An old Irish saying says ‘Don’t give pigs cherries or advice to fools.’.But now a US Supreme Court ruling on California’s Proposition 12 has pork producers on both sides of the border squealing over what could be onerous new restrictions on how hogs are raised, slaughtered and eventually sold. .That’s because Proposition 12 bans the sale of pork from farms that confine pregnant sows to so-called ‘gestation crates’ — pens barely bigger than the size of their bodies — “in a cruel manner.” It’s a common practice on factory farms, not just in the US, but in Canada and the EU as well..California’s Proposition 12 was a 2018 ballot measure that was approved by more than 62% of voters. The law defines confinement as “cruel” if it prevents a pig from “lying down, standing up, fully extending its limbs, or turning around freely.” .California is one of eight states that ban the practice, along with Oregon, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Maine.. Wow stallsStates with restrictions on ‘sow stalls’ (in green). .Proponents suggested the law would benefit animal welfare and consumer health, while opponents claimed existing farming practices did better than Proposition 12 in protecting animal welfare — for example, by preventing pig-on-pig aggression and ensuring consumer health by avoiding contamination. .Shortly after Proposition 12’s adoption, two organizations — the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation — filed suit on behalf of their members who raise and process pigs by alleging Proposition 12 violated the US constitution by placing undue restrictions on interstate commerce given that California imports almost all the pork it consumes. .Even though it raises less than 1% of all the pigs in the US, Californians consume 13% of all the pork produced in the Lower 48. That means most of Proposition 12’s compliance costs will be borne by out-of-state firms and farms..“Courts must sometimes referee disputes about where one State’s authority ends and another’s begins — both inside and outside the commercial context,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch on behalf of the majority. Gorsuch was appointed by former President Donald Trump on Jan. 31, 2017..“Some out-of-state producers who choose to comply with Proposition 12 may incur new costs, while the law serves moral and health interests of some magnitude for in-state residents. In a functioning democracy, those sorts of policy choices—balancing competing, incommensurable goods — belong to the people and their elected representatives.”.It came as a huge relief to animal welfare activists who reckoned the conservative majority on the bench was certain to go against them. The Humane Society said it was “delighted” with the ruling even as representatives from farm states were outraged. .“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 in a statement..Republican senator Chuck Grassley from Iowa called the ruling “hogwash” in a tweet..The bigger question is what it means for Canadian pork producers. According to Alberta Agriculture, the US is the province’s second-biggest market, worth almost $150 million a year.. Wow stallsStates with restrictions on ‘sow stalls’ (in green). .In May of last year, the Canadian Pork Board filed a so-called AMICUS brief with the SCOTUS as a potentially impacted third party with no legal standing. In it, the board argued Prop 12 violates the US commerce clause by preventing the U.S. “from speaking with one voice on the regulation of foreign commerce.”.Further, the Canadian brief suggested the ruling would violate the World Trade Organization rules, and possibly even the CUSMA free trade agreement that succeeded NAFTA..Western Standard reached out to Alberta Ag, the Alberta Pork Producers and the CPB, but none were immediately available at press time.
