[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AN EXAMINATION OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF
PROPOSITION 12
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-12
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
61-829 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota, Ranking
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice Minority Member
Chairman DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JIM COSTA, California
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
DOUG LaMALFA, California ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio, Vice
DON BACON, Nebraska Ranking Minority Member
MIKE BOST, Illinois SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
TRACEY MANN, Kansas JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
BARRY MOORE, Alabama GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
KAT CAMMACK, Florida JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota SHRI THANEDAR, Michigan
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee ADAM GRAY, California
RONNY JACKSON, Texas KRISTEN McDONALD RIVET, Michigan
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas SHOMARI FIGURES, Alabama
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa EUGENE SIMON VINDMAN, Virginia
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin JOSH RILEY, New York
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington JOHN W. MANNION, New York
TONY WIED, Wisconsin APRIL McCLAIN DELANEY, Maryland
ROBERT P. BRESNAHAN, Jr., CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
Pennsylvania SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
MARK HARRIS, North Carolina
DAVID J. TAYLOR, Ohio
______
Parish Braden, Staff Director
Brian Sowyrda, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Adams, Hon. Alma S., a Representative in Congress from North
Carolina:
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Submitted statement on behalf of Maggie Garrett, Vice
President of Federal Affairs, American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals........................... 248
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California,
submitted analysis............................................. 172
Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,
opening statement.............................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Davis, Hon. Donald G., a Representative in Congress from North
Carolina, submitted article.................................... 250
Feenstra, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from Iowa:
Submitted letter on behalf of Blake Edler, E 2 Farm LLC...... 169
Submitted letters............................................ 170
McGovern, Hon. James P., a Representative in Congress from
Massachusetts, submitted letters............................... 174
Scott, Hon. Austin a Representative in Congress from Georgia:
Submitted letters............................................ 161
Submitted statement.......................................... 168
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Submitted article............................................ 149
Submitted comment............................................ 150
Submitted letters............................................ 151
Witnesses
Hord, Patrick, Vice President, National Pork Producers Council;
Chief Executive Officer, Hord Family Farms, Bucyrus, OH........ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Submitted questions.......................................... 251
Schuiteman, Matthew, District 3 Member, Board of Directors, Iowa
Farm Bureau Federation; Co-Owner, AJS Farms, Sioux Center, IA.. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Submitted question........................................... 256
Cook, Holly, Economist, National Pork Producers Council,
Washington, D.C................................................ 20
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Cushman, Travis, Deputy General Counsel, Litigation and Public
Policy, American Farm Bureau Federation, Washington, D.C....... 29
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Rocha, Lilly, Executive Director, Latino Restaurant Association,
Los Angeles, CA................................................ 36
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Lashmet, J.D., Tiffany Dowell, Professor and Extension
Specialist, Agricultural Law, AgriLife Extension, Department of
Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Life
Sciences, Texas A&M University, Amarillo, TX................... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
AN EXAMINATION OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF PROPOSITION 12
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2025
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room
1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Thompson, Lucas, Austin
Scott of Georgia, LaMalfa, Bacon, Johnson, Baird, Mann,
Feenstra, Miller, Moore, Finstad, Jackson of Texas, De La Cruz,
Nunn, Wied, Messmer, Harris, Taylor, Craig, David Scott of
Georgia, Costa, McGovern, Adams, Brown, Davids of Kansas, Davis
of North Carolina, Budzinski, Sorensen, Thanedar, McDonald
Rivet, Figures, and Carbajal.
Staff present: Justin Benavidez, Parish Braden, Luke
Franklin, Justina Graff, Harlea Hoelscher, Sofia Jones,
Patricia Straughn, Trevor White, Suzie Cavalier, Daniel
Feingold, Clark Ogilvie, and Jackson Blodgett.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
The Chairman. The Committee will come to order. Welcome,
and thank you for joining today's hearing entitled, An
Examination of the Implications of Proposition 12.
After brief opening remarks, Members will receive testimony
from our witnesses today, and then the hearing will be open to
questions.
So good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining us
today for this important hearing to examine the implication of
California's Proposition 12.
To each of our witnesses, thank you for taking time out of
your busy schedule to share your expertise with us.
In 2018, California passed Proposition 12, a law that
imposes arbitrary and unscientific housing standards on any
pork, veal, or egg products that a producer may wish to sell
into the state. Backed by animal rights activists, the
requirements of Prop 12 have no standing in reality and do
nothing to improve animal welfare, food safety, or food
affordability. In fact, California's Department of Food and
Agriculture noted in their rulemaking that: ``animal
confinement space allowances prescribed in the Act are not
based in specific peer-reviewed published scientific literature
or accepted as standards within the scientific community to
reduce human foodborne illnesses, promote worker safety, the
environment, or other human or safety concerns.''
Similarly, the American Veterinary Medical Association
opposes Prop 12, stating the arbitrary housing requirements do
not objectively improve animal welfare and may unintentionally
cause harm.
Such concerns, along with compliance costs for producers
and consumers alike, led Prop 12 all the way to the Supreme
Court of the United States. After years of litigation, the
United States Supreme Court ultimately upheld California's law.
Importantly, Justice Gorsuch noted several times in a majority
opinion that Congress would be well within its power to act in
this case.
I disagree with the Court's decision to uphold Prop 12, but
I do agree that Congress can and must act to rectify the
burdens of Prop 12 as imposed on interstate commerce.
I am submitting for the record a letter from the Secretary
of Agriculture, Brooke Rollins, that outlines the economic
impacts that we have seen since Prop 12 went into effect on
January 1, 2024. So without objection, that letter is entered
into the record.
[The letter referred to is located on p. 157.]
The Chairman. The letter highlights many concerning
economic realities that our producers and consumers are facing
in a post-Prop 12 world. The average cost of retrofitting or
rebuilding facilities to meet Prop 12 standards is estimated at
$3,500 to $4,500 per sow. The same data shows that compliance
costs disproportionately affect small- and mid-sized producers
who face tighter margins and have less access to capital. In
fact, as of the first quarter of 2025, 12 percent of small pork
operations have exited the market or shifted production away
from breeding, citing regulatory uncertainty and high
transition costs.
On the consumer side, retail pork prices in California have
increased by 18.7 percent year over year, compared to a 6.3
percent increase nationwide over the same period. A recent USDA
consumer affordability study found that low-income households
in California reduced pork purchases by 22 percent, indicating
price increases are affecting food access and affordability for
economically vulnerable populations. The data shows that both
producers and consumers are facing significant cost increases
due to Prop 12. It begs the question, if producers are paying
more and consumers are paying more, who is winning?
Thankfully, the complexity and unfairness of Prop 12 has
been realized by both sides of the aisle. Former Secretary of
Agriculture Tom Vilsack testified before this Committee about
the harms of Prop 12, stating there would be ``chaos in the
marketplace'' without a fix. Our current Secretary of
Agriculture Brooke Rollins also thinks that we must act and
offered her full support for our efforts. She stated,
``California has the right to do what California wants to do,
but the minute that crosses the border and starts to compromise
in such a significant way our pork producers, we need to act.''
That is why I introduced section 12007 in the Farm, Food,
and National Security Act of 2024 (H.R. 8467). This provision
is a commonsense, middle-ground approach to protect consumers
from arbitrary and unscientific mandates. It does not undo
thousands of state-based agriculture laws, and it does not
restrict a state's right to impose standards within their own
borders. It simply clarifies that states cannot impose, as a
condition for sale or consumption, a production standard on
livestock unless that livestock is located within the state's
borders. This means that Prop 12 will stand in California, but
only for those producers within California's borders. Similar
state mandates, like Question 3 in Massachusetts, will also
stand, but again, only for the producers within their borders.
Section 12007 enjoys the support of the National Pork
Producers Council, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and
over 900 more national, state, and local farm organizations, as
well as the AVMA.
Despite this support from the agriculture community, false
narratives about section 12007 continue to be told in D.C. and
across the countryside. Driven by animal rights groups who are
parading as farmers and ranchers, I have heard every accusation
possible, from China somehow gaining access to our farmland to
thousands of state laws being overturned. Neither of these
carries any weight. While false, the China argument is a
convenient strawman during a time of heightened scrutiny of
China's investments in the United States. The truth is that
protein conglomerates with foreign ownership have the resources
to comply with state-by-state mandates, while small family
farmers and ranchers do not. The cost of compliance for small
producers could actually push them out of the market
altogether, leading to further consolidation in the industry,
and that would be a true gift to China.
As we hear from our witnesses today, it is my hope that we
all take to heart what they are saying. From producers on the
ground to the economic and legal experts who have watched this
unfold, to the consumer advocate who sees higher prices every
day in California, it is paramount that we take their concerns
seriously. In order to protect the right of American farmers
and ranchers to raise their animals how they see fit, we must
provide a fix for Proposition 12.
And I am proud of the work we did to get section 12007,
which passed out of Committee last year with a bipartisan vote.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this
provision in the upcoming farm bill reauthorization.
Thank you again to our witnesses for being here today. We
look forward to hearing from you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us at today's
important hearing to examine the implications of California's
Proposition 12.
To each of our witnesses, thank you for taking time out of your
busy schedule to share your expertise with us.
In 2018, California passed Proposition 12, a law that imposes
arbitrary and unscientific housing standards on any pork, veal, or egg
products that a producer may wish to sell into the state.
Backed by animal rights activists, the requirements of Prop 12 have
no standing in reality, and do nothing to improve animal welfare, food
safety, or food affordability.
In fact, California's Department of Food and Agriculture noted in
their rulemaking that ``animal confinement space allowances prescribed
in the Act are not based in specific peer-reviewed published scientific
literature or accepted as standards within the scientific community to
reduce human foodborne illness, promote worker safety, the environment,
or other human or safety concerns.''
Similarly, the American Veterinary Medical Association opposes Prop
12, stating the arbitrary housing requirements do not objectively
improve animal welfare and may unintentionally cause harm.
Such concerns, along with the compliance costs for producers and
consumers alike, led Prop 12 all the way to the Supreme Court of the
United States.
After years of litigation, the United States Supreme Court
ultimately upheld California's law.
Importantly, Justice Gorsuch noted several times in the majority
opinion that Congress would be well within its power to act in this
case.
I disagree with the Court's decision to uphold Prop 12, but I do
agree that Congress can and must act to rectify the burdens Prop 12 has
imposed on interstate commerce.
I am submitting for the record a letter from Secretary of
Agriculture Brooke Rollins that outlines the economic impacts we have
seen since Prop 12 went into effect on January 1, 2024.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Editor's note: the letter referred to is located on p. 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter highlights many concerning economic realities that our
producers and consumers are facing in a post-Prop 12 world.
The average cost of retrofitting or rebuilding facilities to meet
Prop 12 standards is estimated at $3,500 to $4,500 per sow.
The same data shows that compliance costs disproportionately affect
small- and mid-sized producers, who face tighter margins and have less
access to capital.
In fact, as of the first quarter of 2025, 12 percent of small pork
operations have exited the market or shifted production away from
breeding, citing regulatory uncertainty and high transition costs.
On the consumer side, retail pork prices in California have
increased by 18.7 percent year-over-year, compared to a 6.3 percent
increase nationwide over the same period.
A recent USDA consumer affordability study found that low-income
households in California reduced pork purchases by 22 percent,
indicating price increases are affecting food access and affordability
for economically vulnerable populations.
The data shows that both producers and consumers are facing
significant cost increases due to Prop 12.
It begs the question--if producers are paying more, and consumers
are paying more, who is winning?
Thankfully, the complexity and unfairness of Prop 12 has been
realized by both sides of the aisle.
Former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack testified before this
Committee about the harms of Prop 12, stating there would be ``chaos in
the marketplace'' without a fix.
Our current Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins also thinks
that we must act and offered her full support for our efforts.
She stated that ``California has the right to do what California
wants to do, but the minute that crosses the border and starts to
compromise in such a significant way our pork producers, we need to
act.''
That's why I included Section 12007 in the Farm, Food, and National
Security Act of 2024.
This provision is a common-sense, middle-ground approach to protect
producers from arbitrary and unscientific mandates.
It does not undo thousands of state-based agricultural laws, and it
does not restrict a states' right to impose standards within their own
borders.
It simply clarifies that states cannot impose, as a condition for
sale or consumption, a production standard on livestock, unless that
livestock is located within the states' borders.
This means that Prop 12 will stand in California, but only for
those producers within California's borders. Similar state mandates,
like Question 3 in Massachusetts, will also stand--but again, only for
those producers within their borders.
Section 12007 enjoys the support of the National Pork Producers
Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, and over 900 more national,
state, and local farm organizations, as well as the AVMA.
Despite this support from the agriculture community, false
narratives about Section 12007 continue to be told in D.C. and across
the countryside.
Driven by animal rights groups who are parading as farmers and
ranchers, I've heard every accusation possible, from China somehow
gaining access to our farmland to thousands of state laws being
overturned.
Neither of these carry any weight.
While false, the China argument is a convenient strawman during a
time of heightened scrutiny of China's investments in the United
States.
The truth is that protein conglomerates with foreign ownership have
the resources to comply with state-by-state mandates, while small
family farmers and ranchers do not.
The cost of compliance for small producers could actually push them
out of the market altogether, leading to further consolidation in the
industry, and that would be the true gift to China.
As we hear from our witnesses today, it is my hope that we all take
to heart what they are saying.
From the producers on the ground, to the economic and legal experts
who have watched this unfold, to the consumer advocate who sees higher
prices every day in California, it is paramount that we take their
concerns seriously.
In order to protect the right of American farmers and ranchers to
raise their animals how they see fit, we must provide a fix for
Proposition 12.
I am proud of the work we did to get to Section 12007, which passed
out of Committee last year with a bipartisan vote.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this
provision in the upcoming farm bill reauthorization.
Thank you again to our witnesses for being here today. We look
forward to hearing from you.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for any opening comments
she'd like to make.
The Chairman. And with that, I yield to the distinguished
gentlelady from Minnesota, the Ranking Member of the
Agriculture Committee, for any opening comments that she would
like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANGIE CRAIG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM MINNESOTA
Ms. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
everyone.
I am proud to say that Minnesota ranks second in the
country for hog production, with over 3,000 pig farms operating
in the state. As such, I am intensely familiar with the subject
of today's hearing and have heard from producers on both sides
of the issue.
Like most controversial cases, it is not really that
simple. Today's topic has been litigated extensively since I
first came to Congress. Since California residents voted to
enact Proposition 12 in 2018, we have seen challenges to the
law, the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the law, numerous
proposals, and attempts to negate the law through Federal
legislation, and now, a hearing regarding where we go from
here.
Prop 12 is clearly a contentious issue, and it merits
thoughtful, bipartisan discussion. Even today, this very day, I
have seen two different letters citing two different sets of
data that come to different conclusions about pork prices in
California. Any true representative of farm country knows that
Prop 12 is a concern for producers on both sides of the issue.
We can't ignore the questions and challenges Prop 12
raises. Even the Biden Administration's Agriculture Secretary
said we need to treat this issue seriously to ensure stability
in the marketplace. I agree that we can't have 50 states with
50 different regulatory frameworks because of the significant
challenges it would present to producers. But I also believe
that there are ways to avoid that situation.
I also recognize that many pork producers have made
significant financial investments to make their operations Prop
12-compliant to satisfy the desires of California's consumers
for premium pork products. It would be unfair to the family
farmers who updated their facilities to comply with new rules
to keep or gain market access to change the rules on them after
they have already made those investments.
I think Congress also needs to be mindful of the voters in
California who exercised their rights under the state
constitution to adopt this policy. We should think carefully
before allowing legislators in Washington to override their
will.
While I welcome more attention to this topic, there are
additional threats to the livestock sector happening right now
that also deserve this Committee's focus. This Administration's
worldwide trade war could hurt our domestic livestock industry.
We export 30 percent of the pork we produce, and hogs are
constantly moving back and forth across our border with Canada.
But today, packers are being forced to render hogs that
normally would have been exported. We haven't gained new market
access to replace the lost Chinese market, which took a hit
during the COVID-era supply chain chaos, and then shrank
further after China canceled 12,000 metric tons of U.S. pork
imports in retaliation against President Trump's first trade
war.
At the same time, there is ongoing labor shortage for hog
farms and meat processors that is being exacerbated by the
Administration's chaotic and volatile mass deportation program.
The Administration is eliminating large portions of the
meatpacking workforce, which will affect hog prices when
packers can't operate facilities at full capacity. Just the
other week, 200 legal workers at a JBS plant in Iowa had their
visas revoked and are now being deported. Congress can work on
solutions to revitalize and strengthen the agricultural
guestworker program, but common sense needs to prevail.
I am hopeful that this Prop 12 hearing will give us some
new ideas to work with and possibly yield a viable path forward
for all of our nation's hog farmers. I am also hopeful that the
Majority, during any farm bill discussions that might occur,
will be open to new ideas.
I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony today. I
look forward to hearing from them.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Craig follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
Good morning.
I am proud to say that Minnesota ranks second in the country for
hog production, with over 3,000 pig farms operating in the state. As
such, I am familiar with the subject of today's hearing and have heard
from producers on both sides. Like most controversial cases, it's not
so simple.
Today's topic has been litigated extensively since I first came to
Congress. Since California residents voted to enact Proposition 12 in
2018, we've seen challenges to the law, the Supreme Court ruling in
favor of the law, numerous proposals and attempts to negate the law
through Federal legislation, and now a hearing regarding where we go
from here.
Prop 12 is clearly a contentious issue, and it merits thoughtful,
bipartisan discussion. Even today, I've seen two different letters
citing two sets of data that come to two different conclusions about
pork prices in California. Any true representative of farm country
knows that Prop 12 is a concern for producers on both sides.
We cannot ignore the questions and challenges Prop 12 raises. Even
the Biden Administration's Agriculture Secretary said we need to treat
this issue seriously to ensure stability in the marketplace. I agree
that we cannot have 50 states with 50 different regulatory frameworks
because of the significant challenges it would present to producers,
but I believe that there are ways to avoid that situation.
I also recognize that many pork producers have made significant
financial investments to make their operations Prop 12-compliant to
satisfy the desires of California's consumers for premium pork
products. It would be unfair to the family farmers who updated their
facilities to comply with new rules to keep or gain market access, to
change the rules on them after they've already made these investments.
I think Congress also needs to be mindful of the voters in
California who exercised their rights under their state constitution to
adopt this policy. We should think carefully before allowing
legislators in Washington to override their will.
While I welcome more attention to this topic, there are additional
threats to the livestock sector happening right now that also deserve
this Committee's focus. This Administration's worldwide trade war could
hurt our domestic livestock industry.
We export 30 percent of the pork we produce, and hogs are
constantly moving back and forth across our border with Canada. But
today, packers are being forced to render hogs that normally would've
been exported. We haven't gained new market access to replace the lost
Chinese market, which took a hit during the COVID-era supply chain
chaos, and then shrank further after China canceled 12,000 metric tons
of U.S. pork imports in retaliation against President Trump's tariffs.
At the same time, there is an ongoing labor shortage for hog farms
and meat processors that is being exacerbated by the Administration's
chaotic and volatile mass deportation program.
The Administration is eliminating large portions of the meat-
packing workforce, which will affect hog prices when packers can't
operate facilities at full capacity.
Just the other week, 200 legal workers at a JBS plant in Iowa had
their visas revoked and are being deported.
Congress can work on solutions to revitalize and strengthen the
agricultural guestworker program, but common sense needs to prevail.
I am hopeful that this Prop 12 hearing will give us some new ideas
to work with and possibly yield a viable path forward for all of our
nation's hog farmers. I want to thank our witnesses for their testimony
today, and I look forward to hearing from them.
I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady.
The chair would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so the witnesses may begin
their testimony to ensure that there is ample time for
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Adams follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by clearly stating why we are gathered today.
Several Members of this Committee have emphasized that it is
``imperative'' to include a provision in a future farm bill that
preempts California's Proposition 12 and similar state laws.
Proposition 12 aims to improve the welfare of these animals by
mandating minimum space requirements and prohibiting extreme
confinement practices.
And while the National Pork Producers' Council sued to overturn
Proposition 12 after it passed in 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in 2023
that it is within California's right to regulate the sale of
agricultural products within its borders. The pork industry brought an
additional case to the Supreme Court, and the Court refused to hear the
case last month.
