With the November 4 election nearing, UC Berkeley students in a political science class listened yesterday to a debate about the controversial farming practice of confining animals in cages.

Four guest speakers spoke before a crowd of almost 800 students in the Political Science 179 class, discussing how Proposition 2 would affect consumer health, food prices and the livelihood of California's egg farmers.

If passed, the proposition would add a chapter to California's Health and Safety Code prohibiting the strict confinement of certain farm animals. Farmers would have until 2015 to provide cages that would allow calves, hens and pigs to have more space and be able to fully extend their limbs.

Jennifer Fearing, the campaign manager for Yes on Prop 2 and Jennifer Scarlett, a veterinarian, argued for the proposition, while Ryan Armstrong, an egg farmer from San Diego, and Nancy Reimers, a veterinarian, argued against it.

The proposition, if passed, would make current living conditions illegal for 90 percent of California's 19 million egg-laying hens. It would primarily affect the egg-laying hen industry because veal farming does not exist in California.

Proponents said the proposition is a step in the right direction for the humane treatment of animals.

"We have devastated communities, created a huge impact on our environment and we have really cut corners in animal welfare by putting science and profit ahead of the basic ethics and welfare of animals," Fearing said.

While supporters said the cost of switching to larger cages would amount to about a penny per egg, farmers said that it will cost them $1 billion in new supplies and extra land in order to continue to stay in business.

Opponents said the issues surrounding the proposition are complicated and would ultimately hurt farmers and consumers.

California farmers said the proposition would put them out of business because bigger cages mean fewer hens will be able to be kept in the same space.

"It will put every farmer in California out of business," said Armstrong, who owns a family farm that produces both caged and cage-free eggs. "These hens are my livelihood-if they're not happy, they're not laying eggs. If they're not laying eggs, I'm out of business. Why would I do anything to harm these hens?"

Masih Ebrahimi, a UC Berkeley junior who attended the lecture, said that while he had initially planned to vote "yes" on the proposition, he reconsidered his opinion after hearing the different sides of the issue at the debate.

"I was on the vote 'yes' side myself, but after hearing the farmer speak I started thinking about it and it needs a little more research," he said. "Right now I'm kind of reluctant to take a side."