Prop 12

House Passes 2026 Farm Bill: The Impact on U.S. Farmers

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 17:00:22 GMT

With a bipartisan vote of 224-200, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7567 , the bipartisan Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, on April 30. In addition to extensive updates to food and agriculture programs in a budget-neutral package, this vote marks the farthest a farm bill has made it in Congress since the most recent reauthorization was signed into law in 2018.

After a series of floor debates and last-minute amendments, the bill now moves to the Senate with some notable changes, including:

Year-round E15 sales removed from bill to be voted on in two weeks
Late amendment includes language to strengthen the domestic supply of fertilizer
Pesticide liability protections were stripped from the bill

My amendment passed! Pesticide liability protections have been stripped from the farm bill. 🔥⚔️🔥
— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) April 30, 2026

“Working in Congress on behalf of our nation’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities is an honor — even when the work requires debating the farm bill through the night,” says House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA-15). “I can think of no more important work than championing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and I am extremely pleased to see this bill pass out of the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan vote.”

With a vote of 14 Democrats in favor, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 obtained the highest number of votes from the minority party on a House farm bill since 2008. Similarly, with over 96% of the GOP Conference voting in favor, this is the highest level of Republican support for a House farm bill in history, affirming the commitment of House Republicans to rural America.

“I especially want to thank all parties who were involved in the negotiations that allowed the farm bill to proceed to the floor and secure a future vote on year-round E15,” Thompson says. “Members of the Biofuels Caucus are tireless champions for rural America, and I look forward to joining them May 13 in advancing that important legislation.”

Swift Senate Action Needed

As the bill heads to the Senate for debate, Thompson reinforces that “farm country needs updated policy” that reflects current challenges in U.S. agriculture.

“The 2026 farm bill fills that gap,” Thompson says. “I look forward to seeing Chairman Boozman and the Senate make progress on this important legislation so we can get the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 sent to President Trump’s desk as soon as possible.”

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, along with all of the Democrats on the committee, says the committee looks forward to working with Senate Republicans on a bipartisan Farm Bill that can be successful on the Senate floor.

“We have been clear that the Farm Bill must address the needs of American farmers and families,” Klobuchar says. “With a five-year high in small farm bankruptcies, the Farm Bill must address rising input costs, provide new opportunities for domestic markets, and fight for a trade agenda that works for everyone. Senate Democrats are committed to ensuring all states are treated equally by delaying the new SNAP cost shifts and addressing the needs of farm country.”

Pesticide Amendment Passes

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fla.) highly debated bill passed the House, stripping the farm bill of pesticide liability provisions. Before the amendment, the bill’s original language reaffirmed EPA as the sole agency capable of determining the information listed on a pesticide label. Critics, including Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) advocates, worried the language would shield pesticide manufacturers from liability claims.

D.C. consultant Callie Eideberg, with the Vogel Group, saysthe provision’s controversy means the bill will likely have an uncertain future moving forward.

“This means that pesticide companies, the chemical companies, are now still going to be dealing with the status quo, dealing with different requirements from different states,” Eideberg says.

In a post on X, Rep. Luna reaffirmed her disapproval of glyphosate and other pesticides.

“I do not support giving blanket immunity to corporations at the expense of American families. Pesticides are linked to a 30% increase in childhood cancer and over 170 studies corroborate the evidence,” Luna says.

In a press release following the bill’s approval in the lower chamber, the Modern Ag Alliance, a group backed by chemical company Bayer and over 100 agriculture companies wrote, “Today, the House turned its back on the farmers who feed, fuel and clothe this country. By gutting common-sense crop protection provisions from the farm bill, lawmakers caved to anti-science MAHA activists instead of standing with those who grow our food.”

Iowa farmer Mark Jackson says it is “unfortunate” Congress could not give farmers support for chemical weed control products. Jackson said farmers should be allowed the “freedom to farm” and said glyphosate’s scientific approval process, and the product’s 50-year registration history make it a credible product for farmers to use.

