This week the US House of Representatives considers the 2013 Farm Bill — the agriculture policy tool for the federal government. Of all of the amendments that will be debated, there is one in particular that has conservatives fuming. If passed, the “Egg Bill” amendment will result in an unfunded government mandate on thousands of American family farmers. The amendment calls for federal requirements on the size and structure of egg producing facilities. This mandate could have significant consequences for farmers — especially the smaller, familyrun businesses. It would likely force farmers to shut down their operations or significantly increase their production costs, which will inevitably be passed on to consumers at the grocery stores and at restaurants. This complete overhaul of our nation’s egg producing facilities is expected to increase the price of eggs and any food containing eggs, such as baked goods.In our paper, titled, "Don’t Throw Out the Tin-‐Foil Hats Just Yet: Libertarian Criticisms of Keeley’s 'Of Conspiracy Theories'," we are replying specifically to Brian Keeley's academic paper (a pdf of which is available at the link). Keeley's paper is fascinating-- and has received a lot of attention. I hasten to note that it's not a wacko paper. It is a serious treatment of the epistemology of a class of conspiracy theories called "unwarranted conspiracy theories" or UTCs in what's below.
I've here only included that portion of our paper that deals with Big Egg and the proposed amendment to the current Farm Bill. I want to focus narrowly on that issue and provide some background on the amendment for those who are interested having affordable eggs. Providing this information within the context of our longer paper was the most efficient way to get the information out there.
Note, especially with the first paragraph I include, that we wrote this before the alphabet soup of scandals hit the fan.
I do apologize for the formatting, some of which was mysteriously lost between copying and pasting. I would have fixed it, but you know, I have chores to do. I've included all of the references.
After having become acquainted with the Big Egg amendment, I encourage you to scream from the top of your roof that this amendment needs to go down in flames.
Here you go... .
Don’t Throw Out the Tin-‐Foil Hats Just Yet: Libertarian Criticisms of Keeley’s “Of Conspiracy Theories”
John Bickle
Mississippi State University
Marica Bernstein
We don’t deny that some popular conspiracy theories develop in this way, and are
epistemologically flawed for this “deep” reason. However, we also think that a kind of abiding
skepticism about public institutions and the persons who occupy them, circa 2013, is a good
thing to encourage in a politically free citizenry. We also suspect that our “stomach” for the
extent of this skepticism allowable probably exceeds that of proponents of Keeley’s account.
Government “watchdog” agencies, the “free” press, and the rest of the “related mechanisms”
Keeley mentions explicitly “for generating warranted beliefs ... in the public sphere” aren’t the
institutions and public servants of your high school civics class. This is increasingly true in our
current days of government bureaucracy-‐corporate statism, in which a growing percentage of
To illustrate this first critical point, we introduce our own current conspiracy theory. Our theory
hypothesizes a conspiracy to drive small and medium farmers out of the commercial (chicken)
egg business. We think ours is an excellent example for a general discussion of the
epistemology of UCTs because it is a more typical “everyday” example of the workings of the
corporate state; and whether the broader conspiracy we (and others) suspect is true, ours is a
nice illustration of just how blatant major players in the corporate-‐state Leviathan now conduct
business. We start with proposed U.S. Senate legislation, bill S.3239, the Egg Products
Inspection Act Amendments of 2012, a “bill to provide for a uniform national standard for the
housing and treatment of egg-‐laying hens, and for other purposes.” Senator Diane Feinstein (D-‐
CA) introduced the bill on May 23, 2012. At its introduction it had six Senate co-‐sponsors. [3]
You my now put on your tin-‐foil hats. It is a common assumption that bills are introduced, sponsored and co-‐sponsored by legislators in virtue of the bills’ relevance to the citizens they represent. On this assumption, we would expect that S.3239 was introduced and co-‐sponsored by senators representing states in which the egg-‐laying industry is of prominent economic interest. We would expect these seven initial Senate co-‐sponsors to be from states
You my now put on your tin-‐foil hats. It is a common assumption that bills are introduced, sponsored and co-‐sponsored by legislators in virtue of the bills’ relevance to the citizens they represent. On this assumption, we would expect that S.3239 was introduced and co-‐sponsored by senators representing states in which the egg-‐laying industry is of prominent economic interest. We would expect these seven initial Senate co-‐sponsors to be from states
producing the most eggs for sale. We would be wrong. According to a leading egg industry
advocacy group, as of June, 2012 the top 10 egg producing states, with the numbers of “layers”
are: (1) Iowa, 51,988,000; (2) Ohio, 27,486,000; (3) Pennsylvania, 24,123,000; (4) Indiana,
22,001,000; (5) California, 19,452,000; (6) Texas, 14,195,000; (7) Minnesota, 10,023,000; (8)
Michigan, 9,623,000; (9) Nebraska, 9,168,000; (10) Florida, 8,931,000.[4] Among the bill’s
original sponsors, only Feinstein was from a top-‐10 egg-‐producing state. The others were from
Massachusetts (ranked #40), Louisiana (#33), Connecticut (#28), Oregon (#27; two senators),
and Washington (#20). It is of course possible that citizens of these states have some economic
interest in establishing uniform standards for the treatment and housing of laying hens, or
“other purposes.” They may, for example, be involved in producing “adequate environmental
enrichments” or “conspicuous, legible” labels designating the housing conditions under which
layers lay. Or they may be home to a great number of animal-‐rights activists interested in
chickens’ welfare. So the single fact that most of the bills’ original co-‐sponsors were not from
states well-‐represented in the egg industry does not a conspiracy make.
