition 2 Ohio agricultural industry proactive in preventing HSUS from proposing ballot initiative Framed issue to appeal citizens’ desire for autonomy Knowledge gap California Proposition 2 campaign targeted urban populations Ohio targeted regional agricultural communities content/uploads/2009/07/995748_91898411 8x6.jpg
  12. 12. FramingSupporters of Proposition 2 HSUS focused on inhumane treatment of farm animals “factory” and “corporate” farms HSUS video for prop 2 HSUS website VIDEO FOR PROPOSITION 2 (pig) Regular press releases in support of its causes Posted information on Twitter & Facebook California Facebook 1 Facebook 2 Ohio Facebook 3 Twitter Volunteers to collect signatures for the ballot, distribute campaign literature, and rallyOpponents of Proposition 2 Californians for SAFE Food released television commercials Video poster4.jpg
  13. 13.  Framing Ohio Farm Bureau Federation focused on preservation of family farming & locally grown foods Television ad Safe Local Ohio Food Website Cochran Group (PR firm) Facebook Page & Causes Print Materials Buttons Yard signs allotInitiative-Farm-Science-Review-008.jpg
  14. 14.  California’s Proposition 2 framed the issue solely on inhumane treatment or cruelty to animals Ohio’s Issue 2 framed the issue on food safety, encouraging locally grown and raised food, and protecting Ohio farms and families 6d3ad3e062d656657267.jpeg
  15. 15.  The HSUS and Ohio Farm Bureau can overcome public perception by creating repetition of messages in multiple channels (brochures, ads, buttons, website). HSUS and the Ohio Farm Bureau also need to understand the experiences of voters to have communication channels and messages relating to voters’ backgrounds.
  16. 16.  Ohio Farm Bureau and the HSUS could study how newspapers’ agenda setting influenced the importance voters placed on Issue 2 and Proposition 2. Agricultural communications researchers could explore media coverage of Issue 2 and Proposition 2 to determine how editors’ agenda-setting abilities affected policy change.
  17. 17.  The HSUS bought Proposition 2 advertising spots in urban areas where voters were unfamiliar with acceptable farming practice and would be more susceptible to distorted and non factual propaganda or spin (Shane, 2009).  The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation aired two advertisements that depicted a farmer explaining how Issue 2 would protect family farms ande-ethics/images/Public_trust-2.gif support locally grown foods.
  18. 18.  The California agricultural industry could have benefited from a website providing brochures, flyers, and advertisements branded with a cohesive look and message that appealed to their target audience, urban residents. California’s agricultural industry failed to clearly communicate the fiscal impact on family farms and potential public health risk due to importing eggs from Mexico. California’s agricultural industry could have used grassroots campaign strategies if it had been better organized. Perhaps California needs to develop a strong infrastructure for the diverse agricultural organizations. ategy.jpg
  19. 19.  In comparison with the Proposition 2 campaign in California, the HSUS did little advertising to oppose Issue 2 in Ohio.  As the HSUS will be dealing with a politically unified and savvy agricultural organization in Ohio in 2010, it will probably need to be/images/iStock_000005614684Small% aggressive in20strategy.jpg campaigning toward the urban audience.