Prop 12

House Passes 2026 Farm Bill: The Impact on U.S. Farmers

Thu, 30 Apr 2026 16:51:21 GMT

With a bipartisan vote of 224-200, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 7567 , the bipartisan Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, on April 30. In addition to extensive updates to food and agriculture programs in a budget-neutral package, this vote marks the farthest a farm bill has made it in Congress since the most recent reauthorization was signed into law in 2018.

After a series of floor debates and last-minute amendments, the bill now moves to the Senate with some notable changes, including:

Year-round E15 sales removed from bill to be voted on in two weeks
Late amendment includes language to strengthen the domestic supply of fertilizer
Pesticide liability protections were stripped from the bill

My amendment passed! Pesticide liability protections have been stripped from the farm bill. 🔥⚔️🔥
— Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (@RepLuna) April 30, 2026

“Working in Congress on behalf of our nation’s farmers, ranchers, and rural communities is an honor — even when the work requires debating the farm bill through the night,” says House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA-15). “I can think of no more important work than championing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, and I am extremely pleased to see this bill pass out of the House of Representatives with a strong bipartisan vote.”

With a vote of 14 Democrats in favor, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 obtained the highest number of votes from the minority party on a House farm bill since 2008. Similarly, with over 96% of the GOP Conference voting in favor, this is the highest level of Republican support for a House farm bill in history, affirming the commitment of House Republicans to rural America.

“I especially want to thank all parties who were involved in the negotiations that allowed the farm bill to proceed to the floor and secure a future vote on year-round E15,” Thompson says. “Members of the Biofuels Caucus are tireless champions for rural America, and I look forward to joining them May 13 in advancing that important legislation.”

Swift Senate Action Needed

As the bill heads to the Senate for debate, Thompson reinforces that “farm country needs updated policy” that reflects current challenges in U.S. agriculture.

“The 2026 farm bill fills that gap,” Thompson says. “I look forward to seeing Chairman Boozman and the Senate make progress on this important legislation so we can get the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 sent to President Trump’s desk as soon as possible.”

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, along with all of the Democrats on the committee, says the committee looks forward to working with Senate Republicans on a bipartisan Farm Bill that can be successful on the Senate floor.

“We have been clear that the Farm Bill must address the needs of American farmers and families,” Klobuchar says. “With a five-year high in small farm bankruptcies, the Farm Bill must address rising input costs, provide new opportunities for domestic markets, and fight for a trade agenda that works for everyone. Senate Democrats are committed to ensuring all states are treated equally by delaying the new SNAP cost shifts and addressing the needs of farm country.”

Pesticide Amendment Passes

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna’s (R-Fla.) highly debated bill passed the House, stripping the farm bill of pesticide liability provisions. Before the amendment, the bill’s original language reaffirmed EPA as the sole agency capable of determining the information listed on a pesticide label. Critics, including Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) advocates, worried the language would shield pesticide manufacturers from liability claims.

D.C. consultant Callie Eideberg, with the Vogel Group, saysthe provision’s controversy means the bill will likely have an uncertain future moving forward.

“This means that pesticide companies, the chemical companies, are now still going to be dealing with the status quo, dealing with different requirements from different states,” Eideberg says.

In a post on X, Rep. Luna reaffirmed her disapproval of glyphosate and other pesticides.

“I do not support giving blanket immunity to corporations at the expense of American families. Pesticides are linked to a 30% increase in childhood cancer and over 170 studies corroborate the evidence,” Luna says.

In a press release following the bill’s approval in the lower chamber, the Modern Ag Alliance, a group backed by chemical company Bayer and over 100 agriculture companies wrote, “Today, the House turned its back on the farmers who feed, fuel and clothe this country. By gutting common-sense crop protection provisions from the farm bill, lawmakers caved to anti-science MAHA activists instead of standing with those who grow our food.”

