The Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, and nearly 500 California veterinarians endorse Prop. 12.

Voting YES prevents baby veal calves, mother pigs, and egg-laying hens from being crammed inside tiny cages for their entire lives. It will eliminate inhumane and unsafe products from these abused animals from the California marketplace. Voting YES reduces the risk of people being sickened by food poisoning and factory farm pollution, and helps family farmers.


PREVENT CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. It's cruel to confine a baby calf in a tiny cage. Taken away from his mother shortly after birth, he's confined in that abusive way until he's sent to slaughter—at just four months old.

A mother pig shouldn’t be locked in a tiny, metal cage where she can barely move. She's trapped, forced to live in this small amount of space for nearly four years.

It's wrong to cram a hen tightly in an overcrowded, wire cage for her entire life. She’s forced to eat, sleep, defecate, and lay eggs in the same small space every single day.

PROTECT OUR FAMILIES FROM FOOD POISONING AND FACTORY FARM POLLUTION. In the past decade, there have been recalls of nearly a billion eggs from caged chickens because they carried deadly Salmonella. Scientific studies repeatedly find that packing animals in tiny, filthy cages increases the risk of food poisoning. Even Poultry World, a leading egg industry publication admitted, "Salmonella thrives in caged housing."

That's why the Center for Food Safety and National Consumers League both endorse YES on Prop. 12.

The American Public Health Association called for a moratorium on new animal confinement operations because they pollute the air and ground water, and diminish the quality of life for nearby homeowners.

HELP FAMILY FARMERS AND GROW THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY. Mega-factory farms that cage animals cut corners and drive family farmers out of business. By voting YES on Prop. 12 we can create sensible standards that keep family farmers in business—and allow them to grow. Since cage-free farms employ more workers, this measure would create more jobs for hardworking farming families.

That’s why California family farmers and the United Farm Workers endorse Prop. 12.


  • Prop. 12 strengthens a decade-old animal cruelty law and provides ample phase-in time for producers to shift to cage-free practices.
  • Over 200 major food companies like Walmart, McDonald's, Taco Bell, Burger King, Safeway, and Dollar Tree have committed to using cage-free products.
  • A dozen states have passed laws addressing the cruel caging of farm animals.
  • The YES vote is endorsed by Catholic, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Methodist, Jewish, Evangelical, and Unitarian faith leaders, and local animal shelters across California.

We wouldn't force our dog or cat to live in a filthy, tiny cage for her whole life; we shouldn't allow any animal to endure such suffering either. All animals, including farm animals, deserve protection from cruelty and abuse.

CRYSTAL MORELAND, California State Director

The Humane Society of the United States

DR. JAMES REYNOLDS, DVM, MPVM, DACAW, Professor of Large Animal Medicine and Welfare

Western University College of Veterinary Medicine

ANDREW DECORIOLIS, Director of Strategic Programs and Engagement

Farm Forward


Proposition 12 is a cruel betrayal of animals and voters.

The argument for Proposition 12 consists entirely of platitudes, and it avoids any mention of United Egg Producers, the acceptance of CAGES through at least 2022, allowing just ONE SQUARE FOOT of space per hen, or any other specifics about what the initiative actually does.

In other words, the scandal-ridden Humane Society of the United States is back to its old tricks.

The same group that said California hens would be cage free by 2015, that Michael Vick would be a "good pet owner," that embraces SeaWorld, and lost millions of dollars in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act lawsuit, is back.

HSUS is again promising to ban egg-industry cages—even though it famously spent the last decade claiming that it already did!

Meanwhile, they're attacking whistleblowers.

"We know when a charity fails the most basic obligations of trust. Instead of attacking women who've suffered abuse, HSUS should change its own culture."—National Organization of Women

When women mobilized against the toxic culture at HSUS, it stemmed from multiple allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct against Proposition 12's chief architect, now former CEO, Wayne Pacelle. HSUS's first response was to question the women's integrity.

That tactic is now being used against conscientious animal advocates opposed to Proposition 12.

The inescapable reality is this: If not for HSUS's negligence, California hens would be cage-free at this very moment. Let's not fall for the same trick—twice.

MARK EMERSON, Advisory Board Member

Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud

ERIC MILLS, Coordinator

Action for Animals

PETER T. BROWN, Advisory Board Member

Friends of Animals


Vote NO: Prevent Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud

The DC-based Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is once again buying its way onto California's ballot, deceiving voters, flip-flopping on the issue of cages, and perpetuating the suffering of millions of egglaying hens.