Which states did the bill’s later co-‐sponsors represent? The remainder came from only
five additional states: Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Vermont, and Michigan. Only Michigan is
among the top-‐10 egg-‐producing state. As with the original co-‐sponsors, there may be
legitimate reasons for Senators from states with little or no economic interests in the egg
industry to be supportive of S.3239. But suspicions start to arise.
Let’s turn now to the bill’s content. As its title indicates, it is a set of amendments to existing US Code, specifically various paragraphs of the Egg Products Inspection Act (US Code Title 21, Food and Drugs; Chapter 15, Egg Products Inspection; §1031-‐1056; originally enacted
Let’s turn now to the bill’s content. As its title indicates, it is a set of amendments to existing US Code, specifically various paragraphs of the Egg Products Inspection Act (US Code Title 21, Food and Drugs; Chapter 15, Egg Products Inspection; §1031-‐1056; originally enacted
December 29, 1970).[5] Many of the amendments deal with defining terms and re-‐designating
section and sub-‐section headings. At the heart of the bill, however, are changes to size limits
and “environmental enrichment” requirements of “caging devises,” and a schedule for phasing
in these changes. Layers’ cages are to become larger and more enriched over time.
We first became aware of S.3239 via a short news report by Pete Kasperowicz at The Hill.[6] According to the article, the proposed legislation “would ensure egg producers aren't blocked from selling across state lines due to differing state standards... . [Feinstein] said beginning in 2015, for example, eggs produced in Iowa and Indiana will not be able to ship to California because they will not meet California's standards.” Thus, the legislation is justified for facilitating interstate commerce. The legislation “codif[ies] an agreement between the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society on how egg-‐laying hens should be treated and how eggs should be labeled. ‘The United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States worked for over a year to reach this compromise, and I believe it is one that strikes a very fair balance,’ [Feinstein] said. ‘Producers must enlarge cages for egg-‐laying hens and allow space for the birds to engage in natural behaviors such as nesting and perching’.”
Maybe we wear our tin-‐foil hats too tightly, but we get skeptical when political enemies compromise. Again, from The Hill and Senator Feinstein: " ‘The egg industry brought this legislation to Congress and has asked us to help them implement the uniform regulations needed to survive and grow,’ [Feinstein] said. ‘The egg industry and the Humane Society are lock-‐step in their support for this bill. They are joined in endorsing the bill by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Consumer Federation of America.’ "
We first became aware of S.3239 via a short news report by Pete Kasperowicz at The Hill.[6] According to the article, the proposed legislation “would ensure egg producers aren't blocked from selling across state lines due to differing state standards... . [Feinstein] said beginning in 2015, for example, eggs produced in Iowa and Indiana will not be able to ship to California because they will not meet California's standards.” Thus, the legislation is justified for facilitating interstate commerce. The legislation “codif[ies] an agreement between the United Egg Producers and the Humane Society on how egg-‐laying hens should be treated and how eggs should be labeled. ‘The United Egg Producers and the Humane Society of the United States worked for over a year to reach this compromise, and I believe it is one that strikes a very fair balance,’ [Feinstein] said. ‘Producers must enlarge cages for egg-‐laying hens and allow space for the birds to engage in natural behaviors such as nesting and perching’.”
Maybe we wear our tin-‐foil hats too tightly, but we get skeptical when political enemies compromise. Again, from The Hill and Senator Feinstein: " ‘The egg industry brought this legislation to Congress and has asked us to help them implement the uniform regulations needed to survive and grow,’ [Feinstein] said. ‘The egg industry and the Humane Society are lock-‐step in their support for this bill. They are joined in endorsing the bill by the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Consumer Federation of America.’ "
Two items regarding the legislation and The Hill’s report deserve immediate notice.
