Hogs Animal Welfare

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

Fri, 11 Jul 2025 15:00:07 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 21:00:01 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

Thu, 26 Sep 2024 18:45:25 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.”

Federal Court Upholds Iowa ‘Ag Gag’ Laws: A Win for the Country, Gov. Reynolds Says

Wed, 10 Jan 2024 13:39:59 GMT

The Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of two of Iowa’s trespass laws on Jan. 8.

“Today’s Court rulings are a landmark victory for Iowa farmers and property owners. Not only are Iowa farmers the backbone of our state, but they provide critical food and fuel that propel the rest of the country forward,” Iowa Attorney General Briana Bird said in a statement. “For too long, our farmers have battled with trespassers, people lying to get jobs, and hidden recording devices. But not any longer. With today’s win, we will enforce Iowa’s agriculture trespass laws, strengthen security, and put those fears to rest.”

In the past 12 years, Iowa has passed four laws that seek to protect farmers by making it illegal for animal activists to gain access or employment to agricultural production facilities with the intent to cause physical injury or economic harm.

The first, second and fourth laws had been struck down by courts as unconstitutional. The third law has been upheld in court. On Monday, the Eighth Circuit Court overturned the orders staying the second and fourth laws, reports the Des Moines Register .

717A.3B and 727.8A effectively make it illegal for a person to trespass on an agricultural property and record images or data. The laws had been subject to debate, after a federal judge struck down the laws in 2022, KCRG News reports. In 2019 and 2021, the Iowa Legislature passed the laws as a way to stop animal welfare groups from secretly filming livestock on the properties.

“I’m extremely pleased that the Eighth Circuit lifted a lower court injunction and paved the way for Iowa’s two trespass laws – Iowa code sections 717A.3B and 727.8A – to be enforced,” Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds said in a statement. “This is a win for both Iowans and the country. Iowa farmers feed and fuel the world and are an essential part of the global food supply chain. No longer will people be able to gain access or employment to agricultural production facilities with the intent to cause physical injury or economic harm. We will always stand up for the security and safety of our farmers and their land.”

Read More:

NC Attorney General Urges SCOTUS to Take Up Ag-Gag Law

Kansas’ ‘Ag-Gag’ Law Denied a Revisit by Supreme Court

“Targeted” Law in Iowa Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

NC Attorney General Urges SCOTUS to Take Up Ag-Gag Law

Tue, 15 Aug 2023 19:02:50 GMT

The North Carolina State Attorney General’s Office has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of North Carolina’s ag-gag law, twice struck down by lower courts as unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

But animal activist groups including People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Animal Legal Defense Fund and other opponents of the law told the high court the Fourth Circuit’s ruling should stand.

In 2015, North Carolina passed the Property Protection Act to prevent activists from misrepresenting themselves in order to gain access and secretly film activities in the plants. It allowed courts to assess civil penalties of $5,000 per day on employees who documented alleged wrongdoing – in video, audio, or written work – from a business’s non-public areas, and then passed that information to anyone besides the employer or law enforcement.

Two years later, a federal judge declared the law violated Constitutional provisions protecting free speech.

North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein, along with the North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation, filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in May. The state argued a Supreme Court decision is necessary to clarify the various courts’ legal interpretations, as well as the nation’s “patchwork” of similar laws. In a half-dozen other states, the courts have also struck down the laws as unconstitutional or greatly limited their scope, NC News Online reports .

Last week, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Animal Defense Fund and several other groups responded in a court filing. They argue the law unconstitutionally suppresses their right to conduct undercover animal-cruelty investigations and to publicize what they learn, Law360 reports .

The activist groups claim the law restricts employees from talking publicly about what’s happening at their workplace or in areas of their workplace that are not open to the general public. They contend that the law even tries to penalize actions like reporting problems to government agencies or speaking out about important issues in front of lawmakers.

The state argued that certain types of speech, like audio-visual recordings, should not be protected by the First Amendment in certain situations. The state also questioned whether the First Amendment should apply at all on private property, regardless of the type of speech involved.

In separate petitions for writ of certiorari, North Carolina and the Farm Bureau said the First Amendment does not protect the animal and environmental groups’ potentially illegal activities as defined by the act, Law360 reports.