Iowa farmer Mark Jackson says it is “unfortunate” Congress could not give farmers support for chemical weed control products. Jackson said farmers should be allowed the “freedom to farm” and said glyphosate’s scientific approval process, and the product’s 50-year registration history make it a credible product for farmers to use.

“I think we need to rally around science, follow the science,” he adds.

Eideberg says as the bill moves to the Senate, the MAHA movement could continue to influence debates. She believes the smaller body of the Senate will bring a different dynamic to the issue.

“I think we’re going to see those MAHA influencers feeling very emboldened by this win today and pushing even harder in the Senate to get more of what they’re looking for,” she says.

Farmers Praise Passage of Farm Bill
Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association President Jed Bower says USDA programs are important to the success of corn farmers and rural communities, particularly as growers face their fourth year of net losses and struggle with high input costs.

“We look forward to working with our allies in Congress over the next two weeks to secure passage of the E15 legislation,” Bower says. “Thanks to continued efforts on this issue from our biofuel champions, Speaker Johnson promised a vote on E15, and we refuse to allow a handful of multi-million and multi-billion-dollar energy companies to derail our efforts. Allowing the year-round sale of E15 would help our growers by expanding ethanol sales while also saving consumers money at the pump at a time when fuel prices are on the rise.”

The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) is looking forward to the Senate taking up the farm bill without delay as farmers face unprecedented challenges.

“The House-passed 2026 Farm Bill supports the farm safety net, preserves existing conservation programs that include opportunities for dairy and livestock producers, bolsters trade promotion programs while protecting common food names, recognizes the important role of dairy in nutrition, and supports animal health programs,” said NMPF President & CEO Gregg Doud. “All of these are important priorities to dairy farmers and the broader industry, and we appreciate the leadership shown by House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson and other dairy champions to get this legislation through the House.”

U.S. pork producers are praising a very significant section that provides “much-needed relief from the misguided California Proposition 12 ” in addition to expanding the Animal Health Protection Act to include improving animal disease traceability and requiring thorough documentation on USDA’s ability to protect producers from significant economic losses due to a foreign animal disease outbreak.

Prop. 12 is creating uncertainty for pork producers and raising costs across the supply chain. Congress has a role to restore regulatory clarity.

It’s time for a fix. #FixProp12

🎥 Video credit: @HouseAgGOP pic.twitter.com/lkAmG1bmAw
— NPPC (@NPPC) April 30, 2026

“Today’s House farm bill passage is a testament to the power of rural America when we stand up for our farms and future generations with a unified voice,” said Rob Brenneman, National Pork Producers Council president and pork producer from Washington County, Iowa. “We wholeheartedly thank our champions—House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, Rep. Ashley Hinson, and others—for not backing down from the fight for what is right for rural America. He and congressional supporters on both sides of the aisle heard our plea to help America’s pork producers.”

Eideburg points out that opposition to the farm bill pork provisions in the House are coming from several fronts.

“First, it’s coming from animal welfare groups that want to see those requirements in place,” she says. “We want to see minimum standard requirements for gestation rates. This other opposition is coming from companies and farmers who have already complied with Prop 12 and they don’t want that requirement removed because then they are going to be a) at a competitive disadvantage and b) out a ton of capital investment that they made on their to comply.”

The bill reflects many of wheat farmers’ top priorities from modernizing farm credit and safeguarding international food aid programs to enhancing export competitiveness, says National Association of Wheat Growers (NAWG) President Jamie Kres.

“These provisions will help ensure America’s wheat farmers can remain resilient and globally competitive,” Kres says.

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) Senior Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane appreciates how Thompson and House leadership took the time to listen to real farmers and ranchers.

“Instead of caving to attacks on the livestock industry from shell activist groups that impersonate real producers, a bipartisan group of lawmakers advanced a bill that will provide certainty and important policy fixes for cattle country,” Lane says. “We look forward to engaging with the Senate to advance this farm bill to the president’s desk.”

