Activist groups push agriculture laws

Contained in The Gazette Editorial Board's recent opinion ('Eggs-acting demands,” April 27) on laws related to the production and sale of eggs were a number of thoughts on which Iowa's egg farmers would agree. Eggs provide an excellent and affordable source of protein to hundreds of millions of Americans each year - and Iowa leads the nation in producing those eggs.

The Gazette also is right that consumers have a right to safe food that is produced responsibly, and that egg farmers are in business to serve the expectations of their customers and of consumers - and to allow the market to work properly.

One point that was not stated strongly enough: Iowa egg farmers are deeply committed to providing excellent care to their flocks at all times. Regardless of the type of housing in which they are raised, the health and well-being of our hens always is a top priority.

It is after these agreements that Iowa's egg farmers and The Gazette begin to differ. The paper's opinions on a number of issues facing our industry miss the mark.

It starts with the desire to let the consumer market shape how our farms operate - and to position the egg industry to respond in meeting the needs of those who purchase our eggs. That basic premise of supply and demand is ignored by recent and ongoing actions that threaten to disrupt not only Iowa's egg farms, but farms across the United States.

The reality of life for egg farmers, and virtually everyone else in agriculture today, is that there are extremist groups that want to control farm production decisions, and advocate for policies or laws that have little basis in fact or science. When Proposition 2 passed in California, it was because of a well-funded campaign by those groups that led to voters passing a law to force specific egg-laying hen housing practices on California egg farmers.

The unintended consequence of the passage of Proposition 2 for California was that egg farmers in that state would be at a competitive disadvantage from other states once the law took effect. Faced with the reality of their decision, the California Legislature passed import restrictions requiring farms such as those in Iowa to meet their onerous housing standards if they wished to sell eggs in the state.

The question The Gazette really should be asking is: What is the extent to which one state's legislature can impose restrictions on another state's farming practices? It is perfectly fair for a state to say, 'We don't want eggs produced in our state.” It is blatantly unfair for that state to say, 'We want to determine how farmers in other states operate.” Yet that is exactly what the California law would do.

The Gazette is correct in stating that this matter creates far-reaching precedent. It is critically important to understand that this issue is much broader than the production of eggs. If California's clear violation of interstate commerce is allowed to stand, they will be able to tell Iowa's corn growers 'No GMO corn.” They can tell Iowa's soybean farmers, 'Only organic soybeans allowed.” And, that doesn't mean they will pay a premium for them.

So while letting the market decide makes sense, the marketplace in this case is not calling for the production regimen California is trying to dictate. That is why Iowa's egg farmers support Gov. Iowa Branstad and Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey for standing their ground and joining a six-state lawsuit to stop the California law from implementation. We applaud and thank them for their leadership.

Iowa egg farmers' commitment - first and foremost - is the production of safe, high-quality, affordable eggs and ensuring the well-being of our flocks. We've been doing it for decades, and that commitment is what has allowed our egg industry to our No. 1 position in the United States. We know our responsibility and we take it seriously. We will continue to do so.

' Kevin S. Vinchattle is CEO/executive director of the Iowa Poultry Association/Iowa Egg Council. Comments: Kevin@IowaPoultry.com