First, the article quotes Feinstein as saying, "As states with disparate standards continue to
protect their own egg producers by banning the sale of eggs from States with lower or no
standards, a complicated web of state laws will impair interstate commerce" [our emphasis].
Regarding environmental enrichments, S.3239 Section 7A(a)(1) states, “EXISTING CAGING
DEVICES-‐ All existing caging devices must provide egg-‐laying hens housed therein, beginning 15
years after the date of enactment of the Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012,
adequate environmental enrichments”; 7A(a)(2) states, “NEW CAGING DEVICES-‐ All new caging
devices must provide egg-‐laying hens housed therein, beginning nine years after the date of
enactment...”; 7A(a)(3) states, “CAGING DEVICES IN CALIFORNIA-‐ All caging devices in California
must provide egg-‐laying hens housed therein, beginning December 31, 2018, adequate
environmental enrichments.” Note the time line. Beginning in 2018, all cages in California must
have enrichments, three years before enrichments are required in new cages and nine years
before they are required in existing cages in the 49 other states. Likewise, 7A(b)(1-‐2) provides
for the phased implementation of national standards with respect to existing and new cage
sizes. We will spare the reader the details of the implementation plan (see the bill for details)
and simply note that 7A(b)(3) ensures that national standards will lag well behind California’s.
The national cage size standard will not be as large as the 2015 standard in California until
2027. Furthermore, section 4(f) provides that “the Secretary [of Health and Human Services]
shall delegate to the California Department of Food and Agriculture the authority to enforce”
the California-‐specific portions of the bill. Quoting again from The Hill report, “... [Feinstein] said
beginning in 2015, for example, eggs produced in Iowa and Indiana will not be able to ship to
California because they will not meet California's standards.” If we don’t yet have indications of
a conspiracy to drive small and medium egg producers out of business, we do have evidence of
a corporate-‐state protection racket that a mobster might envy.
The second item to note in The Hill piece was Feinstein’s quote: “The egg industry brought this legislation to Congress and has asked us to help them implement the uniform regulations needed to survive and grow” [our emphasis]. Not true. The egg industry brought this legislation specifically to Senator Feinstein, and to Representative Kurt Schrader (D-‐OR) who introduced H.R.3798, the House version of S.3239.[7] The House bill eventually garnered 153 co-‐sponsors. As with the Senate bill, the majority of House co-‐sponsors (87/153) did not represent districts in top-‐10 egg producing states. No representative from Iowa, top state in the egg producing list, co-‐sponsored. Forty-‐nine of the co-‐sponsors are from other top-‐5 egg-‐ producing states, but 37 of those 49 co-‐sponsors are from ... California.
We think that questioning whether goals other than facilitating interstate commerce and improving laying hens’ lives are behind this legislation, when so few representatives from states with vested interests in the egg industry support it enough to co-‐sponsor, reflects a healthy amount of skepticism among free citizens. But so far, it looks like this bill is about protecting California egg producers, and while blatantly corporate-‐statist, that’s pretty thin gruel for conspiracy theorizing.
So let’s turn to the other two players, first The United Egg Producers. From its website’s homepage [8] we read:
United Egg Producers (UEP) is a Capper-‐Volstead cooperative of egg farmers from all across the United States and representing the ownership of
The second item to note in The Hill piece was Feinstein’s quote: “The egg industry brought this legislation to Congress and has asked us to help them implement the uniform regulations needed to survive and grow” [our emphasis]. Not true. The egg industry brought this legislation specifically to Senator Feinstein, and to Representative Kurt Schrader (D-‐OR) who introduced H.R.3798, the House version of S.3239.[7] The House bill eventually garnered 153 co-‐sponsors. As with the Senate bill, the majority of House co-‐sponsors (87/153) did not represent districts in top-‐10 egg producing states. No representative from Iowa, top state in the egg producing list, co-‐sponsored. Forty-‐nine of the co-‐sponsors are from other top-‐5 egg-‐ producing states, but 37 of those 49 co-‐sponsors are from ... California.
We think that questioning whether goals other than facilitating interstate commerce and improving laying hens’ lives are behind this legislation, when so few representatives from states with vested interests in the egg industry support it enough to co-‐sponsor, reflects a healthy amount of skepticism among free citizens. But so far, it looks like this bill is about protecting California egg producers, and while blatantly corporate-‐statist, that’s pretty thin gruel for conspiracy theorizing.