“I think we need to rally around science, follow the science,” he adds.

Eideberg says as the bill moves to the Senate, the MAHA movement could continue to influence debates. She believes the smaller body of the Senate will bring a different dynamic to the issue.

“I think we’re going to see those MAHA influencers feeling very emboldened by this win today and pushing even harder in the Senate to get more of what they’re looking for,” she says.

Farmers Praise Passage of Farm Bill
Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association President Jed Bower says USDA programs are important to the success of corn farmers and rural communities, particularly as growers face their fourth year of net losses and struggle with high input costs.

“We look forward to working with our allies in Congress over the next two weeks to secure passage of the E15 legislation,” Bower says. “Thanks to continued efforts on this issue from our biofuel champions, Speaker Johnson promised a vote on E15, and we refuse to allow a handful of multi-million and multi-billion-dollar energy companies to derail our efforts. Allowing the year-round sale of E15 would help our growers by expanding ethanol sales while also saving consumers money at the pump at a time when fuel prices are on the rise.”

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is looking forward to the Senate taking up the farm bill without delay as farmers face unprecedented challenges.

“The House-passed 2026 Farm Bill supports the farm safety net, preserves existing conservation programs that include opportunities for dairy and livestock producers, bolsters trade promotion programs while protecting common food names, recognizes the important role of dairy in nutrition, and supports animal health programs,” said NMPF President & CEO Gregg Doud. “All of these are important priorities to dairy farmers and the broader industry, and we appreciate the leadership shown by House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson and other dairy champions to get this legislation through the House.”

U.S. pork producers are praising a very significant section that provides “much-needed relief from the misguided California Proposition 12 ” in addition to expanding the Animal Health Protection Act to include improving animal disease traceability and requiring thorough documentation on USDA’s ability to protect producers from significant economic losses due to a foreign animal disease outbreak.

Prop. 12 is creating uncertainty for pork producers and raising costs across the supply chain. Congress has a role to restore regulatory clarity.

It’s time for a fix. #FixProp12

🎥 Video credit: @HouseAgGOP pic.twitter.com/lkAmG1bmAw
— NPPC (@NPPC) April 30, 2026

“Today’s House farm bill passage is a testament to the power of rural America when we stand up for our farms and future generations with a unified voice,” said Rob Brenneman, National Pork Producers Council president and pork producer from Washington County, Iowa. “We wholeheartedly thank our champions—House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, Rep. Ashley Hinson, and others—for not backing down from the fight for what is right for rural America. He and congressional supporters on both sides of the aisle heard our plea to help America’s pork producers.”

Eideburg points out that opposition to the farm bill pork provisions in the House are coming from several fronts.

“First, it’s coming from animal welfare groups that want to see those requirements in place,” she says. “We want to see minimum standard requirements for gestation rates. This other opposition is coming from companies and farmers who have already complied with Prop 12 and they don’t want that requirement removed because then they are going to be a) at a competitive disadvantage and b) out a ton of capital investment that they made on their to comply.”

The bill reflects many of wheat farmers’ top priorities from modernizing farm credit and safeguarding international food aid programs to enhancing export competitiveness, says National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) President Jamie Kres.

“These provisions will help ensure America’s wheat farmers can remain resilient and globally competitive,” Kres says.

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane appreciates how Thompson and House leadership took the time to listen to real farmers and ranchers.

“Instead of caving to attacks on the livestock industry from shell activist groups that impersonate real producers, a bipartisan group of lawmakers advanced a bill that will provide certainty and important policy fixes for cattle country,” Lane says. “We look forward to engaging with the Senate to advance this farm bill to the president’s desk.”

Industry Says This Farm Bill is Needed Now

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) CEO Ted McKinney says this legislation supports farmers, ranchers and consumers while providing economic growth opportunities for rural communities. H.R. 7567 prioritizes provisions that strengthen local food purchasing programs, enhance international market opportunities, reauthorize the three-legged stool for foreign animal disease prevention and preserve the viability of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.