This is not the case of California imposing its standards upon
other states; producers are free to choose whether to serve particular
markets or to separate production for different regulatory
environments.
Compliance with Proposition 12 is entirely voluntary. There are 49
other states to which farmers can sell products if they do not wish to
meet these standards. Proposition 12 is not a mandate, but an
opportunity for farmers to sell a higher-welfare product.
California's Proposition 12 has established new market
opportunities for farmers. A growing number of consumers are demanding
more humane animal products, both within and outside of California, and
Proposition 12 helps meet this demand. In fact, 80% of Americans are
concerned about the negative impacts of industrial animal agriculture
on animal welfare and 80% support bans on the confinement of farm
animals.
To suddenly mandate a reversal of this law would create significant
instability within the agricultural sector and would be harmful for
those farmers who have invested heavily to comply with California's
standards. In fact, more than 200 family farms in North Carolina have
expressed opposition to overturning state and local farm animal welfare
laws.
But we see efforts outside of this Committee trying to do the same
thing. In fact, the House Republican Appropriations bill proposal
includes language that is designed to open the door to preempting
Proposition 12 in the future.
I am surprised that there is a strong stance to preempt Proposition
12 when there is bipartisan opposition to any legislation that would
overturn Proposition 12 and other similar state laws.
Ultimately, it has been made clear--the Supreme Court rules that
states are within their right to regulate the sale of agricultural
products within its borders, and farmers have already made the
necessary arrangements to voluntarily comply with the standards.
Reverting back when there is consumer demand for the product, and
bipartisan support to uphold Proposition 12, would simply make no
sense.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Our first witness today is Mr. Patrick Hord,
who is the CEO of Hord Family Farms, a fifth-generation family
farming operation located in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and
surrounding states. They raise approximately 8,500 acres of
corn, soybeans, wheat, and hay, as well as care for 47,000 sows
and pigs from birth to market. They also feed approximately
1,200 beef cattle per year, operate three grain elevators,
employ 350 team members, and partner with over 200 farmer swine
growers. Mr. Hord also serves as Vice President of the National
Pork Producers Council Board of Directors.
Our next witness is Mr. Matt Schuiteman, a pig farmer and
Board Member with the Iowa Farm Bureau. He lives and farms with
his wife, Mindy, and their seven children near Sioux Center in
Sioux County, Iowa.
Our third witness today is Ms. Holly Cook, who is an
economist at the National Pork Producers Council. Ms. Cook
collects and analyzes data for the pork industry and conducts
research on the impact of proposed policies and regulations on
the pork industry. She grew up on a farrow-to-finish farm
operation in Winthrop, Iowa.
Our next witness is Mr. Travis Cushman, the Deputy General
Counsel for Litigation and Public Policy at the American Farm
Bureau Federation. He has spent the better part of 4 years
examining the negative effects of California's Proposition 12
and helped elevate the issue to the Supreme Court.
Our fifth witness today is Ms. Lilly Rocha, the Executive
Director of the Latino Restaurant Association, an 800+ member
national organization based in Los Angeles, California. And she
is also the founder of Latino Food Industry Trade Show, the
nation's largest Latin food trade show.
I now yield to our Ranking Member, Ms. Craig, to introduce
our next witness.
Ms. Craig. Thank you. Tiffany Dowell Lashmet is a Professor
and Extension Specialist in Agriculture Law. She is located in
the Department of Agriculture Economics at Texas A&M
University.
Tiffany grew up on a family farm and ranch in northeastern
New Mexico, where her family raised sheep, cattle, alfalfa,
wheat, and milo. Tiffany has a BS in agribusiness farm and
ranch management from Oklahoma State University and a juris
doctorate from the University of New Mexico School of Law.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Thank you all for joining us today. We are now going to
proceed to your testimony. You will each have 5 minutes. The
timer in front of you will count down to zero at which point
your time has expired.
Mr. Hord, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK HORD, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL PORK
PRODUCERS COUNCIL; CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HORD FAMILY FARMS,
BUCYRUS, OH
Mr. Hord. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member
Craig, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
invitation to testify. My name is Pat Hord, and I am a fourth-
generation pork producer from Bucyrus, Ohio.
Our farm's legacy stretches back to 1905, when my great-
grandfather purchased a track of land in north-central Ohio. My
wife, Janel, and I carry on that legacy by caring for our pigs
from birth to market. We have been blessed to farm row crops
and livestock across a number of states, and importantly for
today's discussion, we produce pork compliant with California
Prop 12.
I serve as the Vice President of the National Pork
Producers Council. We represent the interests of America's more
than 60,000 pork producers. Our industry supports over 573,000
U.S. jobs and adds about $63 billion to the nation's GDP.
Despite producing Prop 12-compliant pork, I am here to say
that Prop 12 and an unmitigated regulatory patchwork threatens
our farm. Prop 12 makes it a crime in California to sell
uncooked whole pork meat from the offspring of sows that aren't
raised according to the state's arbitrary housing standards.
Meatpackers and retailers will not stop selling to California's
40 million residents, which means producers across the country
have needed to comply with California's mandate.
Proponents of Prop 12 claim the measure was designed to
improve animal welfare. However, welfare is a complex issue.
Every style of housing, including group pens, which are
functionally required by Prop 12, come with challenges. Last
year, supporting the preemption of Prop 12, the American
Veterinary Medical Association stated the arbitrary housing
requirements in Prop 12 do not objectively improve animal
welfare and may unintentionally cause harm.
Larger farms tend to have access to sufficient capital to
diversify and absorb Prop 12's cost burdens, but smaller farms
find it difficult to obtain the capital and undertake the
associated risks.
Regardless of size, all farms have or will continue to
experience productivity losses under Prop 12. You simply cannot
house the same number of sows in the same size barn. Prop 12-
compliant housing is inherently less efficient.
The existential challenge of Prop 12 is a patchwork of
differing regulations across the country. It creates
uncertainty around what design we need to use for our new barns
and even how I decide what to do when an existing barn needs
remodeling. Whatever I do today could need to be changed when a
new state decides they want a different housing standard. These
are expensive changes, and some farmers may exit the business
amid this uncertainty, which increases consolidation.
NPPC fought to stop California from regulating farms
outside of its borders, filing suit against Prop 12 and taking
the case to the Supreme Court. The lawsuit raised important
legal questions around federalism, the relationship between
states, and the power of individual states to regulate out-of-
state businesses. The Court made it clear Congress can and
should fix Prop 12.
There is strong bipartisan opposition to Prop 12. The Biden
Administration argued against it before the Supreme Court, and
the Trump Administration recently filed suit against Prop 12
over its impacts on egg prices, arguing it unnecessarily
increases the cost of food and food production by manipulating
interstate commerce.
Prop 12 isn't only a domestic problem. It applies to and
greatly concerns our trading partners. The Canadian Government,
for example, is analyzing the effects of Prop 12 and
considering the U.S. obligations under the USMCA and the WTO.
To summarize, Prop 12's housing standards were developed
without the input of hog farmers, veterinarians, or food safety
experts. Prop 12 does not objectively improve animal welfare
and leaves the industry vulnerable to the uncertainty of a 50
state patchwork. NPPC urges Congress to fix Prop 12. We ask
that you support Chairman Thompson's efforts to rein in the
state's attempt to regulate interstate commerce, restore the
sovereignty of states to deal with their own businesses, and
abide by our internal obligations.
I am happy to answer any of your questions today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hord follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick Hord, Vice President, National Pork
Producers Council; Chief Executive Officer, Hord Family Farms, Bucyrus,
OH
Introduction
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) represents 42 affiliated
state associations, working together to ensure the U.S. pork industry
remains a consistent and responsible supplier of high-quality pork to
domestic and international markets. Through public policy outreach,
NPPC fights for reasonable legislation and regulations, develops
revenue and market opportunities, and protects the livelihoods of
America's more than 60,000 pork producers.
The U.S. pork industry serves as a major contributor to the
agricultural and overall U.S. economies. In 2023, U.S. pork producers
marketed more than 149 million hogs valued at over $27 billion while
supporting more than 573,000 U.S. jobs and supplying consumers with
nutritional products that are raised safely and humanely. The U.S. is
also a global supplier of pork, with exports accounting for about a
quarter of annual pork production and supporting more than 140,000 U.S.
jobs. Last year, the U.S. pork industry exported more than $8.6 billion
of product to more than 100 countries.
The pork industry used roughly 1.7 billion bushels of corn and the
soybean meal from 462 million bushels of soybeans in 2023. It also used
about 40 billion pounds of other feed ingredients, including distillers
dried grains with solubles (DDGS), a major byproduct of corn ethanol
production.
California Proposition 12
The successes of the U.S. pork industry are particularly impressive
given the challenges--weather, diseases, labor shortages--producers
face to put safe and accessible food on American tables. One of the
most significant hurdles the U.S. pork industry continues to face is
California's Proposition 12, a challenge compounded by the reality that
other states have followed suit with efforts to mandate entirely
different production standards for pig farms. The risk of a balkanized
patchwork of varied state regulations is causing chaos in the pork
industry and threatens to cause long-term fundamental harm to the
foundation of the United States economic system.
Approved in 2018 through a state ballot initiative, Proposition 12
makes it a civil and criminal offense to engage in the commercial sale
within the state of California of uncooked whole pork meat derived from
the offspring of sows that are not raised according to California's
prescriptive, arbitrary, and unscientific animal housing standards.
Pork producers who want to sell their product in California must
provide their sows a minimum of 24 square feet of space. That compares
with an industry average of 18-20 square feet per sow. Proposition 12
also prohibits the use of breeding pens, which allow sows to recover in
the days following delivery and nursing of piglets. Those pens also
greatly reduce aggression and fighting among sows.
Despite claims by its proponents that the initiative would improve
sow welfare, in drafting Proposition 12 implementing regulations, the
California Department of Food and Agriculture admitted the loss of
breeding pens would result in significant increases in animal mortality
and reduced litter sizes because of aggression among sows. Like other
animals, sows in groups develop a pecking order, often fighting to
determine their rank.
Group pens, which are functionally required by Proposition 12,
place multiple sows together in a single pen. Group pens have the
potential to increase pregnancy losses, lengthen recovery from weaning,
and heighten risks for sow injury and death. In fact, Proposition 12 is
opposed by both the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and
the American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV).
In a letter \1\ to this Committee supporting the preemption of
Prop. 12 in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024, the AVMA
wrote, ``Because no one husbandry style is appropriate for all
circumstances, regulations aimed at improving animal welfare should be
based upon scientific evidence and the professional judgement of
veterinarians. The arbitrary housing requirements in Prop 12 do not
objectively improve animal welfare and may unintentionally cause
harm.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://nppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/
AVMA.2024FBSupportLetter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a separate letter,\2\ the AASV wrote, ``A well-established body
of scientific literature assessing biological metrics of sow welfare in
individual stalls and group pens shows that both housing methods can be
important tools in managing a healthy herd. Categorically banning one
of them, as Proposition 12 does, will likely harm rather than improve
animal well-being,'' and that, ``Without a solution, veterinarians will
be restricted in their options to maximize animal welfare based on a
herd's specific needs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://nppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/AASV-letter-Farm-
Bill-Prop-12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, Proposition 12 does not enhance food safety, contrary
to proponents' claims when the measure was presented to voters. There
is no evidence that housing sows in individual gestation pens increases
the risk of disease spreading from the sows' offspring to humans.
Likewise, there is no evidence that disease prevalence in mature
slaughter pigs has any relationship to whether their mothers were
housed in groups or individual pens. Each farm mitigates food safety
risks through veterinarian-established herd health plans, as well as
separating market pigs from other populations. There is no correlation
between the housing of sows and food safety risks.
The CDFA acknowledged that Proposition 12's space requirements are
not based on peer-reviewed science or accepted as standard in the
scientific community to reduce human-borne illness.
Cost to Pork Producers
The pork industry is complex, vertically segmented, and
specifically designed to produce high-quality, affordable meat in a
safe and efficient manner, with cuts from a single pig sold across the
country. This means retailers, distributors, and packers, who would
bear the consequences for violating Proposition 12, will incur
significant costs when supplying pork products to the California
market. And, despite not every product being covered by Proposition 12,
the entire hog must be raised in a compliant manner, adding even more
to the price that must be received on covered pork products to offset
compliance costs. Without Congressional intervention, the industry is
left vulnerable to a regulatory patchwork that fractures the national
pork market based on arbitrary and costly state-by-state requirements.
Pork producers throughout the country have already collectively
spent hundreds of millions of dollars converting existing structures or
building new barns to continue selling pork in California.
Recent estimates show that new construction of Proposition 12
compliant barns can cost at least 15-20% more per sow than standard
open pen gestation systems. Retrofitting existing barns, though highly
dependent on the starting point of the barn, could cost at least $100
per sow to provide the required square footage. This approach is also
associated with at least a 30 percent reduction in throughput because
of fewer sows and likely productivity impacts. To maintain their sow
herd, there are also added higher operating expenses for things such as
utilities, veterinary care, labor, and other costs.
While some farms, mostly larger ones, have access to sufficient
capital to amortize and absorb the cost burden, smaller and independent
producers have limited access to capital and cannot easily cover
Proposition 12's costs. Moreover, the farms that make the effort to
comply with Proposition 12 likely will experience losses in
productivity, which exacerbates the challenges created by the costs
associated with increasing square footage required by the initiative.
Increased costs and risk will force further consolidation of the pork
industry, reducing competition to the detriment of consumers
nationwide.
Proposition 12 also requires that pork producers pay for and
certify--through third-party audits--that their sow barns comply with
the initiative's space requirements. This inspection and certification
regime, in addition to being expensive and burdensome, could also
interfere with farms' operations and biosecurity measures.
Efforts to Fix Proposition 12
Proposition 12 was challenged in the court system by NPPC and the
American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), with dozens of other
agricultural organizations and states filing briefs in support. While
the lawsuit centered on pork production, its implications were far
greater and raised a host of important legal questions around
federalism, the relationships between states, and the sovereign power
of individual states to assert sole jurisdiction over the operation and
regulation of their businesses.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the argument that by regulating
farms outside its borders, California violated the Constitution's
``dormant commerce clause,'' which prevents economic discrimination and
protectionism but also stops states from ``imped[ing] substantially the
free flow of commerce from state to state.''
Subsequently, the Iowa Pork Producers Association (IPPA), an
affiliate of NPPC, challenged Proposition 12 in the courts based on
arguments not made in the NPPC-AFBF case. In appealing lower court
decisions against its suit, IPPA said allowing Proposition 12 to stand
``would implicitly endorse an individual state's regulation of an out-
of-state industry based on the state's own sense of what is `moral.'
It's difficult to see where that road ends.''
The organization pointed out that while its case involves pork,
others could involve any good or service imaginable and would
incentivize tit-for-tat trade wars among the states.
``If issues of `morality' can drive the regulation of out-of-state
industry,'' IPPA argued in a brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, ``why
couldn't future regulation be based on minimum wage policies of sister
states, or employees' immigration status, or any other hot-button
social issue of the day?''
``The framers [of the Constitution] prohibited precisely this type
of discriminatory and overly onerous out-of-state regulation.''
In fact, such extraterritoriality--the legal concept that a state's
laws can apply to people or actions outside its borders--was addressed
in the design of the Constitution. A state law that has the practical
effect of regulating wholly out-of-state commerce is invalid,
regardless of whether it also regulates in-state commerce. The
practical effect of Proposition 12 is that commercial pork activity
outside of California needs to comply with that state's regulations,
making the initiative an extraterritorial regulation of the $27 billion
interstate pork market.
Some supporters of Proposition 12 argue that this practical effect
doctrine is limitless and could invalidate a wide range of laws. But
the extraterritoriality principle comes into play only when a state law
has the practical effect of controlling transactions that occur
entirely outside the enacting state, imposing the enacting state's
policies on residents of other states and usurping the sovereign power
of the other states.
The practical effect of Proposition 12 is a ban on the use of
individual pens by pork producers outside of California. In-state sow
producers already were prohibited from using individual pens by
Proposition 2, a 2008 ballot initiative that took effect in 2015
(nearly all of California's sow operations--about 100,000 animals--
moved out of the state following passage of Proposition 2). This means
Proposition 12 wholly regulates out-of-state pork production.
There is nothing incidental about Proposition 12's extraterritorial
effect. It applies to sows across the country, 99.9 percent of which
are raised outside of California, and interferes almost entirely with
out-of-state contracts. Essentially, there is no sow industry in
California where sow farms cannot meet land use and environmental
requirements or bear the cost of doing business.
California keeps pork production out but imposes costly measures on
pork producers in other states. It does so despite having no valid
interest in other states' animal husbandry practices or policies. To
attach restrictions to the sale in California of out-of-state pork
based on concerns for animals raised in other states extends
California's police power beyond its jurisdictional bounds.
The Trump Administration is picking up where the Biden
Administration left off in challenging the effects on interstate
commerce of Proposition 12. On July 9, 2025, the Department of Justice
filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California over the impacts that Proposition 12, as well as 2008's
Proposition 2, have had on the national market for eggs and egg
products. While the lawsuit does not impact pork products, NPPC agrees
with the Department of Justice that Proposition 12, and laws like it,
unnecessarily increase the cost of food and food production by
manipulating interstate commerce without improving animal welfare.
Unlike laws and regulations directed at harm to in-state persons or
property, philosophical objections to out-of-state policies on wages,
investors, or animal welfare are not legitimate local interests.
Measures such as Proposition 12 impose substantial burdens on
interstate commerce that outweigh a state's negligible local benefits.
Taken as a whole, the negative effects of Proposition 12 far
outweigh California's minor interests.
Harm to Producers and Consumers
Proposition 12 is disadvantaging family pork producers across the
country by requiring compliance with expensive and arbitrary production
standards--or losing access to the country's largest pork market.
Meanwhile, consumers in California already are experiencing
significantly higher pork prices as a direct result of Proposition 12.
With nearly 40 million residents, California represents 12 percent
of the U.S. population and an estimated 13 percent of the domestic pork
market. The state has large Asian, Black, and Latino populations, all
of which have longstanding cultural preferences for pork. Despite being
such a large market for pork, California accounts for less than 0.1
percent of U.S. pork production and, as referenced above, is dependent
on farms located outside its borders to feed its residents.
Approximately 700,000 sows are needed to supply California with the
product mix it routinely consumes; the state has only about 6,000 sows
on commercial farms.
A 2024 report \3\ by economists with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Office of the Chief Economist found that after
Proposition 12 was implemented, prices for covered pork products in
California increased by 20 percent on average, with pork loins
increasing as much as 41 percent. This disproportionately affects
lower-income households and families battling inflation and increasing
food costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2024/03/19/
v27n3_2_e40mBEN.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outside California, more widespread adoption of measures like
Proposition 12 would likewise lead to consumers across the country
paying higher prices for pork.
Left unchecked, a patchwork of conflicting, Proposition 12-style
regulations around the country would also lead to even more
consolidation of the industry as pork producers are forced to
constantly reconstruct their operations or close their doors. Moreover,
the producers who can afford to comply would experience losses in
productivity at the same time they would face the costs of increasing
their square footage. And when activists are again successful at
persuading a state to adopt anything above Proposition 12's 24 square
foot requirement, the wholesale revision of farm practices and
contracts will start all over again.
Bipartisan Opposition
The implications of Proposition 12 go far beyond pork producers'
farm gates and open a Pandora's box of potential state regulations that
would fracture the national market. Combined with the economic and
structural impacts on the pork industry, this leads to strong
opposition to Proposition 12 by officials and lawmakers in both
parties.
President Trump opposes Proposition 12 and has committed \4\ to
using every legal tool to address the problems it has caused outside of
California's borders. Former President Biden \5\ also opposed the
initiative, with his solicitor general arguing in support of the
position of NPPC and American Farm Bureau Federation in their case
against Proposition 12 before the Supreme Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://web.archive.org/web/20240912215853/https:/www.fb.org/
presidential-candidate-questionnaire%22%20/l%20%22stateregulations.
\5\ https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/article/2022/06/
21/biden-administration-sides-ag-scotus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In testimony before this Committee, former Agriculture Secretary
Tom Vilsack said \6\ of the problems caused by Proposition 12, ``If we
don't take this issue seriously, we're going to have chaos in the
marketplace.'' Likewise, current USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins
testified \7\ that ``California has the right to do what California
wants to do. But the minute that crosses the border and begins to
compromise, in such a significant way, our pork producers, we need to
act.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-agriculture-
secretary-sees-chaos-meat-market-without-congressional-action-2024-02-
14/.
