Hogs Animal Welfare

California Has 'Gone Rogue,' Consumers Pay the Price Under Proposition 12, Rollins Says

Fri, 11 Jul 2025 14:48:36 GMT

President Donald Trump’s administration sued California on July 9 over its regulation of eggs and chicken farms, saying these California laws impose burdensome red tape on the production of eggs and egg products nationally in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

“California has gone rogue and caused real harm to consumers under its cage-free egg commitments,” U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins said in a statement frollowing the announcement of the Trump Administration’s lawsuit. “By not allowing consumer choice, Californian’s are forced to buy more expensive eggs. California’s actions under Proposition 12 fly in the face of Federal jurisdiction and regulation over food production and safety under the Egg Products Inspection Act.”

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the State of California, Governor Gavin Newsom, Attorney General Rob Bonta, and other state officials. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles federal court, argues that the federal Egg Products Inspection Act of 1970 pre-empts state laws related to eggs. The federal law authorizes the USDA and Health and Human Services to regulate eggs in order to protect consumers’ health and welfare, and it also requires “national uniformity” in egg safety standards, the lawsuit says.

“It is one thing if California passes laws that affects its own State, it is another when those laws affect other States in violation of the U.S. Constitution,” Secretary Rollins said. “Thankfully, President Trump is standing up against this overreach.”

Secretary Rollins has worked diligently to support American poultry and egg producers, combat avian flu, and lower the cost of eggs for consumers, USDA pointed out in a statement. In February, she announced a five-point plan to combat the avian flu and lower egg prices which has been applauded by agriculture and government leaders across the country. Since the five-point plan was announced, the price of eggs has decreased 63%.

“It is great to see the Trump administration taking decisive action to protect the country from California’s overreaching policies, but Americans facing high food costs cannot afford to wait for years of court appeals. Congress could—and should—pass legislation tomorrow to get us there sooner,” Jack Hubbard, executive director of the Center for the Environment and Welfare (CEW) said in a release. “Recent polling shows California voters now regret the passage of Proposition 12, and there is strong bipartisan support for a legislative fix to nullify California’s inflationary farm mandates.”

(YouTube)

In May, CEW launched a public education campaign urging Congress to stop the far-reaching consequences of Prop 12. According to Consumer Price Index data, national egg prices have spiked 103% since Prop 12 went into effect in 2022. Meanwhile, in California, the cost of eggs has tripled and pork prices have increased by between 20 and 40%.

Has Prop 12 Created a Crisis in California?

Fri, 10 Jan 2025 14:37:17 GMT

Proposition 12 is exacerbating food insecurity in California – especially in the Asian and Latino communities who rely on pork as their primary protein, say representatives of the Latino Restaurant Association and the Latin Business Association.

“The impacts of Proposition 12 are devastating our Latino businesses and families across California,” says Ruben Guerra, chairman of the Latin Business Association. “With pork prices soaring up to 41% higher than the rest of the country and more than one in three Latino adults already living in food-insecure households, this misguided law is creating unintended food insecurity in our communities.”

Pork is a staple protein in Latino cuisine and culture, yet Guerra says they are seeing California’s pork consumption plummet as families struggle to afford these drastically higher prices.

“This isn’t just about numbers, this is about real families having to choose between putting food on the table and paying their bills,” he says. “Our small businesses, particularly Latino-owned restaurants and markets, are caught in the middle as they try to maintain affordable prices while absorbing these massive cost increases.”

Prop 12 hasn’t made life better for anyone, says Lilly Rocha, executive director of the Latino Restaurant Association.

“It would be one thing if the regulations imposed on pork producers were based on data and scientific research,” Rocha says. “But it’s not. We’ve had a great pork industry forever. Why do we need to change a good thing all of a sudden? It makes no sense. It seems to be regulation stemming from a social agenda, not a scientific one.”

Out-of-Control Prices
The Latino Restaurant Association is based in Houston, Texas, Los Angeles, California and New York and serves about 1,400 members across the nation. As a representative of Latino restaurant owners, Rocha says they are concerned about how Prop 12 has affected their industry in a negative way.

