Today, the House Committee on Agriculture met to discuss the national effects of California’s Proposition 12, a ballot initiative that places strict limits on the housing conditions of poultry and swine, leading to what many fear are rising prices and greater food insecurity.
Because the law applies to all products sold in California, even if not produced there, the mandate has forced farmers across the country to spend millions rebuilding their facilities to become “California-compliant.” Last month, the Trump administration, with the backing of the Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit to challenge Prop 12.
“The most important thing I’ve learned from a lifetime of raising pigs is that it’s important for producers to have full control over the environment in which their pigs are raised,” said Matt Schuiteman, an Iowa Farm Bureau member and pork producer who testified before the lawmakers. “Lacking control to tailor our farm to best serve the animals’ needs is one of the biggest problems of Prop 12.”
Prop 12 has been at the center of numerous legal challenges and activism on both sides of the issue. The most notable step happened last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 57-page decision that effectively upheld Prop 12. That case, Iowa Pork Producers Association v. Bonta, attempted to halt Proposition 12 by seeking a preliminary injunction of the law on claims that included Dormant Commerce Clause claims similar to those rejected by the Supreme Court in NPPC v. Ross.
The majority opinion was written by Trump justice nominee Neil Gorsuch. That opinion said that most Supreme Court justices either concluded that Prop 12 does not significantly burden interstate commerce or that federal courts are not suited to resolve the issue. Today, the House Ag Committee wanted to delve into the issue again in a session titled, An Examination of the Implications of Proposition 12.
The general vibe of the hearing was anti-Prop 12. Lilly Rocha, executive director of the Latino Restaurant Foundation, talked extensively about the harm the measure has created, “smashing like a wrecking ball through the small businesses and communities we serve by disrupting supply chains and driving up the cost of culturally vital foods.”
She added, “It’s brought economic devastation to families.”
During the hearing, Prop 12 was repeatedly referred to as “arbitrary and unscientific,” highlighting the lack of appetite that many Congress members have for this legislation. Pork producers have already created a system that was built with the input of veterinarians, farmers, and animal behavioral experts, who all came together to get to where the industry is today and has helped usher in advances such as computer thermostats, tools to measure barn air volume, and the adherence to controlled feed.
That said, Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pa.) noted that there could be support for Prop 12, as a state law, applying only to California producers, but the sticking point is how it applies to farmers across the U.S. He said that it’s especially concerning that large “foreign conglomerates” have many more resources to enact the guidelines put forth in Prop 12, putting a squeeze on smaller and independent American producers.
There was also expressed concern for the “patchwork” of laws around the country that could have broad implications for other states.
“Welfare is a complex issue. Every style of housing, including group pens, which are functionally required by Prop 12, come with challenges,” said Pat Hord, a fourth-generation Ohio producer with roughly 47,000 pigs. “All farms have, and will continue to experience, productivity losses under Prop 12.”
Ranking Member Angela Craig (D-Minn.) tried to temper some of Thompson’s opening remarks, largely showing support for the measure, stressing “mindfulness” in further attention on this topic, especially after so many producers have already spent the money to update their facilities and there are many other external threats (such as deportations) to the meat industry.
Holly Cook, an economist with the NPPC, testified that retail prices of pork in California are 20 percent higher than before Prop 12 took effect and that the total sales volume is down by double-digits.
“There is no shortage of risk facing pork producers in their ability to make decisions and remain viable for future generations,” she said. “The issues created by Prop 12 only add to the uncertainty.”
One advocacy organization, The Center for the Environment and Welfare, debuted a full-page ad in Wednesday’s print edition of the Washington-area publication The Hill to coincide with the hearing. The ad — which reads, “Californians Say They ‘Clucked Up’ ” — highlights CEW polling that the group says found that most Californians regret passing Prop 12.
The group says that 60 percent of respondents support a legislative fix to the misguided egg and pork restriction in order to lower prices.
“There is bipartisan concern about the effects of Prop 12. In fact, it is one of the few things the Trump White House and former Biden administration agree on,” said Will Coggin, research director of CEW. “Congress must include a Prop 12 fix in the Farm Bill to protect consumers and prevent future measures that scramble our protein supply chain.”
Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, a professor of agricultural law at Texas A&M, was the last witness to testify Wednesday. She forcefully noted that she was there to offer an objective and unbiased look at the law related to Prop 12.
She said that it is up to Congress to sort through the issue and address the complexity and scope it has created.
The hearing is ongoing at the time of publication, and this article will be updated with added details as needed.