\7\ https://x.com/NPPC/status/1932892752284660061/video/1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman GT Thompson thought Proposition 12 important enough to
address in the ``Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.'' In a
letter \8\ supporting that act sent May 2024 to Chairman Thompson and
Ranking Member David Scott, more than 900 agricultural organizations
pointed out that ``California's Proposition
12 . . . [is] causing turmoil in agricultural markets and having
significant detrimental impacts on our members' farms and ranches,
especially small- and medium-sized farms.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://nppc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Agriculture-
Stakeholder-Proposition-12-Letter-to-House-Ag.-Leadership.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate legislation, the ``Food Security and Farm Protection Act,''
was introduced earlier this Congress to prohibit states from imposing a
standard or condition on the pre-harvest production of any agricultural
products sold or offered for sale if produced elsewhere. NPPC and many
other agricultural associations have offered their support \9\ for this
approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://nppc.org/news/nppc-praises-sens-ernst-grassley-
marshalls-efforts-to-avert-pork-industry-crisis/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beyond the concerns of pork producers around the country,
Proposition 12 also sets a dangerous precedent that allows a large
state to effectively regulate agriculture and farming--indeed, any
sector--in other states, an outcome with negative implications for
interstate commerce.
Effects on International Trade
Proposition 12 is not only a domestic problem. It applies to
foreign pork industries that want to sell pork in California, forcing
them to forgo the market or spend millions converting farms and accept
foreign auditors to ensure their compliance. (Pork importing
distributors will need to submit third-party certifications to
California officials that their products meet the state's housing
standards.)
U.S. trading partners are pushing back. The Canadian Pork Council
(CPC), for example, claims Proposition 12 violates \10\ the U.S.
Constitution's Commerce Clause by preventing the United States ``from
speaking with one voice on the regulation of foreign commerce.'' The
CPC filed a friend-of-the-court brief \11\ with the U.S. Supreme Court
in the NPPC-AFBF case against Proposition 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://www.farmprogress.com/commentary/foreign-impacts-of-
proposition-12.
\11\ https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-468/228288/
20220617125858968_21-468_NPPCvRoss_AmicusBrief_2022-06-17.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``It's a state proposition,'' said Stephen Heckbert, executive
director of the CPC. ``International trade and international trade
agreements are the sole provision of the U.S. Government.''
Indeed, under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), provinces
and states are not permitted to create non-tariff barriers to trade.
The Canadian government issued a statement saying it is analyzing the
effects of Proposition 12 on trade and considering the U.S. obligations
under USMCA, as well as the World Trade Organization's Agreement on
Technical Barriers to Trade.
Furthermore, a state-based regulation with a clear international
reach such as Proposition 12, created outside of normal and customary
international negotiations and agreements, puts all American
agriculture in a vulnerable position by providing a pathway for any
nation to impose its own production standards.
Conclusion
Proposition 12 has wrought negative impacts on the pork industry
and set a dangerous precedent for a patchwork of state legislation.
Simply stated, this must be undone. NPPC and the AFBF attempted to use
the courts to reverse Proposition 12, and while the Supreme Court did
not accept their arguments on the ``dormant commerce'' clause, the high
court did make clear that Congress can act to address the problems with
Proposition 12.
The bottom line is that Proposition 12's arbitrary sow housing
standards were developed without input from pork producers,
veterinarians, or experts in animal care, food safety, and other
elements of pork production. Proposition 12 advances no legitimate
public interest. The AVMA and AASV state that it is not objectively
better for animals and, further, limits tools to maximize animal
welfare. The initiative has no human health benefits but rather, could
increase pathogen transmission, according to the CDFA, and it
eliminates pork producers' flexibility to decide which housing methods
are best for their sows, their operations, and their ability to produce
safe, wholesome, affordable pork.
NPPC urges Congress to follow the path laid out by the Supreme
Court and use its ability to fix Proposition 12 and the myriad problems
it has created or set in motion. Congressional lawmakers should support
efforts to rein in state attempts to regulate a safe, responsible,
reliable $27 billion pork industry, restore the sovereignty of states
to effectively manage their own businesses, and abide by international
trade obligations.
The Chairman. Mr. Hord, thank you so much for your
testimony.
Mr. Schuiteman, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SCHUITEMAN, DISTRICT 3
MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IOWA FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION; CO-OWNER, AJS FARMS, SIOUX CENTER, IA
Mr. Schuiteman. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking
Member Craig, and House Agriculture Committee, to allow me to
testify on this important issue.
Sioux County, where I live, is consistently one of the top
pork-producing counties in the United States, and Iowa accounts
for nearly 40 percent of all hog production in this country.
I have been farming and raising pigs all my life. I was
born and raised on a farrow-to-finish operation and continued
to farrow pigs until 2018. I have witnessed firsthand the
advancements and improvements in our industry that prioritizes
responsible production and animal well-being. I have raised
hogs in all types of environments, and my life experiences
provide a unique perspective to understand the negative
consequences of initiatives like California's Prop 12 for both
farmers and consumers.
I am confident that U.S. pork production is more
sustainable and humane than ever before. Our responsible
industry growth resulted from stakeholders coming together,
from producers to veterinarians to animal health and behavioral
experts. It is the result of our pursuit of continuous
improvement and seeking ways to provide our pigs the best
possible environment.
New technologies like computer thermostats and devices that
measure both the volume and air movement in a hog barn are
resources we use to ensure the maximum comfort of our pigs. In
northwest Iowa, our climate can be extreme. Modern climate-
controlled barns allow pigs to live comfortably year-round with
access to fresh water, controlled feed, and real-time
monitoring to provide the best customized environment and care.
The most important thing I have learned from a lifetime of
raising pigs is that it is critical for producers to have full
control over the environment in which their pigs are raised.
Lacking control to tailor our farm to best serve the animals'
needs is one of the biggest problems with Prop 12. When the
rates at which barns may be stocked are determined arbitrarily,
it creates economic hardship for the producer and can be
detrimental to the pigs themselves. The decision of how many
pigs to put in a barn at any given time in a production cycle
should be left to the owners and managers of these farms who
have the knowledge and experience.
Prop 12 regulation centers around housing requirements of
breeding stock. Management and husbandry of swine breeding
stock is an area rife with misconceptions and misinformation.
The intent behind giving sows more room to move around has good
intention but creates several challenges and unintended
consequences.
Our efforts have always revolved around three principles:
one, the comfort of the animal; two, the productivity of the
animal; and three, the health and safety of the stockman. We
have learned that confinement of breeding females has proven to
be the best mix of those three principles.
One thing that must be understood in the housing
conversation is the ever-changing group dynamic of female
breeding herds. Often, sows on the lowest rungs of the social
hierarchy are pushed away from feed and water, and in many
cases they will be targeted and can be physically harmed by
others in the group. Production systems have evolved with this
reality in mind to provide the best animal care.
That social hierarchy and behavior has real impacts for
both animal welfare and farmer profitability. It can mean the
difference between a female that produces 15 pigs in one litter
versus a female that has only five, or in many cases will end
up aborting her entire litter altogether. The safety and
survivability of piglets is a top priority. Proper housing of
an expectant female significantly impacts her offspring and
number of healthy piglets.
From years of experience and lessons learned raising pigs,
the pork industry found farrowing stalls to be the best method
for both nursing sows and their baby pigs. The stalls help
confine the mother while providing large, comfortable areas for
the newborn baby pigs to lay down and rest. Confinement of the
sow at this point is critical to the survival of her piglets.
When making animal housing decisions, we must also consider
the safety of the farmer and other herd caretakers. The sheer
size of sows poses a risk to the stockman when undertaking
everyday herd management activities. Breeding females also
become more aggressive during the breeding and farrowing time
periods, the times when the most direct management is needed.
Regulation dictating how sows are housed and managed during
these parts of the production cycle adds significant safety
risks to the animals and caretakers. These housing decisions
must stay on the farm with the people that know their animals
best.
Some consumers demand products that require premium pricing
to compensate for less efficient production methods, while at
the same time, many consumers have limited household budgets
and are looking for affordable protein. When given flexibility
in production, the pork industry can accommodate both.
Spending my entire life raising pigs in a variety of ways,
I am convinced it is best to allow production methods and
consumption demands to take shape in the open market as opposed
to arbitrarily shaping them through poorly worded and short-
sighted ballot initiatives. We need Congress to pass a fix to
the Prop 12 issue, and we are asking you to protect Iowa
farmers from overreach from initiatives that seek to harm
animal agriculture and that increase the cost of animal protein
to the consumer.
Thank you to the Committee for the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schuiteman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew Schuiteman, District 3 Member, Board of
Directors, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation; Co-Owner, AJS Farms, Sioux
Center, IA
Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and House Ag
Committee, to allow me to testify on this important issue.
My name is Matt Schuiteman, and I live and farm with my wife Minde
and our seven children near Sioux Center in Sioux County, Iowa. I am
here today representing my farm, my county, and the Iowa Farm Bureau,
where I currently serve as a Member of the Board of Directors. Sioux
County is the heart of the hog industry--our county is consistently one
of the top five pork producing counties in the United States, and
beyond that, Iowa represents almost 40% of all hog production in the
country.
I have been involved in the hog industry my entire life. I was born
and raised on a farrow-to-finish operation and continued to farrow pigs
until 2018. I have witnessed firsthand the transformation of the swine
industry from outdoor production facilities with barns and feeding
floors to fully indoor facilities that are entirely contained and
climate controlled. I have raised hogs in all types of environments,
outdoors and indoors, on cement and on grass pasture. I believe my life
experiences allow me the opportunity to evaluate the effects of
initiatives like California's Prop. 12 in unique ways.
I believe that U.S. pork production has never been as
environmentally friendly, safe, and humane as it is today. The number
of hours spent developing the modern practices and building management
systems we use today can't be overstated. I remember well the process
of adapting our own operation to indoor production. We spent a great
deal of both time and capital in our quest to ensure that we provide
our pigs with the best environment that we possibly could. This
involved new technologies such as computer thermostats and devices that
measure both the volume and air movement patterns of airflow in a hog
barn. I say this to emphasize the point that producers employ all
available resources to ensure the maximum comfort of their pigs.
Comfortable pigs are healthy pigs.
Advancement in technology is very apparent when one considers the
growth of pork production in the United States. I was a member of the
FFA in the early 1990s, and one of my projects was raising a group of
pigs. At that time, efficient sows would produce 20 pigs per year, and
efficient pigs would reach a market weight of 240 lbs between 6 and 7
months. Today, we have sows producing as many as 33 pigs per year, and
efficient pigs can reach a market weight of 300 lbs in 5\1/2\ months.
Incredible gains in efficiencies made possible in large part due to the
environmental technologies developed and deployed in the buildings
where these pigs are raised.
The most important thing I've learned from a lifetime of being
around pigs is that it's critical for producers to have full control
over the environment where they raise pigs. Every farm and building are
different, and the owners and managers of those farms and buildings
know best how to manage the unique, individual environments that they
encounter to give their animals the best possible environment. I find
the lack of this full control to be one of the bigger problems with
Prop. 12. It is not possible for someone who lives thousands of miles
away from a farm to know how best to manage the environment of each
individual building on that farm.
Where I live in Northwest Iowa, our climate is notoriously extreme.
It's not uncommon to have temperatures above 100 in the summer, and as
low as 20 below zero in the winter. When dealing with this incredible
amount of variance, we employ vast variety of management strategies,
tailored to both extremes. Agriculture is an industry where there is no
one-size-fits-all answer for our barns, where pigs will grow from 13
lbs to 300 lbs, all under the same roof. Managing a barn full of 13 lb
pigs is much different than managing a barn full of market-ready, 300
lb pigs. When the rates at which barns may be stocked are determined
arbitrarily, it not only produces economic harm to the producer, but
can also be incredibly detrimental to the pigs themselves, for
different reasons at various ages and stages of growth. The decision of
how many pigs to put in a barn at any given time in a production cycle
should be left to the owners and managers of these farms and facilities
who are working with these animals daily.
Much of the regulation in Prop. 12 centers around the housing of
breeding stock. Management and husbandry of swine breeding stock is an
area rife with misconceptions and misinformation. In a sense, the
intent behind giving sows more room to move around is pure. The swine
industry has for years spent both capital and human resources to
identify the best way to house the breeding herd. These efforts have
always revolved around three principles: (1) The comfort of the animal;
(2) The productivity of the animal; and (3) The health and safety of
the stockman. Over time, individual confinement of breeding females has
been proven to be the best mix of those three principles. At the same
time it has been recognized that some freedom of movement can aid the
health and longevity of the female while making minimal sacrifices to
her production.
One thing that must be understood in this conversation is that the
group dynamic of any given female breeding herd. Pigs are very much a
hierarchical species and always changing. A pen of females housed as a
group will always establish a social hierarchy within that group. This
will include a few females that are ``in charge,'' and a few at the
bottom of the social ladder. Often, sows who find themselves on the
lowest rungs of the hierarchy are pushed away from feed and water, and
in many cases, targeted and physically harmed by others in the group.
Production systems have been designed, and are constantly tweaked with
this reality in mind.
In my own experience, that social hierarchy can mean the difference
between a female that can produce 15 pigs in one litter vs. a female
that only has five, or in many cases, will end up aborting her entire
litter altogether. Beyond the well-being of the sows, the economic
impact of the social interactions in female breeding swine is also
incredibly significant. This is another reason why the decision on how
to best house female pigs needs to be solely with the producer or
manager of the herd.
Aside from the social dynamics, there are two other aspects that
must be dealt with when making housing decisions. The first is the
safety and survivability of piglets. Proper housing of an expectant
female will significantly impact how many offspring she can have. The
gestation phase of a sow is commonly reported as being ``3 months, 3
weeks, 3 days'', or roughly 115 days total. Around that 115 day mark,
the pregnancy becomes full term, and labor commences. It is common at
this point for a sow to be moved into a farrowing stall for the labor
and nursing of the new litter of pigs. Confinement of the sow at this
point is critical to the survival of her piglets.
Practically, sows weigh 400 lbs. or more; conversely, their
offspring commonly have a birth weight of about 3 lbs. Imagine standing
next to something that is more than 100 times bigger than yourself.
That can help provide a picture of what baby pigs see when they look up
at their mother. When these piglets nurse, the mother lays on her
side--so imagine again something that much larger crashing to its side
directly next to you. Hopefully both are paying attention and able to
move out of the way quickly enough to avoid being crushed. This is the
life of a newborn pig. This is the reason that the pork industry
utilizes farrowing stalls, which confine the mother while giving large,
comfortable areas for the newborn baby pigs to lay down and rest, free
from the fear of being crushed.
The nursing process is a fascinating one. Often, the sow kicks off
the process by eating or drinking. After standing for a bit, she'll
start grunting, talking to her piglets, telling them that she is
getting ready to feed them. The piglets hear and respond by gathering
around her. She starts to lay down, and as she does, she selects which
side she wants to lay on to expose her underline so her pigs can nurse.
This is the most dangerous part of the process for piglets. Sometimes,
piglets move with the sow and get safely into position to begin
nursing.
Unfortunately, there are other, all too often times where piglets
get caught and trapped under the sow as she lays down, resulting in
injury, or frequently death. I have many times been present during this
process, and have many times had to save a piglet from being crushed.
Sometimes the mother sow will hear the piglet squeal and make necessary
adjustments, but many times human intervention is the only way a pig
can be saved from this situation.
The final aspect considered in the housing decision is the safety
of the owner and/or manager of the herd. Sows are large, and can reach
sizes of 400 lbs or more. The sheer size of sows pose a risk to the
stockman when undertaking everyday herd management activities. Breeding
females also become more aggressive during breeding and farrowing--the
times when the most direct and hands on management practices are
needed. The stockman must be able to safely stay in close proximity to
the sows to ensure that they can receive the proper care and management
that are required during these key times in the production cycle.
Regulations dictating how sows are housed and managed during the
production cycle add significant safety risk to those who are actually
providing care to the herd. These decisions must stay on the farm and
with the people who assume the risks that come with hands on
management.
The Supreme Court's ruling on Proposition 12 has highlighted an
area in Federal law that allows individual states to influence business
practices across the entire nation. This ruling makes it clear that
Congress is uniquely positioned to address this issue and help maintain
a consistent approach to interstate commerce.
Currently, there is a possibility that states could create a
complicated landscape for interstate trade by passing laws that limit
or restrict the sale of goods originating in other states. Such state-
specific regulations could disrupt the longstanding balance that has
facilitated commerce between states.
Delays in addressing this issue may make it more difficult to
resolve conflicting state laws in the future. The longer these
inconsistencies persist, the more challenging it may become for
businesses to navigate various regulations and maintain efficient
operations.
Small farms and family businesses may be particularly affected if
state laws set standards that are hard for them to meet. This can lead
to further consolidation, as smaller producers might struggle to keep
up with larger operations that have more resources. Many times these
smaller producers choose to stay in business by adopting their
operation towards a niche market. Government involvement in setting
standards can infringe on the opportunities that these niche markets
offer to producers. When this happens the opportunity for profit from
these adaptations disappears for the producers who are involved.
Prop 12 has had substantial economic impacts on the supply chain.
Data is hard to come by, but so far the analysis points the same
direction: it's bad for pig welfare, it's bad for pig farmers, it's bad
for pork consumers. And this will have negative long-term consequences
for the industry if we don't find a fix.
Despite being billed as animal welfare regulation, Prop 12 has been
shown to have serious negative animal welfare outcomes for pigs.
Research results presented by the Pipestone System at the 2024
Minnesota Pork Congress show that animal health outcomes in Prop 12
barns in their system are worse than traditional stall and pen barns
according to several key metrics. In Prop 12-compliant barns, 10.2% of
the herd gets treated for lameness in a 10 week period, versus only
3.5% of the herd in stall barns.\1\ The percentage of animals culled
for lameness in a Prop 12 barn was shown to be double (1.2% vs. 0.45%)
that of stall barns, as well as the percentage of animals that died due
to lameness (1.11% vs. 0.45%). Farmers are always going to do their
best to care for their pigs, but the reality is, according to this
research, Prop 12's requirements resulted in worse animal welfare
outcomes for pigs in the Pipestone system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://youtu.be/ISlIygZTuZY?si=yDQ3h4G_12iSmLig&t=1223.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prop 12 has also resulted in negative economic outcomes for pig
farmers. The same Pipestone research showed that, in part due to
increased incidences of lameness, a 5,000 sow farm required 105 more
anti-inflammatory injections and 160 more antibiotic injections per
week compared to a stall barn. Additionally, sow death loss was nearly
2% higher in Prop 12 barns versus stall barns, due significantly to
lameness. Setting aside the mental health impacts of these losses to
pig farmers, these represent substantial economic losses that must be
made up somehow. If these losses are made up with a premium to farmers,
those premiums come from higher prices for consumers.
Finally, Prop 12 has been harmful to consumers in California.
According to an early 2024 analysis authored by economists in the
USDA's Office of the Chief Economist, prices for pork products in
California covered by Prop 12 were 20% higher than they would have been
from July 1, 2023, to February 4, 2024, due to Prop 12.\2\ Pork loins
specifically saw an incredible 41% increase in price in California due
to Prop 12. This increase was far greater than the 7.7% long-run price
increase that was predicted by California's official forecast conducted
by researchers at UC-Davis.\3\ We'll see what the price increases end
up being when the dust settles, but we know that immediately following
implementation, this was harmful to California's consumers, most of
whom did not know why their pork got more expensive and likely
attributed the increases to economy-wide inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2024/03/19/
v27n3_2_e40mBEN.pdf.
\3\ https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2021/08/17/v24n6_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When I traveled to California last year with Iowa Farm Bureau to
learn about Prop 12, I was shocked to discover that there was no Prop
12 labeling on pork packaging whatsoever. Come to find out, there is no
legal requirement to label the packaging, and voluntary labels weren't
being used. If this was truly something that consumers wanted and
valued, wouldn't the retailers capitalize on those consumer preferences
to recoup some of the cost?
There are many different management systems that have been designed
and implemented in the swine industry, including systems that have been
developed specifically for markets with requirements like Prop. 12.
