[Animals] U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 12; RULES 5-4 AGAINST NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL (NPPC) AND AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION (AFBF)

[FRIDAY THE 13]

This has huge impacts for all states planning to export pork to California.

To meet consumption, California relies on other states. Now, farmers are expected to comply with regulations passed outside their own state. Not only is it costly to redesign facilities to accommodate Prop 12, it places additional strain on California’s limited pork industry, which could force greater vertical integration or force farms out of business.

The SCOTUS decision on Prop 12 now sets a dangerous precedent by supporting the efforts of animal rights extremist groups. Similar ballot initiatives, which can make it to the ballot through petition signatures, are now likely to be introduced in other states. In fact, Massachusetts passed “Question 3” in 2016. Like California’s Prop 12, the Massachusetts version also addresses housing for chickens, hogs, and calves. Also, like Prop 12, Question 3 was vigorously supported by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Question 3 had been in somewhat of a limbo status, pending the SCOTUS decision on California’s Prop 12, until now.

“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,” shared retired Illinois pork producer, Dan Erickson, on Twitter.

The success of these ballot initiatives stems from animal rights extremists’ ability to illicit public emotions over how food animals are raised and housed. They also funnel tens of millions of dollars into campaigns to first get an initiative on a state ballot, then to encourage voters to support it at the ballot box. While animal welfare is paramount, oversight is better left to experts including veterinarians and farmers who care for animals every day, rather than those who try to mani[CENSORED]te agriculture from urban office cubicles.

From an agricultural perspective, animal care is too vital to be dictated by oversimplified legislation based on emotions fomented by animal extremists. The decision should be based on facts, science, truth and proven animal husbandry standards. Often, when consumers come face-to-face with farmers and/or experience agriculture firsthand, they better understand the rationale for proven practices and support their use. For example, when the practice of caging a sow during birth to protect piglets is explained, caging is widely accepted by consumers.

American hog farmers are engaged in a battle to preserve their livelihoods and will continue to advocate for what’s right. We must prevent becoming completely controlled by rules and regulations established by those who are ill-informed and have never produced a single calorie of food, yet strive to dictate how animals are raised despite lacking any credentials.

Prop 12 is ideological and elitist, supporting the veganism mission of a few zealous activists. Sadly, as a result of those efforts, consumers will experience increased prices that challenge lower-income families that rely on pork to meet their protein and nutrient needs. Small farmers will also struggle to meet the new requirements and may even go out of business.

Prop 12 mandates tremendous changes to current practices and huge investments. Currently, 72 percent of pork producers “...use individual pens for sows that do not allow them to turn around and that even farmers who house sows in larger group pens do not provide the space California would require,” per The Associated Press.

What does this mean going forward?
For the pork industry, the SCOTUS decision means Prop 12 could be the first of many other ballot initiatives as the effort spreads to other states that could adopt similar regulations.

Ballot initiatives are historically a favorite of animal extremist groups because they allow them to circumvent the legislative process required to create most laws. Ballot petitions are written to make the initiatives sound appealing and reasonable, but they do not take into account the real-life implications and impact on the entire food supply chain.

President and CEO of the Humane Society (HSUS), Kitty Block stated, “The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold California’s Proposition 12 makes clear that preventing animal cruelty and protecting public health are core functions of state governments.”

Block also says HSUS will not 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.”

Hindering producers and food security
Ultimately ballot measures such as California’s Prop 12 and Massachusetts Question 3 harm both farmers and consumers. They drive up costs, reduce availability, adversely impact food security, and harm the freedom of food choices Americans have enjoyed. These measures outright oppose a free and fed America, and Protect The Harvest will continue to engage each day to protect those values.

 

https://protecttheharvest.com/news/u.s-supreme-court-upholds-californias-proposition-12-rules-5-4-against-national-pork-producers-council-nppc-and-american-farm/