Industry Says This Farm Bill is Needed Now

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) CEO Ted McKinney says this legislation supports farmers, ranchers and consumers while providing economic growth opportunities for rural communities. H.R. 7567 prioritizes provisions that strengthen local food purchasing programs, enhance international market opportunities, reauthorize the three-legged stool for foreign animal disease prevention and preserve the viability of the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program.

The American Veterinary Medical Association says the inclusion of the Healthy Dog Importation Act is just one of the many key veterinary provisions they applaud in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026. This would improve importation standards to ensure a dog is healthy when imported into the U.S., which is especially important considering New World screwworm in Mexico continues to move closer to the U.S. border.

“The AVMA applauds the House for advancing a Farm Bill that will strengthen dog importation standards, fund and assess federal programs vital to veterinary medicine, and protect the country’s animal and public health,” says Dr. Michael Q. Bailey, AVMA president. “Enacting the Farm Bill is essential to advancing research into effective recruitment and retention strategies for veterinarians serving in rural and underserved communities. With the legislation now moving to the Senate for consideration, we look forward to working further with Congress and will continue to underscore the importance of including veterinary priorities in the final version of the Farm Bill.”

Now, Not Tomorrow

After voting in support of the bill, Congressman Rick W. Allen (GA-12) says, “Rural America needs a new Farm Bill now, not tomorrow. With today’s passage of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act, House Republicans have once again reaffirmed our commitment to American agriculture and delivered for hardworking growers and producers.”

Eideburg says funding for SNAP program will likely be a major fight in the Senate. The “One Big Beautiful Bill” shifted some costs within the program to state governments. She says the funding restructure and the combined potential vote to ban soda from SNAP could cause tension in the upper chamber.

She also says year-round E15 provisions, which were taken from the farm bill and punted for a vote in the House next week, could see as much opposition in the Senate.

“This really is a big hurdle to get E15, year-round E15 over the line.”

New Food Security and Farm Protection Act Protects Farmers and Consumers From Government Overreach

Wed, 09 Apr 2025 16:24:08 GMT

After the U.S. Supreme Court left an open invitation for Congress to strike down California’s Proposition 12, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) says it’s time to end this “unjustified and burdensome regulatory overreach” in order to protect family farms and bring down prices for U.S. consumers.

On April 8, Ernst and fellow Senate Agriculture Committee members Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) introduced The Food Security and Farm Protection Act that prohibits any state or local government from interfering with commerce and agricultural practices in another state outside their jurisdiction.

“Proposition 12 is dangerous and arbitrary overregulation that stands in direct opposition to the livelihoods of Iowa pork producers, increases costs for both farmers and consumers, and jeopardizes our nation’s food security,” Ernst says. “I’m proud to be leading the charge to strike down this harmful measure and will keep fighting to make sure the voices of the farmers and experts who know best – not liberal California activists – are heard.”

Pig Farmers Speak Out
This policy averts a disastrous patchwork of contradictory state-by-state farm regulations that would hit hardest small and medium-sized pork producers, says National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) President Duane Stateler, a pork producer from McComb, Ohio.

“U.S. pork producers have just suffered the worst 18 months of financial losses in history, and many farm families are contemplating whether they can pass along their farm to the next generation,” Stateler says. “We urge the Senate to take up this legislation immediately to provide us much-needed relief.” Learn more about Stateler’s story here.

Without certainty from the Food Security and Farm Protection Act , NPPC says there will be many consequences, including:

Widespread, damaging consequences for farmers and consumers alike.
Significant fees forced on producers to pay for outside regulators to audit their farms due to the whims of consumers outside their state’s borders.
Risk of putting farm families out of business by significantly increasing the cost of raising pigs.
Increased prices at the grocery store , as much as 41% for certain pork products.

