BILL ANALYSIS
AB 594
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 9, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
Nicole Parra, Chair
AB 594 (Dymally) - As Amended: May 2, 2007
SUBJECT : Pigs: tethering and confinement.
SUMMARY : Establishes definitions for "Confinement of Pigs
During Pregnancy" and new housing requirements for pregnant pigs
and creates a new crime, effective July 1, 2011. Specifically,
this bill :
1)Provides the following definitions:
a) "Farm" means the land, building, support facilities, and
other equipment that is wholly or partially used for the
production of animals for food or fiber; and,
b) "Pigs" means any animal of the porcine species; and,
c) "Turning around freely" means having the ability to turn
around in a complete circle without (1) any impediment,
including a tether; or (2) in the case of an enclosure,
(including what is commonly described as a "gestation
crate" or "gestation stall") without touching any side of
the enclosure; and,
d) "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint
venture, association, limited liability company,
corporation, estate, trust, receiver or syndicate.
2)Prohibits any "person", except as provided by item 3) below,
to tether or confine any pregnant pig, or on a farm, for the
majority of any day in a manner that prevents the animal from
lying down and fully extending its limbs or "turning around
freely".
3)Permits a "person" to tether or confine a pig in the manner
prohibited in item 2) above, during the following periods:
a) Seven days prior to a pig's expected date of giving
birth; and,
b) Lawful scientific or agricultural research; and,
AB 594
Page 2
c) Examination, testing, individual temporary treatment, or
veterinary purposes; and,
d) Lawful transport; and,
e) Lawful rodeo exhibitions, state or county fair
exhibitions, and 4-H programs; and,
f) Killing of a pig in accordance with provisions of
Chapter 6 of Division 9 of the Food and Agriculture Code
(FAC), relating to humane methods of slaughter or other
applicable laws and regulations.
4)Permits a citation to be issued by a peace officer, officer of
a humane society or officer of an animal control or animal
regulation department of a public agency for violation of
these provisions.
5)Creates a misdemeanor for violation of these provisions
punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 per violation, and
up to $1,000 per day that the violation continues, or both, or
by imprisonment in county jail not to exceed 90 days. Any
penalties imposed pursuant herewith, shall be payable to the
local agency initiating the enforcement proceedings, to offset
the cost to the agency's related court proceedings.
6)Violators of these provisions may be prosecuted by a county
district attorney in which the violation occurred or by a city
attorney of the city the violation occurred.
7)States that these provisions will take effect on July 1, 2011.
States that this operative date expresses the legislative
intent to allow a period of time for a person conducting such
practices to modify their business practices to these
provisions.
8)Provides a legislative mandate exemption, due to a new crime
being created, that no reimbursement is required.
EXISTING LAW describes various crimes and penalties for cruelty,
malicious and intentional maiming, mutilating, torturing or
wounding living animals (Penal Code (PC) 597); prohibits
overdriving, overworking, and depriving an animal, if necessary,
sustenance, drink, or shelter (PC 537b); punishment for such
AB 594
Page 3
crimes range from imprisonment for up to one year in a county or
state jail, or a fine not to exceed $20,000, or both,
imprisonment and a fine; describes how to move nonabulatory
cattle, swine, sheep, or goats at stockyard, auction, or
slaughterhouse, or requires them to be immediately and humanely
euthanized or removed from the premises (PC 599f).
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown. Legislative Counsel has keyed this
bill non-fiscal.
COMMENTS : The husbandry practices for all livestock and poultry
operations have changed significantly over the last century due
to research and better scientific understanding of the specific
species. Further, the economics of such operations is critical
to their success. Any operator that can produce one more pound
or one more offspring or extend the productive life of an animal
could benefit, and only healthy animals typically could do that.
This bill deals with only pregnant pigs, known as gilts or
female pigs that have not had a litter, and sows or female pigs
that have had a previous litter, and gestation crates or stalls
which are typically a 2 foot wide and 7 foot long metal pen.
This does not deal with farrowing pens which are typically used
for a gilt or sow to give birth, which is similar in shape and
size but has expanded sides to permit the piglets to have space
to escape a sow lying down and not be crushed by her.
AB 594, as proposed, adds to the Health and Safety Code rather
than the Food and Agriculture Code that typically deals with
animal laws. Current animal cruelty laws are located in the
state's Penal Code. Further, this bill will create a precedent
for access to a pig facility by a county or city humane officer
or animal control officer. All animal facilities operate with a
high degree of bio-security to prevent contamination or the
spread of disease. AB 594 may jeopardize that security.
The Sponsors, the Humane Society of the United States, state
that "animals raised for food have no [husbandry practices]
regulation [or statute] and their minimal humane standards are
not addressed." According to information provided to the
committee by the sponsors, pigs form complex social units and
learn for one another in ways previously observed exclusively
among primates and can develop quite sophisticated social
competitive behavior, similar to that seen in primate species.
Pigs have the cognitive ability to be quite sophisticated, even
AB 594
Page 4
more than dogs and certainly more than most three year-olds, as
taken from comments by Dr. Donald Broom of Cambridge University
Veterinary School. It has also been observed that pigs are
capable of abstract representation, are able to remember things
and can develop behaviors by trial and error, or be taught
different behaviors that can be recalled after three years.
