Farm Bill Doubtful to Override California’s Prop 12

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A California law approved by voters in 2018 that promises to get breeding pigs out of narrow cages will technically take effect Saturday (July 1, 2023). That’s after years of delays, and warnings that the rules could lead to price spikes and pork shortages. But even after the law goes into effect, California grocery shoppers won’t know for a while if pork chops they buy came from a pig whose mother was confined in a tiny crate. That’s because the state recently agreed to allow pork slaughtered before July 1 to be sold in California markets and restaurants for the rest of the year. The pork and grocery industries welcomed the move, but others expressed exasperation at another delay.

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — A California law approved by voters that promises to get breeding pigs out of narrow cages that prevent them from standing or turning will finally take effect Saturday (July 1, 2023), after years of delays and warnings that the rules could lead to price spikes and pork shortages.

But it will be six months before California grocery shoppers can be sure that pork chops they buy under the new law will be from a pig whose mother wasn’t confined in a so-called gestation crate.

That’s because while the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the law, the state recently agreed to allow pork slaughtered before July 1 to be sold in California markets and restaurants for the rest of the year. That decision gives farmers and grocery stores time to adjust. But it’s exasperating to supporters of the new rules that the effective implementation of the law would again be delayed — four years after voters approved it.

“This development compounds the instability and confusion in the marketplace, while punishing the small independent family farmers and those companies that have been prepared to abide by the law,” Chris Oliviero, general manager of meat company Niman Ranch, said in a statement.

Niman stands to benefit from the law because it contracts with farmers that have long met California’s new animal welfare rules.

But even backers of the tougher rules recognize a silver lining in the delay: Giving producers, grocers and restaurants more time to adjust will reduce the chance of shortages. Josh Balk, who led the Humane Society of the United States’ campaign to pass the law, said “there’s going to be a smooth transition for the pork industry.”

The measure also included space requirements for egg-laying hens and veal calves. But while those producers complied, the pork industry filed legal challenges. They argued that California, which consumes roughly 13% of the nation’s pork but produces almost none of it, shouldn’t dictate how farmers mainly in the Midwest and North Carolina should raise hogs.

Californians approved Proposition 12 in 2018, mandating that fresh pork sold in their state had to be born to sows with at least 24 square feet of space, allowing a breeding pig to turn around and extend its limbs. It effectively banned widely used gestation crates that protect sows from other pigs, which can be aggressive, but that many people see as cruel.

Producers argued converting barns to comply would be costly, with standard operations paying $5 million to $15 million, said Michael Formica, a lawyer with the Iowa-based National Pork Producers Council. Larger spaces would also mean higher heating and maintenance costs.

Pork producers also defended their treatment of pigs, arguing the law wasn’t based on science.

The Supreme Court upheld the law in a 5-4 ruling, with Justice Neil Gorsuch writing that “While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.”

To sell in California, farmers will need to operate more like Jared Schilling, who left a job as a civil engineer in Chicago to join his three siblings in shifting their family farm in southern Illinois away from gestation crates. They moved to group housing for all their breeding pigs as well as the other hogs.

“It’s easier to manage an animal if they never move,” Schilling said of the crates.

They thought giving the animals extra space would be more humane, but without crates breeding pigs at times fight each other. The family had to add new technology to track each animal and figure out ways to prevent the fighting, on top of the cost of the expensive new barns.

After about five years, the farm now has about 3,600 breeding sows. It sells 80,000 hogs a year to Coleman Natural Foods, a Colorado-based national meat distributor that has sold only crate-free pork since 2018.

Schilling said Coleman pays him about 5%-10% more for the hogs so he can cover his extra expenses. The family’s decision to keep animals in much larger pens also paid off in a more relaxed operation for everyone — people as well as pigs.

“When they’re in the pens, they’re laying down, chill. There’s basically no noise,” Schilling said. “They definitely feel more relaxed.”

The California law, as well as one taking effect soon in Massachusetts, should mean increased demand for pork from Schilling’s farm and ultimately more profit.

Some grocery stores in California don’t anticipate too much of a disruption, but others are scrambling, even with the latest delay in the regulations, said Ronald Fong, CEO of the California Grocers Association.