“Latinos are the No. 1 consumers of pork in the United States – that means our menus have a lot of pork products,” Rocha explains. “Pork has generally been the affordable protein. Now, beef and pork are the same, so the profit margin is going down on both of the proteins. It’s going to be more of a struggle to even make a profit within the menu since prices are up, resulting in an increase in overall pricing.”

She points out that the Latino community is not the most affluent of the minority groups, so the higher prices are impacting them in a big way.

“Here in California, it’s not the easiest place to run a business, especially a restaurant. We are seeing out-of-control pricing already,” Rocha says.

Pork is a staple protein in the Latino population.

(Latino Restaurant Association)

Although she doesn’t know if there is a direct correlation between higher pork prices and restaurant closures, she says there’s no question about it that closures are continuing to happen.

“I think Prop 12 is just one more regulation on top of other regulations, and all together, that’s what’s making our folks shut their doors,” she says. “Prop 12 absolutely adds to that in a very negative way.”

Rocha and Guerra are leading voices in the Food Equity Alliance, a coalition working to address rising food costs and their impact on California families, especially within the Latino community. Of course, they don’t want prices to go back down, but realize that probably won’t happen. She says they’d like to see prices not go up. Most importantly, they don’t want Prop 12 to propagate in other places.

“Latinos love pork, and we will try to find ways to be able to afford pork,” Rocha says. “We’re always going to be supportive of the pork industry and want them to know we are an ally. We are willing to do anything we can do to help or team up to educate others on what’s really going on in the industry.”

Your Next Read: Converting to Prop 12: What Have We Learned a Year Later?

Why Pork is in the Crosshairs of Animal Rights Extremists

Tue, 23 Apr 2024 20:16:36 GMT

The pork community is in the crosshairs right now for the animal rights extremist community, says Hannah Thompson-Weeman, president and CEO of the Animal Agriculture Alliance.

“They’re feeling buoyed by Proposition 12 being upheld last year,” Thompson-Weeman says. “And that’s led to a wave of similar legislation in other states and even things coming up all the way down to the city level. In addition to that, we’re seeing a lot of continued farm and plant activism.”

Some extremists are using false pretenses to get hired and capture footage that they can use in campaigns to damage the reputation of the industry. Some are even going in and taking animals, stealing piglets in some instances, that they claim is a rescue, she adds.

Several cases have gone to trial for those incidents recently. The results have been a mixed bag, Thompson-Weeman says. In some cases, they’ve been able to make a very emotional argument to a jury and be found not guilty even though they admit they went into a farm without permission and took animals without permission.

In one of those trials toward the end of last year, the co-founder of an extreme animal rights organization was found guilty. In the wake of that conviction, they released a 149-page investigation manual, encouraging other extremists to use drones, cameras, and any other way to try to get unauthorized access to farms, she says.

“It’s an incredible challenge, not only reputationally, but also when it comes to animal diseases and biosecurity, thinking about people without permission going from premise to premise,” Thompson-Weeman says. “Unfortunately, it really is a major challenge for the pork community right now.”

She says animal rights extremist organizations that didn’t previously play much in the legislative space are latching on to that as a tactic, all the way down to city-level resolutions.

“They see it as a way to get the ball rolling and set a precedent for taking those ideas all the way up to the state and ultimately, federal level,” Thompson-Weeman says.

For example, citizen-led initiatives in the city of Berkeley are trying to ban farms and processing plants in the city.

“Now is that going to have a big impact? Probably not,” she says. “There’s not a lot of production agriculture in a city like Berkeley, but they’re also taking a similar initiative to the county level in Sonoma County, Calif., which is a major agricultural county.”

At an activist conference a few years ago, someone said, “You can change the world starting with a local ordinance.”