So let’s turn to the other two players, first The United Egg Producers. From its website’s homepage [8] we read:
United Egg Producers (UEP) is a Capper-‐Volstead cooperative of egg farmers from all across the United States and representing the ownership of
approximately 95% of all the nation's egg-‐laying hens. Of the total farm
members, 34 serve on the Board of Directors and they along with several others
serve on various committees. We, therefore, think of UEP as an organization of
"Leadership By Egg Farmers -‐ For Egg Farmers".
From UEP’s “Egg Industry Fact Sheet” [9] we learn that there are now 16 egg producing companies each with over five million laying hens, 61 companies each with over a million layers (these 76 companies combining to account for 87% of total domestic egg production), and “approximately 179 egg producing companies with flocks of 75,000 hens or more. These companies represent about 95% of all the layers in the United States.” These companies are high vertically integrated: a given company owns not only the laying hens and production facilities (farms), but also the facilities which inspect, grade, package, transport and distribute eggs. United Egg Producers thus represents Big-‐Egg from top to bottom.
The quoted bullet point above goes on to state an interesting point about the recent history of the industry. “In 1987, there were around 2,500 operations.” By 2002, the total number of egg producing companies had declined to 700.[10] Big-‐Egg was thriving early in the 21st century.
However, at about the same time, UEP and several top-‐10 producers became involved in a number of legal battles at the state and national levels. In 2002 UEP established the “United Egg Producers Certified Program,” a “science-‐based” humane approach to hen husbandry.[11] Producers who adhered to UEP’s guidelines were able to market their eggs as “certified.” Producer participation in the program was voluntary, but there were monetary incentives to adhere to UEP’s guidelines. For example, major egg retailers such as Wal-‐Mart and Kroger
From UEP’s “Egg Industry Fact Sheet” [9] we learn that there are now 16 egg producing companies each with over five million laying hens, 61 companies each with over a million layers (these 76 companies combining to account for 87% of total domestic egg production), and “approximately 179 egg producing companies with flocks of 75,000 hens or more. These companies represent about 95% of all the layers in the United States.” These companies are high vertically integrated: a given company owns not only the laying hens and production facilities (farms), but also the facilities which inspect, grade, package, transport and distribute eggs. United Egg Producers thus represents Big-‐Egg from top to bottom.
The quoted bullet point above goes on to state an interesting point about the recent history of the industry. “In 1987, there were around 2,500 operations.” By 2002, the total number of egg producing companies had declined to 700.[10] Big-‐Egg was thriving early in the 21st century.
However, at about the same time, UEP and several top-‐10 producers became involved in a number of legal battles at the state and national levels. In 2002 UEP established the “United Egg Producers Certified Program,” a “science-‐based” humane approach to hen husbandry.[11] Producers who adhered to UEP’s guidelines were able to market their eggs as “certified.” Producer participation in the program was voluntary, but there were monetary incentives to adhere to UEP’s guidelines. For example, major egg retailers such as Wal-‐Mart and Kroger
vowed to sell only certified eggs. One result of the program was a dramatic reduction of the
number of hens at participating producers.[12] This resulted in decreased egg supply and
increased egg prices. UEP and several top-‐10 producers were charged in several states with
price-‐fixing and were investigated by the United States Department of Justice.[13] As of this
writing, litigation against UEP and several egg producers has not been resolved, although one
producer, Moark, has agreed to a $25 million dollar settlement.[14] Moark is now the third
largest egg producer in the US. It is a subsidiary of Land-‐O-‐Lakes, Inc. which ended 2011 with
over $5 billion in total assets.[15]
Then came the egg recall of 2010. Eventually, it forced out of business the #3 domestic egg producing company at the time, Decoster, with farms in Maine, Ohio, and Iowa (all top-‐10 egg-‐producing states, recall). The subsequent acquisition history of these farms is a tangled mess [16], but one upshot was the acquisition of Decoster’s entire egg producing facilities by other top-‐five egg producing companies, principally Moark. A second upshot was that states, egged on by various states’ animal rights organizations, consumer advocates, and the threat of law suits (for example [17]), took up the business of revising and enforcing more aggressively state standards for virtually all aspects of egg production. Big-‐Egg as represented by UEP did not fare well with legislation and law suits at the state level. Notice also what states were doing was the very business that Feinstein insisted states had no business doing.
