The National Association of Egg Farmers has been involved in encouraging Attorneys General from a number of states in support of the MO AG’s lawsuit against the California egg law, and we are pleased to note that 5 states have joined in; Iowa Governor Terry Branstad (R);  Nebraska AG John Bruning (R); Oklahoma AG Scott Pruitt (R); Kentucky AG Jack Conway (D) and Alabama AG Luther Strange (R).  But the effort continues.  While NAEF has been encouraging Minnesota’s AG Lori Swanson to file an amicus brief, a group of egg farmers have recently met with Minnesota’s Agriculture Commissioner Dave Fredrickson to solicit his support in encouraging the Minnesota AG Lori Swanson (D).  In addition, NAEF has reached out to Texas AG Greg Abbott (R); South Dakota AG Marty Jackley (R); Utah AG Sean Reyes (R); Montana AG Tim Fox; (D) and Idaho AG Lawrence Wasden (R).

California has passed a law on eggs sold in the state claiming rights to set up production standards to block agricultural products competing with their state produce.  Missouri Attorney General Chris Koster filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California arguing that a California farming law violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution and encroaches on Missouri sovereignty. In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 2, a ballot initiative that prohibits California farmers from employing a number of agricultural production methods currently in widespread use throughout the country. Beginning in 2015, for example, California egg producers are required to comply with new regulations concerning the size of the enclosures housing egg-laying hens.  Even before the initiative passed, California farmers, economists, and legislators expressed concern that Proposition 2 would put their state’s egg producers at a competitive disadvantage by increasing the cost of egg production within California. To protect that state’s farmers from out-of-state competition, in 2010 the California State Assembly passed new legislation (AB1437) requiring egg producers in other states to comply with Proposition 2 themselves in order to continue selling their eggs in California. The MO AG is asking the federal court to rule that California’s legislation violates the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The Commerce Clause prohibits any state from enacting legislation that regulates conduct wholly outside its borders, protects its own citizens from out-of-state competition, or places undue burdens on interstate commerce.  We are hopeful you would consider filing an amicus brief in support of the MO lawsuit.

1. NAEF members lobbied their Members of Congress and other Congressional Members providing a personal story on the impact of the EggThey defeated the Egg Bill in the 112^th and 113^th Congress (several animal agriculture groups opposed the Egg Bill, but having NAEF also actively lobbying against it ensured a full complement of animal industries opposing a measure that would certainly have ended many family farms producing eggs). 
2. Lobbied in support of the King amendment by demonstrating how it upholds Article 1 in the U.S. Constitution enabling Congress to regulate commerce between the states.
3. Demonstrated to Congress by references of state statutes that the King amendment did not nullify the many state laws suggested by HSUS and others advocating defeat of the amendment.
4. Demonstrated to Congress that the King amendment would harm the SNAP recipients in California by detailing how the price of eggs will increase due to limited supplies. NAEF showed the parallel that occurred in the European Union under their mandate enforcing enriched colony cages on Jan. 1, Egg prices increased 55% soon after the law went into effect.
5. Reproduced for Congress the claims of Drew Hutcheson, Alpha Portfolio, an investment broker showing how the largest egg farmer in the country would benefit by Prop 2 in California and buy up egg farms unable to covert to the new cages.
6. Refuted the claims before Congress that the King amendment would allow substandard eggs to enter California by citing the regulations under FDA and USDA that are identical for all states.
7. Reproduced for Congress a statement from Iowa Ag Secretary showing USDA Secretary’s comments about the King amendment is siding with HSUS and California.
8. Reached out to California newspapers for stories showing why NAEF supported the King amendment.

While many in the egg industry press forward in support of the enhanced colony cage, the science behind the amount of space offered each chicken is lacking.  National Association of Egg Farmers has science-based production guidelines available on a voluntary basis to its members.  Below are the science-based research articles behind the production guidelines:

1. 1.Adams, A.W. and M.E. Jackson,Effect of cage size and bird density on performance of six commercial strains of layers.  Poultry Sci. 49:1712-1719.