A Dangerous Patchwork of Regulations
For reasons like these and more, bipartisan support for providing relief from a patchwork of state laws continues to grow with support from President Donald Trump, former President Joe Biden, and their respective Agriculture Secretaries Brooke Rollins and Tom Vilsack, NPPC said in a release.

“The United States is constantly faced with non-tariff trade barriers from protectionist countries, which hurts American agriculture’s access to new markets. The last thing we need is for states like California imposing its will on ag-heavy states like Kansas with regulations that will also restrict our ability to trade among the states,” Marshall says. “Midwest farmers and ranchers who produce our nation’s food supply should not be hamstrung by coastal activist agendas that dictate production standards from hundreds of miles away.”

And it’s not just the pork industry rallying around this legislation.

“Iowa soybean farmers are grateful for Senator Ernst’s leadership to address challenges Prop 12 creates for Iowa farmers,” says Iowa Soybean Association President and farmer, Brent Swart. “Not only do the increased costs of compliance threaten to put pork farmers out of business, Prop 12 increases the price of pork at the grocery store by as much as 40%. Higher prices for pork dampen demand for this high-quality protein which negatively impacts market demand for soybeans used for pig feed. This legislation gives us a chance to protect our farms, our livelihoods, and ultimately, families that need affordable food.”

Iowa Cattlemen’s Association President, Rob Medberry, points out that the Iowa Cattle industry has made it clear that government overreach and overregulation is incredibly burdensome to industries that provide safe, quality and sustainable products for the world.

“Proposition 12 has the potential to further dismantle the livestock industry with the lack of science-based measures. Proposition 12 has already proven to be an unfunded mandate with consumers unwilling to pay premiums for the products that must be compliant with the proposition,” Medberry says. “The inherent cost to become compliant is overbearing and the simple fact of dollars and cents does not add up.”

Opponents Strike Back
Opposition such as the Humane World Action Fund, formerly called Humane Society Legislative Fund, argue against this legislation.

“This bill would hand over sweeping power to a narrow segment of the agriculture industry, overriding the will of voters, dismantling state laws and eliminating hard-won voter-supported protections for the humane treatment of farm animals, food safety and farm workers,” says Sara Amundson, president of Humane World Action Fund. “Let’s be clear: this is a federal overreach that serves Big Pork, not the American people.”

Amundson claims this legislation has been driven by a small group of pork industry lobbyists.

It’s Not Just About Pigs
But Iowa Corn Growers Association (ICGA) President Stu Swanson disagrees.

“With barriers like Proposition 12 cutting off our ability to supply fellow Americans with Iowa grown pork, it’s not only those families who are being affected, but also our farm families here in Iowa,” Swanson points out.

Iowa Turkey Federation Executive Director Gretta Irwin adds that these inconsistencies create unnecessary burdens for farmers operating across state lines, hinder efficient production, and undermine well-established, science-based practices developed in coordination with industry experts.

Swanson says this is an issue for all of agriculture and one his organization plans to continue to work on with their livestock partners until it gets resolved.

“Consistent with its authorities under the Commerce Clause, it’s time for Congress to solve this problem by passing legislation,” Grassley says. “Our bill will end California’s war on breakfast and make sure delicious Iowa pork can be sold everywhere.”

Stay up to date on Prop 12 here.

Key Takeaways from Brooke Rollins' Confirmation Hearing for Agriculture Secretary

Thu, 23 Jan 2025 17:19:54 GMT

Brooke Rollins, President Trump’s nominee for Agriculture Secretary , addressed several issues during her confirmation hearing on Jan. 23 in an attempt to position herself as a supporter of diverse agricultural interests and commit to protecting producers.

In her opening statement, Rollins outlined several key priorities for USDA if confirmed, as is expected:

Rapid deployment of disaster and economic assistance authorized by Congress.
Addressing current animal disease outbreaks.
Modernizing and realigning USDA.
Ensuring long-term prosperity for rural communities.

