Are we experiencing dйjа vu? California is one of the most prosperous agricultural regions in the world yet implements the strictest animal welfare regulations.
Proposition 12 (Prop 12) was an animal welfare proposition that passed on the California ballot in 2018. The proposition established new minimum requirements for farmers to provide more space for egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves.
The North American Meat Institute (NAMI) legally challenged the constitutionality of Prop 12 regarding out-of-state producers on Oct. 4.
“Prop 12 hurts the family on a budget with higher prices for pork, veal and eggs, and unfairly punishes livestock producers outside of California by forcing them to spend millions more just to access California markets,” said NAMI President and CEO Julie Anna Potts in an official statement.
Background
For more than a century, the state has had laws in place banning the mistreatment of animals and violation of these regulations could result in a misdemeanor or felony. However, there has been a growing public interest in the treatment of livestock. As a result of these concerns, many major grocery outlets, restaurants and other food companies have announced moving towards stricter guidelines for animal care and spacing requirements.
California Proposition 2 (Prop 2) in 2008 was one of the foundational measures that began regulating animal confinement areas. The proposition created a new state statute that animals had to be able to freely move in their area of confinement. The law fully went into effect in early 2015.
In 2010, Prop 2’s confinement restrictions were further extended to out-of-state egg-laying hens by requiring all eggs sold in California to follow the measure.
Prop 12 takes Prop 2 a step further by increasing the minimum space requirements for housing egg-laying hens, breeding pigs and veal calves, including for out-of-state suppliers.
The proposition’s written purpose is to “prevent animal cruelty by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement, which also threaten the health and safety of California consumers, and increase the risk of foodborne illness and associated negative fiscal impacts on the state of California.”
The current law for these animals is they must have enough space to be able to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Prop 12 would phase in additional square footage over several years.
Starting in 2020, egg-laying hens must have 1 square foot of floor space, which will eventually expand to cage-free housing by 2022. Breeding pigs must have 24 square feet of floor space by 2022 and veal calves must have 43 square feet of floor space by 2020.
The legal battle
The lawsuit reads that Prop 12 is not accompanied by any legislative findings or evidence that meat from the animals—housed in a way that does not comply with Prop 12—poses any increased risk of foodborne illness or other harms to consumers.
There are already federal regulations in place to ensure meat safety, NAMI said. The Federal Meat Inspection Act requires the Department of Agriculture to inspect all cattle and swine slaughtered for human consumption and “establishes an elaborate system of inspecting live animals and carcasses in order to prevent the shipment of impure, unwholesome, and unfit meat and meat-food products.”
NAMI’s litigation accuses Prop 12 of imposing “unprecedented regulations” and calls it a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
“If this unconstitutional law is allowed to stand, California will dictate farming practices across the nation,” Potts said. “California’s overreach creates an unworkable patchwork of differing state regulations that will make it impossible for the supply chain, from small farmers to your local grocer, to function.”
Additionally, NAMI alleges that the proposition violates the Constitution by creating a “protectionist trade barrier whose purpose and effect are to shield California from out-of-state competition.”
Prop 12 would also instate a sales ban that would extend the housing requirements to out-of-state producers who sell products in California. Unless out-of-state producers were willing to comply to California’s requirements, they would be unable to sell their products in the state.
This would tilt the playing field in favor of in-state producers because the competitive advantage would be taken away from out-of-state-producers who would otherwise not have to comply to the regulations. California lacks authority to regulate farming practices outside California, NAMI said, and it cannot condition access to its market as a way to control how other states regulate animal confinement.
The lawsuit also alleges that this proposition would impose “substantial burdens on interstate commerce that are clearly excessive in relation to any legitimate local benefits.” Sales bans would require out-of-state producers to spend millions of dollars building California-compliant facilities, or lose input by abandoning the California market.
The economics
The Legislative Analyst’s Office prepared an economic report on Prop 12 and concluded that the measure would likely result in an increase in product prices for two reasons. The first being that many farmers would have to remodel or build new housing for animals that could also be more expensive to run on an ongoing basis. Much of these increased costs will trickle down to the consumers who buy the products.
Second, it could take several years for enough farmers and ranchers to change their housing systems to meet the requirements. If farmers can’t produce enough eggs, pork and veal to meet demand, the shortfall would lead to an increase in prices.
NAMI requests that a declaratory judgment find Prop 12’s sales ban as a violation of the Constitution and unenforceable, and a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from implementing or enforcing the sales ban. — Anna Miller, WLJ editor