Bacon is likely to remain well stocked because it can be frozen. But fresh products could be in shorter supply.

“Pork chops, pork loin, pork roast, that are sold fresh, not frozen, those are the types of products that we can anticipate a disruption at some level,” Fong said.

Balk, the humane society campaigner, now heads a company that seeks to influence food companies by investing in them. He believes the California law will speed up the demise of gestation crates. He said some companies already are promising to stop buying pork from operations that use the crates, and it’s only a matter of time before they are phased out.

For now, it’s unclear how many hog farmers will invest to upgrade pens and meet demand in California and Massachusetts.

“As best we can tell, there’s nowhere near enough supply,” said Formica, of the pork producers.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has backed (May 11, 2023) a California animal cruelty law that requires more space for breeding pigs. The pork industry says that’ll mean higher costs nationwide for pork chops and bacon. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion for the court that “while the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.” The pork industry has said the law will force expensive, industry-wide changes even though a majority of the farms where pigs are raised are not in the nation’s most populous state. But the Supreme Court agreed that lower courts had correctly dismissed the challenge to the law.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 11, 2023) backed a California animal cruelty law that requires more space for breeding pigs, a ruling the pork industry says will lead to higher costs nationwide for pork chops and bacon.

“While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion for the court.

Industry groups have said the law would mean expensive, industry-wide changes even though a majority of the farms where pigs are raised are not in California, the nation’s most populous state, but instead in the Midwest and North Carolina.

A majority of the high court agreed that lower courts had correctly dismissed pork producers’ challenge to the law. Both liberal and conservative justices were a part of the majority, though they were not united in their reasoning.

Gorsuch said the pork producers challenging the law were asking the justices to “fashion two new and more aggressive constitutional restrictions on the ability of States to regulate goods sold within their borders.” The justices declined.

Four justices would have sent the case back to continue in lower courts. Chief Justice John Roberts was joined in that view by fellow conservative justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh and liberal Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson.

During arguments in the case in October, liberal and conservative justices underscored the potential reach of the case. Some worried whether greenlighting the animal cruelty law would give state legislators a license to pass laws targeting practices they disapprove of, such as a law that says a product cannot be sold in the state if workers who made it are not vaccinated or are not in the country legally. They also worried about the reverse: How many state laws would be called into question if California’s law were not permitted?

California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement that the ruling “affirms states’ important role in regulating goods sold within their borders” and that it “means that California can continue to have in place humane and commonsense standards, instead of the extreme confinement pushed by some pork producers.”

The case before the court involved California’s Proposition 12, which voters passed in 2018. It said that pork sold in the state needs to come from pigs whose mothers were raised with at least 24 square feet of space, with the ability to lie down and turn around. That rules out confined “gestation crates,” metal enclosures that are common in the pork industry.

The American Farm Bureau Federation and the Iowa-based National Pork Producers Council sued. They said that while Californians consume 13% of the pork eaten in the United States, nearly 100% of it comes from hogs raised outside the state, including in Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana and North Carolina. The vast majority of sows, meanwhile, are not raised under conditions that would meet Proposition 12′s standards.

Scott Hays, the president of the National Pork Producers Council said in a statement following the ruling that the group was “very disappointed” with the court’s opinion. “Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation,” he wrote.

The Biden administration had urged the justices to side with pork producers, telling the court in written filings that Proposition 12 would be a “wholesale change in how pork is raised and marketed in this country” and that it has “thrown a giant wrench” into the nation’s pork market.

Pork producers argued that 72% of farmers use individual pens for sows that do not allow them to turn around and that even farmers who house sows in larger group pens do not provide the space California would require.

They also say that the way the pork market works, with cuts of meat from various producers being combined before sale, it is likely all pork would have to meet California standards, regardless of where it is sold. Complying with Proposition 12 could cost the industry $290 million to $350 million, they said.

Animals rights groups cheered the decision.

“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,” the president of the Humane Society of the United States, Kitty Block, wrote in a statement. The organization had backed Proposition 12 and was a participant in the case.