The next time you travel to Boston, it might be wise on several fronts to stick with the chowder and lobster rolls rather than ham and eggs. Heading to California? Let me suggest a nice cioppino and a salad – but again, maybe not the ham and eggs.
Why? Call it self-imposed food price inflation in which voters in California and Massachusetts have passed laws regulating the conditions in which pigs, hens, and calves are housed in industrial agriculture production facilities. Those laws are now the subject of a case headed to the Supreme Court that is being closely anticipated by farmers, producers and consumers in those states and the rest of the country.
Opponents of California’s Proposition 12, which bans the sale of pork from hogs born to sows that weren’t raised under the state’s “arbitrary” production standards, include the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producer’s Council. Their legal challenge is based on what they claim are protections under the Commerce Clause.
NPPC President Terry Wolters said after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in March: “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 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.”
In their legal challenge, NPPC and AFBF claimed that while California residents consume 13% of the nation’s pork, they alleged that “99.9% of pork sold in the state derives from sows raised out-of-state. Consumers everywhere will pay for Prop. 12, disrupting supply and demand nationwide.”
Massachusetts officials have now twice postponed the implementation of laws similar to California’s Prop 12 while awaiting the high court’s ruling in the case. NPPC and the Farm Bureau say California’s animal welfare laws pose an unconstitutional burden on farmers and consumers nationwide.
Further, Successful Farming’s Chuck Abbott reported that NPPC said in federal court filings that Massachusetts’ rules would have blocked the transport of pork through the state, “jeopardizing an estimated $2 billion worth of pork that moves into neighboring New England states.”
Inflation has already driven pork prices up nearly 9% during a 40 -year high in overall inflation. These laws could further raise retail prices for pork, eggs, and veal for consumers and dictate significant expenses for producers to make their industrial farms compliant – costs that will be passed on to the consumer all over the country.
Why should Mississippians care? Mississippi ranks 23rd in the nation in pork production at more than 1.02 million swine annually. But the heavyweight commercial pork-producing states are Iowa, Minnesota, North Carolina, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska and Missouri. In terms of eggs, Mississippi produced 1.41 million eggs in 2020 at a value of $260 million.
An August 10 editorial in The Wall Street Journal summed up the situation succinctly: “If Massachusetts can prohibit the sale and mere distribution of meat produced by out-of-state farms, why couldn’t it do the same for goods manufactured by businesses that don’t follow its more onerous labor regulations? Or how about products made with coal power?
“Democratic states are increasingly imposing their progressive cultural values on other states. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a chance to stop this regulatory imperialism. The Justices in October will hear a challenge to California’s similar farm animal regulations, which are on hold pending the Court’s review. States that extend their regulation too far and harm other states need to be penned in,” the editorial concluded.
California and Massachusetts voters are within their rights to express concern about animal welfare and production conditions in large pork, beef and egg-producing operations. But do they exceed their rights in violation of interstate commerce laws by seeking to impose their animal rights restrictions across state lines?
Reason.com writer Baylen Linnekin asked the best question about the court case: “Can the U.S. Constitution save California and Massachusetts voters from themselves? The national food economy may depend on it.”
Sid Salter is a syndicated columnist. Contact him at sidsalter@sidsalter.com
19 comments:
OK boomer
What the fuck is he babbling about? The end goal is to have us all eating “sustainable” bug protein and eventually processed human flesh. that is, those who don’t have specific religious dietary requirements. Of course those people will still have quality beef and lamb and fish with scales.
I’m glad the residents have nothing better to worry about than if their pork was happy before it was taken to market…
Maybe they should worry about their human citizens, the homeless mess, garbage and human waste in the streets, wildfires, etc but I wouldn’t want to tell another state how they have to conduct their business….
8:27 am - TRUTH!! Next thing you know, a law will be passed prohibiting the sale of gasoline and other petroleum-based products within the backward state of Cali.
KF - when did you start allowing "ok boomer" in the comment sections?
Y’all better thank god for Cali, they the one keeping us funded and fed
Salter is going the Biden route...pure babble.
The only people who refer to California as "Cali" are left wingers who have never lived there.
dear mr salter... we cotton choppers may not know a lot about cioppino, whatever that is , but we know california ia where all the fruits and nuts are.
@9:21
They are keeping a lot of our welfare recipients fed for sure but the people who work and take personal responsibility for themselves and their families...not so much. I've always thought it would be more expedient to send the welfare folks to "Cali" where their money is coming from anyway.
'Animal Farm' is California. 'Cali' was a Cartel. Now the two concepts have merged where only pampered petted pigs can be served but Mexican miscreants can distribute freelanced Chinese Fentanyl, an indiscriminately fatal drug, vis a vis Biden's border jumping amigos unabated.
Why is it that 2 of California's Reps look like that bit into a sour lemon? Speaking of course of Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi. Is it the plastic surgery?
@10:59
All that welfare money got stolen by Phil, Tater and company.
Its the Roads Bridges and other Federal money, like the dollars that support the Sec Of State, our education system and just about everything else in the state.
Some "production standards" are written by lobbyist of mega farm conglomerates to squeeze out the local farmer and take over his production in a buy out . The farmer can't buy all the unnecessary equipment/building regs.
Monopolies continue to be our future and one day, you'll be sorry you didn't bother to be informed but rather assumed every "business" ethical and patriotic.
I care about Sid thoughts as much as I do the price of ice in Alaska.
I care about Sid thoughts as much as I do the price of ice in Alaska.
S.E.G. will do more harm to farmers and the food supply chain than anything bureaucratically implemented to this point. If you are unaware of this monstrosity that will affect every aspect of your life, I suggest you study it.
If Sid wishes to ramble ...
He should stick with topics he personally knows about ...
( Stuff like the history of Mississippi State cowbells, or how
window air conditioner units changed Neshoba County Fair cabins ).
"Mississippi produced 1.41 million eggs in 2020 at a value of $260 million."
Hmmm...Food prices like $185 an egg seems like it could be a HUGE problem for places like Waffle House, those who enjoy a hearty breakfast, and families making under about a mil year take home feed themselves, but that doesn't seem too far out of line for the average Mississippi taxpayer funded scam, er, scheme. Sure, $2200 for a dozen eggs might seem like a lot, but volleyball domes, Yeti-fied crew cabs, and elected officials don't just pay for themselves. There needs to be some graf, er, profit in there somewhere to make any deal work out. Maybe some welfare money could be directed to the Breakfast Utilizing Lower Level Sustenance Habits In Total program? If not that one, there are plenty just like it around.
Post a Comment