“The animal groups slammed the Farm Bureau and state’s arguments. They said the state conceded audiovisual recording is typically ‘protected speech’ while at the same time arguing any such recordings should be excluded from First Amendment protection when it occurs as part of the groups’ work,” the Law360 article said.

The North Carolina Farm Bureau Federation’s Secretary and General Counsel, Jake Parker, said the animal groups’ brief underscored why the Supreme Court should take the case.

“Fundamental private property rights are at stake here, and the activists misread the Supreme Court’s First Amendment cases to justify blatant invasions of private businesses,” Parker said in a statement Thursday. “This case is an excellent vehicle for the court to clarify that the First Amendment does not immunize trespassing and theft.”

Read More:

Kansas’ ‘Ag-Gag’ Law Denied a Revisit by Supreme Court

“Targeted” Law in Iowa Ruled Unconstitutional by Federal Judge

https://www.meatingplace.com/Industry/News/Details/110997

California Agrees to Modify Prop 12 Implementation

Fri, 23 Jun 2023 22:08:23 GMT

California has modified the implementation date for Proposition 12 compliance from July 1 to Dec. 31 , in an attempt to achieve a smoother transition for the entire pork value chain, including foreign trading partners.

A Sacramento County judge’s order blocking enforcement of Proposition 12 had been scheduled to expire July 1, but the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) agreed that any product spoken for and in production prior to the July 1 deadline would be grandfathered in. This is an extension of time for the sale of non-compliant whole pork meat, provided that the meat is in the supply chain by July 1. If it is in the supply chain by July 1, that product can be sold in California until December 31. Anything harvested after July 1, to be sold in California, will still have to be Proposition 12 compliant.

“It is welcome news to America’s pig farmers and consumers that California recognized the challenging situation the July 1 Proposition 12 implementation date will have on our industry and food supply,” says National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) CEO Bryan Humphreys. “Granting six months of additional relief for products in the supply chain allows grocery stores to remain stocked so the 40 million Californians have uninterrupted access to affordable, safe and nutritious pork products, especially with rising food prices.”

CDFA recognizes there will be a period of transition, according to guidance documents from the Animal Care Program . For the remainder of 2023, CDFA will focus limited implementation resources, not on covered products already in commerce, but rather on 1) outreach to ensure all distributors who are required to register do so; 2) accreditation of third-party certifying agents so that when third-party certification is required for producers and distributor registration beginning on Jan. 1, 2024, producers and distributors have more options; and 3) certification of producers and distributors.

Steve Meyer, economist with Partners for Production Agriculture, says six months will not give the pork industry enough time, but it will help.

“California accounts for about 14% of our consumption. We probably don’t have half of that ready to go into there at this point. We’ll gain on that, but it won’t solve the problem completely, even at a 6-month delay in my opinion,” Meyer said earlier in June during a live taping of U.S. Farm Report at the World Pork Expo.

Humphreys acknowledges NPPC’s appreciation for Governor Newsom, Attorney General Bonta and the CDFA’s efforts over the past month to find a solution to achieve a smoother transition for the entire pork value chain.

“While this temporary solution does not solve the challenges and uncertainty California Proposition 12 brings to our industry, NPPC looks forward to working with Congress to find a permanent solution to this problem,” Humphreys says.

Read more:

Special Alert: California Proposition 12 Releases New Guidance

Is the EATS Act the Answer to Prop 12 Concerns?

Unmet Needs: Will California Struggle to Meet Pork Demand with Prop 12?

Discouraging Outlook Ahead but Bright Spots Exist

Will Congress Intervene To Counter Prop 12? Grassley Says Yes!

Special Alert: California Proposition 12 Releases New Guidance

Fri, 02 Jun 2023 16:10:07 GMT

What do I do with noncompliant whole pork meat in inventory that was purchased prior to July 1, 2023? Who enforces Prop 12 prohibitions on the sale of noncompliant covered product?

These questions and more are answered in the California Department of Food and Agriculture Animal Care Program’s recent guidance titled “ Questions and Answers Related to Pork Sales in the Wake of the 2023 Supreme Court Decision .”

Who enforces Animal Confinement regulations?

This question has a been a big one for pork producers as they wrap their minds around the changes that will need to take place. According to CDFA, the Prop 12 regulations provide that CDFA will be the agency responsible for implementing the provisions of the regulations including registration, accreditation, certification and document inspection.

