California voters’ support for farm animal rights was made clear in 2008 with the landslide victory of Proposition 2, which said animals could not be confined in a way that prevented them from turning around freely, lying down, standing up or fully extending their limbs. The measure won 63 percent of the vote and took on even greater significance when the state Legislature passed a law saying the limits on confinement applied to all food sold in California, not just the products of farms in the Golden State.

Now another measure, once again sponsored by the Humane Society of the United States, is on the California ballot. Proposition 12 would require that chickens have a minimum of 1 square foot of confinement space by 2020, with a mandate that all egg-laying hens be cage-free by 2022. It would also require 24 square feet for each breeding pig by 2022 and 43 square feet of space for each calf raised for veal by 2020.

Proposition 12 is expected to pass easily. Not only does it have broad support from the state Democratic Party, the California Labor Federation and a range of civic groups including the League of Women Voters, it’s also backed by some farm interests, including Central Valley Eggs, one of the state’s largest “factory farms.”

But the measure faces criticism on several fronts.

The People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals – which formally supports a vegan diet – opposes the measure as providing cover for continuing the human consumption of animals. “Humane labels make consumers feel good about their decisions but perpetuate cruelty to animals,” PETA’s Lindsay Dadko told Governing magazine.“ Cruelty is cruelty is cruelty, and it doesn’t matter what label you put on it.”

State egg production fell 34% after last farming prop

The California Farm Bureau, the state Republican Party and several business groups oppose Proposition 12 as imposing unique burdens on Golden State farms that hurt their ability to export eggs and meat to other states and nations.

According to a 2017 study by Purdue University agriculture researchers, Proposition 2 imposed a 9 percent premium on California egg prices. It is also associated with a drop of 34 percent in egg production – going from 5.3 billion eggs in 2007 to 3.5 billion in 2016.

The state Legislative Analyst’s Office concluded that Proposition 12 was likely to yield higher prices for eggs, pork and veal, mainly because of the cost of building or modifying confinement structures.

But a third faction opposes Proposition 12 on the grounds that it is actually a step back for chickens, at least until the cage-free rule takes effect in 2022. This is based on the idea that state regulators have botched their interpretation of Proposition 2. The Humane Farming Association and other groups say that egg-laying hens when stretching their wings take up at least 2 square feet, and that Proposition 12 – with its 1 square foot requirement – is much worse.

On Friday, during a KQED forum on Proposition 12, Bradley Miller, director of the Humane Farming Association, said, “We can do better. One square foot per hen is cruel. They should have more space than that.”

Senate Bill 25, authored by outgoing Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, passed the Senate and Assembly along party lines. Yesterday it was enrolled and sent to Gov. Jerry Brown for his signature. There’s no indication yet what he’ll do.

It allows either side in an agricultural labor dispute to enforce a state-written labor contract even when the other side is appealing it. The only exception is if the appellant can demonstrate by “clear and convincing evidence” that there would be irreparable harm from enforcing the contract and that the appeal would likely succeed.

One of SB25’s fiercest opponents is Dan Gerawan, whose Gerawan Farming has battled the United Farm Workers Union off and on for nearly a quarter century. His Fresno-based company is one of the state’s largest producers of peaches, plums, apricots and table grapes, employing about 5,000 workers during the peak harvest season.

Gerawan believes SB25 is aimed at his company, forcing it to immediately abide by a labor contract that was written by a state mediator after the company failed to come to an agreement with the UFW.

“Our labor contract is written by the state of California,” he said. “That is extreme enough that something like that even exists. Now with SB25 that so-called labor contract is implemented even without judicial review.”

Calculated pro-labor power play

Steinberg acknowledges that his bill is intended to empower unions like the UFW in labor disputes with agricultural companies.

“I think inherent in the dispute here is how one views the balance of power,” he told the Assembly Judiciary Committee July 2, 2013. “We honor Cesar Chavez with a state holiday. He is a hero to most Californians.

“We celebrate his life in large part because there is an inherent imbalance between large, powerful employers and poor farm workers. A poor worker doesn’t have the ability to assert himself alone. But with the power of the collective, of the union, they have that ability to be an equal and countervailing force to the employer.”