Enter the next player, the national Humane Society. In July 2011, Gene Gregory, president of UEP, initiated a meeting with Wayne Pacelle, president of The Humane Society of the United States. This meeting was held in secret, between what Pacelle himself characterized as “two bitter adversaries”.[18] According to reports in the popular press, including NPR, both
Then came the egg recall of 2010. Eventually, it forced out of business the #3 domestic egg producing company at the time, Decoster, with farms in Maine, Ohio, and Iowa (all top-‐10 egg-‐producing states, recall). The subsequent acquisition history of these farms is a tangled mess [16], but one upshot was the acquisition of Decoster’s entire egg producing facilities by other top-‐five egg producing companies, principally Moark. A second upshot was that states, egged on by various states’ animal rights organizations, consumer advocates, and the threat of law suits (for example [17]), took up the business of revising and enforcing more aggressively state standards for virtually all aspects of egg production. Big-‐Egg as represented by UEP did not fare well with legislation and law suits at the state level. Notice also what states were doing was the very business that Feinstein insisted states had no business doing.
Enter the next player, the national Humane Society. In July 2011, Gene Gregory, president of UEP, initiated a meeting with Wayne Pacelle, president of The Humane Society of the United States. This meeting was held in secret, between what Pacelle himself characterized as “two bitter adversaries”.[18] According to reports in the popular press, including NPR, both
sides had tired of spending millions of their respective organization’s dollars fighting state-‐by-‐
state. After particularly harsh losses in California (e.g., over Proposition 2, state-‐wide
referendum passed in 2008 that established more stringent criteria for cage size and
enrichment), Gregory wondered if the two sides “could sit down together and figure out a
pathway that's good for industry and better for animals." This secret meeting hatched the Egg
Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012.
When its results became public, Gregory’s initial secret meeting angered many small (3000-‐50,000 layers) to medium (50,000-‐75,000) egg producers. Amon Baer, a North Dakota family farmer, egg producer,[19] and a UEP board member, opposed Federal standards and regulations for egg producers. He contended that UEP did not represent the interests of small to mid-‐sized producers and claimed that these producers would be “financially devastated” by the proposed legislation.[20] He further contended that Federal standards for the egg industry would open the door to Federal standards in agriculture across the board with equally devastating results for small and medium sized farms. In 2012, Baer and others from a variety of agricultural interests established their own lobbing group, Egg Farmers of America, to oppose The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012. A spokesman for UEP claimed to have never heard of Egg Farmers of America and described the organization (!) as “ ‘as handful of farmers somewhere’ who don’t represent the interests of most of the industry.”[20] Recall that Baer was one of 34 UEP board members.
Thus we get to the real conspiracy theory behind the legislation. The guiding motive for the Senate and House bills are the interests of the Biggest of Big-‐Egg: to drive small and medium egg producers out of business, to snap up their farms and facilities even more
When its results became public, Gregory’s initial secret meeting angered many small (3000-‐50,000 layers) to medium (50,000-‐75,000) egg producers. Amon Baer, a North Dakota family farmer, egg producer,[19] and a UEP board member, opposed Federal standards and regulations for egg producers. He contended that UEP did not represent the interests of small to mid-‐sized producers and claimed that these producers would be “financially devastated” by the proposed legislation.[20] He further contended that Federal standards for the egg industry would open the door to Federal standards in agriculture across the board with equally devastating results for small and medium sized farms. In 2012, Baer and others from a variety of agricultural interests established their own lobbing group, Egg Farmers of America, to oppose The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012. A spokesman for UEP claimed to have never heard of Egg Farmers of America and described the organization (!) as “ ‘as handful of farmers somewhere’ who don’t represent the interests of most of the industry.”[20] Recall that Baer was one of 34 UEP board members.
Thus we get to the real conspiracy theory behind the legislation. The guiding motive for the Senate and House bills are the interests of the Biggest of Big-‐Egg: to drive small and medium egg producers out of business, to snap up their farms and facilities even more
efficiently than had been the trend in the industry for the past quarter-‐century, and to
consolidate American egg production in the hands of few major agricultural corporations. All
with the help of the Federal government. This isn’t just using prominent Federal persons to
forge a corporate-‐statist deal for some egg producers based on their geographical location. It
isn’t to facilitate interstate commerce. It isn’t just to ensure better quality of lives for laying
hens. Those last two outcomes may well result, but they’re there to provide the “official story”
for the legislation’s nefarious purpose.