“When fully implemented, including third-party certification of compliance which is required for distributor registration in 2024, the regulations and CDFA activity will provide the framework for consumers and other end-users like retailers, grocers, and restaurants to have confidence that the covered product they buy or sell in California is compliant with Prop 12,” the guidance says.

The California Department of Food and Agriculture Animal Care Program will also be hosting a Prop 12 Implementation Webinar Series consisting of three webinars reviewing Prop 12 Animal Confinement regulations and requirements for end-users, distributors and pork producers.

Read more:

How Will Proposition 12 Affect U.S. Exports and Imports of Pork?
As of July 1, all transit product is supposed to be labeled accordingly for export, for trans-shipment or “not Prop 12 compliant.”

More Uncertainty for Pork Industry in a Very Uncertain Market
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Proposition 12 has added “a whole bunch more uncertainty to a very uncertain market,” said Lee Schulz, Iowa State University ag economist and Extension livestock specialist.

Prop 12 Ruling: A Major Blow to Farmers and Consumers Who Will Pay the Price
There’s no question the Prop 12 ruling is bad news for U.S. pork producers who will have to comply with this California law, says NPPC’s Michael Formica. But farmers aren’t the only ones who will suffer. Here’s why.

Ripple Effect of Prop 12 Will Be Nothing But Bad News, Rep. Johnson Says
If California can regulate how pregnant sows are treated 2,000 miles away, that means every state can do that for every agricultural product, warns South Dakota Representative Dusty Johnson on AgriTalk.

Prop 12 Reactions: From Hogwash to Delight
Disappointment, frustration and disbelief shook the U.S. pork industry when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold California’s Proposition 12. Meanwhile, animal activist groups called it a win.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Backs California Prop 12
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld California’s new humane-pork law, rejecting an industry challenge in a ruling strengthening the power of states to impose rules that have a broad economic impact on other states.

A Historical Day: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments on Proposition 12

Mon, 15 May 2023 13:41:32 GMT

Operating with the constant backdrop of uncertainty of new and pending legislation makes it difficult to run any business, let alone a farm, says National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) president Terry Wolters, a Minnesota pork producer.

He was one of a handful of pork producers who watched Supreme Court justices grill attorneys with questions during oral arguments on Oct. 11 in NPPC v. Ross brought forward by the American Farm Bureau Federation and NPPC challenging the constitutionality of California Proposition 12.

“Proposition 12 is not good for my animals. It’s not good for the consumers. And it’s definitely a challenge for the future of farming,” Wolters said during a media briefing following oral arguments. “When I’m on the farm in the Midwest, it seems like Washington, DC, can be a long way away. It’s fascinating today to watch the two worlds come together on an issue so significant to our industry.”

From animal welfare and worker safety to food affordability and producer livelihoods, Wolters said Proposition 12 threatens the pork industry. One state should not be able to regulate commerce in another state and set arbitrary standards that lack any scientific, technical or agricultural basis, NPPC said in a statement.

“We’ve worked long and hard to be able to proudly tell the story of the U.S. pig farmer to the Supreme Court. And today was the day...a very remarkable day,” Wolters said.

Michael Formica, NPPC chief legal strategist, agreed it was a good day in court. He said he felt hopeful to hear the justices understand the trouble that will be created by laws like Proposition 12 that reach far outside of the state’s borders and try and impose the moral wills of one state on farmers, or in this case, on any business or operation that’s located entirely in other states.

“It has a tremendous impact on pork production and pork prices. But if let stand, it would have a tremendous impact on the U.S. economy and on the flow of commerce across borders,” Formica said.

Competing Morals

The concept of “moral will” was mentioned often throughout the oral arguments. Formica said different states having different competing morals will always be a risk.

“Some of the California voters voted for this, but we have pork producers here on our board and other pork producers in the courtroom today, who every day wake up with a moral imperative to care for their animals, to raise those animals in a sustainable fashion and then ultimately to produce food that feeds everyone and in a fashion that everyone can afford to eat it,” Formica said.

The justices pointed out that farmers’ morals command them to take care of the animals and to produce food. So, what happens when one state comes up with a decision that they determine is the best way to care for animals?

