Question 3 is attacked by agribusiness lobbyists who want no restrictions on their clients’ practices, regardless of how cruel they are for animals or unsafe for Massachusetts families. Below is information on the lead opponents to commonsense animal welfare and food safety reform:
Forrest Lucas, a Midwestern oil and agribusiness tycoon, is the sole funder of opposition to Question 3. An official agriculture advisor to Donald Trump and a likely cabinet member in a Trump administration, Lucas is well-known for his efforts to block any reforms to the puppy mill and factory farming industries, as well as laws that would create stricter penalties for malicious cruelty to dogs and cats. The co-owner of Lucas' oil company, his wife, posted racist comments on Facebook complaining that she's "sick and tired of minorities running our country," leading Lucas Oil to run a full-page ad apologizing in response. Now he's set his sights on Question 3 in Massachusetts. Not a single dollar raised by the opposition campaign to Question 3 has come from within Massachusetts. Rather, every single dollar they've raised has come from Forrest Lucas.
Jon Bruning, a Tea Party politician from Nebraska, was caught on video comparing low income earners to scavenging raccoons. Bruning was the lead lawyer in a desperate lawsuit to kick Question 3 off the ballot. (The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts unanimously rejected the suit, ruling that the measure was fit for the ballot.)
Diane Sullivan is a Massachusetts resident paid by a committee funded by Forrest Lucas to serve as a political operative against Question 3.
The National Pork Producers Council is a lobby group that fights to keep breeding pigs locked in crates so small they can barely move. One NPPC executive even proclaimed, "So our animals can't turn around for the 2.5 years that they are in the stalls.... I don't know who asked the sow if she wanted to turn around." Opponents of Question 3 are feigning concern about food costs, but they know the egg industry’s own studies determined that moving away from confining hens in tiny cages would cost producers only 1-2 pennies per egg. And they know Iowa State University found that using group housing for breeding pigs rather than confining them in cruel crates could actually cost 11% less.
The opposition is working to shield the profits of agribusiness CEOs, regardless of the harm caused to animals or the food safety risks endured by Massachusetts consumers.
If you want to prevent animal cruelty and protect food safety, please vote YES! on Question 3. Read more about the measure, here.