“They see it as a way to set a precedent and get the ball rolling, especially going to places that don’t have a lot of agriculture and uninformed electorate and local officials,” Thompson-Weeman explains. “If they can get a growing list of cities and municipalities to pass these type of regulations, even if not a lot of production is actually impacted, they can then take that to the state level and push for something that would have a big impact on animal agriculture.”

What Can We Do?

Everyone in the animal agriculture community, whether you are a farmer or rancher or a part of allied industry, or part of an association, or just someone who cares about food choice and having meat, poultry, dairy, seafood and eggs available to you, has a role to play in addressing these issues. She says it starts on the farm with being proactive and making sure that practices are beyond reproach when it comes to things like animal welfare and sustainability.

In the pork industry, following programs like PQA, We Care, and making sure to live those things out each day demonstrate commitment to animal welfare and being responsible stewards of the land and good neighbors in our communities.

“It’s doing the right thing, day in day out, no matter who’s watching,” Thompson-Weeman says.

Of course, producers can do all those things and still find themselves the target of an organization that simply doesn’t believe there’s any way to ethically and responsibly raise animals for food, no matter how well it’s done.

“Take security measures to make yourselves a harder target. Things like lighting, cameras, gates, locks, fencing, no trespassing signage, biosecurity signage procedures for checking in and out of the property, are just a few ways to make yourself and your livelihood a little bit more protected from these organizations,” she adds.

Don’t forget you have a role to play in the consumer conversation, Thompson-Weeman points out.

“Making sure we’re being loud, proud voices to set the record straight and correct the narrative about animal welfare, sustainability and responsible antibiotic use,” she says. “If we’re not there putting a face on animal agriculture and sharing our story, those negative voices are going to be what people hear. We all have a role to play both in our livelihoods and facilities, and then having conversations about these important topics.”

How Prop 12 Could Impact Crop and Livestock Producers

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:31:04 GMT

More than half of Californians voted in favor of stricter restrictions on animal confinement, commonly called Prop 12, which took effect on Jan. 1.

The law not only altered its livestock raising standards, but it also banned the sale of animal-derived products that do not comply with statute’s regulations. This means producers in other states cannot sell eggs, veal and pork products in California unless they meet Prop 12’s standards.

Challenged by numerous ag alliances, Prop 12 is scheduled to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Impact for Crop Producers

If the Court rules in favor of California, the legislation will open a door to a much larger arena of regulatory authority. This case should have all producers on high alert, according to John Dillard, principal at OFW Law.

“If California were to win this case in the Supreme Court, there’s nothing stopping the state from saying, for example, you can only sell corn in California if it’s harvested with an electric combine,” he says.

Dillard says the Supreme Court’s ruling could give the green or red light for each state to set its own standards on any and all products that come across state lines.

Jim Wiesemeyer, Profarmer policy analyst told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory that he believes once all Prop 12 arguments are heard on Tuesday, the Court won’t produce a final ruling until next June.

The live court hearing will be available here on Tuesday.

More on Prop 12:

Follow California Proposition 12 SCOTUS Oral Arguments Live
Proposition 12 Will Push Pig Farmers Out of Business, NPPC and Farmers Say
California Proposition 12 Took Effect Jan. 1, But Supreme Court Action Ahead

John Dillard: Supreme Court Hops In The Pig Pen

Fri, 25 Nov 2022 14:00:00 GMT

Can California’s voters dictate how hogs are raised in Indiana based on animal welfare concerns? That is effectively the question the U.S. Supreme Court is pondering in a pending case, National Pork Producers Council v. Ross.

The case has implications for food production well beyond raising hogs. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, it could open the door for states to start metaphorical food fights — with food laws.

THE FINE PRINT

In 2018, California’s voters passed a ballot initiative, Proposition 12, that requires California confinement operations to provide a minimum of 24 sq. ft. of space per sow.

More importantly, the law prohibits the sale of uncooked whole pork from sows or immediate offspring of sows that do not meet California’s standards, regardless of if the hogs are raised in California or out-of-state.

California is not a big pork-producing state; most of the pork consumed there is produced elsewhere. But, California is the largest pork-consuming state, accounting for 13% of the pork market. We can not ignore it as a market.