It's important to provide freedom for both pork producers and
consumers. Some consumers will demand products that need to be priced
with a premium to compensate for less efficient production methods,
where as other consumers will simply demand access to the most
affordable source of protein they can purchase. There's ample
opportunity for both the production and the consumption of pork
produced in a variety of ways, but it's best that we simply allow such
production and consumption methods to take shape as the market demands,
as opposed to arbitrarily shaping them before the market gets a say.
We need Congress to pass a fix to the prop 12 issue, it is your job
to help protect Iowa farmers from overreach by states who want to harm
animal agriculture.
The Chairman. Mr. Schuiteman, thank you so much for your
testimony.
Ms. Cook, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF HOLLY COOK, ECONOMIST, NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS
COUNCIL, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Cook. Good morning. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member
Craig, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
invitation to testify today. My name is Holly Cook, and I am an
Economist with the National Pork Producers Council, which
represents 42 affiliated state pork associations and fights for
reasonable public policy while protecting the livelihood of
America's pork producers.
I hold a master's degree in agricultural economics from
Iowa State University, and while I am a current resident of
Washington, D.C., I grew up on a farrow-to-finish hog farm in
northeast Iowa, where my family continues actively farming
today. I am here this morning to discuss the economic impacts
of California's Proposition 12 and the implications that a
conflicting state-by-state patchwork of regulations would have
on the U.S. pork industry.
Pork producers have faced many challenges in recent years,
including a period of severe financial losses that by some
measures was the worst in our industry's history. From late
2022 to early 2024, record high production costs and lower hog
prices resulted in an average loss of $29 on each hog sold,
equating to billions of dollars in lost equity across the
industry.
While margins have improved in 2025 and many farms are
continuing to recover financially, there is no shortage of risk
facing U.S. pork producers and their ability to make decisions
and remain viable for future generations. The issues created by
Prop 12 only add to the uncertainty, and despite recommending
Congress fix Prop 12, the Supreme Court's decision has opened
the door for any state to put stipulations on the sale of pork
outside its borders.
While California accounts for about 13 percent of domestic
pork consumption, it is responsible for less than 0.1 percent
of hog production, meaning it relies almost entirely on out-of-
state farmers to supply compliant products. As expected,
compliance with Prop 12 raises the cost of production at the
farm level.
While becoming compliant looks different for each
individual farm, every approach comes with costs. For farms
with group pen gestation systems, converting barns to be
compliant may mean a 30 percent to 40 percent decline in
production, a result of having fewer sows combined with reduced
efficiencies. Farms may also face higher average costs for
utilities, veterinary care, labor, and feed, and they will have
to spread their fixed costs out over fewer weaned pigs
produced.
Producers now also face decisions when replacing old barns
and constructing new facilities. Because new Prop 12-compliant
barns cost more per sow than other housing styles, producers
would need to receive a premium of $5 to $8 on every pig sold
for 15 years just to break even and would need as much as $20
per pig to make them no worse off than investing in other
housing systems. These estimates come from a study by
economists at Iowa State University and the University of
Minnesota. The current environment not only threatens the
certainty and sufficiency of premiums, but it also increases
the risk of future investment decisions.
With higher costs at the farm level combined with
segmentation costs throughout the supply chain, it is no
surprise that Prop 12 has also resulted in significantly higher
prices for California consumers. A study by economists at the
University of California-Davis estimated that after a
transition period, Prop 12's long-run outcome would be eight
percent higher pork prices and a six percent decline in
California's consumption of covered pork cuts, resulting in a
$320 million hit to consumers each year.
So far, Prop 12's impact has been even greater. A report by
USDA economists showed that in the first 8 months of
implementation, prices for covered products increased by 20
percent on average due to Prop 12, with pork loins seeing an
even greater increase at 41 percent. It has been more than a
year since that report was released, and updated scanner data
shows that these trends continue to hold. Retail prices in
California are still over 20 percent higher than before Prop 12
took effect, while the total sales volume is down by double
digits. This means Californians are now spending more but
consuming less pork.
While Californians are seeing the impacts today, one study
found that if the entire industry were required to adopt a
system like Prop 12, it would reduce total U.S. consumer
welfare by $41 billion over 15 years, disproportionately
impacting price-sensitive, high-pork-consuming households. It
is also critical to recognize that compliance is more feasible
for larger farms that can more easily offset costs and secure
the needed capital. Widespread adoption of Prop 12-like
measures would almost certainly hasten the closing of doors for
small- to medium-sized farms, or at the very least result in a
greater percentage of U.S. sows being owned by fewer farms.
In closing, NPPC urges Congress to fix the challenges
created by Prop 12 and deliver much-needed certainty to U.S.
pork producers. Thank you for the opportunity to share my
expertise, and I welcome your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Cook follows:]
Prepared Statement of Holly Cook, Economist, National Pork Producers
Council, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the invitation to testify. I appreciate the
opportunity to provide perspectives on the current economic impacts of
California's Proposition 12, as well as the potential impacts that
additional state laws or a conflicting patchwork of regulations, would
have on the U.S. pork industry.
My name is Holly Cook, and I am an economist with the National Pork
Producers Council (NPPC), an organization representing 42 affiliated
state associations that fights for reasonable public policy while
protecting the livelihood of America's pork producers. I hold a
master's degree in Agricultural Economics from Iowa State University,
and while I am a current resident of Washington, D.C., I grew up on a
farrow-to-finish hog farm in northeast Iowa, where my family continues
actively farming today.
U.S. Pork Industry Overview
From late 2022 to early 2024, U.S. pork producers experienced
severe financial losses resulting from record-high production costs and
lower hog prices due to a pullback in domestic consumer demand.
According to reports by Iowa State University Extension and Outreach,
losses for farrow-to-finish hog producers averaged $29 per head during
this time, equating to billions of dollars in cumulative lost
equity.\1\ Beginning in April 2024, margins began to recover as lower
feed costs and improved macroeconomic factors supported stronger demand
for U.S. pork. As of June 2025, pork producers have seen nearly 15
months of positive profitability averaging nearly $10 per head, and
many farms across the country are continuing to recover from the recent
financial downturn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Iowa State University Extension and Outreach. (2025). Estimated
Livestock Returns--Swine. Iowa State University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Estimated Monthly Returns, Farrow-to-Finish Producers (Jan.
2019-May 2025)
While moderate profits have returned to the pork industry,
producers continue to face significant risks impacting their
businesses. From the threat of a foreign animal disease, which would
shutter the export markets that account for 25% of U.S. pork
production, to domestic and international demand uncertainty, labor
shortages, endemic disease pressure, market volatility, and policy
uncertainty, there is no shortage of challenges facing U.S. pork
producers.
Over time, cycles of loss and profitability as well as significant
market and production risk factors have influenced the structure of the
pork industry. According to the latest U.S. Census of Agriculture,
there were about 60,000 U.S. farms with hogs in inventory at the end of
2022. This represents a decline of 5,600 farms from the last Ag Census
in 2017, with 99% of the farms lost being those that had less than
5,000 head in inventory.\2\ Importantly, the latest Ag Census does not
account for farms lost during the recent period of financial losses.
Furthermore, the pork industry continues to see a transition toward
contract production, which provides producers an opportunity to remain
engaged in hog farming without production or market price risk, though
over time has resulted in a greater percentage of U.S. sows owned by
fewer farms. As of 2022, independent pork producers owned 35% of the
U.S. hog inventory; 24% was owned and cared for directly by contractors
or integrators, and 41% of the inventory was under the care of a
contract grower but owned by a contractor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service. (2022). Table 20-23. Hogs and Pigs Sales, Herd Size
by Inventory and Sales, Inventory and Sales by Number Sold per Farm,
Inventory by Type of Producer. 2022 Census of Agriculture, Vol. 1,
Chap. 1 U.S. National Level Data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issues like California's Proposition 12, and the threat of a 50
state patchwork of conflicting animal housing regulations, have only
added to the uncertainty and risk that U.S. producers must consider
when making critical decisions about the future of their businesses.
Background on California's Proposition 12
California's Proposition 12, formally known as the ``Farm Animal
Confinement Initiative,'' was approved by California voters in November
2018. The law establishes minimum space requirements for veal calves,
egg-laying hens, and breeding pigs, and prohibits the sale of meat and
eggs in California from animals not raised in compliance with those
standards, regardless of where the animals are raised.
As it pertains to pork, Proposition 12 requires that any uncooked,
whole pork cuts sold in California must come from sows housed in a
minimum of 24 square feet of space and with the ability to turn around
freely. At the time of passage, only a very small percentage of U.S.
pork would have met the standards set by Proposition 12, and this
product was presumably committed to other market channels that had
demonstrated sufficient demand.
Proposition 12 further prohibits the use of gestation stalls for
breeding sows, except during limited circumstances, such as the 5 day
period prior to the expected date of giving birth and any day the sow
is nursing piglets. There is a partial exception for animal husbandry
purposes, but it is limited to no more than 6 hours in any 24 hour
period and no more than 24 hours total in any 30 day period.
Effectively, Proposition 12 requires the mixing of sows while they are
at their most vulnerable time, which in many cases results in higher
sow mortality, lower conception rates, and reduced productivity.
After a series of legal challenges brought by NPPC and the American
Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF), Proposition 12 was upheld by the United
States Supreme Court in the May 2023 National Pork Producers Council
vs. Ross decision. While the court acknowledged the concerns brought by
NPPC, it found that an act of Congress would be most appropriate for
addressing the far-reaching challenges created by Proposition 12.
Implementation of the law was set for July 1, 2023, but a June 2023
announcement modified implementation to allow for any non-compliant
pork already in the supply chain prior to July 1, 2023, to be sold in
California until December 31, 2023. Full enforcement efforts and third-
party certification requirements began on January 1, 2024.
Importance of the California Market
In 2024, California's 39.4 million residents accounted for 12% of
the U.S. population,\3\ though retail data, consumption indices, and
population demographics suggest that Californians consume more pork per
capita than the U.S. average, indicating that California accounts for
approximately 13% of domestic pork consumption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). State population totals and
components of change: 2020-2024. U.S. Department of Commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The impact of Proposition 12 is complicated by the fact that it
applies only to certain pork products, specifically, uncooked cuts of
pork. This includes popular items such as pork chops, ribs, loins,
fresh hams, and uncooked bacon. It does not apply to ground pork,
sausage, or processed or cooked products like canned hams, or
combination products, like hot dogs or pizzas. While covered items are
estimated to account for 53-56% of the carcass, the entire pig must be
raised in a compliant manner to supply covered products.
Additionally, California's consumption equates to about 10% of the
U.S. pork produced, but because the state's consumption of covered pork
cuts is almost certainly not proportionate to the cuts derived from a
single pig, this creates a situation where more than 10% of U.S. hogs
must be Prop 12-compliant. For instance, if ribs are more popular than
another cut, more pigs must be compliant to supply the products
Californians wish to purchase. Estimates indicate that approximately
700,000 sows would be needed to meet historical demand levels in
California, equating to about 12% of the current U.S. breeding herd of
6.0 million.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Lee, H., Sexton, R. J., and Sumner, D.A. (2021). Voter Approved
Proposition to Raise California Pork Prices. (ARE Update 24(6): 5-8).
University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural Economics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is the largest single-state market for pork, California's
in-state hog and pork production is nowhere near sufficient to meet the
pork demands of its residents. In 2023, California had a December 1
inventory of 39,000 total hogs on farms, including 6,000 breeding
animals, and the state accounted for less than 0.1% of hog
production.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural
Statistics Service. (2025). Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and
Income, 2024 Summary. USA Economics, Statistics, and Market Information
Systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, the standards imposed by Proposition 12 require out-
of-state producers to make conversions to continue supplying their
products to California. While this is, in theory, a choice to be made
by producers and packers across the country, the size and relative
importance of the California market means pressures associated with
Proposition 12 have widespread impacts.
An example of how the actions of one state can impact the national
pork market was demonstrated in the months following the partial
implementation of Proposition 12. After the June 2023 announcement that
non-compliant pork already in the supply chain could continue to be
sold in California until the end of the year, buyers looked to stock up
on non-compliant pork, which put upward pressure on prices for certain
covered pork cuts. According to weekly reports by USDA's Agricultural
Marketing Service under Livestock Mandatory Reporting, the USDA
calculated primal value for pork bellies, which incorporates the price
and volume of specific pork belly cuts with an adjustment for labor and
packaging, increased nearly 200% from June to August 2023, reaching the
highest level in 2 years. Figure 2 shows how belly primal values in
2023 trailed 2021 levels by an average of 43% for the first half of the
year before narrowing for the 8 weeks following July 1. Additionally,
the fundamental situation in hog and pork markets was drastically
different in 2021 than in 2023, further emphasizing the influence that
Proposition 12 had in pushing 2023 belly values within 5% of 2021
levels for several weeks in July and August.
Figure 2: Weekly Negotiated Belly Primal Value \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, Livestock, Poultry, &
Grain Market News. (2021-2024). National Weekly Pork FOB Plant-
Negotiated Sales (LM_PK610).
Farm-Level Costs of Producing Proposition 12-Compliant Pork
Complying with Proposition 12 requires adjustments to be made by
pork producers, pork packers, distributors, retailers, and others
across the supply chain. At the farm level, the way in which a producer
may modify their operation to become compliant depends heavily on the
individual farm, the starting point of existing barns, and to a degree,
geographic location and the prospect of premiums offered. While the
exact approach will be unique for each operation, producers will
consider three general options for undertaking Proposition 12
compliance:
1. The seemingly least expensive option would be to reduce the
number of sows in an existing barn without adding
additional space. For a farm that is already engaged in
group housing, the capital investment to reduce sows and
increase the square footage available to each sow could
start at $100-$200 per sow. However, farms currently
utilizing gestation stalls and wanting to retrofit for
Proposition 12 compliance could incur costs exceeding
$1,000 per sow to remove stalls and install the necessary
infrastructure. While this approach incurs the lowest up-
front capital investment, a critical factor regardless of
starting point is the lost throughput. Both would require a
reduction in the number of sows, depending on the starting
square footage, and would result in fewer weaned pigs
produced. The restricted use of gestation stalls to provide
individualized care during the sow's most vulnerable times
has been reported to further impact productivity. The
combination of fewer sows and lower farrowing rates could
be expected to result in a 30-40% reduction in weaned pig
production for a farm transitioning 18 to 24 square feet.
On top of lost revenue, there are also higher variable
costs related to heating the building, labor, veterinary
care, and feed efficiencies, and higher fixed costs per pig
produced due to what would become underutilized farrowing
and finishing capacity. Despite these significant cost
considerations, this approach may be the only option for a
producer who is limited by local permitting or farm
construction limitations.
2. To avoid lost throughput, producers could consider retrofitting
existing barns to achieve compliance while adding space to
maintain their sow herd. However, due to expected
productivity impacts related to higher mortality and
reduced efficiencies, producers would likely need to expand
the sow herd in hopes of maintaining weaned pig production.
Estimates of farrowing rate impacts vary by farm and may
evolve over time, but using an assumed 5% more sows needed
to produce the same number of pigs, this option would
require the construction of 38% more space to maintain pig
flows while also incurring higher variable and fixed costs
per pig.
3. Last, some producers have and will continue to face decisions
when replacing or updating old barns and constructing new
facilities. While initial impact estimates assumed that all
Proposition 12-compliant pork would be produced on farms
with the lowest cost of conversion, it is true that some
producers have chosen to build new Proposition 12-compliant
barns. Due to the 24 foot space requirement, new
Proposition 12-compliant barns are estimated to cost as
much as 25% more than conventional group housing and 40%
more than a barn utilizing gestation stalls for the same
number of sows. Reports in 2023 estimated new Proposition
12-compliant housing covering the farrow-to-wean phase of
production to cost up to $4,000-4,500 per sow for larger
units and potentially 10-15% more per sow for smaller
farms, though the cost today could be considerably higher
as construction costs continue to rise. 7, 8
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Schulz, L.L., Hadrich, J.C., (2023). An Economic Assessment of
New Swine Gestation Facility Investment.
\8\ Goodwin, B.K. (2023). California's Proposition 12 and the
Impacts on the Pork Industry.
For any farm to willingly accept higher costs and pursue an
investment in Proposition 12-compliant facilities, producers should
expect to receive a premium that not only offsets the added costs but
makes them no worse off than before the investment. Premiums should
also be sufficient to make a producer indifferent between alternative
housing systems.
A study by economists at Iowa State University and the University
of Minnesota analyzed the cost of constructing new facilities with
increased square feet, similar to the requirements of Proposition 12,
and used actual farm production data and industry reports to compare
productivity and operating costs across styles of production.
With significantly higher construction costs per sow and 15.5%
higher operating expenses per weaned pig produced, the study found that
to break even on investing in a 4,800 sow group housing unit with
increased square feet per sow, producers would need to receive a
premium of $4.67 to $7.93 per weaned pig, depending on the realized
productivity impacts of increased square footage versus conventional
group housing. To be indifferent between gestation stall housing and
group housing with increased square footage, a producer would need to
receive a premium of $14.93 to $19.58 on every weaned pig sold for 15
years.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Schulz, L.L., Hadrich, J.C., (2023). An Economic Assessment of
New Swine Gestation Facility Investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is also important to recognize that this size of operation
realizes scale efficiencies due to cost savings and management
potential. The study notes that farms with cost advantages, i.e.,
larger farms, will be better positioned to transition to Proposition
12-like housing systems and will require lower relative premiums to be
indifferent between stalls, conventional group, and Proposition 12-like
housing.
Figure 4: 15 Year Premiums Needed for a New 4,800 Head Sow Operation
At the time of the study, the size and availability of Proposition
12 premiums were largely unknown, and USDA reporting did not provide a
disaggregated view of animal housing-related premiums in its Weekly
Non-Carcass Merit Premium report. However, beginning in November 2023,
USDA began reporting a separate category for ``Animal Confinement
Legislation'' premiums, with values ranging from a low of $2.38 to a
high of $14.13, with a simple average of $4.94 per hundred pounds.
Assuming an average carcass weight of 205 pounds, these initially
reported premiums translate to a range of $4.88 to $28.97 per head, or
an average of $10.13 per head. The wide range of premium offerings
could be an indication of the supply and demand situation for
individual packers at the time, as well as the individual costs
incurred by producers in supplying compliant hogs. Presently, premiums
for Animal Confinement Legislation range from a low of $4.10 to a high
of $13.14 per head with a simple average of $8.71.
Importantly, the values estimated by Schulz and Hadrich (2023)
hinge on the requirement that premiums be received for hogs marketed
for the entire 15 year life of the investment. Not only does this
exceed the standard length of marketing agreements between packers and
producers, presenting significant risk to the returns on investment,
but language contained in sample contracts within the USDA Swine
Contract Library suggests that hog buyers retain the right to change
contract terms if there are significant changes in definitions,
industry practices, or standards established by specified states that
would create a variance between what is required and what the producer
is providing. In the current environment, there remains significant
uncertainty around the future availability and sufficiency of these
premiums if standards change or if other states adopt new requirements.
Consumer Price Impacts
Due to the higher cost of production at the farm and processor
level, as well as higher segmentation costs across the supply chain, it
was expected that Proposition 12 would result in higher pork prices for
California consumers. A study by economists at University of California
Davis predicted a long-run outcome of 7.7% higher pork prices and a
6.3% decline in California's consumption of uncooked pork cuts,
resulting in a $320 million hit to consumer welfare each year as
Californians spend more but consume less pork.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Lee, H., Sexton, R. J., and Sumner, D.A. (2021). Voter
Approved Proposition to Raise California Pork Prices. (ARE Update
24(6): 5-8). University of California Giannini Foundation of
Agricultural Economics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the magnitude of price increases in California so far has
been much greater than the long-run expected outcome. A study released
in 2024 by economists at USDA's Office of the Chief Economist compared
retail pork prices and volumes in California and the rest of the United
States for a period preceding Proposition 12 (October 2019-June 2023)
and for 8 months after its partial implementation date (July 2023-
February 2024). After subtracting any price increases that were also
observed in the rest of the United States, the study attributed the
following prices increases in California to the impact of Proposition
12 (also depicted in Figure 3 below): 41% increase in pork loin prices,
17% increase in pork rib prices, 17% increase in pork shoulder prices,
16% in bacon prices, and 20% increase in fresh ham prices.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Hawkins, H., Arita, A., and Meyer, S. (2024). Proposition 12
Pork Retail Price Impacts on California Consumers. (ARE Update 27(3):
5-8). University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural
Economics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 3: Change in Average Sales Price of Covered Pork Products, Pre-
Proposition 12 (October 2019 to June 2023) vs. Post-Proposition
12 (July 2023 to February 2024) \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Hawkins, H., Arita, A., and Meyer, S. (2024). Proposition 12
Pork Retail Price Impacts on California Consumers. (ARE Update 27(3):
5-8). University of California Giannini Foundation of Agricultural
Economics.
