Agricultural commodity and production associations led by the National Pork Producers Council are lobbying Congress to enact legislation that effectively nullifies California Proposition 12, upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2023.
At issue is the need for holdout hog producers to transition from gestation crates for sows to group housing to satisfy Proposition 12 and Massachusetts Question 3. In effect, the issue of pork conforming to the requirements of Proposition 12 is moot since there is adequate group housing for sows to meet the requirements of California and New England states. A second factor is the reality than many national restaurant and grocery chains have declared their intention to only buy pork sourced from group-housed sows,. This will reduce the eventual market for products derived from sows held in gestation crates. The transition was initiated by California Proposition 2 in 2008 and reinforced by Proposition 12 but in reality customer and consumer demand are driving conversion to group housing. This motivation appears to have escaped the recalcitrant minority of hog producers pressing for the status quo.
The essential concern with acceptance of Proposition 12 relates to the precedent it created. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack correctly notes that any number of individual state ballot initiatives could engender chaos by imposing production standards of varying practicality and economic reality. Witness the bizarre proposition to be placed before voters in Oregon that would effectively ban livestock production and sale of meat and poultry in the state
Reviewing recent history it must be remembered that the current problem faced by a segment of the pork industry is a self-inflicted wound. Effectively by scuttling the proposed Federal standard to house laying hens (the ‘Egg Bill’) the pork producers believed that they had averted a slippery slope towards federal livestock housing standards. Fast-forward to 2024, producers using gestation crates, aware of their vulnerability, have been hoisted by their own petard and are now advocating for federal legislation to protect their narrow interest.
The hastily framed, reactionary and self-serving EATS Act is, however, no solution and should not be enacted. It is fraught with unintended consequences. A carefully framed approach satisfying state requirements and in conformity to the integrity of interstate commerce and state veterinary and public health requirements should be adopted. This will require deferral to the 1119th Congress as the agricultural sector needs enactment of the delayed 2023 Farm Bill by September.