The American Veterinary Medical Association says the inclusion of the Healthy Dog Importation Act is just one of the many key veterinary provisions they applaud in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. This would improve importation standards to ensure a dog is healthy when imported into the U.S., which is especially important considering New World screwworm in Mexico continues to move closer to the U.S. border.

“The AVMA applauds the House for advancing a Farm Bill that will strengthen dog importation standards, fund and assess federal programs vital to veterinary medicine, and protect the country’s animal and public health,” says Dr. Michael Q. Bailey, AVMA president. “Enacting the Farm Bill is essential to advancing research into effective recruitment and retention strategies for veterinarians serving in rural and underserved communities. With the legislation now moving to the Senate for consideration, we look forward to working further with Congress and will continue to underscore the importance of including veterinary priorities in the final version of the Farm Bill.”

Now, Not Tomorrow

After voting in support of the bill, Congressman Rick W. Allen (GA-12) says, “Rural America needs a new Farm Bill now, not tomorrow. With today’s passage of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act, House Republicans have once again reaffirmed our commitment to American agriculture and delivered for hardworking growers and producers.”

Eideburg says funding for SNAP program will likely be a major fight in the Senate. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” shifted some costs within the program to state governments. She says the funding restructure and the combined potential vote to ban soda from SNAP could cause tension in the upper chamber.

She also says year-round E15 provisions, which were taken from the farm bill and punted for a vote in the House next week, could see as much opposition in the Senate.

“This really is a big hurdle to get E15, year-round E15 over the line.”

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%.

Key Takeaways from Brooke Rollins' Confirmation Hearing for Agriculture Secretary

Thu, 23 Jan 2025 17:19:54 GMT

Brooke Rollins, President Trump’s nominee for Agriculture Secretary , addressed several issues during her confirmation hearing on Jan. 23 in an attempt to position herself as a supporter of diverse agricultural interests and commit to protecting producers.

In her opening statement, Rollins outlined several key priorities for USDA if confirmed, as is expected:

Rapid deployment of disaster and economic assistance authorized by Congress.
Addressing current animal disease outbreaks.
Modernizing and realigning USDA.
Ensuring long-term prosperity for rural communities.

Ethanol and Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)

Rollins clarified her stance on ethanol and RFS, distancing herself from past positions of the Texas Public Policy Foundation:

She stated the Foundation’s position on ethanol/RFS was written a decade ago and was one of 900 to 1,000 papers produced annually.
Rollins emphasized she did not author those papers.
While admitting to being a defender of fossil fuels, she insisted she would be “a secretary for all of agriculture” and a “champion for all fuels.”

When asked again on biofuel policy, Rollins said, “Everyone knows where the president is on this.”

The regulatory effort under the first Trump administration to make sales of E15 available year-round, Rollins noted, was not developed by the domestic policy office that she headed but she still said she looked forward to working on the issue ahead. She also committed to working with Treasury secretary-designate Scott Bessent on the 45Z Clean Fuels Production Credit. And she will make sure Bessent has the “data and the voices around him to make the right decisions.”

Tariff Impact Aid for Farmers

During questioning, Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) asked Rollins about her approach to working with President Trump’s trade agenda. Rollins responded that she would prioritize working with the White House to address any challenges farmers and ranchers might face under potential tariff implementations.

Rollins committed to supporting farmers in case of tariff-related harm:

She pledged to undertake efforts like the Market Facilitation Program (MFP) via payments from the first Trump administration. MFP was part of a broader effort by USDA to assist farmers impacted by retaliatory tariffs and trade disruptions.
Rollins has consulted with former USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue about the implementation of such programs.

On trade, Rollins committed to using USDA programs and policies to bring the trade deficit in agriculture down to zero. But Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) countered that things like a stronger dollar and other factors were bigger components of the agriculture trade deficit rather than a failure of USDA policy.