But there’s a question whether the Gerawan workers want to be represented by the UFW, which would collect 3 percent of their paycheck in union dues; and whether they want to be forced to abide by the state-mediated contract.

The company, which markets itself under the Prima brand, touts on its website that its wages exceed the industry average with an $11 per hour base rate for field workers, while grape packers exceed $15 per hour on average.

Benefits for workers exceeding 1,200 hours per year include vacation and retirement pay. Other benefits include paid compensation for the Latino workers who want to take English classes, and tuition reimbursement and student loans for employees’ children.

“The workers are net losers under this ‘agreement,’ as the 3 percent dues or fees deduction ordered by the [Agricultural Labor Relations] Board is more than the 2.5 percent pay increase ordered in the contract,” said Gerawan via email. “The union will be enriched at the expense of the workers.”

On Oct. 25, 2013, Gerawan worker Sylvia Lopez filed a petition with the ALRB to hold an election to decertify the UFW as the workers’ representative. The election was held Nov. 5, 2013.

But the ballots were impounded and not counted due to numerous objections filed against the election. The UFW filed 32 objections, most of them alleging employer misconduct, according to the ALRB. Gerawan Farming and Lopez filed 20 objections alleging misconduct by the UFW and the mishandling of the election by the ALRB.

Gerawan workers back management, not union

The ALRB has scheduled a hearing to consider the objections on Sept. 17.

Gerawan workers have expressed frustration with the delay. On Aug. 26, more than a thousand Gerawan workers wearing shirts saying “Count Our Votes!” on the front and the First Amendment on the back marched in front of the ALRB office in Visalia, according to Gotnews.com.

“At the time of the decertification election, the employees knew the contents of the so-called contract when they voted,” said Gerawan. “So it is wrong for ALRB to displace the employees’ desires with ALRB’s and UFW’s dictates.”

The UFW sees the dispute quite differently. UFW President Arturo Rodriguez’s Labor Day message targeted Gerawan Farming:

“On Labor Day, when millions of Americans celebrate labor, workers at Gerawan Farming should be getting extra holiday pay. But they’re not because their employer, one of the biggest grape and tree fruit growers in America with over 5,000 workers, refuses to honor a union contract issued by a neutral state mediator—after Gerawan refused to negotiate one with the workers’ union, the United Farm Workers.

“Gerawan workers also didn’t get extra holiday pay on Labor Day last year. Or on other holidays such as July 4th of this year. By refusing to honor the contract, Gerawan is getting out of paying its workers millions of dollars. Prosecutors for the state of California have filed four complaints—like indictments—against Gerawan for breaking the law, that includes refusing to negotiate in good faith and refusing to honor the state-issued contract.

“Gerawan needs to be made to obey the law and honor the workers’ union contract. Then thousands of Gerawan workers can get their extra holiday pay on Labor Day—plus all the other pay raises and benefits from the contract.”

The bad blood between Gerawan Farming and the UFW goes back to 1990, when the UFW won an election to represent Gerawan workers. But after one bargaining session, the union left and didn’t return for 20 years.

“The union has repeatedly refused to explain the 20-year absence, saying it has no obligation to explain it,” according to a Gerawan press release.

The UFW doesn’t explain its absence in its website discussion of the dispute, but does charge that “Gerawan attempted unsuccessfully to have the election thrown out, and the state of California found that Gerawan illegally fired a crew of workers for supporting the union and unlawfully closed down six of its farm labor camps in retaliation for workers backing the UFW.”

Millions of dollars hang in the balance

Charges and countercharges have flown back and forth between the two sides in the press, before the ALRB and in the judicial system. Millions of dollars are at stake, according to Rodriguez and former California Supreme Court Justice Cruz Reynoso in a recent op-ed in the Fresno Bee:

“California lets workers call in neutral state mediators to hammer out contracts when growers refuse to sign them. Under the contract terms set by the mediator — not the UFW — in May, the majority of Gerawan employees would have received approximately $1,074 each, retroactive to July 2013. This was to cover paid holidays and wage increases reflecting a 54-hour workweek.