Overall, the report suggests a 20% average increase in the sales
prices for pork products covered by Proposition 12 and minimal impacts
on products not covered by the law, such as sausage. Unsurprisingly,
the retail data also revealed a decline in pork volume sales in
California and a 2-3% decline in California's share of national fresh
pork sales.
Retail scanner data compiled by Circana confirms that these trends
have held up over subsequent periods. From July 2024 to June 2025, the
second year of Proposition 12's partial implementation, prices for
popular covered pork products in California were 24% higher on average,
with a range of 12% to 33% higher across covered products, than they
were in the year leading up to implementation (July 2022 to June
2023).\13\ This compares to an average 3.6% increase for the entire
United States over the same period. California also continues to
consume less pork, both in terms of overall volume and as a percentage
of U.S. sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Circana Omnimarket Point of Sale. (January 2022-June 2025).
Dollar Sales and Volume Data for Pork Loins, Ribs, Shoulders, and Bacon
in California and U.S. Total MULO+. All estimates and analysis based on
Circana data are by author and not Circana.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Imposing higher costs with no change or enhancement in consumer
demand yields losses in consumer welfare. Proposition 12 has been
called an ``unfunded mandate,'' meaning voters approved the measure,
but consumers have not demonstrated a willingness to pay the premium
required to consume the same volume of pork products.
Given the threat of additional states adopting similar measures, a
study by Schulz and Tonsor (2024) examined various scenarios under
which more states adopt Proposition 12-like regulations, requiring a
greater percentage of the pork industry to adopt more costly production
practices. While the magnitude of consumer losses will depend on farm
adjustment costs and the percentage of the U.S. hog herd that must
become compliant to maintain market access, a scenario where the entire
U.S. herd must incur ``intermediate'' level adjustment costs results in
a cumulative decline in U.S. consumer welfare of $41 billion over 15
years.\14\ The study does not address instances where states adopt
differing and conflicting regulations that would impose further costs
not only on producers but across the pork supply chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Schulz, L.L. and Tonsor, G.T. (2024). Evaluating the Economic
Impacts of Proposition 12, Question 3, and Related Regulations on U.S.
Consumers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While available data did not allow for an assessment of how
households of varying income or pork consumption levels are impacted,
the authors offer an expert opinion that lower-income, high pork-
consuming households, which are more price sensitive and exposed to
retail market changes, will bear a greater share of the consumer
welfare losses.
Industry Consolidation Concerns
Compliance with Proposition 12 creates significant costs that are
borne by California consumers and producers providing pork to the
California market. As stated in Goodwin (2023), in the short run, there
is likely to be bifurcation of the pork market whereby pork commands a
premium in California. However, it is possible, particularly if other
states adopt similar requirements, that high market segmentation costs
may encourage widespread adoption of the standards in the long run,
whether dictated by decisions at retail, distribution, processing, or
at the pork packing level.\15\ This could impose costs on farms without
the promise of sufficient premium and would hasten the exit of smaller,
independent sow farm operations. An even more costly situation could
arise if states adopt conflicting animal housing requirements,
resulting in a 50 state patchwork that would impose even greater costs
and inefficiencies on the pork supply chain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Goodwin, B.K. (2023). California's Proposition 12 and the
Impacts on the Pork Industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For many reasons, Proposition 12 and the prospect of a 50 state
patchwork of state regulations pose the greatest risks to small- and
medium-sized hog farms across the country. As discussed previously,
economies of scale allow a 5,000 head sow farm to make adjustments at a
lower cost per pig than a 1,200 head sow farm. Large farms may also
have greater options for diversification and enjoy more favorable terms
of credit. Goodwin (2023) found that, based on USDA Economic Research
Service (ERS) data, hog farms are typically more highly leveraged than
other types of farms due to the substantial up-front capital investment
that is required. Additionally, the return to equity on hog farms is
usually progressively lower for smaller farms, suggesting small farms
are likely to realize less favorable terms of credit and which may
impact their ability to undertake significant capital investments.
Lastly, surveys conducted and summarized in Goodwin (2023) revealed
that segregation costs at the packing level likely also favor large hog
producers. If processors choose to process compliant hogs on a certain
day or time, large producers can deliver multiple loads at once,
reducing costs for packers and impacting premiums paid.
Conclusion
Proposition 12 requires pork producers wishing to supply the
California market to undertake significant investments and production
changes that, absent a sufficient premium, leave them worse off
financially. Packers, further processors, and other supply chain
participants also face higher costs associated with segregation,
tracing, and labeling compliant product. These costs are ultimately
passed on to California consumers, who face fewer choices at the
grocery store and significantly higher prices for covered products.
Because Proposition 12 restricts consumer choice and imposes higher
costs, it results in lower levels of pork consumption and ultimately
reduced consumer welfare in California. Importantly, lower-income,
higher pork-consuming population groups will be most sensitive to the
impacts and will bear the brunt of welfare losses.
Problems do not stop there. The Supreme Court's decision opens the
door for other states to adopt similar measures--or worse, for each
state to adopt its own conditions for selling pork within its borders.
Whether raising pigs in a way that complies with Proposition 12 or not,
U.S. pork producers across the country continue to face significant
uncertainty surrounding the prospect of changing regulations or a
state-by-state patchwork, the future availability and sufficiency of
premium offerings, and the risk that investments made today will
require modifications to maintain market access before a return is ever
realized. Ultimately, the ability of other states to adopt their own
Proposition 12-like measures threatens consolidation across the U.S.
pork industry, as the largest industry participants will be the best
equipped to comply.
The National Pork Producers Council urges Congress to address the
challenges created by Proposition 12 and to prevent a 50 state
patchwork of conflicting sow housing regulations that would impose
significant costs, inefficiencies, and welfare losses on U.S. producers
and consumers.
The Chairman. Ms. Cook, thank you so much for your
testimony.
Mr. Cushman, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF TRAVIS CUSHMAN, DEPUTY GENERAL
COUNSEL, LITIGATION AND PUBLIC POLICY, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU
FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Cushman. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig,
Members of the Committee, my name is Travis Cushman. I am the
Deputy General Counsel for Litigation and Public Policy at the
American Farm Bureau Federation. I am honored to provide this
testimony today on behalf of Farm Bureau members across the
nation.
Along with the National Pork Producers Council, I spent the
better part of 4 years litigating Farm Bureau's challenge to
California Proposition 12. Our legal challenge was based on a
constitutional doctrine called the Dormant Commerce Clause. The
doctrine states that because Congress has the exclusive power
to regulate interstate commerce, states do not. In short,
states are prohibited from substantially burdening interstate
commerce through their own laws and regulations. For those
looking for a deeper dive on the issue, I encourage you to read
the Biden Administration's Supreme Court brief supporting our
arguments.
Farm Bureau's efforts resulted in a Supreme Court decision
that is so convoluted, so confusing, and so contradictory that
no one can articulate the state of the Dormant Commerce Clause
today or how courts should proceed with similar claims. As you
know, you need five of the nine justices to agree with you to
win a case. Six justices agreed with our legal theory, and five
agreed that we had established enough facts to win on that
claim. An easy win, right? Not quite.
Because of the way we count votes at the Supreme Court, our
farmers lost. The resulting fractured 5-4 decision lacks a
unifying rationale. The makeup of the four dissenting justices
was also remarkable. This is the only case where Justice
Jackson and Chief Justice Roberts have ever dissented together.
In 2023, 25 percent of Chief Justice Roberts and half of
Justice Kavanaugh's dissents were in our case.
I want to emphasize, six justices from across the
ideological spectrum agreed that the Constitution protects
against states balkanizing the country's markets, and five
agreed that we had established such a claim. In the aftermath
of the case, judges have disagreed on how to interpret the
ruling, and legal scholars have called the result a paradox and
a mess but a good deal more troubling than the ordinary mess.
And that is what leaves us in the legal quagmire we are
here to address today. One thing is clear from the case. The
United States Congress is the branch of government with
responsibility now to address the problem of states imposing
their production laws on other states.
Farmers today face a growing risk of being subject to
overlapping or conflicting mandates from multiple states. While
Prop 12 requires 24 square feet of space per sow, another state
could shift the requirement after investments have been made to
25 square feet or 30 square feet, causing what Secretary
Vilsack referred to in front of this Committee in February 2024
as ``chaos in the marketplace,'' or as Secretary Rollins stated
at a recent House appropriations hearing as ``not
sustainable.'' This forces farmers into the impossible position
of retrofitting their barns, which they may not be able to
afford to do, and go against their own animal husbandry
experience and advice of their veterinarians.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the American
Farm Bureau Federation appreciates your leadership in
addressing the turmoil created by Proposition 12 and the
bipartisan farm bill that passed out of this Committee last
Congress. When a single state can condition access to its
market on compliance with production mandates that override the
judgment of veterinarians, farmers, and experts nationwide,
Congress must act.
This is not a theoretical concern. It is already harming
farmers, confusing the courts, and threatening the viability of
a national food system. The language that this Committee passed
in the 2024 Farm Bill restores clarity, restores Congressional
authority over interstate commerce, and protects both producers
and consumers from a patchwork of conflicting mandates. The
Farm Bureau looks forward to working with Congress to pass a
farm bill soon that will address the interstate commerce issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cushman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Travis Cushman, Deputy General Counsel,
Litigation and Public Policy, American Farm Bureau Federation,
Washington, D.C.
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the
Committee, my name is Travis Cushman. I am the Deputy General Counsel,
Litigation and Public Policy at the American Farm Bureau Federation
(AFBF), and I am honored to provide this testimony on behalf of Farm
Bureau members across this country.
Along with the National Pork Producers Council, I spent the better
part of 4 years examining the harmful effects of California Proposition
12. My legal efforts on the case helped elevate it to the Supreme
Court. Our legal challenge was based on a Constitutional doctrine
called the Dormant Commerce Clause. The doctrine states that, because
Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, states do not.
In short, states are prohibited from substantially burdening interstate
commerce through their own laws and regulations.
Unfortunately, the high court's decision is so convoluted, so
confusing, and so contradictory that no one can (honestly) articulate
the state of the Dormant Commerce Clause or how courts should proceed
with similar claims. As you know, you need five of the nine justices to
agree with you to win a case. Six justices agreed with our legal
theory. Five agreed that we had established enough facts to win on that
legal theory. An easy win, right?
Not quite. In a fractured 5-4 decision, three justices found that
the Constitution did not support our reading of the Dormant Commerce
Clause, and two justices agreed with our reading but found we had not
alleged sufficient facts. But one of the justices who disagreed with
our theory of the Dormant Commerce Clause wrote separately to target
the justices who found we had not alleged the correct factual
predicate, arguing that we clearly had done so if such a legal theory
was correct. And then four justices dissented, agreeing with our legal
theory and factual pleadings.
The makeup of the four dissenting justices was also remarkable. In
2023, Chief Justice Roberts dissented in four cases and Justice
Kavanaugh dissented in only two cases. A quarter of Chief Justice
Roberts' and half of Justice Kavanaugh's dissents were in our case. In
addition to Justice Alito, Justice Jackson also joined the dissent.
This is the only case where Justice Jackson has ever been in the
dissent with Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Jackson has been in the
dissent with Justice Kavanaugh only one other time, and with Justice
Alito only two other times.
And again I want to emphasize: six justices from across the
ideological spectrum agreed that the Constitution recognizes the threat
of states balkanizing the country's markets and protects those out-of-
state interests, and five agreed that we had established such a claim.
And that's what leaves us in the legal quagmire we are here to address
today.
One thing is clear from the case: Congress is the branch with
responsibility now to address the problem of states imposing their
production laws on other states. The ball is in your court.
Below I discuss the history of the problem, the case law, and the
proposed legislation.
Ballot Initiatives that Attack Animal Agriculture
California Proposition 12 (Prop 12) was a ballot initiative
promoted by animal rights groups that passed in 2018. Voters were
offered the following choice:
(Highlights added). It is hard to blame an average voter for checking
either ``yes'' or ``no,'' based on this information alone. Left unsaid
was that the ``minimum requirements'' established were not created
based on the generally-accepted views of experts in animal welfare and
human safety or the experience of farmers. In fact, at the time, nearly
no farms followed the standards set forth by Prop 12. Also unsaid was
that nearly no pork comes from California, meaning that farms across
the country would become subject to regulations and inspections based
on California law despite that California had no domestic pork
industry.
Relying on ballot initiatives in this way--instead of engaging in
the legislative process, where factfinding and deliberative debate
occurs--has become a common tactic of animal rights groups to enact
laws that attack animal agriculture. For example:
California Proposition 2 was passed in 2008 \1\ and set new
standards for egg laying hens that resulted in smaller- and
mid-sized farms closing and losing market share to larger,
vertically integrated operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Proposition 2 applied to California farms. Two years later, the
California legislature passed SB 1437, which exported Prop 2 to out-of-
state farms.
Massachusetts Question 3 passed in 2016 as a ballot
initiative that similarly set production standards for farms
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
across the country for sows, veal calves, and egg-laying hens.
Sonoma County Measure J was on the ballot in 2024 and sought
to ban and phase out Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFOs). The measure failed.
Denver Ordinance 309 was on the ballot in 2024 and sought to
ban the city's sole meat processing facility (Superior Farms)
and future meat processing facilities. The measure failed.
This trend reflects a deliberate strategy by well-funded interest
groups to bypass legislative deliberation and impose ideologically-
driven mandates that disregard science, regional diversity, and the
practical realities of food production.
Bans Raise Significant Animal Welfare, Human Health, and Farm
Sustainability Concerns
Beyond the bypassing of the legislative process, allowing a single
state to impose its production preferences on other states raises
significant concerns for animal welfare, human health, and farm
sustainability.
Animal Welfare
The American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) filed an
amicus curiae brief in National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) v. Ross
that delves into the animal welfare concerns of laws like Prop 12.\2\
AASV's mission, amongst other things, is to ``protect and promote the
health and well-being of pigs'' and to ``advocate science-based
approaches to veterinary, industry, and public health issues.'' \3\
Accordingly, AASV has ``a direct interest in the welfare of pigs and
the safety of pork.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Brief of American Association of Swine Veterinarians as Amicus
Curiae in Support of Petitioners [hereinafter AASV Amicus Brief], NPPC
v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023), https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/
21/21-468/228285/20220617124311471_21-468%20Amicus
%20BOM.pdf.
\3\ American Association of Swine Veterinarians, ``AASV Mission,''
https://www.aasv.org/, last visited July 20, 2025.
\4\ AASV Amicus Brief, supra note 2, at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As AASV explained, ``There is a strong scientific consensus that,
in order to maximize animal welfare, the choice between individual
stalls and group pens must be made on a case-by-case basis.'' \5\ ``By
legally barring one option, Proposition 12 is likely to harm animal
welfare rather than help it.'' \6\ ``The best solution for animal
welfare is for each team of farmers and veterinarians to have
flexibility to determine the housing arrangements that are best for
their animals in their circumstances. Because Proposition 12 would take
away that flexibility, it places at risk the well-being of many
animals.'' \7\ AASV notes that Proposition 12 would push sows into a
housing system that is associated with over 15% of sows receiving
serious wounds.\8\ These conclusions are consistent with farmers'
personal experiences across the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Id. at 3; see also id. at 2 (``A well-established body of
scientific literature assessing biological metrics of sow welfare
individual stalls and group pens shows that both housing methods can be
important tools in managing a healthy herd. Categorically banning one
of them, as Proposition 12 does, will likely harm rather than improve
animal well-being.'').
\6\ Id. at 14.
\7\ Id. at 22.
\8\ Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Health
The AASV amicus easily discredits any contention that laws like
Proposition 12 promote human health. To the contrary, this ``contention
is not supported by scientific evidence and is not plausible in light
of the established practices of pig farms.'' \9\ ``[T]here is no
evidence that the use of individual stalls for sows poses any risk to
human health, and there are several objective reasons why it would be
unlikely to do so.'' \10\ Of course, the clear implication of this is
also that Prop 12 provides no benefit to human health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Id. at 2.
\10\ Id. at 3; see also id. at 19 (``[T]here is no scientific
evidence to support a claim that requiring group pens for pregnant sows
would serve that goal, and there are multiple scientific reasons to
doubt such a claim.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, ``[T]here is a large-scale regime of regulations and
inspections in place to deal with that very possibility.'' \11\ For
example, the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) ``establishes an
elaborate system of inspecting live animals and carcasses in order to
prevent the shipment of impure, unwholesome, and unfit meat and meat-
food products.'' Nat'l Meat Ass'n v. Harris, 565 U.S. 452, 455-456
(2012). ``FMIA requires all slaughterhouses to comply with the
standards for human handling and slaughter of animals set out in the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1958.'' Id. USDA's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) administers ``the FMIA to promote its dual
goals of safe meat and humane slaughter.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm Sustainability Concerns
Allowing one state to dictate livestock housing requirements to the
rest of the country jeopardizes the sustainability of thousands of
independent family farms. Pig farmers, particularly small- and mid-
sized farmers, are already under tremendous pressure from inflation,
input costs, and labor shortages. Laws like Proposition 12 only
intensify these burdens by threatening further consolidation among pig
farms, with only the largest farms able to compete.
Retrofitting a sow barn to comply with California's specific
mandates is very difficult (and ultimately may require building a new
facility). Building a new barn compliant with Prop 12 can cost upwards
of $3,500 per sow.\12\ That's not just expensive--it's prohibitive for
many family farms. Meanwhile, the largest farms--especially those
already vertically integrated--can adjust more easily, leading to
increased concentration and reduced market access for regional or
independent producers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Pam Lewison, The impact of California's Proposition 12 in
increasing national production costs and food prices, Washington Policy
Center, at 6 (Nov. 2023), https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/library/
doclib/Lewison-Prop-12.pdf (``Industry estimates for adding space or
retrofitting existing penning throughout the United States suggests the
adoption of Proposition 12 regulations will cost approximately $3,500
per sow.''). See also Ben Nuelle, Pork producers brace for California's
new sow housing rules, Agri-Pulse (Aug. 11, 2021), https://www.agri-
pulse.com/articles/16277-pork-producers-prepare-for-california-hog-
housing-rule-implementation; Barry K. Goodwin, California's Proposition
12 and its Impacts on the Pork Industry, at 6-7 (May 13, 2021), https:/
/www.agri-pulse.com/ext/resources/pdfs/Goodwin-and-Prop-12-Final.pdf
(research report furnished to the National Pork Producers Council that
provides a per sow estimate for compliance that costs ``considerably
more per animal'' for smaller operations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently, farmers are at risk of other states enacting conflicting
regulations that affect their farms or ratcheting up the requirements
after they've made expensive changes to animal housing to comply with
Prop 12. And farmers are powerless if these requirements are at odds
with the advice of their veterinarians or their own experience caring
for their animals.
Legal Challenges to State Laws Exporting Production Standards to Other
States
The Commerce Clause vests Congress with the power to ``regulate
Commerce . . . and among the several states.'' U.S. Const. art. I, 8,
cl. 3. The dormant Commerce Clause is a legal doctrine inferred from
the Congress Clause that prohibits states from enacting laws that
discriminate against or unduly burden interstate commerce, even in the
absence of Federal legislation.
The extent to which the dormant Commerce Clause restricts states
from burdening interstate commerce is the subject of great debate,
especially after NPPC v. Ross. Courts have disagreed on how to
interpret the ruling \13\ and legal scholars have called the result a
``paradox,'' \14\ and ``a mess, but it's a good deal more troubling
than the ordinary mess.'' \15\ The one point of agreement is that there
is no agreement on how courts should handle the issue of states
exporting animal farming regulations into other states.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, e.g., Iowa Pork Producers Ass'n v. Bonta, No. 22-55336,
2024 WL 3158532 (9th Cir. June 25, 2024) (Ninth Circuit judges
disagreeing about the impact and meaning of NPPC v. Ross).
