Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2021 The Somerville Times. All rights reserved.
(The opinions and views expressed in the commentaries and letters to the Editor of The Somerville Times belong solely to the authors and do not reflect the views or opinions of The Somerville Times, its staff or publishers)
The people of Massachusetts have a wonderful opportunity this election to stand up against egregious animal cruelty. It is currently legal in Massachusetts to raise and sell animals for food that have been locked in tiny cages their entire lives, virtually immobilized. It is legal to treat pigs, cows, and chickens in ways that would be felony animal cruelty if done to cats and dogs. We would never even consider treating the most dangerous criminals in ways that are perfectly legal to treat farm animals.
These animals are smart, social, and curious, yet many are confined to cages so small they can never fully extend their limbs or even turn around. If you would never dream of locking your dog in a cage the size of his own body for years, then you already agree that cruel confinement is wrong. Morally, we are obligated to stand up for the powerless and voiceless, and each one of us has this opportunity by voting YES on Question 3.
The opposition will site a pseudo-study paid for by Forrest Lucas, a billionaire oil tycoon that has a history of opposing any and all animal welfare legislation. He even funded a propaganda movie in support of puppy mills. The National Pork Producers Council is also funding the opposition. Dave Warner, spokesman for NPPC, is quoted saying, “So our animals can’t turn around for the 2.5 years that they are in the stalls producing piglets. I don’t know who asked the sow if she wanted to turn around.” This is the opposition we are up against – morally bankrupt individuals who only care about dollars and cents and could not care less about animal welfare.
Temple Grandin has spoken against cruel confinement, and many companies are realizing that consumers want stronger protections for animals. However, there are many who still like to confine animals in such small cages they cannot turn around, and this is why Massachusetts voters must vote Yes on 3. A Yes vote implements modest animal welfare standards, promotes responsible farming, and improves food safety – this is why a Yes vote is endorsed by the Center for Food Safety, the MSPCA, and United Farm Workers among many other respectable organizations. A Yes on 3 is simply the right choice.
— Hillary Glickman
If you found this article of interest, please consider sharing it.
I heartily agree. Regardless if we are meat eaters or not, this is simply unacceptable. It’s sad that animals that are raised for food have been thought of as no more than products that can be manufactured without any regard for humane treatment, to the point that the actual slaughter is the kindest thing done to them.
I would rather pay more for my food knowing that it was raised humanely than save money at the expense of animal suffering.
Well said, Hillary Glickman and LindaS.
Where are Somerville’s politicians on this one? Playing
safe on Questions 2 and 5? Because saying something
about Question 3 – on the face of it – might not be so easy.
Is it about folks in poverty whose food prices may rise?
Or is it about care for animals who live in miserable conditions?
We are told that Question 3 may only apply to 1 rearing practice
in MA, and that the cost increases will be on items from out of
State. So should we buy local products and support local
farmers? We should. But that will not change – so much – the
larger supermarkets who buy products at cheaper prices outside
of MA. So, where to go on this one, huh? Will you side with the
concerns for those who need cheaper supermarket items to bring
protein to their diet? Or will you side with those who see the criminal
abuse – yes, I’m saying ‘criminal’ – of those animals which have fed
us for many centuries? People can be assholes when they want to
be, and higher profits and more wealth can make jerks out of folk.
So this is one time – I think – when we look to those animals and
birds to give something back, and while it most likely will increase
some food prices in MA, then we need also look to find solutions
for those in need, and find them we will. Without using the implied
humor here, this IS a chicken and egg argument, and where we look
after our chickens first, and then look to help with egg prices where
need be. Because isn’t this what politicians do, to go out and find
help for PEOPLE when help is needed? So let us – the non politician
people of MA – pick up the slack and find a little more justice for
the things we eat. It’s time to ante up and do the right thing here.
And it’s time for MA – though it has its own house mostly in order –
to send a message to other States about how birds and animals will
be treated. It’s going to have to be a State by State effort, and we
fix this problem 1 brick at a time. But those initial bricks to build a
better future have to start with specific States, and so let MA be one
of those. So it’s a vote YES on Question 3, because don’t we know
better by now, and just as we know not to vote for that fruitcake of
all fruitcakes, Donald Trump? You wouldn’t keep your pets in such
conditions, and so where is the difference? There isn’t a difference.
YES on 3.