Notice that this conspiracy theory meets both the general definition Keeley [1] offers and the special conditions that make a conspiracy theory a UCT. It is a proposed explanation of an historical event—U.S. Senate and House legislation—in terms of the “significant causal agency of a relatively small group of agents ... the conspirators” (116)—at first glance, Senator Feinstein, a handful of other congresspersons, Gregory of the UEP, Pacelle of the Humane Society, and a handful of their lieutenants in the two organizations. In addition, (1) the hypothesized conspiracy runs counter to a “received, official” account (116-‐117), namely the one promulgated in The Hill’s article: protecting interstate egg commerce and improving laying hens’ quality of life. The intentions behind the conspiracy are (2) “nefarious,” (117), at least to the point of “not completely above board,” and below board enough to make “secrecy ... necessary” (118). The hypothesized conspiracy (3) “ties together seemingly unrelated events” (117), for example, the involvement of congressmen from non-‐top-‐10 egg producing states, a secret meeting between the presidents of UEP and the Humane Society of the United States, and the recent history of decrease in the number of domestic egg producing farms. The secret is (4) well guarded, even if the persons involved are “well-‐known public features”—a U.S.
Notice that this conspiracy theory meets both the general definition Keeley [1] offers and the special conditions that make a conspiracy theory a UCT. It is a proposed explanation of an historical event—U.S. Senate and House legislation—in terms of the “significant causal agency of a relatively small group of agents ... the conspirators” (116)—at first glance, Senator Feinstein, a handful of other congresspersons, Gregory of the UEP, Pacelle of the Humane Society, and a handful of their lieutenants in the two organizations. In addition, (1) the hypothesized conspiracy runs counter to a “received, official” account (116-‐117), namely the one promulgated in The Hill’s article: protecting interstate egg commerce and improving laying hens’ quality of life. The intentions behind the conspiracy are (2) “nefarious,” (117), at least to the point of “not completely above board,” and below board enough to make “secrecy ... necessary” (118). The hypothesized conspiracy (3) “ties together seemingly unrelated events” (117), for example, the involvement of congressmen from non-‐top-‐10 egg producing states, a secret meeting between the presidents of UEP and the Humane Society of the United States, and the recent history of decrease in the number of domestic egg producing farms. The secret is (4) well guarded, even if the persons involved are “well-‐known public features”—a U.S.
senator, president of the major organization representing the interests of Big-‐Egg, president of
the Humane Society of the United States. Finally, this conspiracy theory trades in “errant data”
(117-‐118). This includes both “unaccounted for data” by the official line—e.g., the recent
history of small and medium farm acquisition by the big farms of Big-‐Egg—and “contradictory
data” to the official line—e.g., the special protection offered implicitly to California egg
producers and the time lag for full federal implementation, thwarting both interstate egg
commerce and quality of laying hen’s lives outside of California for more than a decade.
To catch you up on the outcome of all this, Baer’s “handful of farmers somewhere,” along with state-‐level animal rights activists who referred to S.3239 as the “Rotten Egg Bill,” [21] mounted “a strong, unified lobby in the Senate.”[22] Neither the Senate nor House bills made it out of committee. Attempts to incorporate major provisions of The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012 into the 2012 Farm Bill were thwarted by broader politics. (Congress didn’t pass the 2012 Farm Bill, opting instead to extend the 2011 bill by nine months.) Whether versions of S.3239 and H.R.3798 are introduced in 2013 remains to be seen. Mikkel Pates, an award winning journalist at AGWeek [23], has doubts: “The overall precedent-‐ setting nature of the legislation made it difficult to get into law.”[22] But we caution: never underestimate the wills of corporate-‐state conspirators!
Direct evidence for this hypothesized conspiracy to use the power of the corporate state to put small and medium-‐sized egg producers out of business, in the interests of the Biggest of Big-‐ Egg, has never been found. We find little mainstream coverage of this bill that even suggests this connection, beyond Baer’s mention of the bill’s potential effects on small and medium
To catch you up on the outcome of all this, Baer’s “handful of farmers somewhere,” along with state-‐level animal rights activists who referred to S.3239 as the “Rotten Egg Bill,” [21] mounted “a strong, unified lobby in the Senate.”[22] Neither the Senate nor House bills made it out of committee. Attempts to incorporate major provisions of The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012 into the 2012 Farm Bill were thwarted by broader politics. (Congress didn’t pass the 2012 Farm Bill, opting instead to extend the 2011 bill by nine months.) Whether versions of S.3239 and H.R.3798 are introduced in 2013 remains to be seen. Mikkel Pates, an award winning journalist at AGWeek [23], has doubts: “The overall precedent-‐ setting nature of the legislation made it difficult to get into law.”[22] But we caution: never underestimate the wills of corporate-‐state conspirators!