Falsely promoted as a "cage-free" measure, Proposition 12, in fact, explicitly legalizes the continued use of egg-factory cages for years to come.

Proposition 12 is the result of a public relations alliance between HSUS and the egg industry’s national trade association, United Egg Producers.

At taxpayer expense, they are misusing California's initiative process in order to replace our current henhousing law with the guidelines of United Egg Producers.

Proposition 12 legalizes the cruel cages Californians overwhelmingly voted to prohibit ten years ago.

California's current law (Prop. 2) states that egg-laying hens be given enough room to:

". . . fully spread both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens."

Proposition 12 would repeal that voter-enacted law in order to allow egg factories to provide each hen with just ONE SQUARE FOOT of cage or floor space.

Proposition 12 is a cruel betrayal of farm animals and of California voters.

Due to the negligent drafting of 2008's Prop. 2, millions of egg-laying hens still suffer in egg-factory cages throughout California.

Nevertheless, the egg-buying public has been told repeatedly that Prop. 2 successfully "banned" those cages. For an entire decade that has been HSUS's most cherished promotional claim.

Now, without so much as a passing mention that California was supposed to be cage free by 2015—proponents are back with yet another set of false promises.

Only this time they say Californians will have to wait for the year 2022! And even that date is tentative.

Proposition 12 was expressly written to allow the Legislature to make changes at any time without the consent of voters.

Proposition 12 does nothing to help pigs or calves.

For misdirection, the very same people who botched Prop. 2, and who promised that California would be "cage-free" by 2015, are now claiming that Proposition 12 will regulate the practices of out-of-state pork and veal producers. No one should fall for that ploy.

Even in the unlikely event that Proposition 12's constitutionally flawed provisions survive the inevitable years of legal challenges (the defense of which comes at taxpayer expense), Congress is already advancing legislation to render all such interstate regulations null and void.

And while claiming to regulate other states, Proposition 12 allows the cruel confinement of dairy calves right here in California!

Proposition 12 is a reckless exploitation of California's initiative process which not only harms farm animals, but it also puts in grave danger a wide array of existing consumer, animal, and environmental protection laws.

This rotten egg initiative should be decisively rejected.

Find out why People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; Friends of Animals; the Humane Farming Association; Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud; and many others all OPPOSE Proposition 12.

Please visit:


Humane Farming Association (HFA)

PETER T. BROWN, Advisory Board Member

Friends of Animals (FoA)


Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud


YES on Prop. 12 stops the cruel and inhumane treatment of farm animals. That's why the most trusted voices on animal cruelty, sustainable farming, and food safety endorse YES on Prop. 12: nearly 500 California veterinarians, California family farmers, California animal shelters, ASPCA, Humane Society of the United States, Center for Food Safety, United Farm Workers, and National Consumers League.

The fringe group opposing Prop. 12—the so-called "Humane Farming Association"—has a history of joining polluting factory farms in opposing animal cruelty laws and has been supported by animal fighters, with one underground publication boasting that HFA's attack on animal protection charities "helps the cockfighters!"

The facts: A decade ago, Californians overwhelmingly passed a law giving farm animals more space. It led many egg and pork producers to phase-out cages, and McDonald's, Safeway, Burger King, and hundreds of other companies to start switching to cage-free products.

But some factory farms—including those opposing Prop. 12—have found ways around the law and still confine animals in cages. That's exactly why Prop. 12 is needed.

Prop. 12 strengthens cruelty laws by providing improved protections, including better living conditions, minimum space requirements, and cage-free housing, with a phase-in timetable that safeguards family farmers.

As the ballot language clearly shows, Prop. 12 prevents the extreme confinement of egg-laying hens, and veal calves, and pigs. These animals deserve protection from abuse.

YES for humane treatment of farm animals. YES for food safety. YES for family farmers. YES for mercy and common sense.

DR. BARBARA HODGES, DVM, MBA, Veterinary Adviser

Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association

JEFF PETERSON, General Manager

Central Valley Eggs

BROOKE HAGGERTY, Executive Director

Animal Protection and Rescue League

Arguments printed on this page are the opinions of the authors, and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

Back to top Back to the Top