US Supreme Court Proposition 12 filings are in motion

The National Pork Producer’s Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation filed a preliminary brief in June 2022 with the U.S. Supreme Court detailing allegations describing Proposition 12’s negative impact on the country’s interstate pork market.

Meredith Johnson Headshot
Chris Ryan I iStock.com
Chris Ryan I iStock.com
Getty Images

The National Pork Producer’s Council (NPPC) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) filed a preliminary brief in June 2022 with the U.S. Supreme Court detailing allegations describing Proposition 12’s negative impact on the country’s interstate pork market.

In the brief, the organizations argue that the state’s housing mandate violates a U.S. law by regulating pork producers and the pork market outside California while causing excessive burdens on interstate commerce. Because California’s regulations for pork producers have not been finalized, implementation of Proposition 12 for pork products is postponed.

The Supreme Court will hear the case on October 11, 2022. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the organizations, the housing mandate’s effect on the layer industry could be heavily questioned once again, potentially preventing other states from implementing similar laws.

Details of the brief

According to the groups, Proposition 12 regulates farms outside of California. Because the country’s pork production is focused in the Midwest and North Carolina, only a small percentage of the hogs slaughtered annually in the U.S. are located in California.

The organizations continue by explaining that a small portion of sows in the U.S. are housed in compliance with Proposition 12, which they find to be inconsistent with industry practices and standards, producer experience and scientific research.

Due to standard pork industry practices, a single hog could be slaughtered into several different cuts of meat and combined with other hogs from various producers, depending on the product being made, making traceability difficult. However, wholesalers or retailers selling these pork products in California will require all portions of the product to be in compliance with Proposition 12.

Finally, the organizations argue that pork producers will struggle financially to comply with the housing law due to new construction and implementation of different animal-husbandry methods.

The estimated cost for producers to comply with Proposition 12 is US$290-$350 million. The groups believe that production cost per hog will increase by 9.2% per hog, which will affect consumer costs. Similar to the layer industry, smaller farms would be financially forced to go out of business.

According to Zippy Duvall, AFBF President, “California is attempting to set the rules for the entire country. Farmers are dedicated to caring for their animals, but this misguided law inhibits efforts to provide them a safe environment. Almost all the pork consumed in California is produced outside of its borders. This law has the potential to devastate small family farms across the nation through unnecessary and expensive renovations, and every family will ultimately pay for the law through higher food prices.”

If the Supreme Court rules in support of the NPPC and the AFBF, the case will be sent back to the lower courts for more proceedings. 

Page 1 of 358
Next Page