The sponsors campaign nation-wide for animal welfare and have
been successful in banning gestation crates in both Arizona
(2006) and Florida (2002), through initiatives. Currently, the
Oregon Legislature, among others states, is considering
legislation similar to AB 594. Additionally, there have been
several large users of various animal products that have begun
to require certain animal husbandry practices from their
providers. The largest pork producers in the nation are located
in Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, North Carolina, Kansas,
Arkansas and Nebraska. The largest pork producer, Smithfield
Foods, Inc., announced in January 2007 that they will phase out
confinement in gestation crates over the next decade, or by
2017.
According to the National Pork Board's web site:
There are many different acceptable housing types in use for
housing gestating sows in today's U.S. pork industry. These
housing types usually fit in one of two categories, individual
housing or group housing.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and the
American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) have reviewed
existing scientific literature on gestational sow housing and
have published position statements that concluded that both
types of housing types have advantages and disadvantages.
The individual housing category includes the individual stall
system. In this system, sows are housed in a structure large
enough for one sow. There are variations in stall designs. Some
of the advantages of individual housing include:
minimizing aggression and injury among sows
reducing competition for resources (food and water)
allowing individual feeding
assisting in the management of sow's body condition so
they not become too thin or too fat
providing for the safety of the worker
AB 594
Page 5
Some of the disadvantages of individual housing include:
restriction of a sow's movement and exercise
restricts a sow's ability to perform foraging behaviors
limiting a sow's social interaction
In the other housing category, sows are housed in groups. Group
sizes may range from five sows per pen up to more than 100 sows
per pen. Free access stalls, trickle feeding, electronic sow
feeding stations and deep bedded systems are just a few of the
many different variations in group housing systems in use. Some
of the advantages of group housing include:
freedom of movement and exercise
social interaction
Some of the potential disadvantages of group housing include:
aggression and injury
uneven body conditions
inability to forage if no manipulable materials are
present
There are many factors that contribute to the success of a
particular type of housing system. Studies have concluded the
success of housing systems may be dependent in great measure to
the caretaker's husbandry skills.
The AVMA and AASV have concluded that regardless of the type of
housing system in use, the system should:
minimize aggression and competition among sows
protect sows from detrimental effects associated with
environmental extremes, particularly temperature extremes
reduce exposure to hazards that result in injuries,
pain, or disease
provide every animal with daily access to appropriate
food and water
facilitate observation of individual sow appetite,
respiratory rate, urination and defecation, and
reproductive status by caregivers
allow sows to express most normal patterns of behavior
The official statement of the National Pork Board statement on
sow gestation housing:
"The National Pork Board builds its animal care and well-being
programs on this foundation: What is best for the pig? The
board also relies on the best scientific research available, and
AB 594
Page 6
the best scientific research now available indicates there are
several types of production systems that can be good for pigs.
Those systems include open pens, gestation stalls and open
pastures.
"Regardless of the system, what really matters is the individual
care given to each pig."
"Through the Pork Checkoff, the National Pork Board provides
educational programs and materials that focus on how producers
can best assure the well-being of their pigs. These programs
offer methods that help producers take an objective look at each
animal's well-being, independent of the size of operation or the
specific type of housing. Producers are then able to decide for
themselves the type of production system that is best for their
animals, and for them given their resources and markets."
The committee may wish to consider the following as amendments
to the bill:
a) Limiting the definition of a farm to those operations
dealing with pregnant pigs?
b) Changing the reference of "person" to "entity" and
related conforming changes?
c) Including any youth projects, including but not limited
to, 4H and Future Farmers Association, as exempt from these
provisions?
d) Is the effective date of four years or 2011 appropriate?
The largest pork producer has stated that they are taking
a decade to phase out of this practice.
e) Change from Health and Safety Code to Food and
Agriculture Code?
Related legislation :
AB 732 (Hancock) Crime: Cruelty to calves raised for veal,
2003-04 legislative session. This bill, as it was to be amended
in committee, created a crime for confining or tethering a calf
raised for veal in an enclosure on a farm, as defined, or
feeding a calf raised for veal a type of diet causing anemia or
impairing the development of the calf's rumen system. The bill
was pulled from the committee hearing at the author's request
and was held by the committee.
SB 1520 (Burton) Force feed birds. This bill, commencing July
1, 2012, prohibits a person from force feeding a bird for the
purpose of enlarging the bird's liver beyond normal size,
AB 594
Page 7
prohibits a product from being sold in California if it is the
result of force feeding of a bird. Chapter 904, Statutes of
2004.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Humane Society of the United States
Action for Animals
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Protection Institute
Animal Protection of New Mexico
Animal Switchboard
Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights
California Animal Association
California Federation for Animal Legislation
City of San Bernardino Animal Control
East Bay Animal Advocates
Humane Society of Utah
Marin Humane Society
National City Animal Control
Niman Ranch
North County Humane Society
Pets Lifeline, Inc.
Second Chance Animal Society
Wyoming Advocates for Animals
12 individual letters
Opposition
Alliance of Western Milk Producers
California Cattlemen's Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California Farm Bureau
California Pork Producers Association
California Poultry Federation
Demler Enterprises
Farmer John Egg Co.
Gemperle Enterprises
Hohberg Poultry Ranches
AB 594
Page 8
JS West and Companies
Norco Ranch
SKS Enterprises, Inc.
Sunrise Farms
Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
United Egg Producers
Western United Dairymen
Several hundred individual letters
Analysis Prepared by : Jim Collin / AGRI. / (916) 319-2084