Ethanol and Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)

Rollins clarified her stance on ethanol and RFS, distancing herself from past positions of the Texas Public Policy Foundation:

She stated the Foundation’s position on ethanol/RFS was written a decade ago and was one of 900 to 1,000 papers produced annually.
Rollins emphasized she did not author those papers.
While admitting to being a defender of fossil fuels, she insisted she would be “a secretary for all of agriculture” and a “champion for all fuels.”

When asked again on biofuel policy, Rollins said, “Everyone knows where the president is on this.”

The regulatory effort under the first Trump administration to make sales of E15 available year-round, Rollins noted, was not developed by the domestic policy office that she headed but she still said she looked forward to working on the issue ahead. She also committed to working with Treasury secretary-designate Scott Bessent on the 45Z Clean Fuels Production Credit. And she will make sure Bessent has the “data and the voices around him to make the right decisions.”

Tariff Impact Aid for Farmers

During questioning, Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) asked Rollins about her approach to working with President Trump’s trade agenda. Rollins responded that she would prioritize working with the White House to address any challenges farmers and ranchers might face under potential tariff implementations.

Rollins committed to supporting farmers in case of tariff-related harm:

She pledged to undertake efforts like the Market Facilitation Program (MFP) via payments from the first Trump administration. MFP was part of a broader effort by USDA to assist farmers impacted by retaliatory tariffs and trade disruptions.
Rollins has consulted with former USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue about the implementation of such programs.

On trade, Rollins committed to using USDA programs and policies to bring the trade deficit in agriculture down to zero. But Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) countered that things like a stronger dollar and other factors were bigger components of the agriculture trade deficit rather than a failure of USDA policy.

Proposition 12

Rollins committed to working with Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and others on addressing Prop 12 as it is affecting several states.

Commitment to Agriculture and Public Service

Rollins emphasized her dedication to the agricultural sector.

“My role is to defend, honor and elevate our entire ag community in the oval office ... to ensure that every decision made has that front of mind,” she states.

Rollins shared a personal detail about her family. She revealed her mother was the oldest freshman in the Texas legislature, highlighting her family’s history of public service.

Bottom line: These statements demonstrate Rollins’ attempt to position herself as a supporter of diverse agricultural interests, including both traditional and renewable fuels, while also showing her commitment to protecting farmers from potential trade-related challenges.

Your Next Read: Trump Taps Texas Native Brooke Rollins for Secretary of Agriculture

BREAKING: Supreme Court Backs California Prop 12

Fri, 12 May 2023 17:21:04 GMT

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld California’s new humane-pork law , rejecting an industry challenge in a ruling strengthening the power of states to impose rules that have a broad economic impact on other parts of the country, writes Pro Farmer analyst Jim Wiesemeyer in his daily commentary.

The Supreme Court ruled that the case was properly dismissed by lower courts. Pork producers had said that the law could force industry-wide changes and raise the cost of bacon and other pork products nationwide, the Associated Press reports.

“This is a major blow to pork and the ag sector,” Wiesemeyer wrote. “The ruling could force pork producers to implement costly changes to keep selling in the country’s most populous state.”

The decision of the court was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

“While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority.

Wiesemeyer writes that Kavanaugh’s dissent comments could mean further challenge ahead.

Kavanaugh wrote in his opinion, “I add this opinion to point out that state economic regulations like California’s Proposition 12 may raise questions not only under the Commerce Clause, but also under the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Although the Court today rejects the plaintiffs’ dormant Commerce Clause challenge as insufficiently pled, state laws like Proposition 12 implicate not only the Commerce Clause, but also potentially several other constitutional provisions, including the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. In other words, if one State conditions sale of a good on the use of preferred farming, manufacturing, or production practices in another State where the good was grown or made, serious questions may arise under the Import-Export Clause. I do not take a position here on whether such an argument ultimately would prevail. I note only that the question warrants additional consideration in a future case. Under this Court’s precedents, one State’s efforts to effectively regulate farming, manufacturing, or production in other States could raise significant questions under that Clause [Privileges and Immunities Clause]. Again, I express no view on whether such an argument ultimately would prevail. But the issue warrants further analysis in a future case.”

