Illustration by Patrick Tran / The Collegian

What̢۪s more important: the chicken or the egg? That̢۪s one of the questions California voters will face on Election Day.

Proposition 2 is an initiative that would require the majority of California egg producers to change the way they do business.

The initiative, also known as the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, would require that all farm animals be able to lay down, stand up, turn around, and fully extend their limbs for the majority of each day. In other words, it would ban the use of conventional housing methods for egg-laying hens; such housing is utilized by 95 percent of egg producers in the state.

Supporters of the initiative see getting rid of cages as a chance to promote the humane treatment of animals. Opponents worry about the possible devastating effects that California̢۪s egg industry would suffer. And both sides argue about potential health risks.

However, the biggest and most important debate about Proposition 2 deals with California̢۪s economy.

Kate Hurley, program director of shelter medicine and small animal population health at UC Davis, said she believes that Proposition 2 is a fundamentally simple proposition with only modest cost increases. She said that the European Union has already passed similar legislation with a minimal effect on their egg industry.

But critics say this notion may not be accurate.

Joy Mench, the director of the Center for Animal Welfare at UC Davis, disagrees with Hurley. Mench co-authored a study on the economic impact that the proposition could have on California. She said that comparing the California initiative to the decision made by the European Union is like comparing apples to oranges. This is because the entire European Union adopted the law that banned certain housing methods.

“If you want to have a healthy ag industry, you need to keep all of the producers on a level playing field,â€Â Mench said in a phone interview.

Because the other major egg-producing states do not have laws such as this, and because California imports nearly 50 percent of its eggs, Mench believes the initiative would shut down the state̢۪s $323 million egg industry.

“We can’t stop eggs coming in from other states,â€Â Mench said. “People could just continue to buy the cheaper, caged eggs from other states.â€Â

As Californians imported more eggs from states using cages, Mench reasoned, the egg industries in those states would grow and more hens would be needed to meet the demand. This would mean no caged hens in California, but more hens living in cages in other states. And in essence, sending more hens to states with fewer regulations would undermine the whole principle of the proposition in the first place: to ensure that hens are housed humanely, Mench said.

The debate over the initiative has grown as Election Day nears. Both sides are actively courting voters. One tactic that both sides have used is claiming the possibility of health risks.

Supporters of the proposition say that hens are more likely to catch and spread disease when they are kept so close to each other. Opponents say that letting the hens roam free lets them come into contact with migratory birds, some of which may carry diseases like avian flu.

Hurley, who supports the proposition, said that the claims made about serious health risks such as avian flu are not valid.

“These claims are absolutely untrue,â€Â Hurley said in a phone interview. “The proposition doesn’t even mention outdoor access.â€Â

Hurley also pointed out that cage-free and free-range eggs are already on the market, being sold at premium prices. If this system was unsafe, then why was it already being put into practice?

Hurley said that the opposition to the initiative boils down to economic issues, and she doesn̢۪t feel that money alone is reason to continue with inhumane practices towards animals.

“It doesn’t take an expert to realize that all animals deserve to enjoy simple, normal behaviors such as standing up, sitting down, turning around and fully extending their limbs,â€Â Hurley said.

But are conventional housing systems all bad? And are cage-free and free-range systems the best alternatives?

Mench doesn̢۪t think so.

Mench said that mortality rates among cage-free hens were almost double what they were for hens in cages. Rates were triple, she said, for free-range hens.

Mench described other health problems the birds suffer when raised out of cages.

One problem is broken bones. Because farm hens use most of their calcium to form the shells for their eggs, they have osteoporosis. When allowed to roam free, they often crash into things and break bones. Mench said a study from Europe showed that 67 percent of all free-range hens had broken a bone during their lifespan.

As odd as it sounds, a more serious problem is cannibalism.

When hens are gathered close together in large groups for extended periods of time, they often begin pecking and feeding on each other̢۪s flesh. In a typical commercial cage-free operation, Mench said, it is not uncommon for around 30,000 hens to live in the same building. This could be a breeding ground for cannibalistic activities, she said, and would make people question whether free-range and cage-free systems are the best alternatives.

Mench said it depends on how you define “best.â€Â If the ability for hens to move around freely and be less restricted is most important, then she would consider a transition from conventional cages to cage-free or free-range systems a better choice. But in terms of overall health, she believes there is a better way.

Mench pointed to a system used in parts of Europe called “furnished cages.â€Â They are larger cages that feature nest boxes, perches, and dust baths, which allow the hens to engage in normal behaviors. And, like regular cages, they are easy to be kept clean and prevent the hens from laying eggs in their own waste, which can be a problem with cage-free operations.

Unfortunately, a system like this would still be banned because of what Mench calls the “arbitrary wordingâ€Â of the proposition.

Mench said that in order to effectively change the way hens are housed, laws would need to be put into place on a national level, not a state level. Otherwise, she believes California could lose its $323 million egg industry and thousands of jobs.