Iowa Pork Producers claim discrimination under Prop 12

In the case, Iowa Pork Producers claimed that California’s Proposition 12 was targeted at the state of Iowa for a few reasons.

Meredith Johnson Headshot
Andrea5

On August 23, a case between the Iowa Pork Producers Association (along with Linn Valley Pigs, Twin Prairie Pork and New Generation Pork) and the Attorney General of California, Rob Bonta (along with Karen Ross, California Department of Food and Agriculture and Tomas Aragon, Director of the California Department of Public Health), was filed and denied by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals concerning the animal welfare law.

In the case, Iowa Pork Producers claimed that California’s Proposition 12 was targeted at the state of Iowa for a few reasons, all of which the court found not to be true.

The argument

Pork Producers claimed that California used Proposition 12 to take advantage of Iowa’s pork market because California could not satisfy its own demand for pork consumption without Iowa’s pork production. “Because California cannot satisfy its own demand for pork consumption, it has deliberately ‘reached beyond its home’ and into Iowa,” stated the case.

Additionally, Iowa Pork Producers claimed that they were purposefully taken advantage of by California relying on the state’s pork supply to help meet its own consumer demand for pork consumption, and to meet several state agreements for pork in California prisons and schools.

The Court dismissed this point due to the lack of contractual agreements between the two states. Additionally, California lawmakers claimed that Iowa pork and other state’s pork is no different from each other, and the fact that Iowa happens to be a major pork producing state (supplying 1/3 of the nation’s pork) is coincidental.

Iowa pork producers went on to argue that Linn Valley Pigs, Twin Prairie Pork, and New Generation Pork all produced pork that was sold into California, but that the pork was not sold specifically to California. “Their pork meat may have ended up in California through ordinary channels of commerce, but there was nothing specifically directed at or from California.” stated the case. “Having found there were no meaningful contacts with Iowa when defendant purchased pork, the Court cannot find the contacts were related to the claims.” In short, the lack of contacts defeats the Iowa pork producer’s argument that Proposition 12 targets their pork production.

California lawmakers claimed that Proposition 12 “is intended to protect farm animals from cruel confinement” and any harm Iowa pork producers may suffer as a result was not deliberate or a result of targeting the state. Iowa pork producers argued the opposite, stating that the law had clear implications on out-of-state pork producers, including themselves.

“Although the harm caused in Iowa will likely be more concentrated due to the proportion of pork produced in Iowa as compared to other states, the Court finds that this does not constitute direct harm to the state of Iowa,” stated the case. “A law’s requirements that apply equally to each state cannot be said to be aimed expressly at one.”

Page 1 of 67
Next Page