Proposition 12

Rollins committed to working with Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and others on addressing Prop 12 as it is affecting several states.

Commitment to Agriculture and Public Service

Rollins emphasized her dedication to the agricultural sector.

“My role is to defend, honor and elevate our entire ag community in the oval office ... to ensure that every decision made has that front of mind,” she states.

Rollins shared a personal detail about her family. She revealed her mother was the oldest freshman in the Texas legislature, highlighting her family’s history of public service.

Bottom line: These statements demonstrate Rollins’ attempt to position herself as a supporter of diverse agricultural interests, including both traditional and renewable fuels, while also showing her commitment to protecting farmers from potential trade-related challenges.

Your Next Read: Trump Taps Texas Native Brooke Rollins for Secretary of Agriculture

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?

U.S. District Judge Upholds Massachusetts' Q3 Pork Law Banning Sale of Pork from Confined Pigs

Tue, 23 Jul 2024 13:44:18 GMT

U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston has largely upheld Massachusetts’ Q3 pork law, rejecting an industry-backed attempt to block its enforcement. This law, known as the Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, bans the sale of pork from pigs kept in tightly confined spaces. Key points of the ruling include:

• Federal preemption rejected: Judge Young dismissed arguments from Missouri-based pork producer Triumph Foods and out-of-state hog farmers that the Federal Meat Inspection Act preempted the state law. The plaintiffs claimed that the state law created additional, different requirements for pig handling than the federal law provided.

• Scope of the law: The judge determined that Massachusetts’ law merely bans the sale of non-compliant pork meat and does not regulate slaughterhouse operations directly. This distinction was crucial in rejecting the preemption argument.

• Partial unconstitutionality: While the majority of the law was upheld, Judge Young did rule that a specific provision known as the “slaughterhouse exception” was unconstitutional. This exception allowed certain processors to directly sell non-compliant pork to consumers.

• Severability: Importantly, the judge determined that the unconstitutional provision could be severed from the rest of the law, allowing the main components of the legislation to remain in effect.

• Background of the law: The Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act was enacted through a 2016 ballot initiative, with 77% of voters supporting it. It prohibits the sale of pork, veal, and eggs from animals that do not meet certain minimum space requirements for confinement.

• Constitutional considerations: The case involved the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from enacting laws that discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce.

• Ongoing legal process: Triumph Foods now has the opportunity to reassert a previously dismissed claim regarding federal preemption. The company argues that without the exemption, the state law conflicts with federal inspection regulations.

Triumph Foods CEO Matt England in a statement called the ruling disappointing and said his company plans to appeal.

Bottom line: This ruling represents a significant victory for animal welfare advocates and supporters of the Massachusetts law. However, it also highlights the ongoing legal challenges faced by state-level animal welfare legislation in the context of interstate commerce and federal regulations. The case (Triumph Foods, LLC, et al, v. Campbell, et al, U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 23-cv-11671) may continue to evolve as the plaintiffs consider their next legal steps.

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

Supreme Court May Soon Announce Prop 12 Decision; Here's Why All Producers Should Care

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:20:52 GMT

Supreme Court may announce a decision relatively soon on the controversial Proposition 12 case that deals with California trying to dictate how hogs are raised.

The California law being challenged bans the sale of pork within the state unless pregnant pigs are allowed at least 24 square feet of space and the ability to stand up and turn around in their pens. The measure was approved with more 68% of the vote as part of a 2018 ballot initiative known as Proposition 12.

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

The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation , which sued in 2019, say the measure violates the so-called dormant commerce clause, a doctrine that says the U.S. Constitution limits the power of states to regulate commerce outside their borders without congressional authorization.

Why Should Crop Producers Care?

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 other ag producers on alert, according to John Dillard of OFW Law .

Related article: How Prop 12 Could Impact Crop and Livestock Producers

“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.

Interstate commerce has been brought into question many times in the past. The Supreme Court will either set new parameters or reinforce old ones when they address Prop 12 this year.