\14\ See Bradley Joondeph, The `Horizontal Separation of Powers'
After National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 61 San Diego L. Rev. 45,
73 (2024), available at https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol61/iss1/3/
(``[T]he Court's judgment in NPPC regarding the producers' undue-burden
claim represents a bit of a paradox. And the oddity of this result
indicates that this portion of this result indicates that this portion
of the NPPC's judgment may mean nothing going forward--other than that
California is entitled to enforce Proposition 12.'').
\15\ See David Post, Another Voting Paradox Case (Pork Division),
The Volokh Conspiracy (May 16, 2023), https://reason.com/volokh/2023/
05/16/another-voting-paradox-case-pork-division/.
\16\ See Will Baude & Daniel Epps, Break the Fourth Wall, Divided
Argument (May 18, 2023) (noting that it is unclear how courts should
interpret the case).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a summary of the dormant Commerce Clause challenges to
California Prop 2/AB 1437, Prop 12, and Massachusetts Question 3.
Missouri v. Harris, 847 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2017), cert.
denied, 137 S. Ct. 2188
Six states challenged AB 1437. The Ninth Circuit found
that the states lacked standing to bring the claim.
Missouri v. California, No. 220148, 586 U.S. 1065 (2019)
(motion for leave to file bill of complaint denied).
Thirteen states filed an original jurisdiction claim
to the Supreme Court challenging SB 1437. The Supreme Court
denied the states leave to file a complaint.
North American Meat Institute v. Becerra, 825 Fed. Appx. 518
(9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied 141 S. Ct. 2854 (2021)
The North American Meat Association (NAMI) challenged
Prop 12. The Ninth Circuit held that Prop 12 does not
violate the dormant Commerce Clause because it ``does not
impact an industry that is inherently national or requires
a uniform system of regulation'' and ``precludes sales of
meat products produced by a specified method, rather than
imposing a burden on producers based on their geographical
origin.'' Id. at 520.
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023)
AFBF and NPPC challenged Prop 12. In a fractured
decision, the Supreme Court found that Prop 12 does not
violate the dormant Commerce Clause.
The decision lacks a controlling rationale, leading to
confusion by courts and scholars. See, e.g., Iowa Pork
Producers Ass'n v. Bonta, No. 22-55336, 2024 WL 3158532, at
*2-3 (9th Cir. June 25, 2024) (the majority ``did not agree
upon a `single rationale' and there is no opinion in that
case that `can be reasonably be described as a logical
subset of the other.''' ``Because the Court did not agree
upon a single rationale for affirming, and neither of the
two rationales is a `logical subset' of the other, only the
specific result in NPPC is binding on lower Federal
courts.'' (Citations omitted)).
Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett would
functionally limit the dormant Commerce Clause to prohibit
states discriminating against commerce from other states
and jettison the prohibition on states unduly burdening
interstate commerce.
Justices Sotomayor and Kagan would keep the dormant
Commerce Clause prohibition on unduly burdening interstate
commerce, but held the petitioners failed to plead
sufficient facts.
Justice Barrett wrote separately to rebut Justices
Sotomayor and Kagan, holding that the petitioners easily
pled a substantial burden on interstate commerce. However,
she did not think the dormant Commerce Clause provided
relief.
Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Kavanaugh,
and Jackson dissented, holding that the dormant Commerce
Clause does prohibit states unduly burdening interstate
Commerce and that the petitioners easily pled facts
establishing a claim.
The justices held that courts should ``consider whether,
by effectively re-
quiring compliance by farmers who do not even wish to
ship their product
into California, Proposition 12 has a nationwide reach.'
'' 598 U.S. at 400.
In addition, petitioners allege that Prop 12 will
produce ``worse health out-
comes'' and ``spread pathogens and disease.'' Id. at 400.
``These consequen-
tial threats to animal welfare and industry practice are
difficult to quantify
and are not susceptible to categorization as mere costs
of compliance.'' Id.
at 401.
``[P]etitioners here allege that Proposition 12 will
force compliance on farm-
ers who do not wish to sell into the California market,
exacerbate health
issues in the national pig population, and undercut
established operational
practices.'' Id. at 401.
Justice Kavanaugh wrote a separate dissent, holding
that ``California's novel and far-reaching regulation could
provide a blueprint for other states. California's law thus
may foreshadow a new era where states shutter their markets
to goods produced in a way that offends their moral or
policy preferences--and in doing so, effectively force
other states to regulate in accordance with those
idiosyncratic state demands. That is not the Constitution
the Framers adopted in Philadelphia in 1787.'' Id. at 407.
Iowa Pork Producers Ass. v. Bonta, No, 22-55336, 2024 WL
3158532 (9th Cir. June 25, 2024), cert. denied No. 24-728, 2025
WL 1787818 (U.S. June 30, 2025)
Iowa Pork Producers Association challenged Prop 12.
The Ninth Circuit, interpreting NPPC v. Ross, held that,
due to the fractured rationale, the Supreme Court decision
only controls its specific result.
However, the judges disagreed about the impact and
meaning of NPPC v. Ross.
Massachusetts Restaurant Association v. Healey, 4:22-cv-
11245 (D. Mass)
Several trade associations challenged Massachusetts
Question 3.
Under the regulations implementing Question 3,
Massachusetts prohibited the transshipment of pork through
the state into other states. This would have prevented the
movement of pork into Maine or New Hampshire while also
threatening to cut off supplies to restaurants and grocers
in parts of Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont
who relied on distribution chains that ran through
Massachusetts. Massachusetts entered into a consent
agreement with the plaintiffs agreeing not to enforce the
transshipment prohibition.
Indiana v. Massachusetts, 586 U.S. 1065 (2019)
Thirteen states filed an original jurisdiction claim
to the Supreme Court challenging Massachusetts Question 3.
The Supreme Court denied the states leave to file a
complaint.
Triumph Foods v. Campbell, 1:23-cv-11671 (D. Mass)
Several farm groups challenged Massachusetts Question
3. The district court rejected the dormant commerce clause
claim under NPPC v. Ross. 715 F.Supp.3d 143 (D. Mass.
2024). The court also rejected the Federal preemption
claim. 742 F.Supp.3d 63 (D. Mass. 2024).
The case is currently on appeal to the First Circuit.
Amongst other things, the petitioners argue that the
district court failed to address several constitutional
issues, including their claims under the Privileges and
Immunities Clause, Full Faith and Credit Clause, Due
Process Clause, and Import-Export Clause.
United States v. California, No. 2:25-cv-6230 (C.D. Cal.)
The United States challenged California Prop 2 and
Prop 12 as to their application to egg-laying hens. The
United States claims that the Egg Products Inspection Act
(EPIA) preempts Prop 2 and Prop 12's regulations on the
quality and condition of eggs and the labeling of eggs. See
21 U.S.C. 1052(b) (``For eggs which have moved or are
moving in interstate or foreign commerce, . . . no state or
local jurisdiction may require the use of standards of
quality, condition, weight, quantity, or grade which are in
addition to or different from the official Federal
standards . . . Labeling, packaging, or ingredient
requirements, in addition to or different than those made
under [EPIA], the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and
the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, may not be imposed by
any state or local jurisdiction.'').
As the record of litigation makes clear, the judiciary has reached an
impasse. It is now incumbent upon Congress to provide clarity.
Congress Should Fix the Problem and Has the Authority to Do So
Given the difficulty the courts have had resolving states imposing
their preferred farming practices onto other states, Congress should
address the problem. And Congress clearly has the authority to do so.
Indeed, Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, and Barrett's chief concern in NPPC
v. Ross was that the judiciary should not overstep and abrogate
Congress's delegated authority. ``Everyone agrees that Congress may
seek to exercise this power to regulate the interstate trade of pork,
much as it has done with various other products. Everyone agrees, too,
that Congressional enactments may preempt conflicting state laws.''
NPPC v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356, 368 (2023). Congress ``is better equipped
than this Court to identify and assess all the pertinent economic and
political interests at play across the country.'' Id. at 383.
Farmers today face a growing risk of being subject to overlapping
or conflicting mandates from multiple states. While Prop 12 requires 24
square feet of space per sow another state could shift the
requirement--after investments have been made--to 25 square feet. Or
states may enact conflicting standards. This forces farmers into a
Hobson's choice of retrofitting their barns (which they may not be able
to afford) or going against their own animal husbandry experience and
the advice of veterinarians. Only Congress can fix this problem.
Section 12007 Narrowly Fixes the Problem
Proposed Section 12007 narrowly fixes the problem of states
imposing their preferred farming practices onto other states, such that
no single state can dictate to producers in other states how to raise
their animals. Importantly, it does not prohibit states from continuing
to regulate farms within their borders or prohibit farmers from
adopting the standards set by Prop 2, Prop 12, or Question 3. It
similarly does not upset existing Federal regulations of farms and food
production across the country. See, e.g., the Animal Health Protection
Act, Swine Health Protection Act, Federal Meat Inspection Act, Clean
Water Act, Clean Air Act, Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, and
Occupational Safety & Health Act.
Proposed Section 12007 is significantly narrower in scope than
previous legislation, such as the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression
(EATS) Act or the Protect Interstate Commerce Act (PICA). Those earlier
bills would have preempted regulation of the production and
manufacturing practices for all agricultural products outside of the
regulating state.
In contrast, Section 12007 only preempts states regulating the
production (raising) practices of livestock on out-of-state farms. This
is much more specifically targeted to the issues currently facing
small- and medium-sized family farms across the country.
To reiterate, the proposal does not make it illegal to farm in
conformance with Proposition 12. It simply ensures that farmers in
Pennsylvania, Minnesota, North Carolina, Illinois, or Iowa aren't
forced to farm by the law of a state they do not live or vote in. That
is the correct balance between state and Federal authority--and the
only way to preserve a functioning interstate agricultural economy.
Conclusion
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, the American Farm Bureau
Federation appreciates your leadership in addressing the chaos created
by Proposition 12. When a single state can condition access to its
market on compliance with production mandates that override the
judgments of veterinarians, farmers, and USDA experts nationwide,
Congress must act.
This is not a theoretical concern--it is already harming farmers,
confusing the courts, and threatening the viability of a national food
system. This proposed legislation restores clarity, reasserts
Congressional authority over interstate commerce, and protects both
farmers and consumers from a patchwork of conflicting mandates.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
answering your questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Cushman, thank you so much for your
testimony.
Ms. Rocha, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF LILLY ROCHA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LATINO RESTAURANT
ASSOCIATION, LOS ANGELES, CA
Ms. Rocha. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member
Craig, and all the Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
invitation to testify before you today.
My name is Lilly Rocha. I am a lifelong Angeleno and the
Executive Director of the Latino Restaurant Association based
in Los Angeles. The LRA represents thousands of small, family-
owned Latino restaurants who are the cornerstone of their
communities, primarily in southern California, but also
nationally. The LRA is a member of the Food Equity Alliance, a
California coalition fighting for accessible and affordable
food for all.
I am also the President of the Latino Food Industry
Association, a national association that serves grocers,
distributors, food service providers, vendors, and other
important businesses in Latino markets across the industry. We
also host the Latino Food Industry Trade Show, Trade Expo, the
largest convention for our industry, set for October 13 and 14
in beautiful Long Beach, California. You are all invited, happy
to host anyone who would like to come out.
I am here today to explain the harm Proposition 12 inflicts
on minority-owned businesses and low-income families. Harm is
what Prop 12 has caused, smashing like a wrecking ball the
livelihoods of small restaurants and the communities we serve.
By disrupting supply chains and driving up the cost of
culturally vital foods like pork, it has brought economic
devastation to families already stretched thin. This law's
requirements, costly segregation, and certification processes
are a death sentence for small businesses operating on razor-
thin margins.
The restaurants I represent serve working-class
neighborhoods that can't absorb skyrocketing prices. In
addition, Prop 12 is the most recent of many costly regulations
that these small businesses, in particular restaurants, are
being asked to absorb. Pork loins are up 41 percent, bacon 16
percent. A carnitas taco, once $1.50, now costs $5 to $6,
pricing out loyal customers who rely on these meals not just
for sustenance but for cultural connection.
Our restaurants face a brutal choice. Raise prices and lose
customers, shrink portions and sacrifice quality, or remove
pork dishes entirely, erasing cultural traditions that define
our identity. This is not a hypothetical. This is actually
happening today.
For our Latino restaurants, carnitas are not just a meal.
They are part of our heritage. Latino communities are top
consumers of pork in this country. Over-regulation that takes
food off the plate risks alienating communities and driving
businesses toward closure. This isn't a menu change. It is a
cultural loss.
Some claim the market has adjusted to Prop 12, but that is
a fantasy spun by those blind to the struggles of small
businesses and working-class families in California. National
chains can leverage their resources and cost advantages to
secure compliant pork. However, pork prices are still going up.
My members, of which 65 percent own less than ten locations,
are small family-run restaurants and grocers that don't have
that luxury. They can't negotiate bulk contracts or spread
costs across nationwide operations.
Worse, compliant pork is often impossible for them to
source. The small independent distributors they rely on, unlike
those serving big chains, can't secure steady supplies. Many
small businesses are forced to buy pork at retail from the very
chains they compete against, paying inflated prices and marking
up prices just to survive. This vicious cycle erodes profits,
threatens closures, and raises costs for struggling
communities.
In my opinion, Prop 12 wasn't the will of all consumers. It
was bankrolled by those with an agenda who leveraged the
convoluted ballot measure process where California voters could
not have known all of the impacts. Former USDA Secretary Tom
Vilsack and current Secretary Brooke Rollins have warned of
supply chain chaos, and they are right. Sales are down and
prices are up.
Without intervention, this law will continue to dismantle
the cultural and economic fabric of communities, leaving
families without access to their heritage and businesses on the
brink of collapse.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I am
very happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rocha follows:]
Prepared Statement of Lilly Rocha, Executive Director, Latino
Restaurant Association, Los Angeles, CA
The U.S. economy has long benefited from the sheer size and
influence of the Latino consumer segment. With an estimated 65 million
Latinos representing nearly 20% of the U.S. population, Latinos possess
significant economic purchasing power. The Latino community includes
entrepreneurial leaders, driving job creation and fueling economic
development in their communities and across the nation. Foremost among
these contributions is the thriving Latino and Hispanic foods sector,
which not only provides jobs and business opportunities but also serves
as a source of cultural pride, nourishment, and community connection.
Mexican food, in particular, has surged in popularity; today,
approximately one in every ten restaurants in America serves Mexican
cuisine. While enjoyed nationwide, nearly \1/4\ of all Mexican
restaurants are concentrated in California, with Los Angeles alone
accounting for 30% of the state's total. Predominantly small, family-
owned, and affordably priced, these restaurants are especially vital to
the working-class neighborhoods in which they operate.
It's important to note that Latinos, particularly Mexican
Americans, are not newcomers to the region. Many families have lived in
California and the greater Southwest for generations, long before these
areas became part of the United States. Their deep roots and cultural
traditions are woven into the very fabric of the state, and their small
businesses are more than just economic drivers, they are enduring
expressions of heritage and resilience. Yet it is precisely these, and
other small ethnic establishments, that have been disproportionately
harmed by California's Proposition 12, bearing the heaviest costs of
this misguided and destructive policy.
Witness Background
My name is Lilly Rocha and I am the Executive Director of the
Latino Restaurant Association (LRA). Since our start the LRA has been a
beacon for Latino culinary entrepreneurs. From the vibrant streets of
Los Angeles to nationwide acclaim, we've grown together with the rise
in popularity of Latino foods into a powerhouse business network fueled
by passion, community, and a zest for flavor.
Headquartered in Los Angeles, the LRA represents the thousands of
mostly small, family owned and operated Latino restaurants and related
businesses across the country. We grew out of the vibrant community in
Southern California, where the majority of our members continue to
operate and serve their communities today. But as America's taste of
Latino culture and flavors expands, we have seen our footprint grow as
well. LRA now has a presence not just in Los Angeles, but throughout
California and across the entire country with dedicated community hubs
in Chicago, Houston and New York to serve Latino entrepreneurs and the
growing sectors there. LRA promotes and supports restaurateurs, small
businesses and our entire community to ensure the equitable economic
growth of the sector.
LRA is a founding member of the Food Equity Alliance (FEA), a
broad, California-based coalition of grocery stores, restaurants,
retailers, business associations, food processors, and consumer
advocates. FEA's membership reflects the full diversity of California's
ethnic and minority communities, alongside restaurants, grocers, and
other retailers. The Alliance was formed to advocate for the
communities most burdened by the implementation of Proposition 12. As
part of this coalition, we work closely with organizations to promote
equitable food access. In the past, FEA has specifically highlighted
how Proposition 12 disproportionately harms minority-owned businesses
and low-income communities by creating supply chain disruptions and
driving up the cost of culturally significant foods like pork. FEA
continues to champion the interests of its constituents, particularly
small Latino and Asian owned restaurants and grocery stores, and the
neighborhoods they serve.
In addition to serving as the executive director of LRA, I have
also recently been reelected President of the Latino Food Industry
Association (LFIA), which advocates on behalf of all Latinos throughout
the food industry, including grocers, distributors food service and
both retail and street vendors. Among these efforts is assisting in the
production of the Latino Food Industry Trade Expo, the largest business
growth event for the Latino food service and retail industry.
I am here today on behalf of the thousands of small, family-owned,
and predominantly minority-owned businesses across California, whether
restaurants, grocers, distributors, or the customers they serve, who
continue to face significant economic harm from Proposition 12. These
businesses, many run by first and second generation immigrant families,
play a vital role in preserving cultural heritage, providing affordable
food for all, and creating economic opportunity for the 65% of
Californians who are of Latino and Asian descent. I am here to testify
about the devastating impact Proposition 12 has had on these businesses
and their communities, and to urge Congress to address the law's
unintended consequences: consequences that now threaten food equity,
cultural identity, and the economic survival of countless American
families.
Cultural Significance of Pork in Hispanic and Asian Communities
Pork is not just a protein, it is a culinary staple and cultural
connector within Latino and Asian communities. The absence or
unaffordability of pork severs important cultural and familial ties.
For many of the 65% of Californians of Latino or Asian descent, pork
based dishes are not just food but a link to heritage, often prepared
for family gatherings and celebrations. For Latinos that could be
Carnitas, Pupusas de chicharron, or Lechona. For Asian's it might be
Korean Samgyeopsal, Filipino Lechon, or any multitude of Chinese dishes
from dumplings and pork fried rice to Char Siu.
These dishes, passed down through generations, are vital for
cultural continuity but also for helping to feed the over three million
food-insecure households in California, including more than 1.25
million children living in poverty in the state.\1\ Proposition 12's
impact threatens to sever these traditions, forcing families to forgo
culturally significant meals or turn to less nutritious alternatives,
undermining both cultural identity and food security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background on California Proposition 12
California Proposition 12, fully implemented on January 1, 2024,
after being upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2023, establishes
stringent animal welfare standards for pork, eggs, and veal sold in the
state. While Proposition 12 aims to improve animal welfare, it has
sparked significant disruption to the communities I represent due to
its economic and cultural implications, particularly for small, family
owned businesses. Despite being the nation's largest agricultural
state, California doesn't produce any pork. However, it consumes about
13% of the nation's pork. The law's requirements affect out of state
pig farmers and have led to significant supply chain disruptions and
price increases.
Overall, retail pork prices in California have risen by an average
of 20% since July 2023, with specific cuts like pork loins increasing
by 41%. These changes disproportionately burden minority communities,
particularly Hispanic and Asian families, who make up roughly 65% of
California's population and rely heavily on pork as a cultural and
nutritional staple.
This is not a surprise. In 2021, as we were first learning about
Proposition 12's impacts, the FEA commissioned the Hatamiya Group to
undertake a study on the likely impact that Prop 12 would have on our
communities. Mr. Hatamiya is a well respected economist in California,
having served as both the Administrator of USDA's Agricultural
Marketing Service and the Foreign Agricultural Service under President
Bill Clinton. He was later appointed by California Gov. Gray Davis to
serve as Secretary of the California Technology, Trade and Commerce
Agency.
At the time he concluded that:
``Proposition 12 will result in greater consumer expenditures
on pork and/or lower demand for the various pork products.
Increased pork producers would have the combined negative
impact of greater financial burden on California pork consumers
and lower demand for pork products on pork producers. Moreover,
more market access restrictions due to Prop 12 regulations
would further limit available supply into California, thereby
driving up pork prices for all consumers.