2. 2.Anderson, K.E. and A.W. Adams,Effects of rearing density and feeder and waterer spaces on the productivity and fearful behavior of layers.  Poultry Sci. 71:53-58.
3. 3.Anderson, K.E., A.W. Adams, and J.V. Craig, 1989. Behavioral adaptation of floor-reared White Leghorn pullets to different cage densities, cage shapes during the initial settling-inPoultry Sci. 68:70-78.
4. 4.Anderson, K.E.,Welfare implications of cage density, population, and feeder space.  2001 Midwest Poultry Federation Convention, Touchstone EnergyâPlace at River Center, St. Paul, Minnesota, March 14-15, 2001, pp. 164-170
5. 5.Anderson, K.E.Final Report of the Thirty-Fourth North Carolina Layer Performance and Management Test: Production Report.  North Carolina Extension, Raleigh, NC Vol. 34, No. 4. November 2002.
6. 6.Anderson, K.E., G.S. Davis, P. Jenkins, and A.S. Carroll. 2004. Effects of bird age, density, and molt on behavioral profiles of two commercial layer strains inPoult. Sci. 83:15-23.
7. 7.Anderson, D.P., G.W. Beard, and R.P. Hanson,The adverse effects of ammonia on chickens, including resistance to infection with Newcastle Disease virus.  Avian Diseases 8:369-379.
8. 8.Anderson, D.P., R.R. Wolfe, F.L. Cherms and W. E. Roper,Influence of dust and ammonia on the development of air sac lesions in turkeys.  Am. J. Vet. Res. 29(5):1049-1057.
9. 9.Al-Rawi, B. and J.V. Craigt,Agonistic behavior of caged chickens related to group size and area per bird.  Applied Anim. Ethol. 2:69-80.
10. 10.Appleby, M.C.,Life in a variable world: Behavior, welfare and environmental design.  Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 54:1-19.
11. 11.Agriculture Canada. 1990. Recommended code of practice for the care and handling of poultry from hatchery to processingAgriculture Canada Publication 1757/E.  Communications Branch, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
12. 12.American Veterinary Medical Association.2000 Report of the AVMA Panel on Euthanasia. J. AVMA 218:669-696.
13. 13.Bell, D.D., and D.R. Kuney. 2004. Farm evaluation of alternative molting procedures. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 13:673-679.
14. 14.Bell, D.D., and W.D. Weaver, Jr.Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. (5^th Ed.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA.
15. 15.Biggs, P.E., M.E. Persia, K.W. Koelkebeck, and C.M. Parsons. 2004. Further evaluation of non-feed removal methods for molting programs. Poul. Sci. 83:745-752.
16. 16.Brannigan, P.G. and J.B. McQuitty,The influence of ventilation on distribution and dispersal of atmospheric gaseous contaminants.  Canadian Agricultural Engineering 13(2):69-75.
17. 17.Burnett, W.E. 1969. Odor transport by particle matter in high density poultry houses. Poul. Sci. 48:182-185.
18. 18.Carlile, F.S., 1981. Ammonia in poultry houses: A literature review. World’s Poul. Sci. 1:99-113.
19. 19.Carpenter, G.A. 1986. Dust in livestock buildings-review of some aspects. J. Agric. Engng. Res. 33:227-241.
20. 20.Craig, J.V. and A.M. Guhl, 1969. Territorial behavior and social interactions of pullets kept in large flocks. Poul. Sci. 48
21. 21.Curtis, S.E. and J.G. Drummond, 1982. Air environment and animalIn CRC Handbook of Animal Productivity. Reichicigl, M. Ed. Vol. II, 107-118.
22. 22.Consortium. 1999. Guidelines for poultry husbandry. In: Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching. Federation of Animal Science Societies, Savoy, IL.
23. 23.Denton, J.W., F.N. Reece, B.D. Lott. Effect of atmospheric ammonia on laying hen1982 Poul. Sci. 61:1815-1817.