Direct evidence for this hypothesized conspiracy to use the power of the corporate state to put small and medium-‐sized egg producers out of business, in the interests of the Biggest of Big-‐ Egg, has never been found. We find little mainstream coverage of this bill that even suggests this connection, beyond Baer’s mention of the bill’s potential effects on small and medium
producers. In light of this evidential failure, do we and other proponents of this conspiracy
theory exhibit “almost nihilistic skepticism” about the institutions and persons that generate
warranted beliefs in the “public sphere” of a purportedly free society? The institutions our
conspiracy theory accuses— congresspersons, major press outlets that document Congress’s
goings-‐on (The Hill, NPR), and the highest officers in major national interest groups— are
exactly the kinds that Keeley mentions in his deep criticism of UCTs (122). So our question
comes down to this: does continued skepticism of the sort we’re advocating against these
institutions and individuals border on nihilism, and hence amount to an empty distrust that will
leave virtually none of our public beliefs warranted?
We don’t think it does. Instead, we think that the kind of skepticism required to maintain conspiracy theories like the one we’re focusing on is a healthy attitude to encourage in responsible citizens of a free society. Regardless of whether the specific conspiracy we’re discussing is true, the details and the extent of corporate-‐state cooperation in a routine piece of congressional legislation should gall individuals who think of themselves as citizens, not subjects. We contend that in this time of virtually ubiquitous corporate-‐state collusion, any tool is useful that encourages citizens to question the real motives behind all proposed legislation and policy. If conspiratorial thinking helps develop and encourage citizens’ skepticism about the corporate-‐state Leviathan, then more power to conspiracy theorists.
We don’t think it does. Instead, we think that the kind of skepticism required to maintain conspiracy theories like the one we’re focusing on is a healthy attitude to encourage in responsible citizens of a free society. Regardless of whether the specific conspiracy we’re discussing is true, the details and the extent of corporate-‐state cooperation in a routine piece of congressional legislation should gall individuals who think of themselves as citizens, not subjects. We contend that in this time of virtually ubiquitous corporate-‐state collusion, any tool is useful that encourages citizens to question the real motives behind all proposed legislation and policy. If conspiratorial thinking helps develop and encourage citizens’ skepticism about the corporate-‐state Leviathan, then more power to conspiracy theorists.
References
3. Full text, including co-‐sponsors, of S.3239, The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-‐s3239/text.
4. United Egg Farmers General Stats, updated June, 2012: http://www.unitedegg.org/GeneralStats/default.cfm
5. Text of Egg Inspection Act (current): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/chapter-‐15
6. Kasperowicz, Pete (2012). “Feinstein, other senators propose federal standards for egg-‐ laying hens.” The Hill, May 25, 2012: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-‐action/house/229533-‐ senators-‐propose-‐federal-‐standards-‐for-‐egg-‐laying-‐hens
-
Keeley, B.L. (1999). “Of conspiracy theories.” Journal of Philosophy 96: 109-‐126.
-
Sunstein, C.R. and Vermeule, A. (2008). “Conspiracy theories.” Harvard Public Law
3. Full text, including co-‐sponsors, of S.3239, The Egg Products Inspection Act Amendments of 2012: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-‐s3239/text.
4. United Egg Farmers General Stats, updated June, 2012: http://www.unitedegg.org/GeneralStats/default.cfm
5. Text of Egg Inspection Act (current): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/chapter-‐15
6. Kasperowicz, Pete (2012). “Feinstein, other senators propose federal standards for egg-‐ laying hens.” The Hill, May 25, 2012: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-‐action/house/229533-‐ senators-‐propose-‐federal-‐standards-‐for-‐egg-‐laying-‐hens
7. Full text, including co-‐sponsors, of H.R.3798, The Egg Products Inspection Act
Amendments of 2012: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-‐h3798/text
10. “Chicken eggs.” Highbeam Business: http://business.highbeam.com/industry-‐ reports/agriculture/chicken-‐eggs
11. United Egg Producers “Animal Welfare”: http://www.unitedegg.org/AnimalWelfare/default.cfm