Kavanaugh concludes that it appears that the “properly pled dormant Commerce Clause challenges under Pike to laws like California’s Proposition 12 (or even to Proposition 12 itself) could succeed in the future — or at least survive past the motion-to-dismiss stage. Regardless, it will be important in future cases to consider that state laws like Proposition 12 also may raise substantial constitutional questions under the Import-Export Clause, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, and the Full Faith and Credit Clause.”

Prop 12 History

Proposition 12 bans the sale of pork within the state unless pregnant pigs are allowed at least 24 square feet of space and the ability to stand up and turn around in their pens. The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation, which sued in 2019, say the measure violates the so-called dormant commerce clause, a doctrine that says the U.S. Constitution limits the power of states to regulate commerce outside their borders without congressional authorization.

The Biden administration had urged the justices to side with pork producers, telling the court in written filings that Proposition 12 would be a “wholesale change in how pork is raised and marketed in this country” and that it has “thrown a giant wrench” into the nation’s pork market, The Associated Press reports.

“Pork producers argue that 72% of farmers 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,” The Associated Press reports. “They also say that the way the pork market works, with cuts of meat from various producers being combined before sale, it is likely all pork would have to meet California standards, regardless of where it is sold. Complying with Proposition 12 could cost the industry $290 million to $350 million.”

The industry argued unsuccessfully that California is violating the Constitution by regulating commerce outside its borders, Wiesemeyer reports.

“During arguments in the case in October, liberal and conservative justices underscored the potential reach of the case,” The Associated Press reports. “Some worried whether greenlighting the animal cruelty law would give state legislators a license to pass laws targeting practices they disapprove of, such as a law that says a product cannot be sold in the state if workers who made it are not vaccinated or are not in the country legally. They also worried about the reverse: How many state laws would be called into question if California’s law were not permitted?”

NPPC said in a statement that it will continue to fight for the nation’s pork farmers and American families against misguided regulations.

“We are very disappointed with the Supreme Court’s opinion. Allowing state overreach will increase prices for consumers and drive small farms out of business, leading to more consolidation,” said Scott Hays, NPPC president, and Missouri pork producer. “We are still evaluating the Court’s full opinion to understand all the implications. ”

*This is a breaking story. Updates will be added here.*

Read More:

Proposition 12 Update from the National Pork Industry Forum

Supreme Court Rejects Meat Institute’s Petition to Review Proposition 12

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:55:54 GMT

The Supreme Court has denied a petition to review California’s Proposition 12, which requires the sale of meat products in California to conform with the state’s animal housing standards.

Prop 12, set to go into effect on Jan. 1, 2022, will impose animal housing standards that reach far outside the state’s borders to farms across the country, driving up costs for both pork producers and consumers, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) said in a release.

The denial of the petition for a writ of certiorari was among dozens announced on June 28 by the court. No explanation was provided for the reason why the petition was denied. The North American Meat Institute (Meat Institute) filed the petition, with the support of 20 states, challenging the sales ban in California on veal and pork not raised according to Prop 12’s housing standards.

“We are disappointed our petition for cert was denied. We will be considering other options to block Proposition 12 which will cost both producers and consumers millions of dollars according to economists and the state of California’s own analysis,” Meat Institute spokesperson Sarah Little said in a statement.

Prop 12 is currently being challenged in a separate lawsuit from the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation, asking the court to strike down Prop 12 as unconstitutional under the dormant commerce clause. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral arguments in April and is expected to make a decision in mid-July.

“Prop 12 hurts the family on a budget by causing higher prices for pork, veal and eggs, and unfairly punishes livestock producers outside of California by forcing them to spend millions just to access California markets,” Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts said in a March release . “If this unconstitutional law is allowed to stand, California will dictate farming practices across the nation.”

