Font Resize
Dear Editor,
I'm shocked that you would tell readers that since you are not in the know about Proposition 2 that we should all play it safe and vote no. The treatment of millions of animals is at stake. I've read both sides for many months now. Plenty of information is online. I'm definitely voting yes on Proposition 2 because all animals, including those raised for food, should be treated humanely. Currently these animals are housed in cages and crates so small they cannot even turn around or extend their limbs. We would never treat our dogs and cats this way and we shouldn't treat farm animals this way. It is cruel and inhumane. Plus, if the European Union can phase out severe confinement and still feed several hundred million people, we sure can.
Connie Pugh
Sunnyvale
Dear Editor,
I am very disappointed by your endorsement of the opposition. If you are going to suggest to people which way to vote, you should have taken the time to research the issue. If you did not have the time, or want to take the time, you should have stayed neutral. The thousands of volunteers (me included) that have spent all of their spare time over the last year working on yes on Proposition 2 took time to thoroughly understand both sides of the issue. "Playing it safe" is the reason that legitimate, modest reforms are never implemented. The requirements of Proposition 2 will become law in California, and there is no better time than this November. These changes will never
Ryan Frazier
San Jose
Dear Editor,
As a physician, I strongly disagree with your conclusion that voting in favor of factory farming methods is "playing it safe." Forcing farm animals to live in tiny cages, where they are literally immobilized for life, results in increased health problems, including diseases that they can pass on to humans. The only way to play it safe, in terms of human health, is to vote "yes" on Proposition 2.
Dr. Sujatha Ramakrishna
San Jose
