Prop 12 Reactions: From Hogwash to Delight

“Iowa is the nation’s top pork producer. California comes nowhere close, yet its proposed regulations put restrictions on how pork producers in all other states raise hogs. 2day SCOTUS upholds California’s radical regs, its hogwash,” U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley tweeted.

Disappointment, frustration and disbelief shook the U.S. pork industry on May 11 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold California’s Proposition 12, rejecting an industry challenge in a ruling that strengthens the power of states to impose rules that affect the entire country.  

In California, farmers raise fewer than 1% of pigs in the U.S., yet the citizens of that state consume 13% of U.S. pork production. This means a significant majority of California’s pork is produced in other states, and those producers will now be expected to comply with regulations passed by voters outside of their own state.

"We are very disappointed with the Supreme Court's opinion. Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation. We are still evaluating the Court's full opinion to understand all the implications. NPPC will continue to fight for our nation's pork farmers and American families against misguided regulations,” said Missouri pork producer Scott Hays who serves as President of the National Pork Producers Council.

A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT

The Supreme Court’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for animal rights extremist groups to target other states with similar ballot initiatives, said the Animal Agriculture Alliance in a release. Animal care is too important of a topic to be dictated by oversimplified legislation based on emotion. Rather, it needs to be based on science and research, urged its leaders.

“Animal rights extremist organizations have been pushing for state-level legislation banning frequently used animal care practices, such as gestation stalls for pregnant sows or cages for laying hens, for years. The true motive of these changes is to make it less efficient and more expensive for farmers to raise animals for food, driving up the cost of meat, dairy, poultry and eggs for consumers, forcing them to make tough choices about what they can afford to feed their families and forcing farmers to make costly changes that may make it impossible to keep their business afloat,” said the Animal Agriculture Alliance. 

The Humane Society of the United States is a prime example of a group that focuses efforts on states that will be minimally impacted by the legislation, said the Animal Agriculture Alliance, knowing they will receive less resistance within the state while setting a precedent. 

"We’re delighted that the Supreme Court has upheld California Proposition 12 – the nation’s strongest farm animal welfare law – and made clear that preventing animal cruelty and protecting public health are core functions of our state governments. We are grateful to our many outstanding allies who helped make Proposition 12 a success,” said Kitty Block, President and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States.

Other states should prepare for similar initiatives, particularly those that allow for legislation to be passed via ballot measures, urged the Animal Agriculture Alliance. Ballot initiatives allow extremist groups to bypass the traditional legislative process to go straight to voters on issues that the general public typically has little knowledge of and that tend to be oversimplified in ballot measure wording. 

Statements like this are why the Animal Agriculture Alliance encourages the industry to be proactive in communicating and building trust with the public to reduce the effectiveness of animal rights extremist-led campaigns that attempt to capitalize on misinformation. 

“It’s a sad day for pork producers who are interested in caring for their animals in the best possible way. It’s a great day for animal rights extremists that want to eliminate meat from the human diet. Animals will suffer because of this law,” said retired Illinois pork producer Dan Erickson on Twitter.

Trish Cook, a pig farmer from Winthrop, Iowa, and President of the Iowa Pork Producers Association, pointed out this ruling sets a bad precedent, enabling other states to regulate commerce outside their boundaries.

“The health and safety of their pigs are a top priority for Iowa pig farmers, and we are frustrated to see the Supreme Court uphold Prop 12,” Cook said. “Consumers, especially low-income ones who rely on affordable nutritious pork to feed their families, will ultimately suffer due to higher food prices. Some small and medium-sized producers who are already dealing with high feed costs and inflation will also sadly go out of business as they struggle to comply.”

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig said having safe, abundant and affordable food is foundational to the American way of life.  “The Supreme Court’s decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross undermines that firm foundation. While today’s ruling is focused on agricultural production, it will certainly creep into other industries,” Naig said. “This disappointing decision sets a concerning precedent and opens the door for the largest states to dictate the laws and regulations for consumers and businesses to the rest of America. This sets the stage for a state-by-state patchwork of ever-changing and costly requirements that will increase the cost of production and drive higher costs for food and other consumer products.”

The North American Meat Institute (Meat Institute) agrees that Prop 12 hurts consumers, too. “Prop 12 remains a costly burden to producers and provides no benefit to animals or consumers,” said Julie Anna Potts, President and CEO of the Meat Institute. “We are disappointed in the Court’s decision and will carefully study the ruling to determine next steps.”

The National Pork Producers Council says all options are being considered to address Proposition 12 before the law goes into effect this summer.

EDITOR’S TAKE:

We promised to keep you informed about this case, so here it is. I am NOT a lawyer, but I have been around agriculture and politics my entire career. This decision is difficult to understand and seems to fly in the face of long-standing principles that have guided commerce in the U.S. for eons. As a former Director of Agriculture for the State of Michigan, one of the guiding principles always was to create as much uniformity among states as possible when it dealt with food distribution and labeling, for example. The same was true for phytosanitary and other food regulations. It just seemed like common sense, especially if we were to keep enforcement on a level playing field all the while providing consumers with safe, healthy and reasonably priced food.

Prop 12, now creates an unlevel and rather difficult playing field for pork producers and consumers. Is California now going to send its regulators to farms in Iowa to check on how pork is produced? And even if they did that, how will they track where the pork was produced that is sold in California? But all that said, whether I like the decision or not is irrelevant at this point. My hope now is that this precedent does not end up adding an overwhelming and unbearable burden on distributors, grocery stores and consumers. And, let’s hope that pork producers will be able to maintain profitability and continue to purchase trucks from all our CAD members. By the way, if you have pork producers in your area, this might be a prime opportunity to promote AgPack®, highlighting the participating livestock partners!