Letter: Voting 'Yes' on Q 3 is least we can do
Voting 'Yes' on Q 3 is least we can do
To the editor:
Regarding the recent article "Oil baron behind opposition to farm animal cage ban," I am much more likely to trust those supporting Question 3, including the MSPCA, food safety groups and hundreds of Massachusetts farmers and veterinarians, than a Midwestern oil tycoon who bizarrely spends his money fighting against protections for abused animals.
Question 3 would simply provide animals raised for food with enough space to extend their limbs and turn around. Isn't that the least we can do? In addition it is morally right,
Question 3 is also in our self-interest. Extensive research shows that animals who are confined tightly in cages are more likely to get sick and spread dangerous bacteria into our food supply. It seems every week there is another recall on foods containing listeria or other bacterias — many foods that contain eggs and meats.
I look forward to voting "Yes" on Question 3 for the humane, basic treatment of animals and our quality of life. It is the least we can do.
Devin Kibbe, North Adams
TALK TO US
If you'd like to leave a comment (or a tip or a question) about this story with the editors, please email us. We also welcome letters to the editor for publication; you can do that by filling out our letters form and submitting it to the newsroom.