“What happens when Ohio convenes all of its experts and they come up with a decision that they determine is the best way to raise animals in Ohio? Does California have the right to usurp the legislative and regulatory authority of Ohio within the state of Ohio?” Formica asked. “I don’t think the Constitution allows it. I think we heard from justices that they’re very troubled by that notion.”

At the end of the day, NPPC and AFBF support pork producers raising pigs in a way that’s best for them and their operation. For example, Scott Hays, NPPC president elect and a pig farmer from Missouri, says gestation crates work best on his farm.

“Sows are bullies. They fight. They assert their dominance. Housing animals in individual pens where they can be fed and watered and cared for individually is a very humane way of housing them,” Hays said.

Formica said one of his concerns is the changing nature of ballot initiatives.

“If a farmer were to go and change their operation to comply with (California) Proposition 12, what is there to stop New York from turning around in two years and say it’s not 24 square feet, it’s got to be 26 square feet? And then, two years after that, California goes back and says let’s make it 30 square feet,” Formica said. “If there’s really market demand, we’ve got this thing called the free market in this country and it’s amazing. If there’s demand, supply will follow.”

Producer Perspectives

For Lori Stevermer, NPPC vice president and a pig farmer from Minnesota, being able to sit in the courtroom to hear oral arguments was exciting and reaffirms the Constitution is on pork producers’ side.

“It also made me very happy to be part of both NPPC and AFBF. These organizations are working on my behalf for important issues like this. As a smaller farmer, I can’t do it myself. But to see what they’re doing and hearing the case they brought forward, it was just very exciting and very positive,” Stevermer said.

There’s no doubt this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will long be remembered by Hays, too.

“The exchange with the judges and the lawyers was interesting. I enjoyed their comments and the depth of knowledge of what’s at stake here,” Hays said. “I felt like they were really trying to understand and come up with a decision that is best for all Americans. That’s going to be a high-quality, low-cost protein source for everyone, not imposing one group’s opinion on the rest of us.”

Stevermer said pig farmers have always been good at responding to market demands, utilizing new technology and listening to advice from veterinarians and consultants.

“We continue to evolve and learn from each other,” she said. “I don’t see that changing. That’s what makes us a great industry and such a low-cost producer. Consumers send us the signals, then we use the technology and expertise available to us to make the right decision for our farms and our animals.”

A Life-Changing Case

Even though Stevermer doesn’t own sows, she says the outcome of today has a major impact on her life.

“If the cost to implement in California is great as we expect it will be, or if the market is cut off, it’s very possible the people we raise pigs for will say, ‘we don’t need your farm anymore because we don’t have any place to sell our pork.’ And that takes us out of the business,” Stevermer said. “It’s a life-changing case for many of us – not just me.”

To that point, Wolters added there’s a large financial investment decision that’s going to have to be made for owners of sow farms.

“In today’s inflationary period and with the availability of supplies, every producer is going to have to sort that out individually whether they can financially move forward with the new model,” Wolters said.

A ruling is due by the end of June, Reuters reports.

SCOTUS Zeroes in on Key Proposition 12 Issues

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

Follow California Proposition 12 SCOTUS Oral Arguments Live

Proposition 12 is Not the Way We Want to Care for Animals, Hays Says

How Prop 12 Could Impact Crop and Livestock Producers

Proposition 12 Will Push Pig Farmers Out of Business, NPPC and Farmers Say

Ironic Timing: NPPC, AFBF File Reply Brief on Prop 12, CDFA Finalizes Rules

Proposition 12 Compliancy: Don’t Do It for Free, Hollis Says

Why Agriculture Can’t Ignore Proposition 12 and Question 3

Prop 12 Reactions: From Hogwash to Delight

Fri, 12 May 2023 20:13:08 GMT

Disappointment, frustration and disbelief shook the U.S. pork industry on May 11 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to uphold California’s Proposition 12, rejecting an industry challenge in a ruling that strengthens the power of states to impose rules that affect the entire country.

In California, farmers raise fewer than 1% of pigs in the U.S. yet consume 13% of the pork. This means 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.

“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. 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,” said Missouri pork producer Scott Hays who serves as National Pork Producers Council’s president.

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley shared his frustration on Twitter.