12. Smith, Rod (2011). “More price-‐fixing suits filed against egg producers.” Feedstuffs, January 18, 2011: http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Daily+News&type=news&mod=News&mid= A3D60400B4204079A76C4B1B129CB433&tier=3&nid=F688745BC2BD4E808FCA1F2E64710DB8 13. “US egg producers accused of price fixing.” Farming UK.Com, April 4, 2011: http://www.farminguk.com/news/US-‐egg-‐producers-‐accused-‐of-‐price-‐fixing_20264.html
14. “Settlement in US egg price fixing claims.” British Free Range Egg Producers Association, December 9, 2012: http://www.theranger.co.uk/news/Settlement-‐in-‐US-‐egg-‐price-‐fixing-‐ claims_21806.html
15. Financial Highlights, “Highlights of 2011,” Land-‐O-‐Lakes, Inc.: http://components.landolakesinc.com/lolinc/media/2011AnnualReport/landolakesAR2011/fina ncial_highlights.html
-
United Egg Producers: http://www.unitedegg.org/
-
United Egg Producers “Egg Industry Fact Sheet” (revised June 2012):
10. “Chicken eggs.” Highbeam Business: http://business.highbeam.com/industry-‐ reports/agriculture/chicken-‐eggs
11. United Egg Producers “Animal Welfare”: http://www.unitedegg.org/AnimalWelfare/default.cfm
12. Smith, Rod (2011). “More price-‐fixing suits filed against egg producers.” Feedstuffs, January 18, 2011: http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?nm=Daily+News&type=news&mod=News&mid= A3D60400B4204079A76C4B1B129CB433&tier=3&nid=F688745BC2BD4E808FCA1F2E64710DB8 13. “US egg producers accused of price fixing.” Farming UK.Com, April 4, 2011: http://www.farminguk.com/news/US-‐egg-‐producers-‐accused-‐of-‐price-‐fixing_20264.html
14. “Settlement in US egg price fixing claims.” British Free Range Egg Producers Association, December 9, 2012: http://www.theranger.co.uk/news/Settlement-‐in-‐US-‐egg-‐price-‐fixing-‐ claims_21806.html
15. Financial Highlights, “Highlights of 2011,” Land-‐O-‐Lakes, Inc.: http://components.landolakesinc.com/lolinc/media/2011AnnualReport/landolakesAR2011/fina ncial_highlights.html
16. O’Keefe, Terrance (2012). “2011 egg industry survey: Top five egg producers increase
share.” WATTAgNet.com, January 10, 2012:
http://www.wattagnet.com/2011_Egg_Industry_Survey__Top_five_egg_producers_increase_s
hare.html
17. Vega, Jackie (2010). “Suit: Horrific abuse at TX food plant.” KXAN.com, December 14, 2010: http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas/lawsuit-‐brings-‐tx-‐agencies-‐under-‐fire
18. Charles, Dan (2012). “How two bitter adversaries hatched a plan to change the egg business.” National Public Radio, February 10, 2012: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/10/146635596/how-‐two-‐bitter-‐adversaries-‐ hatched-‐a-‐plan-‐to-‐change-‐the-‐egg-‐business
19. Pates, Mikkel (2012). “Who are the Baers?” AGWEEK, February 20, 2012:
http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/19561/
20. Eggen, Dan (2012). “Egg Farmers of America lobby scrambles to defeat henhouse legislation.” The Washington Post reprinted at Bangor Daily News, June 21, 2012: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/06/21/politics/egg-‐farmers-‐of-‐america-‐lobby-‐scrambles-‐to-‐ defeat-‐henhouse-‐legislation/
21. Stop the rotten egg bill, “Egg industry bill would keep hens in cages forever.”
http://stoptherotteneggbill.org/site/c.8qKNJWMwFbLUG/b.7867921/k.C798/About_Us.htm
24. Mill, John Stuart (1859). On Liberty. London: J.W. Parker and Sons.
17. Vega, Jackie (2010). “Suit: Horrific abuse at TX food plant.” KXAN.com, December 14, 2010: http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas/lawsuit-‐brings-‐tx-‐agencies-‐under-‐fire
18. Charles, Dan (2012). “How two bitter adversaries hatched a plan to change the egg business.” National Public Radio, February 10, 2012: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/02/10/146635596/how-‐two-‐bitter-‐adversaries-‐ hatched-‐a-‐plan-‐to-‐change-‐the-‐egg-‐business
19. Pates, Mikkel (2012). “Who are the Baers?” AGWEEK, February 20, 2012:
http://www.agweek.com/event/article/id/19561/
20. Eggen, Dan (2012). “Egg Farmers of America lobby scrambles to defeat henhouse legislation.” The Washington Post reprinted at Bangor Daily News, June 21, 2012: http://bangordailynews.com/2012/06/21/politics/egg-‐farmers-‐of-‐america-‐lobby-‐scrambles-‐to-‐ defeat-‐henhouse-‐legislation/
21. Stop the rotten egg bill, “Egg industry bill would keep hens in cages forever.”
http://stoptherotteneggbill.org/site/c.8qKNJWMwFbLUG/b.7867921/k.C798/About_Us.htm
-
Pates, Mikkel. Personal communication, January 8, 2013.
-
“AGWeek staff writers win NAAJ awards.” AGWeek, April 2, 2012:
24. Mill, John Stuart (1859). On Liberty. London: J.W. Parker and Sons.
No comments:
Post a Comment