More specifically, the negative financial burden falls
largely on the diverse ethnic consumers and communities that
make up California, with pork being an important source of
protein for African American, Asian American, and Hispanic
households, businesses, and restaurants.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Hatamiya Group, Analysis of Economic Impact of Proposition 12
on Pork Pricing and Consumption in California (June 11, 2021).
Three years later, following the Supreme Court's 2023 decision
upholding Proposition 12, Mr. Hatamiya revisited his study to better
understand the direct impacts of Proposition 12. Relying on data from
the United States Department of Agriculture, he found that Prop 12 had
caused major disruption to the marketplace for pork in California,
increasing prices significantly, on average nearly 20% with prices for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
loins increasing 41%. Worse, for our communities he noted that:
``43.8% of all California pork consumers are Millennials and
Gen Z. Also, the vast majority of California pork consumers
(63.5%) are Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian and
other. Not only are California pork consumers younger and more
ethnically diverse than all U.S. pork consumers, but there is
also a larger percentage of low-income California pork
consumers than the rest of the U.S. (25.5%). Therefore, the
burden of higher retail pork prices in California falls mainly
upon the younger, diverse, and lower income consumers across
the state.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Hatamiya Group, Reanalysis of Economic Impact of Proposition 12
on Pork Pricing and Consumption in California After Implementation
(March 29, 2024).
Proposition 12 is not something that the people of California
understood when it was passed. It was, and remains, a pet project of
the very wealthy, financed by the Silicon Valley billionaires and
Hollywood stars who can afford it but who will not be burdened by the
consequences of the law. As others have noted in the past, the richest
20% spend approximately as much on food in a year as the poorest 20%
earn.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-
detail?chartId=58372.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food spending and share of after-tax income spent on food across U.S.
households, 2023
Note: U.S. households were sorted from lowest to highest
after-tax income, and then divided into five equal groups, or
quintiles.
Source: USDA, Economic Research Service using data from the
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer
Expenditure Survey, 2023.
Economic Devastation for Small Businesses
Proposition 12's requirements have created ``massive disruptions''
in supply chains, particularly for small businesses unable to manage
costly segregation and certification processes. The small, family-owned
restaurants that I represent operate on razor-thin margins, serving
working class communities that cannot absorb price increases.
Proposition 12 has driven pork prices up significantly--pork loins by
41%, bacon by 16%--making it impossible for many restaurants to
maintain affordable menus. A carnitas taco, once $1.50, now costs $3 to
$4, pricing out loyal customers.
Restaurants face an impossible choice. Do they raise prices,
alienating their low income customer base? Do they reduce portion
sizes, diminishing customer satisfaction? Do they remove pork dishes,
eroding cultural authenticity and brand identity? For ethnic
restaurants, removing these long established dishes is not just a menu
change; it's a cultural loss that risks alienating their community and
driving them toward closure.
Despite recent claims by some that the market has adjusted to the
demands of Prop 12, this is simply not true. National chains possess
the purchasing power to demand access from their suppliers to Prop 12
compliant pork. In other cases, they have directly invested the many
millions of dollars required for the construction of Prop 12 compliant
farms. The small community based businesses I represent do not have
that luxury. Neither are they able to negotiate bulk contracts or
spread costs across their operations nationwide.
Even if they could afford these price increases, access to
Proposition 12-compliant pork remains another significant hurdle. Like
their customers, large national distributors serving national chains
can invest in compliant facilities or absorb losses to ensure supply.
Small restaurants and local grocers, reliant on independent
distributors, find compliant pork scarce or even impossible to obtain.
Often they are forced to resort to buying pork at retail from the large
national chains that have access to the scarce pork in the marketplace.
These are the same large chains they are often competing directly
against, paying inflated retail prices and then having to mark up
pricing further to cover costs. This practice erodes profitability and
forces restaurants to compete with the very chains that dominate the
compliant pork market, creating a vicious cycle that threatens their
survival and raises costs for consumers within their community.
Conclusion
California Proposition 12 has created a cascade of challenges for
small, family owned Hispanic and Asian restaurants and grocery stores,
threatening their economic viability and the cultural fabric of the
communities they serve. The 20% rise in pork prices and supply
shortages force restaurants to alter culturally significant menus and
grocers to reduce offerings, alienating customers and eroding profits.
These small businesses lack the resources to secure compliant pork or
absorb its high costs, creating a two-tiered market that disadvantages
minority-owned enterprises. For the 65% of Californians of Hispanic and
Asian descent, the loss of affordable pork threatens cultural
traditions and food security, as dishes like carnitas, char siu, and
lechon become less accessible. The warnings of both former USDA
Secretary Tom Vilsack and current USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins about
supply chain disruptions underscore the broader implications:
Proposition 12 risks dismantling the ability of small businesses to
serve their communities, potentially reshaping California and the
nation's food and business landscape to the detriment of its most
diverse and vulnerable populations. Without intervention, it will
continue to dismantle the cultural and economic fabric of California's
communities, leaving families without access to their heritage and
businesses on the brink of collapse.
Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. I am happy to
answer any questions.
The Chairman. Ms. Rocha, thank you so much for your
testimony.
Ms. Lashmet, please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF TIFFANY DOWELL LASHMET, J.D., PROFESSOR AND
EXTENSION SPECIALIST, AGRICULTURAL LAW, AgriLife EXTENSION,
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
AND LIFE SCIENCES, TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY, AMARILLO, TX
Ms. Lashmet. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and
Members of the Committee, I am honored to testify before you
today on this important issue. My name is Tiffany Dowell
Lashmet. I am a Professor and Extension Specialist in
agricultural law with Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. I focus my
work on legal issues impacting rural landowners and
agricultural producers.
As is true in my professional role, I am here today to
offer an objective, unbiased view of the law as it surrounds
this issue. I am not here to offer my opinion as to the wisdom
of Proposition 12, the Supreme Court opinion in National Pork
Producers v. Ross, or any proposed legislative enactments
related to Proposition 12. I believe it is important to
understand that there are, as is true with many issues,
agricultural interests on all sides of the Proposition 12
debate.
Certainly, there are agricultural producers, groups, and
businesses in favor of Congressional action to overturn Prop
12. Similarly, there are agricultural producers, groups, and
businesses strongly against Congress taking such action, many
of whom have already gone to the expense to comply after Prop
12 was passed and upheld by the United States Supreme Court.
I have spent my career explaining complex and often
contentious legal issues to farmers and ranchers in an
unbiased, neutral manner, and I trust that that experience will
aid me in doing the same here today.
The United States Constitution grants Congress the right to
regulate commerce between the states. There is little doubt
that, should Congress wish to do so, it could pass a nationwide
law related to the sale of products under specific living
conditions. The United States Supreme Court recently noted as
much in its consideration of Proposition 12.
States have traditionally handled animal welfare issues,
including the passage of laws related to production within
their jurisdiction. California took these laws a step further
by passing AB 1437 and Proposition 12, applying California
confinement standards to in-state producers and containing a
sales ban provision prohibiting products not complying with
these standards from being sold in California, regardless of
the state or country where animals were raised.
Opponents turned to the courts, filing lawsuits against
this sales ban provision of Prop 12, relying principally on an
alleged violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause. The Dormant
Commerce Clause theory posits that the Commerce Clause not only
vests Congress with the power to regulate trade and commerce
between the states but also contains a negative command,
prohibiting the enforcement of certain state laws, even when
Congress has failed to legislate in an area.
In the challenge to Proposition 12 in National Pork
Producers' Council v. Ross, the lower courts dismissed the
Dormant Commerce Clause claim, and the United States Supreme
Court affirmed that dismissal. Justice Gorsuch wrote the
opinion for the court. While certain portions of the court's
analysis were unanimous, others were fractured and complicated
to parse. When struggling to explain this complex ruling to
producers, I have frequently reminded myself not even all nine
Supreme Court justices could get on the same page about how to
properly legally analyze Proposition 12.
In summary, the court upheld Prop 12 against the Dormant
Commerce Clause challenge. Given the nature of the opinion,
however, the broader takeaway and likely application to future
cases is far more difficult to analyze and predict.
There have been other relevant cases challenging Prop 12
and the similar Massachusetts law Question 3, both based on
Dormant Commerce Clause and other legal grounds outlined in my
written testimony that may offer additional guidance.
Finally, there have been a number of proposed bills here in
Congress that would essentially invalidate laws like
Proposition 12. These proposals vary greatly in scope, breadth,
and potential implications.
There is no doubt that this issue is important to
agricultural producers across the country. Livestock producers
in particular find themselves on both sides of the debate.
Congress has the authority pursuant to the Commerce Clause to
act in this area. Whether to do so or how to undertake such an
effort is a matter of considerable complexity.
In the absence of Congressional action or unexpected
movement in the Judiciary, state laws such as Prop 12 will
likely continue to remain in effect, and other states will
remain free to pass additional laws relating to products that
are offered for sale in their state, no matter where they are
produced.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lashmet follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tiffany Dowell Lashmet, J.D., Professor and
Extension Specialist, Agricultural Law, AgriLife Extension, Department
of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences,
Texas A&M University, Amarillo, TX
I. Introduction
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Committee, it is an
honor to testify before you today on this important topic. I am Tiffany
Dowell Lashmet, Professor and Extension Specialist in Agricultural Law
with Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. I focus my work on legal issues
impacting rural landowners and agricultural producers across the State
of Texas and the country.
The testimony below summarizes the legal framework surrounding
California's Proposition 12 (``Prop 12''). As is true in my role at
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, I am here to offer an objective, unbiased
view of the law as it surrounds this issue. I am not here to offer my
opinion as to the wisdom of Prop 12, the Supreme Court opinion in
National Pork Producers v. Ross, or any proposed legislative enactments
related to Prop 12. I believe it important to understand there are, as
is true with many issues, agricultural interests on all sides of the
Prop 12 debate. Certainly, there are agricultural producers, groups,
and businesses in favor of Congressional action to overturn Prop 12.
Similarly, there are agricultural producers, groups, and businesses
strongly against Congress taking such action, many of whom already went
to the expense to comply after Prop 12 was passed and upheld by the
Court. I have spent my career explaining complex, and often
contentious, legal issues to farmers and ranchers across Texas in an
unbiased, neutral manner, and trust that experience will aid me in
helping to do the same in this setting.
II. Background
The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8 grants
Congress the right to regulate commerce between states. There is little
doubt that, should Congress want to do so, it could pass a nationwide
law related to the sale of products raised under specific living
conditions so long as the law fell within the broad parameters of the
Commerce Clause. The United States Supreme Court repeatedly noted as
much in its recent consideration of Prop 12.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ National Pork Producers v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States have traditionally handled animal welfare issues tracing
back to the 1800s.\2\ However, laws requiring specific amounts of
living space were not seen until 2002 when Florida enacted a
Constitutional Amendment prohibiting confining or tethering a pig so it
could not turn around freely.\3\ Shortly thereafter, numerous other
states passed similar legislation with rules related to sows and/or
veal calves. The first such statute in California, Proposition 2
(``Prop 2''), was passed in 2008. It was the first in the nation to
impose spacing requirements on laying hens and also included
requirements for sows and veal calves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Elizabeth R. Rumley & Rusty W. Rumley, Enforcing Animal Welfare
Statutes: In Many States, It's Still the Wild West, 21 San Joaquin
Agric. L. Rev. 21 (2012).
\3\ Fla. Const. art. 10, 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2010, the California Legislature passed AB 1437 relating to
laying hens. This law went a step further than Prop 2, requiring eggs
sold in California to be raised in accordance with the Prop 2 animal
housing requirements, regardless of the state in which the hens were
housed.
Ten years later, California voters passed Prop 12, a ballot
initiative taking this same approach with regard to veal calves and
sows. Prop 12 included increased spacing requirements for in-state
production of laying hens, sows, and veal calves, but also added a
sales prohibition requiring whole pork and whole veal products sold
within California to be traceable to animals raised in compliance with
the Prop 12 standards, regardless of the state where the animals were
raised.
Currently, a number of states have animal confinement statutes on
the books that apply to animals produced within the state itself. Far
fewer have a sales prohibition imposing the animal confinement rules on
products raised in other states but sold in their jurisdiction. Only
Massachusetts has a similar law related to eggs, pork, and veal.
Several states, including Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Arizona,
Colorado, and Michigan have similar laws or regulations applicable only
to laying hens.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Elizabeth Rumley, States' Farm Animal Confinement Statutes,
National Agricultural Law Center, https://nationalaglawcenter.org/
state-compilations/farm-animal-welfare/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Prop 12 Litigation
Not surprisingly, opponents turned to the courts, filing lawsuits
against the sales provision of Prop 12, including National Pork
Producers Council v. Ross. Plaintiffs, National Pork Producers Council
and American Farm Bureau Federation, filed suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California claiming the
sales ban provision of Prop 12 violated the dormant Commerce Clause.
The dormant Commerce Clause theory posits the Commerce Clause not
only vests Congress with the power to regulate trade and commerce
between states but also contains a negative command prohibiting the
enforcement of certain state laws even when Congress has failed to
legislate in an area. Specifically, the Supreme Court has held states
may not pass discriminatory laws treating out-of-state businesses
differently than in-state businesses and may not pass laws that are
facially neutral if they impose a ``substantial burden'' on interstate
commerce where the benefit of the law is outweighed by the burden on
interstate commerce.
The Plaintiffs and other parties who object to Prop 12 argued the
sales ban provision of the California law ran afoul of the dormant
Commerce Clause.\5\ Specifically, they claimed Prop 12 had significant
extraterritorial impacts and imposed a substantial burden on interstate
commerce. In explaining the burden imposed on interstate commerce,
Plaintiffs noted the effects of this law would be felt primarily
outside of California given that California makes up less than 1% of
pork production but consumes 13% of pork in the United States.\6\ They
cited concern that Prop 12 could be the first step in a patchwork of
different animal confinement laws. They pointed to the increased cost
required for producers to change production practices in order to be
Prop 12 compliant and the anticipated increase in pork prices to
consumers as a result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A similar lawsuit, State of Missouri v. Harris, No. 14-17111
(9th Cir. Nov. 11, 2016) challenged AB 1437's sale ban provision for
eggs on dormant commerce clause grounds but was dismissed on procedural
grounds.
\6\ National Pork Producers v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023)
(Kavanaugh, J. concurring); California Pork Producers Association,
Commodity Fact Sheet: Pork (2020), https://cdn.agclassroom.org/ca/
resources/fact/pork.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California and other proponents of Prop 12 argued that decisions
related to health, safety, and welfare of animals and citizens should
be left to the states. They pointed out Prop 12 does not expressly
require any out-of-state producer to comply with Prop 12 standards;
instead, out-of-state producers are free to choose to continue their
current production practices and elect not to sell products in
California. They also pointed to producers who have successfully
converted their operations to be Prop 12 compliant as proof these
adjustments can successfully be made.
The trial court dismissed the suit on California's 12(b)(6) motion,
and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed.\7\ The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 6 F.4th 1021 (9th Cir.
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. The United States Supreme Court Opinion
The Court issued its Opinion in National Pork Producers Council v.
Ross in May 2023.\8\ Justice Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the Court.
While certain portions of the Court's analysis were unanimous, others
were fractured and complicated to parse. To the extent there is a good
illustration of the complex nature of this issue, this Opinion serves
as Exhibit A. When struggling to explain this complex ruling to
producers, I have frequently reminded myself not even the nine Supreme
Court Justices could all get on the same page about how to legally
analyze Prop 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 598 U.S. 356 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the Court unanimously agreed that the Plaintiffs did not
claim Prop 12 was facially discriminatory. The Plaintiffs conceded that
Prop 12 imposes the same burdens on in-state pork producers as it does
out-of-state and even international producers, requiring all to comply
with the same animal confinement requirements to sell covered products
in California.
Second, the Court unanimously rejected NPPC's argument that Prop 12
should be stricken because it has extraterritorial effects. The Court
agreed it had never read the Commerce Clause so broadly and noted that
in today's marketplace most state laws would have some sort of
extraterritorial impact. This, the Court held, was not the proper
inquiry under the dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
Third, the Court turned to the Pike balancing test. This line of
cases developed in situations where a law's practical effects may also
show the presence of a discriminatory purpose, despite the law seeming
facially non-discriminatory. When this occurs, the Court utilizes Pike
balancing to weigh the impact on interstate commerce against the local
interest in the law. This is where the unanimous view of the Court
ceased, and a flow chart became necessary to determine which portions
of the various Opinions with which each Justice agreed.
Three justices (Gorsuch, Thomas, Barrett) concluded, at least under
the facts of this case, the Pike balancing test is one that no court is
equipped to undertake. They described the interests being weighed and
balanced as being ``incommensurable.'' They likened the task of
weighing and balancing the economic interests of the Plaintiffs with
the moral and health interests of California to determining whether a
particular line is longer or rock is heavier. Instead, they wrote, ``in
a functioning democracy, policy choices like these usually belong to
the people and their elected representatives'' who are better able to
weigh political and economic costs and benefits.
Four justices (Gorsuch, Thomas, Sotomayor, Kagan) found the
Plaintiffs failed to allege a ``substantial burden'' on interstate
commerce. This is a key decision for these Justices, because in order
to get to the balancing test, a Plaintiff must first allege a
substantial burden on interstate commerce. These Justices believed the
pleadings failed to allege sufficient facts to prove this substantial
burden. Importantly, these justices noted ``further experience may
yield further facts'' as Prop 12 went into effect, leaving it open to
future challenge should further facts develop to show a substantial
burden.
On the other hand, the remaining five justices (Roberts, Alito,
Kavanaugh, Jackson, Barrett) believed the Plaintiffs did successfully
allege a substantial burden. Four of these justices would have remanded
the case to the trial court to conduct the Pike balancing test. Justice
Barrett, however, did not agree with remanding the case because of her
conclusion courts should not be conducting this type of balancing test
at all.
It is hard to overstate the importance of Justice Barrett's
concurring opinion and her position that the Court is not suited to
apply a balancing test. Given that she agreed a substantial burden was
satisfactorily alleged, had she believed conducting Pike balancing was
within the province of the judiciary, the majority opinion well may
have become the dissenting opinion, resulting in the case being
remanded for the lower court to develop the record necessary to conduct
the Pike balancing analysis.
One final interesting note is Justice Kavanaugh wrote a concurring
opinion for the purpose of pointing out laws like Prop 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.'' Additionally, he noted that this issue
may have implications far beyond the farm gate. ``Notably, future state
laws of this kind might not be confined to the pork industry . . . If
upheld against all constitutional challenges, California's novel and
far-reaching regulation could provide a blueprint for other states.''
He offered examples of hypothetical laws patterned after Prop 12
related to immigration, minimum wage, and even reproductive rights.
The bottom-line result of the various opinions and differences
therein was the Court found in favor of California, and Prop 12 was
allowed to stand. Because of the fractured nature of the Opinion,
however, the broader takeaway and application to future cases is more
difficult to analyze and predict.
V. Subsequent Litigation
There have been other lawsuits after the NPPC decision that are
relevant to the legal landscape surrounding Prop 12.
A. Iowa Pork Producers v. Bonta
In June 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit issued its opinion in Iowa Pork Producers v. Bonta,\9\ a
challenge to Prop 12 on a number of legal grounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Iowa Pork Producers v. Banta, No. 22-55336 (9th Cir. June 25,
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the case challenged Prop 12 on dormant Commerce Clause
grounds. The court found Prop 12 was not discriminatory on its face and
did not impose an excessive burden on interstate commerce, noting that
increased costs of compliance, alone, do not establish a substantial
burden on interstate commerce.
Second, the court rejected Plaintiff's claims that Prop 12 was
unconstitutionally vague with regards to the language ``engage in'' and
``knowingly'' as these words are widely used and readily understood.
Third, the court rejected Plaintiff's claim under the Privileges
and Immunities Clause as they did not allege treatment of nonresidents
differently than California residents.
Fourth, the Plaintiffs claimed Prop 12 is impliedly preempted by
the Packers and Stockyards Act. The court did not agree as Prop 12
requires all parties, regardless of location, to sell compliant
products.
The plaintiffs filed a Petition of Certiorari before the United
States Supreme Court, which was denied on June 30, 2025. It is
interesting, in light of his Ross concurring opinion, to note that the
Court's denial order stated that Justice Kavanaugh would have granted
the petition.
