Californians wanted animal protections for pigs. Midwest farmers want Congress to fry it

While it was alive, the pig had room to stand, to turn around in a circle and lie down. That’s a requirement before it could become pork sold at a California grocery store because of a 2018 ballot measure.

But the pig likely didn’t live in California. Instead it probably came from a state that produces more pork — such as Iowa or North Carolina. And lawmakers from those states say California shouldn’t be in charge of how their pigs get raised.

As Congress begins the process of passing a new version of the farm bill this week — a twice a decade process — House Republicans are hoping to include a provision that prevents states such as California from determining how others raise their livestock.

In effect, the provision would allow California to apply its law to California pig farmers, but not to farmers in states such as Kansas and Missouri.

“My farmers and ranchers love their animals, they want to treat them as humanely as possible,” said Sen. Roger Marshall, a Kansas Republican. “We don’t need California to tell Kansas ranchers how to raise Kansas beef. It’s that simple.”

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is in favor of legislation the curb the impact of the California law, saying that the Supreme Court decision could result in all 50 states setting their own rules and regulations.

“If we don’t take this issue seriously, we’re going to have chaos in the market,” Vilsack said. “Because there’s nothing preventing any state from doing what California did.”

He acknowledged, though, that there may not be interest in dealing with this during the current Congress.

Consumers vs. Producers

At issue is the consumer versus the producer.

Californians, who make up 13% of the pork market but less than 1% of U.S. production, voted to set standards for in-state sales to ensure consumers knew they were buying animal products that weren’t raised in cramped spaces.

Producers say those standards raised costs and imposed a mandate on farmers across the country who wanted their products on California shelves.

Early studies have found that the provision has already increased prices for pork products covered by the regulation by 20%, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

That means products like pork chops, pork loin and bacon have risen for California customers compared to the national average, in a moment when many customers are already dealing with high inflation.

The dispute began in 2018, California voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure called Proposition 12, the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative. Proposed by the Humane Society, the measure set quality of life standards for pregnant pigs, veal calves and egg-laying hens for the products to be sold in California.

The California rule on pork didn’t go into full effect until this year. Pork that didn’t fit the requirement from pigs slaughtered before July 1, 2023, was allowed to stay on the shelves until Jan. 1.

Major businesses in the pork product space — from large processors including Perdue to family-founded farms such as Clemens Food Group — have supported Proposition 12’s aims and moved toward compliance because of consumer demand to buy products from animals who lived with more spacious confinements.

After Proposition 12 passed, the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation sued, claiming California, a state that produces a minimal amount of the nation’s pork but consumes a lot of it, caused undue burden on interstate commerce.

Kansas, for example, produced more than 600 million pounds of pork in 2022. There are no large slaughtering facilities in the state. That means most farmers need to participate in a larger supply chain that takes their pigs to facilities in states like Oklahoma or Nebraska.

Flickner said it would be unrealistic for the slaughter facilities to consider how each pig is raised before processing it, sifting out the pork that meets the California standard compared to the pork that could be sold in other states. So those processing facilities expect all of the farmers to meet the California standards.

The standards mean the pig farmers need to add to their barns in order to give the animals more space. Or they mean that farmers could raise fewer pigs, driving up the prices for consumers.

“Ultimately the decision facing some farmers is how to come into compliance, how to retrofit barns or build new barns to essentially meet the production or rearing requirements for those hogs that may ultimately end up as retail cuts of pork in the grocery store,” said Garrett Hawkins, the president of the Missouri Farm Bureau.

In a 5-4 split ruling that divided both conservative and liberal justices, the U.S. Supreme Court decided last year the California could regulate what products were sold in the state.

Protecting Animals

Brindle, the public policy specialist for farm animal protection at the Humane Society, said it was a matter of protecting animals with the same feelings as a house cat or dog.

Without Proposition 12 or similar state laws, mother pigs and baby calves can be kept in crates that are basically the size of their bodies, making them unable to move at all, she said. Egg-laying hens could be kept in cages and “given less space than the dimensions of an iPad on which to live her entire life.”

“And they are sentient animals with the same ability to feel pain and suffer as the dogs and cats who we share our homes with,” Brindle said.

California is one of 11 states that restrict or ban gestation crates for mother pigs. It’s also one of 10 that limit or bar veal crates and 11 that ban cages for egg-laying hens.

Limiting these protections not only concerns animal welfare, Brindle said, but also impacts public health. Confining animals to tight spaces can suppress their immune systems, making offspring susceptible to disease, and forces them to eat, sleep and defecate in the same small area, she said.

“Now they’re asking Congress to give pork producers who want bottom-of-the-barrel animal welfare standards special treatment,” Brindle said. “We believe they don’t deserve the protection of the U.S. government because they bet against the market and consumer demand and they lost.”

Missouri and Kansas farmers pushed back on the characterization of how they raise their animals, saying farmers relied on veterinarians to tell them what is and isn’t safe for their animals.

“The animal rearing standards that we have today have been developed through the years through the use of science, with the help and guidance of animal health experts, including veterinarians,” Hawkins, the Missouri Farm Bureau president said.

States’ rights

Farmers in other industries and lawmakers advocating against Proposition 12 argue that it isn’t just about welfare standards for a small group of animals. Instead, they say it’s a matter of protecting the sovereignty of states.

Ben Goldey, a spokesman for the House Agriculture Committee, said the proposed regulation provides certainty for farmers that they won’t have to comply with other state regulations in the future.

“The Committee’s solution keeps production methodology grounded in science and in the hands of individual states, which is a request we have heard loud and clear from the American farmers and ranchers directly impacted by this mandate,” Goldey said.

While the House Agriculture Committee included a provision to address the regulation in its version of the farm bill, the Senate Agriculture Committee did not.

Lawmakers are still a long way from reaching a final farm bill. The House and Senate are at odds on some of the largest spending in the bill for things like the supplemental nutrition assistance program, crop insurance and commodity prices.