WASHINGTON — On May 11, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling on California’s Proposition 12, choosing to uphold the legality of the measure — a decision that was met with disappointment by many in U.S. agriculture, claiming it sets a dangerous precedent for animal agriculture moving forward.
The case involves a challenge to a California law known as Proposition 12, which forbids the in-state sale of pork that comes from breeding pigs, or their immediate offspring, that are “confined in a cruel manner.” In the law, confinement is “cruel” if it prevents a pig from “lying down, standing up, fully extending [its] limbs, or turning around freely.”
Proposition 12 proponents suggest the law benefits animal welfare and consumer health, while opponents claim existing farming practices do better than Proposition 12 in protecting animal welfare by, for example, preventing pig-on-pig aggression and ensuring consumer health by avoiding cross contaminations. The law was passed in California in 2018 but has been held up in legal battles leading up to this Supreme Court decision.
The Animal Agriculture Alliance came out with the most thorough immediate statement expressing concerns over potential outcomes following the Court’s action:
“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.
“Today’s Supreme Court decision on California’s Proposition 12 sets a dangerous precedent for animal rights extremist groups to target other states with similar ballot initiatives. 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, knowing they will receive less resistance within the state while setting a precedent. In California, specifically, farmers in the state raise less than 1% of pigs in the U.S. yet consume 13% of the pork. This means that a significant majority of California’s pork is produced in other states, who will now be expected to comply with regulations passed by voters outside of their own state.
“Other states should prepare for similar initiatives, particularly those that allow for legislation to be passed via ballot measures. Ballot initiatives allow these 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. This is particularly effective when it comes to emotional issues such as animal welfare.
Animal care should not be dictated by oversimplified legislation based on emotion, said the Animal Agriculture Alliance statement, and instead needs to be based in science and research.
Other agriculture groups shared similar sentiments.
“AFBF is disappointed in the closely divided Supreme Court ruling on California’s Proposition 12. At the heart of this argument is whether one state can set the rules for the entire country,” said American Farm Bureau (AFBF) President Zippy Duvall. “The arbitrary standards take away flexibility to ensure hogs are raised in a safe environment. Prop 12 will cause further consolidation in agriculture nationwide and lead to higher pork prices at the grocery store for America’s families. This law will ultimately harm consumers, farmers and animals.”
AFBF along with the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) filed the initial lawsuit in California against Proposition 12.
“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,” said Scott Hays, NPPC president and a Missouri pork producer. “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.”
Trish Cook, a pig farmer from Winthrop, Iowa, and president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association, issued this statement:
““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. This ruling sets a bad precedent, enabling other states to regulate commerce outside their boundaries. 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.”
Indiana Farm Bureau President Randy Kron provided this statement:
“While we still don’t know how these new regulations will be implemented, it’s disappointing that one state, California, can dictate how the rest of the country raises its livestock. Livestock producers, and their processors, will have to determine if they want to serve the California market. If they do, they will adapt and adjust their operations to meet these new requirements. Farmers are resilient.”
Supporters of Proposition 12 had a much different opinion regarding the Supreme Court ruling.
“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,” said Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. “We are grateful to our many outstanding allies who helped make Proposition 12 a success. We won’t stop fighting until the pork industry ends its cruel, reckless practice of confining mother pigs in cages so small they can’t even turn around”
A statement from Animal Outlook, animal advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., and Los Angeles, Calif., suggested the ultimate goal is not to promote animal welfare but to end the consumption of meat all together.
“No matter how cruel or painful a practice is, the animal agriculture industry has fought against laws to prohibit it — in this case, all the way to the Supreme Court,” said Cheryl Leahy, Executive Director at Animal Outlook. “When a powerful industry will stop at nothing to make complicity in cruelty mandatory, it’s a clear sign that the cruelty is part and parcel of that industry, and the only way to refuse to be a part of it is to not eat animals altogether.”
The Supreme Court opinion delivered by Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested a next step surrounding Proposition 12 may be a Congressional bill since the Constitution vests Congress with the power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.”
“Although Congress may seek to exercise this power to regulate the interstate trade of pork, and many pork producers have urged Congress to do so, Congress has yet to adopt any statute that might displace Proposition 12 or laws regulating pork production in other States,” wrote Justice Gorsuch.
— Animal Agriculture Alliance
American Farm Bureau Federation
National Pork Producers Council
Iowa Pork Producers Council
Indiana Farm Bureau
Humane Society of the United States
Animal Outlook
U.S. Supreme Court