Iowa is the nation’s top pork producer California comes nowhere close yet its proposed regulations put restrictions on how pork producers in all other states raise hogs. 2day SCOTUS upholds California’s radical regs its HOGWASH
— Chuck Grassley (@ChuckGrassley) May 11, 2023

A Dangerous Precedent

The Supreme Court’s decision sets a dangerous precedent for animal rights extremist groups to target other states with similar ballot initiatives, said the Animal Agriculture Alliance in a release. Animal care is too important of a topic to be dictated by oversimplified legislation based on emotion. Rather, it needs to be based on science and research, urged its leaders.

“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,” said the Animal Agriculture Alliance.

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, said the Animal Agriculture Alliance, knowing they will receive less resistance within the state while setting a precedent.

“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. We are grateful to our many outstanding allies who helped make Proposition 12 a success,” said Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. “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. It’s astonishing that pork industry leaders would waste so much time and money on fighting this commonsense step to prevent products of relentless, unbearable animal suffering from being sold in California.”

Other states should prepare for similar initiatives, particularly those that allow for legislation to be passed via ballot measures, urged the Animal Agriculture Alliance. Ballot initiatives allow 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.

Wayne Pacelle, who helped launch Prop 12 in 2017, and is now president of Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy, said the ruling affirms the right of states to institute policies to promote anti-cruelty and food safety standards.

“The pork industry has for decades blocked any rules at the federal level to promote the humane treatment of farm animals and this was their attempt to gut state rules, too. It is a loss for hog factory farmers and a win for the vast majority of Americans who want to know that animals raised for food were not immobilized and otherwise tormented in production,” said Pacelle in a release.

Statements like this are why the Animal Agriculture Alliance encourages the industry to be proactive in communicating and building trust with the public to reduce the effectiveness of animal rights extremist-led campaigns that attempt to capitalize on misinformation.

“It’s a sad day for pork producers who are interested in caring for their animals in the best possible way. It’s a great day for animal rights extremists that want to eliminate meat from the human diet. Animals will suffer because of this law,” said retired Illinois pork producer Dan Erickson on Twitter.

Decision Undermines America’s Foundation

Trish Cook, a pig farmer from Winthrop, Iowa, and president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association, pointed out this ruling sets a bad precedent, enabling other states to regulate commerce outside their boundaries.

“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,” Cook said. “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.”

Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig said having safe, abundant and affordable food is foundational to the American way of life.

“Today’s Supreme Court’s decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross undermines that firm foundation. While today’s ruling is focused on agricultural production, it will certainly creep into other industries,” Naig said. “This disappointing decision sets a concerning precedent and opens the door for the largest states to dictate the laws and regulations for consumers and businesses to the rest of America. This sets the stage for a state-by-state patchwork of ever-changing and costly requirements that will increase the cost of production and drive higher costs for food and other consumer products.”

The North American Meat Institute (Meat Institute) agrees that Prop 12 hurts consumers, too.

“Prop 12 remains a costly burden to producers and provides no benefit to animals or consumers,” said Julie Anna Potts, president and CEO of the Meat Institute. “We are disappointed in the Court’s decision and will carefully study the ruling to determine next steps.”

Read More:

BREAKING: Supreme Court Backs California Prop 12

Flory and Wiesemeyer React to Prop 12 Ruling on AgriTalk

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

Agro-Terrorism and the Food Supply Chain: This is a Different World, Rose Says

Mon, 10 Oct 2022 23:43:03 GMT

If you want to disrupt a government, disrupt the food supply.

“Agriculture is critical infrastructure,” Andrew Rose, strategic advisor to the food and agriculture supply chain, said during Farm Journal’s Farm Country Update on Sept. 28. “Three weeks without food and agriculture, and it’s over. You don’t mess with food and ag.”

Years ago, Rose was working at a large agricultural lender and decided to run a tabletop exercise as part of a teambuilding workshop simulating a ransomware attack on the company.

“Walking away from that exercise, I began thinking, is this a blind spot in the food and agriculture supply chain? Are we aware of the threats out there and the implications they can have? Not only to us as producers and processors, but to the entire critical infrastructure, and our ability to feed our population? I kept getting more questions than I got answers,” Rose said.

Since then, Rose has dedicated himself to helping the agricultural community get more prepared and understand the threats knocking at the gate.

What is Agro-Terrorism?

Agro-terrorism, or the deliberate introduction of a disease agent against livestock or into the food chain, is typically a tactic that can be used to either generate or cause mass socio-economic disruption or as a form of direct human aggression. Rose says there are a lot of definitions out there, but from his research, for a terrorist act to occur, there needs to be violence.

