An animal rights proposition passed by the California electorate is at the heart of a contentious Supreme Court battle over whether the Golden State can impose its views and laws on the other 49. The vote wasn’t close; Californians made clear they would not tolerate cruel and intensive confinement in animal agriculture. But does the rest of America feel the same about how they get to bring home the bacon?
The law, enacted Jan. 1, 2022, is in the hallowed halls of the highest court to determine if it is constitutional. The complaint was brought by the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). And now the Department of Justice has weighed in as an interested party, alleging the measure violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which limits states’ ability to tell everyone else how to conduct their business.
And that’s the first of many reasons to rule on whether California is within its rights to impose its beliefs on other agriculture and livestock businesses. According to the NPPC, this law is financially punitive and could cost producers and consumers millions of dollars. But animal welfare advocates, specifically those who monitor conditions of factory farm animals, celebrated that the law would force more humane conditions for chickens, cows, and hogs.
Is It a Pork Chop Conspiracy?
Apparently, the state doesn’t believe the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative has impacted the pork business outside its border. It recently released a statement: “The only Proposition 12-compliant pork that out-of-state businesses must produce is the pork they choose to supply to California’s market; they are free to make as many other pork products as they want and to sell them to markets outside of California.”
(Photo by: Edwin Remsberg/VW Pics/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
It seems the Golden State may host a paucity of carnivores. It ranks as the second highest state with people who identify as vegan and vegetarian. In fact, 37% of the US population always or sometimes eats a plant-based diet along with dairy and eggs. However, the NPPC says California residents, those who may have skipped the Prop. 12 vote, consume 15% of the nation’s pork products. And except for one or two small farmers, the meat is trucked in from other states.
Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall is not happy with his friends out west. In a recent statement, Zippy opined: “California is attempting to set the rules for the entire country. Farmers are dedicated to caring for their animals, but this misguided law inhibits efforts to provide them a safe environment.” And Duvall is mostly correct: Farmers do take care of their livestock. But several cases stemming from factory-style abuses have occurred. Tyson Chicken has been found to commit cruelty against its chicken stock. Eggland’s Best farm enterprises have been investigated for doing unspeakable things to animals. So, yes, the barbarity is out there, and many suggest laws should be enacted to protect animals raised for food production.
But the only question the US Supremes are pondering is whether California has the right to impose its laws and regulations on the rest of the nation, or if it is indeed violating the all-important Commerce Clause and punitively damaging the farming industry as a whole. And that decision can be made any time after hearing the arguments and through June 2023. Until then, this little piggy may not go to market.
