WASHINGTON, D.C. — An agreement between the United Egg Producers (UEP) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not being greeted enthusiastically by cattle and pork producers.

The agreement reached last summer calls for new cage standards for some 280 million hens in the United States. The new standards would increase the current cage space from 48-67 square inches to between 124-144 square inches over the next 15-18 years.

“America’s egg producers have continually worked to improve animal welfare, and we strongly believe our commitment to a national standard for hen welfare is in the best interest of our animals, customers and consumers,” said Bob Krouse, an Indiana egg farmer and chair of the UEP.

“We are committed to working together for the good of the hens in our care and believe a national standard is far superior than a patchwork of state laws and regulations that would be cumbersome for our customers and confusing to consumers.”

This past week, that agreement took a step toward more formal guidelines in Congress when U.S. Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) introduced a bill that would mandate animal husbandry guidelines. House Bill 3798 would mandate cage sizes, labeling requirements for eggs and establish air quality standards for hen houses.

“We are strongly opposed to the legislation,” said Kristina Butts, executive director of legislative affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. (NCBA) in Washington, D.C. “The fact that this legislation was even introduced is cause for concern. It’s going to be a big topic of discussion when the NCBA holds its annual convention this coming week.”

Butts said the concern is that there is no federal standard for raising livestock, and that’s the way the NCBA wants it. She said it ought to be up to farmers to determine the best way to raise their livestock.

“Our biggest concern is that if this goes into law and science evolves and changes the practices we now know, what do we do if the feds control the process? If the science evolves and we need to change our practices, farmers won’t be able to do so on their own. They’ll need Congressional approval and that takes time. We wouldn’t be able to react in a timely manner.”

HSUS sees the issue differently, saying the agreement with egg producers is a giant step forward.

“It is always our greatest hope to find common ground and to forge solutions, even with traditional adversaries,” said Wayne Pacelle, its CEO. “We are excited about a new and better pathway forward, and hope the Congress seizes the opportunity to embrace this sort of collaboration and mutual understanding.”

For its part, the NCBA says the proposed legislation would set a disturbing precedent for all farmers. “America’s farm and ranch families are committed to raising healthy animals, which are the foundation of a safe, wholesome food supply,” said Bill Donald, president of the NCBA.

“Decades ago, our farmers and ranchers voluntarily took it upon themselves to work with veterinarians, animal health specialists, university researchers and with each other to develop animal care practices and guidelines. That is why the programs have been so successful, certainly not because politicians in Washington, D.C., mandated them.

“This legislation, while currently only affecting egg producers, could set a dangerous precedent to allow government bureaucrats in Washington to mandate how farmers and ranchers across the nation raise and care for their animals,” said Donald. “This ill-conceived legislation could set the model for a one-size-fits-all approach to cattle production.

“Unfortunately, one-size-fits-all doesn’t work with cattle producers, who are in diverse settings in all 50 states. This legislation won’t improve animal health or care and will result in further costly and burdensome regulations being placed on America’s food producers.”

A 2010 report compiled by the Congressional Research Service, Humane Treatment of Farm Animals: Overview and Issues, looked at animal health inspections and concluded that “rearing large numbers of livestock or poultry in close confinement with little or no room for natural movement and activity” is harmful to the well-being of animals.

That same report also stated: “Farmers and ranchers maintain that they understand their animals’ welfare needs and address them adequately. They express concern that efforts by poorly informed critics could lead to costly and counterproductive regulations harmful to their industry and the animals alike.”

Organizations such as the NCBA, the American Meat Institute, American Sheep Industry Assoc., National Chicken Council and Pork Board have created their own standards for animal welfare.

The National Pork Producers Council last week came out against the legislation.

“This HSUS-backed legislation would set a dangerous precedent that could let Washington bureaucrats dictate how livestock and poultry producers raise and care for their animals,” said Doug Wolfe, a Wisconsin hog farmer and president of the NPPC.

“We don’t need or want the federal government and HSUS telling us how to do our jobs. If enacted, it would open Pandora’s box for special interest groups to pursue similar federal law on pig farmers, dairy farmers and other family farming operations.”

Donald concluded, “America’s cattle producers work day in and day out in extreme weather and at all hours of the day and night to ensure your family and families around the world have a safe, wholesome and consistent supply of beef.

“Instead of mandating production practices and increase regulatory burdens on America’s farmers and ranchers, we urge members of Congress to reject this legislation and to work with food producers to empower and enable them to continue raising the healthiest, safest and most wholesome food supply in the world.”

According to a new survey the UEP released Monday, American consumers said they would support federal legislation that would transition egg production from the existing conventional cages used for egg-laying hens to enriched cages by a margin of 4-to-1. Further, they said federal legislation was preferable to state legislation by a margin of 2-to-1.

The study was conducted by an independent research company, The Bantam Group, and commissioned by UEP; however, UEP stated the survey’s sponsorship was anonymous so as to not bias any of the 2,000 respondents, all of whom were registered voters.

Consumers support the transition to enriched cages for egg production by a margin of 12-to-1, according to the UEP. Fifty-nine percent of consumers said they would be “more supportive” if they knew that UEP and HSUS supported such legislation; only 1 percent said they would be more opposed.

UEP stated Bantam conducted two nationwide surveys of 1,000 registered voters each. The first investigated consumer support for enriched cages; the second, support for the federal legislation.