POWER OF ONE STATE

If California’s government sets standards for pork that can be sold in the state, a good portion of the industry is going to comply with California’s requirements.

But should one state be permitted to dictate — through market power — how a product is grown in another state? That’s the question the Supreme Court is pondering in the NPPC case. The U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause to prohibit state governments from outright discrimination against out-of-state products.

But it is unclear if states can enforce laws that intend to influence out-of-state businesses activities so long as they treat in-state and out-of-state products equally.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Oct. 11 (it will likely be a few months before the Court issues its decision). The justices appeared to struggle with balancing a state’s right to regulate commerce in its borders with the consequences of allowing California’s law to stand.

ETHICS AT HAND

In particular, the justices were concerned with if a state could dictate farming practices based on perceived ideas of morality. While animal welfare concerns are germane to pork production, states could premise access to their markets based on other questions of morality where political partisans disagree, such as employee status (e.g., undocumented, union), abortion access, fuel sources or carbon emissions.

We can anticipate the Supreme Court’s decision will have implications for farmers and ranchers caught in the middle.

Sen. Booker Proposes Industrial Agricultural Accountability Act

Wed, 23 Nov 2022 15:16:33 GMT

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) has unveiled new legislation targeting America’s large livestock “corporations and industrial operators,” seeking to hold such entities accountable for disaster mitigation and to ensure those entities are complying with animal welfare regulations.

The Industrial Agricultural Accountability Act would end line-speed increases and “meatpacker self-inspection programs” for animal slaughter, prohibit slaughter of all downed animals and require “more humane treatment of livestock transported for long periods.”

Booker announced his proposal with a news release posted to his website Tuesday.

The proposed legislation would also require large entities to register with USDA, submit a disaster preparedness plan and pay a fee to establish a fund focused on disaster events.

“This new fund, the High-Risk AFO Disaster Mitigation Fund, will be utilized to enforce disaster mitigation plans and ensure that the most humane practices are used if depopulation is absolutely necessary,” the release said.

Booker also proposes to invest resources for higher-welfare slaughter technology in meat and poultry processing facilities and establish a pilot program to train and employ more part-time inspectors for small processing plants.

“We’ve seen multiple recent crises that have shined a light on the threat that corporate meat producers and their web of factory farms represent to workers, animals, the environment, and rural communities,” booker said. “Built by agribusinesses, the industrial livestock and poultry system is designed to maximize production– while externalizing risk and liability– to ensure corporate profits even when the system fails.”

The full text of the bill can be found here. The list of supporting organizations can be found here.

Court Upholds California Proposition 12

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 15:36:29 GMT

Proposition 12, California’s 2018 ballot initiative that bans the sale of meat and eggs derived from producers that don’t meet California standards, was upheld by a panel of judges in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday.

A federal district court had rejected a request by the North American Meat Institute (NAMI) for a preliminary injunction against Proposition 12, and the three-judge panel on the US Court of Appeals upheld that decision. NAMI opposes Proposition 12 because it established meat production standards that apply to producers outside of the state.

“We are disappointed in the ruling and are reviewing our options,” NAMI said. “California should not be able to dictate farming practices across the nation.”

California voters approved the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act (Proposition 12) in 2018, which stipulates farmers must provide 43 square feet of floor space for calves, 24 square feet for pigs and more than one foot for hens. NAMI argued that Proposition 12 violates the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution through what amounts to a trade barrier, and that California law should not affect meat producers outside of the state.

U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder disagreed, saying the law doesn’t prevent out-of-state businesses from selling their products outside of California. The Ninth Circuit court agreed, ruling that Proposition 12 “does not have a discriminatory purpose given the lack of evidence that the state had a protectionist intent,” and in determining that NAMI was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its commerce clause claim.

The California campaign for Proposition 12 was led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and the ballot initiative passed with 63% of the vote.

Related stories:

Meat Institute Seeks To End California’s Proposition 12