Pork industry takes fight over California law to U.S. Supreme Court

Record ID: 1693099

  • Title: Pork industry takes fight over California law to U.S. Supreme Court
  • Date: 11th October 2022
  • Summary: WASHINGTON D.C., UNITED STATES (OCTOBER 11, 2022) (REUTERS) (SOUNDBITE) (English) MICHAEL FORMICA, NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL CHIEF LEGAL STRATEGIST, SAYING: “You know, we feel pretty good coming out of it. The court seemed to appreciate the dilemma that’s created. This is a case about pigs and pig farming, but the principles involved apply across the board. And they kept coming back to that, what exactly is the principle? If you’re going to do it in this instance, why can’t you do it in all sorts of other instances? You know, today, it’s California, for our members they’re worried about in 2 years the rules changing again. Alright, so New York goes from 24 square feet to 26 square feet and then California, says, ‘oh no, you need to be at 30 square feet.’ But what if it’s Texas? Texas comes up with something based on the morals of Texas, or Florida comes up with something based on the morals of Florida. With the size of their economies, we will not have 50 states any more, we’ll have 4 huge states that control all economic activity across the country. And that’s not the way the country was set up to operate.”
  • Embargoed: 25th October 2022 22:45
  • Keywords: 12 ANIMAL ASPCA CALI CALIFORNIA COURT CRUELTY DC FARM FARMER FARMERS FOOD HOG HOGS HUMANE MEAT NPPC PIG PIGLET PIGLETS PIGS PORK PROP SOCIETY SUPREME
  • Location: VARIOUS
  • City: VARIOUS
  • Country: US
  • Topics: Lawmaking,Government/Politics,United States
  • Reuters ID: LVA008160411102022RP1
  • Aspect Ratio: 16:9
  • Story Text: The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday (October 11) in an industry challenge to the constitutionality of a California animal welfare law in a case that could undermine the power of states to regulate a range of issues within their own borders.
    The National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation are appealing a lower court's decision to throw out their lawsuit seeking to invalidate a 2018 ballot initiative passed by voters barring sales in California of pork, veal and eggs from animals whose confinement failed to meet minimum space requirements.
    The pork industry has defended the size of the cages used at pig farms as humane and necessary for animal safety. Animal rights groups have said some pork producers confine mother pigs in cages so small the animals cannot turn around for most of their lives.
    The industry groups have argued that the measure, called Proposition 12, violates a provision of the U.S. Constitution known as the Commerce Clause, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, by requiring out-of-state producers to comply or face a California sales ban. A legal doctrine called the "dormant" Commerce Clause bars states from passing laws discriminating against commerce in other states.
    Proposition 12 violates that doctrine, the pork producers argued in a legal filing, because it would increase costs for pig farmers, nearly all of whom are located outside California. While being the most populous U.S. state and an important market, California produces just 0.1% of the nation's pork.
    "If you're looking for an example of an unconstitutional law, this is it," said Michael Formica, chief legal strategist for the pork producers.
    Proponents of the law disagree, saying California has the right to set standards for products sold to its consumers regardless of where these are produced.
    “The majority of consumers around the country are saying ‘enough is enough.’ Just because these animals are food, it doesn’t mean that they should be cruelly treated up to that point," said Kitty Block, CEO at the Humane Society of the United States, which led the campaign to pass Proposition 12 and is a party in the case. "Corporations, retailers they’re all going cage- and crate-free," she said. "This is the market, this is the future. The pork industry, what they’re trying to do is say, ‘I don’t care what consumers want. We just want to keep force-feeding people our products that we’ve been doing the same old way.’”
    The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's decision to throw out the lawsuit, finding no Commerce Clause violation.
    President Joe Biden's administration has sided with the pork producers, saying in a Supreme Court brief that states cannot ban products "that pose no threat to public health or safety based on philosophical objections."
    Top U.S. pork producer Smithfield Foods, owned by Chinese company WH Group Ltd, said last year it plans to comply with the law. Kansas-based Seaboard Foods, the No. 2 U.S. pork producer, said this year it is was converting some of its production to achieve compliance.
    (Produced: Eric Cox)
  • Copyright Holder: REUTERS
  • Copyright Notice: (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2022. Open For Restrictions - http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
  • Usage Terms/Restrictions: None
Register