Read More:

Pork Industry Braces for Catastrophic Costs to Implement Proposition 12

Proposition 12 Pressures Aren’t Going Away

On-Demand Webinar: Proposition 12: Where Do We Go From Here?

20 States Back Challenge to the Constitutionality of California’s Prop 12

California’s Proposition 12 Would Cost U.S. Pork Industry Billions

New Briefs Filed in Support of NPPC’s Proposition 12 Lawsuit

Pork Industry, Don’t Underestimate Proposition 12

Court Upholds California Proposition 12

California’s Proposition 12: NPPC, AFBF Seek to Strike as Invalid

Prop 12: A Different Kind of California Wildfire

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:42:08 GMT

Proposition 12 legislation took effect in California on Jan. 1, 2022. National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) assistant vice president and general counsel Michael Formica predicts Proposition 12 repercussions will be seen in California as early as this morning.

The law requires egg-laying hens, calves raised for veal and breeding pigs (sows) to be able to lie down, stand up, and turn around in the spaces in which they are housed, without touching the sides of the stall, or another animal.

Most sows are housed in individual pens. Proposition 12 prescribes sows must have at least 24 square feet of floor space to move around, which would effectively require large group pens.

California’s Position

California raises about 8,000 sows—only 1,500 in commercial production—while maintaining a market demand of roughly 700,000 sows. California’s pork needs are generally met through states like Iowa, Minnesota and others in the Midwest.

Formica says only 4% or 5% of U.S. pork production is currently compliant with Proposition 12 legislation.

Various retailers have pleaded with the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to rewrite the timeframe for enforcing Proposition 12. CDFA says they lack authority to delay the compliance deadline.

Formica explains that 28 months of unsuccessful compliance delays with the CDFA and the Animal Care Program has put retailers in an “impossible” position that could lead to criminal charges for the sale of uncertified meat.

Lessons Learned

Californians didn’t clearly understand what was being voted on, Formica adds.

“They didn’t know the impact this was going to have,” says Formica. “They were presented the question, ‘Do you think farm animals should be protected from cruel treatment?’ I would have voted the same way.”

Pro Farmer policy analyst Jim Wiesemeyer says before this legislation made its way to the proposal stage, “it should have been battled with questions,” to better educate voters.

NPPC and the American Farm Bureau have filed a joint petition on Proposition 12, scheduled to be addressed by the Supreme Court on Jan. 7, 2022.

Related Articles:

> California’s Prop 12 Took Effect Jan. 1

> Prop 12 Countdown: California Food Industry Leaders Fight Back

Supreme Court Takes Up NPPC, AFBF Challenge to Proposition 12

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:38:46 GMT

The Supreme Court of the United States announced on March 28 that it will take up the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and American Farm Bureau Federation’s (AFBF) challenge to California’s Proposition 12. The case is expected to be argued after the court begins its new term in October.

“We are extremely pleased that the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of Proposition 12, in which California seeks to impose regulations targeting farming practices outside its borders that would stifle interstate and international commerce,” NPPC President Terry Wolters said in a release. “NPPC has poured a lot of blood, sweat and tears into preserving the rights of America’s pork producers to raise hogs in a way that’s best for their animals’ well-being and that allows them to continue selling pork to all consumers, both here and internationally.”

NPPC and AFBF are petitioning the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of one state imposing regulations that reach far outside its borders and stifle interstate and international commerce. And, in this case, it’s about arbitrary animal housing standards that lack any scientific, technical or agricultural basis and that will only inflict harm on U.S. hog farmers, NPPC said.

