1. The National Association of Egg Farmers has responded to the Boston Herald radio interview with Paul Shapiro, HSUS, where he cites the egg industry statistics during Prop 2 that egg costs will only increase by 1 cent per egg if produced in cage-free environments.  Below we demonstrate that reality, such as occurred in California from its ballot initiative, is much more extreme.

Dear Editor,

This is in response to the recent interview with Paul Shapiro, HSUS, on Boston Herald Radio where he cited the cost of eggs going up minimally from the implementation of the Massachusetts ballot initiative, is predictive and not based on reality.  Here is reality. When California implemented its new regulation governing how eggs are to be produced on all eggs sold in California on January 1 [California Department of Agriculture Title 3, Section 1350 on Shell Egg Food Safety], we saw the price of eggs in the state surge upwards double digits compared to elsewhere in the nation.  In January when the price of eggs nationally sold to retailers averaged $0.82 to $1.04 for large, white eggs, the price in California of eggs sold to retailers averaged $2.75 to $3.30.  With the bird flu in the Midwest destroying 48 million egg laying chickens and turkeys, the prices in California is continuing to increase.  California news stations have been telephoning our association already this week asking why the price of a dozen eggs has soared to $6.00 per dozen.  That’s 50 cents per egg, far greater than the one cent per egg predicted.  California does not produce enough eggs to supply the population of 39 million people in the state.  It must import eggs from other states, but their production standards limits the supplies available.  Massachusetts will experience the same when it implements its ballot initiative and limits the supply of eggs to its 6.7 million people.  When supplies of a commodity are in short supply, the price naturally goes up. This is just what those opposed to eating eggs want.  Increase the price so fewer eggs are purchased.

A “Yes” Vote on Question 3 this November Will Not Improve Animal Welfare

(On August 16th, NAEF sent the following story to 35 daily newspapers in Massachusetts).

Massachusetts voters will have more to decide than the next U.S. President when they enter the voting booth on November 8.  Question No. 3 is a minimum size requirement for farm animal containment that suggests a “yes vote” is better welfare while a “no vote” is more animal cruelty.  This is false.  The initiative began by requiring “certain farm animals (including egg-producing chickens) are able to stand up, lie down, turn around and extend their limbs.” Sounds reasonable, but chickens producing eggs today already have this ability.  The pictures shown of chickens struggling in cages is no more typical of modern egg production than pictures of homeless in Boston is typical of living conditions in that city. The National Association of Egg Farmers wants the people in Massachusetts to know that it has been more than five decades since the modern system of producing eggs ensures that chickens have better health, produce more grade-A eggs, and prevent contamination of the eggs with dirt and manure on the ground.  The width and height of the cage allows each chicken to stand up, sit down, turn around, and spread its wings. They will touch other chickens when they spread their wings, but this also happens when they are loose on the ground as they flock together. Chickens establish a pecking order among their flock, so reducing the number of birds in an enclosure such as the modern cages reduces the stress from pecking and thus improving the welfare.  If this voter initiative passes in Massachusetts, it will be repeating the same mistakes in California when their initiative became law in 2015. Without improving the health and welfare of the chicken, egg prices rose more than 33% after the law’s implementation. Don’t be misled by the misinformed who really don’t want you to eat eggs anyway. Ask the farmer who really wants his hens to keep producing a safe and wholesome egg at reasonable prices.

On May 20, NAEF asked Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN), the Ranking Member of the House Agriculture Committee, and Rep. Steve King (R-IA) also on the House Agriculture, the two Congressmen whose districts are the hardest hit by avian flu, to ensure APHIS pays full indemnity to egg farmers depopulating their birds because of avian influenza.  Below is a paragraph from the letters sent to the Congressmen.

The numbers of birds depopulated is staggering as this outbreak is the worst avian influenza virus ever to strike the United States.  In addition to the farmers taking steps to destroy these presumptive positive birds, the USDA Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service is assisting in this emergency.  Unfortunately, USDA is only recently acknowledging responsibility as outlined in 9 CFR part 56.4 (a) (1) to indemnify egg farmers for the value of their hens by funding the future production of those depopulated birds. Will you please help the egg farmers receive the full value as outlined in 9 CFR part 56.4

1. 1.What Does the Law Specify Regarding Indemnity Payments for Layers?

NAEF has learned in talking with some of the farmers depopulating their flocks, APHIS case workers are not following the regulatory guidelines for indemnity payments.  Here is how the law specifies how indemnities are to be paid, including the loss from future eggs those laying chickens would have produced. Those who are NAEF members have received this regulation and have forwarded this information to their APHIS case worker seeking an explanation.

9 CFR §56.4   Determination of indemnity amounts.

(a)             Destruction and disposal of poultry. 

(b)             (1) Indemnity for the destruction of poultry infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI will be based on the fair market value of the poultry, as determined by an appraisal. Poultry infected with or exposed to H5/H7 LPAI that are removed by APHIS or a Cooperating State Agency from a flock will be appraised by an APHIS official appraiser and a State official appraiser jointly, or, if APHIS and State authorities agree, by either an APHIS official appraiser or a State official appraiser alone. For laying hens, the appraised value should include the hen’s projected future egg production. Appraisals of poultry must be reported on forms furnished by APHIS and signed by the appraisers and must be signed by the owners of the poultry to indicate agreement with the appraisal amount. Appraisals of poultry must be signed by the owners of the poultry prior to the destruction of the poultry, unless the owners, APHIS, and the Cooperating State Agency agree that the poultry may be destroyed immediately. Reports of appraisals must show the number of birds and the value per head.