Eggs-acting demands

Eggs are big business in Iowa. Hens in this state produce nearly 15 billion eggs per year - by far the most of any state. Most are shipped to other states. They provide an affordable, good source of protein.

But by 2015, California won't accept Iowa's eggs unless they're produced in conditions that meet California's laws. And that has ruffled the feathers of Iowa's governor and secretary of agriculture, who say those laws violate the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution and could put some Iowa producers out of business. Iowa last month joined a six-state lawsuit protesting the California requirements.

The situation raises important questions about states' rights vs. the flow of commerce in this country. In the big picture, how this plays out also could have implications for how other animals for food are raised.

Here's what California has done to stir up the egg world:

'

In 2008, voters approved Proposition 2, requiring that egg-laying hens and some other farm animals have more space in their large, mass-production facilities. The goal is to eliminate hen cages and provide more humane conditions. Compliance by California producers is due by Jan. 1, 2015.

'

In 2010, California lawmakers approved a law that requires all shell eggs sold in the state be compliant with Proposition 2, also by Jan. 1, 2015.

That second law could affect Iowa producers because about 10 percent of their eggs are sold in California. Put another way, 30 percent of all eggs imported in California come from Iowa.

FEDERAL PROPOSAL

While the lawsuit simmers in court, a proposal in Congress that could potentially make the lawsuit moot languishes despite some solid bipartisan support for at least two years. Amendments proposed for the federal Egg Products Inspection Act would create national standards similar to, though not as extensive, as the California law and with a longer conversion period. Under the Egg Bill amendments, conventional cages would be replaced by housing systems that, at a minimum, would double the amount of space per hen. Other environmental improvements such as perches, nesting boxes and scratching areas would be required, along with other rules that including carton labeling that informs consumers of the method used to produce the eggs - eggs from caged hens, or from hens in 'enriched” cages or from cage-free or free-range hens. It would phase in these requirements over 15 years.

Notably, the federal legislation has been supported by organizations representing about 90 percent of eggs producers - including as well as many animal protection groups, veterinary associations and consumer groups. It's seen as a reasonable compromise. Yet it hasn't gained enough traction in a Congress that has been distracted by many other issues and disputes.

MARKET CHANGING

We think producers who have supported the Egg Bill changes see the writing on the wall. A growing number of American consumers want to know more about where and how their food is produced. More are demanding that animals for consumption be produced in more humane conditions. Part of this trend is reflected in the growing interest in the 'local food movement” - produce, meat and dairy that is produced closer to home instead of being shipped thousands of miles. That interest is growing in Iowa, too.

This issue relates to a growing debate about the benefits of the cheap, affordable, relatively safe food that our agricultural system has produced in remarkable, reliable quantities, while more Americans are becoming interested in everything from organic food to heritage produce that retains original traits and flavors of a vegetable or fruit to concerns about the environmental impacts of our large farming operations. There is no one right answer.

Meanwhile, successful egg farmers want to serve their customers' expectations, but also want a reasonable amount of time to make any required changes so they can better absorb the costs and stay in business as they convert their operations.

Steve Boomsma, COO of Centrum Valley Farms in Alden, wrote in a 2012 Gazette guest editorial that the Egg Bill amendments' more generous phase-in period would keep ensure a stable egg supply with fewer spikes in grocery store prices - and a modest increase in retail prices - while farmers and egg companies could plan for the future, investing in new infrastructure that would also boost rural economies.

Perhaps the Egg Bill amendments would be a viable solution to this debate in the long run. Create a level playing field nationwide.

But with more federal regulations come more taxpayer costs for inspectors and enforcement. All from a federal government that may not understand important differences among states' economies and residents' priorities.

SOME QUESTIONS

If states retain power to raise agricultural production standards to meet their people's expectations, is that such a bad thing? Doesn't it provide incentive for industries such as Iowa's egg producers to step up their game if they want to sell their product in California or other states? Isn't that one of the functions of the marketplace?

Wouldn't such competition also help keep out bad characters such as the DeCosters, whose operations were cited for numerous violations over a decade and whose contaminated eggs were linked to a national outbreak of Salmonella - all of it giving Iowa's industry a black eye?

If Iowa and other states win their lawsuit against California, would it really serve the best interests of our state's egg producers in today's fast-changing market?

We're not sure. But the outcome of this dispute clearly could set a far-reaching precedent. And consumers always want the final say.

' Comments: editorial@thegazette.com or (319) 398-8262