The high court is taking up the case on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which in July upheld a lower court ruling against the NPPC-AFBF lawsuit, NPPC explained in a release. The appeals court found that despite the organizations plausibly alleging that Prop. 12 “will have dramatic upstream effects and require pervasive changes to the pork industry nationwide,” 9th Circuit precedent didn’t allow the case to continue. That precedent, however, runs counter to numerous Supreme Court decisions and is in conflict with nearly every other federal circuit court.

Proposition 12, approved by voters in 2018 and took effect Jan. 1, 2022, makes it illegal to sell pork in California unless the pig it comes from was born to a sow housed with at least 24 square feet of space and in conditions that allow the sow to turn around freely without touching her enclosure. It applies to any uncooked pork sold in the state, whether produced there or outside its borders. Nearly all pork currently produced in the United States fails to meet California’s arbitrary standards. (Business groups in California recently got a state superior court to delay the effective date of Proposition 12 for 180 days after final implementing regulations are issued.)

“AFBF is pleased with the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the constitutionality of California’s law imposing arbitrary requirements on farmers well outside its borders. We share California’s goal of ensuring animals are well cared for, but Prop 12 fails to advance that goal,” AFBF president Zippy Duvall said in a release . “We look forward to presenting the facts to the Court, including how Prop 12 hamstrings farmers’ efforts to provide a safe environment for their animals, while harming small family farms and raising pork prices across the country. One state’s misguided law should not dictate farming practices for an entire nation.”

In addition to its legal efforts, NPPC weighed in on problems with the initial proposal implementing regulations for Prop 12, including an unworkable annual certification of hog farms’ compliance with the initiative’s requirements. The California Department of Food and Agriculture, which wrote the regulations, has yet to issue final rules, NPPC said in a release.

“It requires massive and costly alteration to existing sow housing nationwide, necessitates either reduction of herd sizes or building of new facilities to meet its space mandates, raises prices in transactions with no California connection, drives farms out of business, and promotes industry consolidation, and will be policed by intrusive inspections of out-of-state farms conducted by California’s agents,” NPPC and AFBF said in their appeal.

NPPC and AFBF in the coming weeks will file their initial brief with the Supreme Court, which could hear oral arguments in the fall and could render a decision by the end of the year.

“This is important to the pork industry today, but it is broader than just Proposition 12,” Bryan Humphreys, NPPC CEO, said last month .

More from Farm Journal’s PORK:

The Wait Continues for SCOTUS Decision on Prop 12 Petition

State Court Halts Enforcement of Prop 12, California Must Finalize Rules First

Prop 12 Countdown: California Food Industry Leaders Fight Back

How Prop 12 Could Impact Crop and Livestock Producers

Fri, 12 May 2023 15:31:04 GMT

More than half of Californians voted in favor of stricter restrictions on animal confinement, commonly called Prop 12, which took effect on Jan. 1.

The law not only altered its livestock raising standards, but it also banned the sale of animal-derived products that do not comply with statute’s regulations. This means producers in other states cannot sell eggs, veal and pork products in California unless they meet Prop 12’s standards.

Challenged by numerous ag alliances, Prop 12 is scheduled to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Impact for Crop Producers

If the Court rules in favor of California, the legislation will open a door to a much larger arena of regulatory authority. This case should have all producers on high alert, according to John Dillard, principal at OFW Law.

“If California were to win this case in the Supreme Court, there’s nothing stopping the state from saying, for example, you can only sell corn in California if it’s harvested with an electric combine,” he says.

Dillard says the Supreme Court’s ruling could give the green or red light for each state to set its own standards on any and all products that come across state lines.

Jim Wiesemeyer, Profarmer policy analyst told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory that he believes once all Prop 12 arguments are heard on Tuesday, the Court won’t produce a final ruling until next June.

The live court hearing will be available here on Tuesday.

More on Prop 12:

Follow California Proposition 12 SCOTUS Oral Arguments Live
Proposition 12 Will Push Pig Farmers Out of Business, NPPC and Farmers Say
California Proposition 12 Took Effect Jan. 1, But Supreme Court Action Ahead