“Define ‘humane treatment’.”
Have you ever been to a place where they raise chickens for both eggs and meat?
If you have been to a “traditional” chicken ranch, I think you know what isn’t humane treatment. Now I read in the article this California’s laws somehow “violate” the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. We have truly jumped the shark and we need a moratorium on the production of another kind of “meat,” lawyers.
I have. Large facilities where the bird is king, because 'if the birds aren't happy, no one is happy'. All farm efforts were and are directed towards that end.
The birds were clean, well fed, health, and content. The only way an owner can make money.
You also raise a second issue, the desire of CA voters to impose their Luddite beliefs as they relate to poultry production onto the rest of the country.
As with the homosexuals, CA voters aren't content to live and let live, they are determined to force their Luddite production beliefs on everyone else.
I believe the author is in error about that, which I must admit is an extremely rare moment. This is Daniel Greenfield, one of the most brilliant writers out there today.
The hypothetical MO farmer is not compelled to only sell his eggs to people in CA. That said, some speaking up needs to be done because past experience teaches us that when California discovers they've done something to damage their market competitiveness, they go to the Federal government to enforce their rules nationwide. Basic rule about liberalism: If the solution doesn't solve the problem, metastasize the solution until the new problems are greater than the original one.