“The new contract also would have handed other Gerawan workers a 2.5% wage increase, also retroactive to July 2013, plus 5% pay hikes in 2014 and 2015. For approximately 5,000 farm-workers, those back wages and benefits would have conservatively translated into many millions of dollars, just covering July 2013 to May 2014. Going forward, the contract would produce many millions of dollars more for workers over its duration.”

Gerawan believes California politics and SB25 have stacked the deck against agricultural employers in resolving labor disputes.

“The picture is this: you have got a labor board staffed with political appointees,” he said. “Three board members appointed by the governor and counsel appointed by the governor.

“[If SB25 becomes law] they have the right to write a labor contract, impose it and make it effective immediately with no judicial overview. This is huge. With SB25 no judge will even have a chance to look at it.”

He was supported by Assemblyman Donald Wagner, R-Irvine, at the July 2013 Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing.

“We have a circumstance where a union has essentially done nothing for 20 years,” said Wagner. “We do rightly applaud Cesar Chavez. But I don’t want to confuse what we’re celebrating. The point of these labor laws is not to protect the union. The union is a vehicle to protect the works who deserve the protection.

“I’m hearing about these [Gerawan employees] who are worried about being disenfranchised under this bill. I‘m wondering why we have to turn contract law on its head … maybe merely to help the union.”

More than 370,000 acres of California’s irrigated farmland disappeared from 2006-10. Officials are concerned that hundreds of thousands of additional acres could be lost in the coming years, threatening California’s leading role in feeding the nation and indeed much of the world.

About 168,000 acres of irrigated land disappeared from 2008 to 2010 — 102,000 acres of it were prime agricultural land, according to John Lowrie, assistant director at the California Department of Conservation. Another 205,000 acres were lost from 2006 to 2008. More recent figures have yet to be released.

Ag lands disappear while urbanization slows

“The numbers suggest some significant shifts or trends in how our agriculture lands are being used,” Lowrie told the Assembly Agriculture Committee at a Nov. 6 informational hearing. “Although I have to tell you openly, I had to scratch my head a bit on what some of these statistics are telling us. Because I think they are not really typical of what we might expect to see.

“This is a surprising counterpoint: We were only able to map an increase in urbanized acres of about 44,500 acres [from 2008-10]. That’s the lowest ever recorded in any of our farmland updates.”

The next lowest two-year urbanization increase, 53,000 acres, occurred during a significant economic recession in the 1990s.

Lowrie is not sure of what became of the irrigated land that disappeared but did not get urbanized.

“How do we explain that? I don’t know that we’ve done a detailed analysis or statistical look at what we’re seeing,” he said. “Our suspicions are that land idling and long-term conversion of highly productive agriculture land to dry land grain production was the largest single reason for conversion out of irrigated uses.”

Fresno County lost 32,000 acres of irrigated land from 2008-10. Kern County lost 25,000 acres and Kings lost 17,000 acres; while San Joaquin, Sacramento and Tulare counties each lost more than 10,000 acres.

“We continue to detect significant losses of irrigated land in California, with prime farmland losses of particular interest,” said Lowrie. “In recent years it appears limited water availability is a major factor driving the loss of prime farmland, particularly in the southern San Joaquin Valley. The lack of urban development, detected in the latest cycle, tracks with the downturn in the economy experienced during that time. We would anticipate that that is a temporary phenomenon.”

An uptick in urbanization could, of course, result in further loss of farmland. That concerns committee Chairwoman Susan Eggman, D-Stockton.

“The preservation of farmland is important to us,” she said. “Over the years we’ve lost a lot of farmland. If we keep going at the rate we are, by 2050 we’ll lose another two million acres of farmland.”

Williamson Act funding cut

A recurring theme in the two-hour hearing was the need to restore funding for The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act. It lowers property taxes on farmland and open space in exchange for keeping the property in agriculture or open space for 10 years.

In 1972 the state launched the Open Space Subvention Act, which partially reimbursed counties for their lost property tax revenue. Averaging $23.3 million per year, it paid out more than $863 million from 1972 to 2009. Currently about 16.4 million acres in 53 counties are under Williamson Act contracts.