He said the FBI constantly hammers home the concept of sympathy versus action. Rose points out that having strong feelings about something isn’t wrong – acting on it is.

“There’s a First Amendment right to say and feel what you want to about any given subject. You can walk outside and put posters up, you can get a bullhorn, cowbells, whatever you want. As soon as you take an action, though, that’s when things change. That’s when risk and consequence come into the equation,” Rose said.

For the agriculture community in particular, it hurts when someone stands outside of your property and waves a sign, says bad things or shows a picture of things that aren’t true, he said. But until these people take action – until they steal some pigs or commit an act of violence – it’s their right to do that.

“It’s a hard pill to swallow, but it’s something that if you go to the FBI, they’ll say sympathy versus action,” Rose said. “Don’t take that action.”

How Can You Protect Yourself and Your Farm?

1. Pay attention to the threat actors.
Know who the threat actors are, including transnational terrorist groups, domestic terrorists, corporate espionage and activists. Engage with organizations like the Animal Agriculture Alliance and Protect the Harvest to keep up to date on threats and movements. Subscribe to their newsletters and learn from their experts.

2. Guard yourself on social media.
“Not only is social media a real threat, it’s an ongoing threat,” Rose said.

When he’s speaking to agricultural audiences, the first thing he tells them to do is go to Facebook, click on their privacy settings, and find out which apps and websites they are connected to with their account. Some apps can trick you into clicking “OK” allowing them to sell your information to third parties.

“There are computer programs scraping every bit of social engineering that’s publicly available on every human being and compiling it so they have those demographical profiles, whether it’s specific to you as an individual, or you as a class of individuals for certain types of messaging,” Rose said.

3. Beware of passive insider threats.
Passive insider threats are people who resist change and fall victim to social engineering. Sometimes, they’re told to do certain phishing exercises, or complete multi-factor authentication for their accounts, and they ignore it.

“They use their work devices to go to personal websites or places they probably shouldn’t go and they click on things they shouldn’t click on. Every employee of every company or organization is part of its cybersecurity defense,” Rose said. “If they’re not paying attention, if they’re not actively aware of the opportunity that threat actors are looking for, and they’re just letting them in, that’s a big insider threat.”

4. Know your FBI agent.
If something happens to your organization, whether it’s a terrorist attack or cybercriminal attack, it’s likely you will be in a high state of emotion. Rose said that’s probably the last time you want to make your first introduction to your FBI agent.

“There are 56 field offices across the United States. The FBI is there to help victims of crimes, they’re not going to go through your filing cabinets and look for other things. They want to help you. They want to figure out who did it, how they did it, and they want to go and oppose risk and consequence on your behalf,” Rose said.

That is why he suggests calling your local FBI agent or at least finding your point of contact before a problem happens.

“The world will never be the way it was – those days are gone, it is not coming back,” Rose said. “The world is as it is today, and we need to be realistic about how it’s going to be tomorrow. The ability for us in the U.S. to feed our population, that’s the North Star. Let’s make sure we do that. Be suspicious and be aware, this is a different world.”

Check out Farm Country Update and learn more from Andrew Rose about how you can protect yourself, your farm and your agricultural business.

AgriTalk: AFBF Weighs in on Shipping Reform, Court’s Decision to Review Prop 12

Tue, 29 Mar 2022 13:14:18 GMT

As March prepares to make its exit this week, the U.S. pork industry received some long-awaited news . Dale Moore, executive vice president at American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), said it’s absolutely good news during a conversation with AgriTalk’s Chip Flory on Monday.

The Supreme Court of the United States decided to hear AFBF’s joint challenge with the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) on California’s Proposition 12.

“It fascinates me who some of the proponents of the change that took place in California are,” Moore told Flory.

The impact that Proposition 12 will have on small farmers is unmistakable.

“The cost of switching over housing...I mean we’re looking at, according to a University of Minnesota study, conversion of sow barns to group pens would cost between just shy of $2 billion to over $3 billion that is coming out of pork producers’ pockets. And that’s not something that typically gets passed on in the cost of pork,” Moore added.

Animal welfare concerns come into play, too, he said.