24. 24.Dearstyne, R.S., and P.H. Kime, 1943. Grazing crops for poultry. Extension Circular No. 239. NC Agricultural Extension Service, North Carolina State College of Agriculture and Engineering, Raleigh, NC.
25. 25.Feddes, J.J.R., J.J. Leonard, and J.B. McQuitty, 1982. Heat and moisture loads and air quality in commercial broiler barns in Alberta. Research Bulletin 82-2, Dept. of Ag. Eng., Univ. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2G6, 82 pp.
26. 26.Feddes, J.J.R., and J.B. McQuitty, 1983. Heat and moisture loads and air quality in commercial poultry laying houses in Alberta. Final Report for Engineering and Statistical Research Institute, Contract File No. OSU81-00304. Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. 77 pp.
27. 27.Jalal, M.A., S.E. Scheideler and D. Marx, 2006. Effect of bird cage space and dietary metabolically energy level on production parameters in layingPoul. Sci. 85:306-311.
28. 28.Janni, K.A., P.T. Redig, J. Newman, and J. Mulhausen, 1984. Respirable aerosol concentrations in turkey grower buildings. 1984 Winter Meeting, ASAE, Hyatt Regency, New Orleans, LA, Dec. 11-14, 1984. Paper No. 84-4522.
29. 29.Jones, T.A., C.A. Donnelly, and M.S. Dawkins, 2005. Environmental and management factors affecting the welfare of chickens on commercial farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark stocked at five densities. Poul. Sci. 1155-1165.
30. 30.Jones, W., K. Morring, S. Olenchock, T. Williams, and J. Hickey. 1984. Environmental study of poultry confinement buildings. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 45(11):760-766.
31. 31.Jull, M.A., 1951. Poultry Husbandry, 3^rd Ed. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. NY, NY
32. 32.Kinder, Q.B., A.B. Stephenson, 1962. Floor space requirements of S.C. White Leghorns. Poul. Sci. 41:1394-1400.
33. 33.Kling, H.F., and C.L. Quarles, 1974. Effect of atmospheric ammonia and the stress of Infectious Bronchitis vaccination on Leghorn males. Poul. Sci. 53:1161-1167.
34. 34.Koelkebeck, K.W., C.M. Parsons, P. Biggs, and P. Utterback. 2006. Non-withdrawal molting programs. J. Appl. Poul. Res. 15:483-491.
35. 35.Kristensen, H.H., and C.M. Wathes. 2000. Ammonia and poultry review: A review. World Poul. Sci. J. 56:235-245.
36. 36.Lee, C.L., 1949. Profitable Poultry Management, 1949 ed. The Beacon Milling Co., Inc. Cayuga, NY, pp 106-119.
37. 37.Loomis, E.C., J.R. Anderson, and A.S. Deal, 1980. Identification of common flies associated with livestock and poultry. Leaflet 2506. Univ. of California Cooperative Extension.
38. 38.NRC. 1994. Nutrient Requirements of Poultry (9^th rev. ed.). National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Water consumption of poultry (US gal/day/1000 birds).
39. 39.Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Department of Labor – Permissible Exposure Level for Ammonia, 29 CFR Sec. 1910.1000 Table Z-1 Limits for air contaminants.
40. 40.Scheideler, S.E., and M.M. Beck. 2002. Guidelines for a non-fasting feeding program for the molting of laying hens. Univ. of Nebraska Coop. Ext. Bull. G02-1482-A.
41. 41.Sohail, S.S., M.M. Bryant, S.K. Rao, and D.A. Roland, 2001. Influence of cage density and prior dietary phosphorus level on phosphorus requirement of commercial Leghorns. Poul. Sci. 80:769-775.
42. 42.Stadelman, W.J., V.M. Olsen, G.A. Shemwell, and S. Pasch, 1988. Egg and Poultry-Meat Processing. VCH Publishers. NY, NY.