Due to the state budget crisis, the subvention budget was slashed to $1,000, forcing counties to absorb the costs for the past four years. Subvention funding has yet to be restored. Although lack of funding did not cause the disappearance of farmland in recent years, according to Lowrie, restoring the subvention payments was a concern of many of the farmland experts at the hearing.

John Gamper, taxation and land use director for the California Farm Bureau, called the elimination of the funding “perhaps the greatest new pressure on farmland conversion …. The Williamson Act came about because the Santa Clara Valley was paved over, the Los Angeles Basin was paved over. The [county] assessor was essentially the county planner because he used ‘highest and best use’ determination. And everybody said, ‘That’s all right, there’s another valley on the other side of the hills.’ Well, there isn’t another valley on the other side of the hills with the San Joaquin Valley.”

Imperial County has pulled out of the Williamson Act program, and Colusa and Glenn Counties were seriously considering pulling out as well, according to Gamper. They’ve been hard hit by the loss of subvention funding, which once provided 22 percent of Colusa County’s General Fund budget, 15 percent of Kings County’s budget and 12 percent of Glenn County’s.

“With realignment and other burdens put on counties, I frankly think it’s amazing that more counties have not pulled out,” Gamper said.

LAO opposed Williamson funding

The Williamson Act funding is not without its critics, however, including the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Nine years ago the LAO recommended phasing out the subvention payments over 10 years. The LAO listed several reasons:

Fiscalization of land use

Another major contributor to the disappearance of farmland is the fiscalization of land use decision-making, according to John Beckman, CEO of the Building Industry Association of the Greater Valley. The term refers to the temptation of cash-hungry cities and counties to pave over farmland with shopping malls and car dealerships in order to increase sales tax revenue.

Beckman described the dilemma:

“They have a project come in front of them. And for true conservation, true farmland mitigation, for protection of farmland to occur, the local agencies need to deny those projects. But due to the fiscalization of land use, they don’t. When they have the opportunity, they say yes to new development, and they say no to farmland protection.

“A lot of the local jurisdictions have decided that they want to try to do farmland mitigation, but they want their project at the same time. They’ve come up with this myth that they can have their cake and eat it too. They want to say yes to the project and create some kind of mythical preservation of farmland by requiring an easement some place else.”

That’s a myth, Beckman said, because current land use policies allow mitigation of farmland by protecting open space elsewhere.

“[They] do not mitigate the loss of farmland,” he said. “In fact, typical agricultural easements do not even preserve farming. The easement programs that we have in place today merely protect dirt. That’s a common saying among farmers that I talk to. We need more policies that protect farming and farming families, and less policies protecting dirt.”

An example of this occurred in 2005 when Colusa County sued the California Wildlife Conservation board to stop it from using a conservation easement to convert 235 acres of farmland under Williamson Act contract into wetlands, ponds and open space. The county won the suit, but the state is still dragging its feet on compliance, according to Colusa County Supervisor Kim Vann.

“So the state even has its own issues to address in taking ag lands out of production,” she said. “This is not due to our local land use decisions. This is due to state and federal agencies acquiring farmland in our counties to take out of production. The most valuable habitat ground in our counties is our prime farmland as well.”

Converting crops into solar panels

Another contributor to farmland disappearance is the solar industry. Between 35,000 and 40,000 acres are planned for solar development in the San Joaquin Valley, including southern San Joaquin, Fresno, Kern and Kings counties, according to Lowrie. Imperial County officials are also considering going solar after their water supply was cut back, said Assemblyman Brian Dahle, R-Bieber.

That could be the tip of the solar iceberg, given the state’s environmental politics, warned Gamper.

“Surprisingly, there are zealous advocates for utility scale photo-voltaic solar development in both the current and previous administrations [of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gov. Jerry Brown] that argue that local jurisdictions need to immediately sacrifice 100,000 acres of prime farmland for solar photo-voltaic development, and another million acres by 2050,” he said. “That’s 12-½ percent of our remaining resource to be put under solar panels. Frankly, I think it’s an absolutely insane idea.”