“Having been around enough folks who have raised hogs, and a little bit myself when I was in college, sows do not necessarily like being next to each other. They’re not the most amenable creatures to getting along with each other in a group-type setting,” Moore said.

In addition, when you flip the chart over and look at it from the other side, he said it will have an impact on those families whose food dollar is stressed.

“This can take yet another high-quality protein source off their table,” Moore said.

Ocean Shipping Reform is Critical

Another heated issue Flory asked Moore to discuss is the Ocean Shipping Reform Act.

As an organization, Moore said a lot of energy is spent focusing on what farmers and ranchers deal with every day on their farms. Farmers and ranchers are also very interested in understanding what happens at the grocery store or the restaurant where most Americans interact with what is produced on U.S. farms and ranches.

“But now we’re spending more and more time, not just in AFBF, but in all of agriculture, taking a look at how I get what I raise on the farm to the processing plant, to the wholesalers, to the retailers and more,” he said. “A big part of that – fertilizer equipment, chemicals, as well as our export opportunities – are so tied into what is going on with ocean transportation.”

AFBF has long been supportive of ways to improve locks and dams and waterways, as well as the ports.

“Now we’ve got this supply chain issue with just trying to keep up on top of everything else that’s going on. The great work that was done in the House and now moving over to the Senate, our hope is we can get this bill done in fairly quick order,” Moore said.

Listen to the full conversation on AgriTalk here.

Read More:

Supreme Court Takes Up NPPC, AFBF Challenge to Proposition 12

Considering Prop 12 Conversion? Think About These Things First

What’s Next for Animal Activism in 2021 and What Can We Do About It?

Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:14:41 GMT

By Hannah Thompson-Weeman, Animal Agriculture Alliance

2020 has taken me so off guard that I am a little hesitant to even attempt to look into my crystal ball and make predictions for 2021. A year ago, I certainly would not have guessed that events and travel would come to a halt in March or that phrases like “mask up” or “social distancing” would be part of our daily conversations. As much as the past year has shown us that being flexible and adaptable is just as valuable as having thorough predictions and plans, I still believe there is merit to taking a moment to reflect on some of the trends we’ve seen this past year and consider how they may impact us moving forward.

The Animal Ag Alliance has remained focused on monitoring animal rights activism this year, and activist groups have not skipped a beat in their efforts to damage the reputation of animal agriculture. Some organizations believe the COVID-19 pandemic is the “tipping point” they need for their messages to go mainstream, and that concept combined with activists trying to take advantage of a new incoming administration means that 2021 could be an even more intense year for activism.

I think we should all be preparing for a few continued trends:

• Activist messaging involving public health and animal agriculture. Activist groups have long claimed that animal agriculture is a threat to public health and the COVID-19 pandemic has added fuel to that fire (despite there not really being any merit to attempting to tie the current outbreak to food production). Unfortunately, this narrative seems to be gaining steam with calls to “reform the food system” to prevent future pandemics. I think we are going to see more and more references to farms as “breeding grounds” for future disease outbreaks and should be focused on debunking that narrative.

• Renewed focus on sustainability. Conversations about the environmental impact of animal agriculture took a backseat for much of 2020, but in the past few months that discussion is heating back up. Restaurant chains like Panera and Chipotle have announced new labeling programs to communicate the environmental footprint of their menu options and we’re starting to hear more about the UN Food Systems Summit coming up in 2021 with an action track focused on “shifting to sustainable consumption patterns.” The animal agriculture community will need to make sure we’re continuing to communicate about our sustainability efforts as we settle into the “new normal.”

• Large-scale protests and demonstrations, including at private homes. Activist groups seem to be upping the ante in terms of protests this year, likely believing that they need to be more and more extreme to get attention. We’ve seen continued protests (despite restrictions on gatherings) everywhere from farms and plants to public health offices, with some involving trespassing and interfering with daily operations. Animal rights activist organizations have also held several protests at the private homes of animal agriculture company and organization leaders, which is a troubling new trend. These continued incidents illustrate that we cannot let farm security slip down our priority list in 2021.

Despite whatever challenges 2021 may bring, know that the Alliance team is here and has your back. Happy New Year!

Read more from Hannah Thompson-Weeman:

Things Animal Rights Activists Say: 2020 Edition

Activists Set Sights on 4-H and FFA Despite Fewer Fairs

Communication Strategy is Critical Part of Crisis Planning