Chairman Eggman, who comes from a farming family, ended the hearing on a positive note, while acknowledging that the problem is as difficult to solve as the homeless issues she used to work on.

“Farmers have done better than they’ve ever done before,” she said. “Some things are going right for the farming community. We’ve heard a rich exchange of ideas. The solution is not as easy as we’d all like to think it might be.”

By KATY GRIMES

California is still growing government, but in an unlikely place. The Assembly now has its own organic legislative committee called the Assembly Select Committee on Sustainable and Organic Agriculture, which will “seek to improve the understanding and availability of information on the production of sustainable and organic agriculture products in California.”

With Democratic Assemblywoman Mariko Yamada of Davis named chairwoman by Assembly Speaker John Perez, last week the committee held its first hearing. But the purpose of the hearing was unclear.

People seem to love to talk about organic and sustainable farming, and farmers’ markets have never been more popular, but is a full legislative committee needed to talk about it also?

At the farmers’ markets, not all of the produce is organic. And being a “sustainable” farmer is something all farmers strive for anyway for cost-effectiveness, and to ensure the best and most productive uses of land.

However, recent studies in the United Kingdom have found that not all organic food is better for the environment than food grown conventionally. Some experts have found that if looked at carefully, the amount of energy required to produce these foods is often higher, and in some cases, the carbon footprint for organics is larger.

Prior to the government regulation of fertilizers and pesticides, organic food was more of a health issue. But the current level of fertilizer and pesticide regulations has made conventional farming much more safe, leaving organic farming and foods more of a lifestyle choice, with no conclusive evidence proving that it is nutritionally superior.

Sir David King, the British government’s chief scientist, said that he agreed that organic food was no safer than chemically treated food.

The study did not take into account factors such as the increased biodiversity created by organic farming or the improved landscape.

Burping Cows

The researchers even found that organic milk and dairy production is a major source of increased greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), and causes cows to burp more.

The milk and dairy study, done by Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) for the United Kingdom, was sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The report said, “There is certainly insufficient evidence available to state that organic agriculture overall would have less of an environmental impact than conventional agriculture.”

In Scientific American, science writer Christie Wilcox addressed the top myths about organic farming, including:

Myth #1 Organic food is “pesticide free.” Wilcox explained, “Certified organic farms have to use pesticides from natural sources, rather than man-made — but those aren’t necessarily any less dangerous or harmful. Large organic farms still spray crops with pesticides and fungicides. And they have to use more to get the same effect.”

Myth #2: Organic food is better for you. “Even if you’re getting your produce from a totally pesticide-free farm, that doesn’t mean it’s free of pathogens. And there’s no evidence that organic food is any more nutritious or beneficial than conventionally farmed food.”

Myth #3: It’s better for the planet. “Organic farming produces less food per acre, so it’s not an efficient use of land. And Wilcox objects to organic farming’s resistance to genetically modified organisms, which she says could help improve farming practices and mitigate world hunger.”

And Wilcox addressed one additional myth, that consumers must choose between conventional or organic foods. Wilcox said that even if you’re disinclined to give credence to skepticism about organic farming, it’s worth checking out this heavily sourced article. Even if you’re not convinced, you’ll be informed and also maybe a little disgusted.

Wilcox states that she is not anti-organic farming. She said that she just wants to make sure that people undertstand that natural does not mean that food is automatically non-toxic or safe.

Sustainable?

As for organic and sustainable, it’s a fantastic economic ploy, according to Wilcox. “In 2010, a mere eight years after USDA’s regulations officially went into effect, organic foods and beverages made $26.7 billion” in the United States. In the past year or two, certified organic sales have jumped to about $52 billion worldwide despite the fact that organic foods cost up to three times as much as those produced by conventional methods.”

It will be interesting to see what the real purpose of this committee is, how many staff positions are created; and if it has anything to do with statewide water restrictions on farmers, or the disappearing agriculture industry in the state.

Organic farming is already fabulously nourished and economically sustainable. But it is hard not to wonder if something is going on in the Legislature that will threaten farming in the state even more, and if this committee was created as a cover.