B. Triumph Foods v. Campbell
In 2024, the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts decided Triumph Foods v. Campbell, a challenge to
Massachusetts' Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act, more commonly
known as Question 3 (``Q3''), a law quite similar (but not identical)
to Prop 12.\10\ Massachusetts voters passed Q3 in 2016, prohibiting
producers from confining breeding pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying
hens in a manner that prevents them from lying down, standing up, fully
extending their limbs, or turning around freely. Like Prop 12, the law
applies to animals raised in Massachusetts and to any products sold in
Massachusetts, regardless of their original location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Triumph Foods v. Campbell, 1:23-cv-11671 (D. Mass. July 22,
2024) (appeal pending before United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit, No. 24-1759).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs raised a host of claims including the dormant
Commerce Clause, Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Full Faith and
Credit Clause, the Due Process Clause, the Import-Export Clause, and
preemption under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (``FMIA'') \11\ and
the Packers and Stockyards Act. Many of the claims were dismissed, but
the court did consider the dormant commerce clause and preemption
claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 21 U.S.C. Section 601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, the court considered but rejected the dormant Commerce
Clause claim based on the statute as a whole, relying on the Supreme
Court decision National Pork Producers Council v. Ross. The Court
agreed it was not in a position to measure incommensurable competing
goods and that such choice belongs to the Legislative Branch. Because
of this, the court refused to apply the Pike balancing test and
dismissed the claim.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Triumph Foods v. Campbell, 715 F.Supp.3d 143 (D. Mass. 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Next, the court considered one specific provision, the
``slaughterhouse exception,'' which allowed non-compliant products to
be sold at an establishment in Massachusetts inspected under the FMIA.
Plaintiffs alleged that, as out of state processors, they could not
take advantage of this exception despite being governed by the same
FMIA inspection. Conversely, any in-state pork producer would be able
to do so. The court agreed the slaughterhouse exception had a
discriminatory effect as, in application, it treated in-state and out-
of-state processors differently. Under the law, a discriminatory
provision is almost per se invalid and can only survive if it advances
a legitimate local purpose that cannot be served with reasonable, non-
discriminatory alternatives. The court found that while taking no
position on the legitimacy of the purpose of Q3 as a whole, the state
did not prove a legitimate purpose for the slaughterhouse exemption
specifically. Thus, it was deemed unconstitutional and severed from the
language of the Act.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a separate Order, the Court considered the preemption argument
under the FMIA. FMIA regulates meat products in interstate commerce
requiring Federal inspection of pigs prior to entering and while in a
slaughterhouse, and after slaughter. FMIA's regulations apply to
slaughterhouses, not to pig farmers. FMIA contains an express
preemption prohibiting state laws in addition to or different from FMIA
related to the premises, facilities, and operations of a FMIA-inspected
establishment.
The trial court found Q3 (once the slaughterhouse exemption was
severed) was not expressly preempted by FMIA, holding Q3 has no
provision requiring action by a slaughterhouse. Q3 only bans the sale
of non-compliant pork, doing nothing to regulate slaughterhouse
operations.
Similarly, the court held the law did not fall under conflict
preemption, which occurs when a state law stands as an obstacle to the
accomplishment of the purpose and objective of Congress or it is
impossible for a party to comply with both state and Federal
requirements. Here, slaughterhouses could comply with both the Federal
and Q3 requirements, and the two laws have different purposes, with Q3
preventing the sale of pork raised in certain conditions and FMIA
seeking to protect the health of a consumer through meat inspection
programs.
Thus, the court upheld Q3 without the slaughterhouse exemption
language. Importantly, this case has been appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which has not yet issued an
opinion. To the extent there are questions regarding preemption between
any existing or proposed law and Prop 12, this case may be helpful to
illustrate how courts would analyze that issue.
C. United States of America v. California
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice filed suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
claiming the portions of Prop 12 and AB 1437 that apply to laying hens
is preempted by the Federal Egg Products Inspection Act. The Egg
Products Inspection Act includes a preemption provision preventing
states from imposing additional or conflicting requirements related to
the processing and labeling of eggs that are already covered by Federal
standards. Specifically, the DOJ claimed Prop 12 and AB 1437 impose
requirements related to ``quality and condition'' of eggs and labeling,
which are preempted by the EPIA. No court decisions or supplementary
filings have been made to date.
VI. Recently Proposed Congressional Action
In recent years, there have been several legislative proposals to
address Prop 12 and other similar laws.
A. Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (118th Congress, S. 2019,
H.R. 4417) and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (119th
Congress, S. 1326)
While the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (``EATS Act'')
and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act may have different names,
their content is the same.\14\ Both are broad attempts to address laws
like Prop 12 by prohibiting a state or local government from imposing a
standard or condition of pre-harvest production on agricultural
products sold in interstate commerce if production occurs in another
state and the standard is in addition to Federal law or laws of the
state in which production occurs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Note these bills are very similar to the Protect Interstate
Commerce Act of 2018, commonly known as the ``King Amendment,'' with a
key difference being the King Amendment prohibited laws related to the
production or manufacture of any agricultural product, while the EATS
and FSFPA removed the ``manufacture'' language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the definition of certain terms and provisions in these
proposed bills, they would have quite broad application. For example,
these laws would apply to ``agricultural products'' which are defined
as ``agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and dairy products,
livestock and poultry, bees, forest products, fish and shellfish, and
any products thereof, including processed and manufactured products,
and any and all products raised or produced on farms and any processed
or manufactured product thereof.''
B. Protecting Interstate Commerce for Livestock Producers Act (118th
Congress, S.3382)
Senator Hawley introduced the Protecting Interstate Commerce for
Livestock Producers Act which would expressly preempt states from
enforcing livestock laws in conflict with livestock laws in other
states such as Prop 12. Specifically, the law provided that no state or
local government shall enforce any law ``that regulates the raising,
production, use, transportation, importation, sale, or distribution of
any livestock goods deriving from livestock'' if the livestock or goods
are (1) used, sold, or transported in interstate commerce, (2) raised
in another state, and (3) the law is in conflict with the laws of the
state or origin. There were exceptions including laws related to
animals suffering from recognized animal diseases.
C. Ensuring the Free Movement of Livestock-Derived Products in
Interstate Commerce (Food, Farm and National Security Act of
2024, Section 12007)
In its Food, Farm, and National Security Act of 2024, the House of
Representatives included Section 12007, ``Ensuring the Free Movement of
Livestock-Derived Products in Interstate Commerce'' (``12007''). This
bill would have prevented states from enforcing conditions or standards
on the production of covered livestock, except for those physically
raised in such state. This language was significantly narrower than
that proposed by prior bills in a couple of significant ways.
First, 12007 only applied to ``covered livestock,'' defined as any
domestic animal raised for the purpose of slaughter for human
consumption, or producing products manufactured for human consumption
which are derived from the processing of milk, including fluid milk
products. The proposed language expressly excluded animals raised for
the primary purpose of egg production. This is narrower than both the
EATS and Hawley bills.
Second, the bill only addressed laws imposing conditions or
standards on the production of covered livestock physically raised in
the jurisdiction. The ``production'' of livestock was limited to the
raising, including breeding, of covered livestock and excluded the
movement, harvesting, or further processing of covered livestock.
Again, this is significantly narrower than the language of prior bills.
VII. Conclusion
There is no doubt this issue is important to agricultural producers
across the country, and livestock producers find themselves on both
sides of the debate. Congress has the authority pursuant to the
Commerce Clause to act in this area. Whether to do so or how to
undertake such an effort, is a matter of considerable complexity. In
the absence of Congressional action, state laws such as Prop 12 and Q3
will continue to remain in effect given the lack of success challenging
these laws in the judiciary. Additionally, states will remain free to
pass similar, more restrictive, or more lax requirements as they wish.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify and look forward to answering
any questions you may have.
Exhibit A
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Ms. Lashmet, thank you so much for your
testimony.
At this time, Members will be recognized for questions in
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority
Members, and in order of arrival for those who joined us after
the hearing convened. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each
in order to allow us to get to as many questions as possible.
And I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Ms. Cook, your testimony briefly mentions the potential
consequences of a patchwork of conflicting production standards
across the country. Can you tell us as an economist what you
would expect to happen to pork producers and the pork industry
as a whole if numerous states began developing different
production standards?
Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. Pork producers today
are already subject to a significant amount of risk when it
comes to the production and marketing of their animals. In a
situation like you described, we would likely be seeing a much
greater percentage of producers required to undertake costly
investments and changes, and so that can have an impact at the
farm level, but as far as our industry, it could impact our
structure as well and may be a factor in fewer farms being able
to own sows.
The Chairman. Thank you so much. Mr. Cushman, some people
in this town have decided to run with a narrative that the
Supreme Court has already ruled on this case, and therefore,
there is nothing left that needs to be done. Can you walk us
through what the Supreme Court ruling actually said, and
especially Justice Gorsuch's commentary on the role Congress
can play here?
Mr. Cushman. Thank you so much, Chairman Thompson. Yes, the
narrative that the Supreme Court has already ruled and the
issue is settled is not entirely true. Essentially, what
Justice Gorsuch said is the Judiciary is punting the issue to
Congress, which he felt was the most appropriate branch of
government to handle the issue.
Justice Gorsuch believed, along with Justice Thomas and
Justice Barrett, that the Judiciary was not the appropriate
branch to handle these kinds of claims. They felt that the
Dormant Commerce Clause did not go as far as we believed it did
in substantially burdening interstate commerce.
As you know, you need five justices to win a case. We had
four justices that fully agreed with us on the law and the
facts. Two justices in the majority, Justices Kagan and
Sotomayor, believed that we had not proved the factual
predicate to establish this claim. They agreed with us on the
law, but not on the facts. Justice Barrett wrote separately to
say that she did not agree with us on the law, but targeting
Justices Sotomayor and Kagan said that we clearly did establish
the factual predicate to establish that kind of a claim if they
believed such a claim did exist.
But in short, Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority of
the fractured opinion, did say that the Dormant Commerce
Clause, as we saw it, did not provide us relief, that if we did
view this as a concern, Congress would be the appropriate body
to handle this issue.
The Chairman. Thank you so much.
Mr. Hord, your testimony notes that you have been a full-
time pork producer since 1987 so you know the uncertainties
farmers face with volatile markets, weather conditions, and
regulatory burdens. Given the Supreme Court ruling, do you
worry that similar state mandates will keep popping up across
the country? Even though you have complied partially with Prop
12, will you be able to survive if the goalposts keep moving?
Mr. Hord. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Yes, this isn't a
concern for our farm. In Ohio, we have already experienced the
goalposts being moved. In 2010, our producers in Ohio agreed to
a group housing plan for the sows under the Ohio Care Standards
Board. In 2024, we made the decision to modify a barn that was
previously converted to the Ohio standard. The potential of a
patchwork of another 49 states and causing me to make
additional changes is a major concern for our family's
operation.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hord.
I yield back the balance of my time, and I recognize the
Ranking Member from Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much.
Ms. Lashmet, I saw the letter this morning from USDA to my
colleagues on Prop 12 raising prices in California for pork.
Talk to me a little bit about beyond consumer prices.\2\ I know
there are a number of other issues that this body must
consider. Various legislative proposals would preempt Prop 12.
How could those different proposals impact other state laws? I
am just trying to get a sense of if we preempt Prop 12, what
happens in other states to their laws?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Editor's note: the letter referred to (submitted by Mr.
Thompson) is located on p. 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Lashmet. Sure. In typical lawyer fashion, I think I am
going to tell you that it depends specifically on the language
of the proposal that Congress passed and the specific state
laws at issue. So if we look particularly at the language that
was included in the farm bill, that language was much narrower
than the language that was proposed in the EATS Act,\3\ for
example, and so I think it really depends on the specific
language of the Congressional action, the breadth of the
definitions included in those actions. And once we figure out
that language, you can see the number of state laws that could
potentially be impacted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Editor's note: 115th Congress: H.R. 4879/H.R. 3599, Protect
Interstate Commerce Act of 2018; 116th Congress: H.R. 272, Protect
Interstate Commerce Act of 2019; 117th Congress: H.R. 4999/S. 2619,
Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression Act; 118th Congress: H.R. 4417/
S. 2019, Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act; 119th Congress: S.
1326, Food Security and Farm Protection Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have seen a study from Harvard looking specifically at
the EATS Act, and the estimates there were that it could
preempt a number of existing state laws.
Ms. Craig. I know in my own State of Minnesota, I think it
was somewhere around 40 state laws that could be impacted the
language in the EATS Act.
Ms. Lashmet, there are producers obviously on both sides of
this issue. In your estimation, how many producers have
converted their operations to become compliant? And if Congress
were to preempt Prop 12, what would happen to the producers who
have already invested to become Prop 12 compliant?
Ms. Lashmet. Admittedly, I don't have individual knowledge
of the number of producers that have complied with Prop 12. I
did see the letter from USDA this morning, and that indicated
that USDA believes it is about 27 percent of producers have
made those changes.
The impact on them if Proposition 12 were to be preempted
by Federal law is that they have the sunk cost of having
already invested in making those expensive and complicated
changes to their operations, and if the law changes at that
point, they likely would feel that they had done that with no
need, an unnecessary investment in those changes.
Ms. Craig. Thank you. I wonder if I could hear from the
rest of the panel on that question. What happens to producers
that have already invested to become Prop 12 compliant if we
preempt it? Ms. Rocha? Is there any concern with that?
Ms. Rocha. From a consumer perspective, our concern would
be in the pricing, of course, so that would be something that
we are looking at, increasing prices for not just the consumer
but also for restaurant owners who actually purchase the
product.
Ms. Craig. Mr. Cushman?
Mr. Cushman. Thank you for the question. This kind of a law
would not require those farmers that have changed operations to
change back. They are not making it illegal for them to
continue farming that way and serving whatever markets do want
to purchase those products. It would merely provide farmers a
choice on how they would proceed going forward, and
importantly, it would protect those farmers that have made the
change from any future changes that another state might have by
enacting another law that is contradictory to Prop 12 or moving
goalposts further than what Prop 12 did. And finally, it would
protect current farmers that are not compliant with Prop 12 to
be able to serve markets across the country.
Ms. Craig. Ms. Cook?
Ms. Cook. Thank you. I would begin by saying producers who
are currently compliant will be the best positioned to continue
serving markets where there is a demonstrated demand for those
products. But additionally, producers compliant and not
compliant have a shared concern about patchwork and the future
risk to investments in the pork industry.
Ms. Craig. Mr. Schuiteman?
Mr. Schuiteman. Thanks for the question. I would agree with
what Holly said in terms of the market demand, and I would
defer over to Patrick with his experience in the conversion of
their operation.
Ms. Craig. Mr. Hord?
Mr. Hord. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman. As I thought about
it, I hope you can appreciate the challenge I am in because I
have made some conversions, but the fact of the matter is me
sitting here saying the patchwork is a big concern for me
personally as well as our industry of the continued potential
of 49 additional states making mandates, and it has become, as
my experience--and I mentioned in my answer earlier, it is a
challenge for us, so that is why we are looking at the
opportunity to discontinue the patchwork is a big challenge for
us.
Ms. Craig. Thank you, Mr. Hord. Thank you to the panel.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia [presiding.] Thank you, Ranking
Member Craig, and I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hord, the people who support Proposition 12 have
started the narrative that any fix to this mess that has been
created by it would help China somehow. Your testimony touches
on this. Do you believe that a fix to Proposition 12 would help
China, or do you believe that it will help American farmers,
ranchers, and consumers?
Mr. Hord. Yes, thank you for the question. I think this is
a U.S. pork industry concern from the smallest producer to the
larger ones, and so, no, I do not think this in any ways helps
any foreign--and, in fact, our foreign trading partners are
concerned about this, and I think at times could be looked at
as an advantage for other countries. But yes, that is kind of
how--as National Pork Producers Council, what we think about
that.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Hord.
Mr. Cushman, I am going to come to you, but I want to read
this section of section 12007 of the farm bill. ``In general,
producers of covered livestock have a Federal right to raise
and market their covered livestock in interstate commerce, and
therefore, no state or subdivision thereof may enact or enforce
directly or indirectly a condition or standard on the
production of covered livestock other than for covered
livestock physically raised in such state or subdivision.'' And
we concede that they have the right to put those stipulations
on producers in their state.
But from the legal side of things, do you have any concern
that that section of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act
of 2024 will somehow give China unfettered access to our
agricultural markets?
Mr. Cushman. [Off microphone.]
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Ms. Cook, can you explain
generally how much production costs increase when a producer
converts their operation to comply with Proposition 12? Are
these costs passed along to the rest of the supply chain to
processors and retailers, for example? And if so what are they?
Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. As with anything, the
exact cost number will vary depending on the individual farm
and their situation, but looking at the cost of constructing
compliant facilities, that can increase fixed costs anywhere
from 20 to 40 percent per pig, but we are also seeing higher
operating costs, things like labor, feed, veterinary care,
utilities. Those can increase 15 percent when converting to
Proposition 12. And then we also may have to spread those out
over fewer pigs due to the productivity impacts of Prop 12, so
that is on the farm level side. And there are certainly costs
across the supply chain, packing, processing, distribution, and
retail, all of the segregation and tracing and things like
that. I don't have specific data on that topic, but those are
certainly significant and should be considered as well.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Ultimately, any business has
to have more dollars in than they have going out, and when the
government passes rules and regulations that increase the cost
of operations, whether it be in the construction of facilities,
as it is here for swine, I mean, if the farmer can't get their
money back somehow, then the farmer goes broke. I mean, I think
that is the problem when you have people who either don't
understand business or don't support agriculture or America's
ability to feed itself continue to imply these additional
burdens on the producers. Ultimately, the consumer has to pay
or the producer goes out of business.
I think, Ms. Rocha, this was effectively your comments,
correct? I mean, if you increase the price of pork to the
restaurant chain, if the consumer can't afford to pay for the
product, then the product is no longer available. Your
restaurant goes out of business. Is that correct?
Ms. Rocha. Yes, that is my point exactly, and we are seeing
that already just based on other regulations, so this would be
yet another regulation on top of those that would affect the
restaurants.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And you somewhat alluded to
this. Are you a resident of California?
Ms. Rocha. Yes, yes, yes. I am a resident of California,
yes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And so California has public
initiative. A lot of things go on the ballot, but do you think
that the general public who voted on this understood what the
end result was of this ballot measure when they voted to put it
in place?
Ms. Rocha. I believe that the law, as well-intentioned as
it was, I feel that the voters could not have known the
impacts, and we see that a lot with our similar regulations. So
like I said, I don't think that the voters could have known the
impacts of Prop 12.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. My time has expired. Thank you
all for your testimony and answering the questions.
I now recognize Chairman David Scott from the great State
of Georgia.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have before us one of the most challenging issues that
this Committee is faced with. We have to guarantee that the
livestock is raised safely and humanely on one hand, and at the
same time ensure that farmers and ranchers can be successful in
operating their businesses.
But there is something a little deeper here. We have a
substantial burden on our interstate commerce and the
implications that this may have on the producers. So Ms.
Lashmet, your testimony was very effective because you placed a
great deal of emphasis on expanding what some of our justices
did not believe Proposition 12 placed a substantial burden. I
want you to get into this a little bit because we have to be
clear. Going into this, we have the producers on one hand, we
have our farmers and ranchers on the other hand. We have to
come together. We have to solve this problem. But in the middle
of it is the Supreme Court. Help us find a way out of this
challenge.
Ms. Lashmet. So I do think it is interesting that there was
such a fractured opinion that came from the Supreme Court, and
they struggled with the exact question that you are asking
here. And if you look at the opinion, one of the big issues is
whether or not there was a substantial burden on interstate
commerce due to the language of Proposition 12 being enacted in
California.
I think one important note--it is kind of technical, but I
do think it matters--is that the Supreme Court was reviewing a
decision on a motion to dismiss, which is a 12(b)(6) motion.
What that means is there was no discovery conducted in the
case, and so they were really relying completely on just the
pleadings in the case for the facts. And so I do think it is
questionable if there was an additional factual record that had
been developed through discovery if that could have added more
to the analysis of the substantial burden.
With what the court had, what they decided was--five
justices actually did say that there was a substantial burden
adequately alleged. Four justices said that there were not. And
then as Mr. Cushman explained, given that Justice Barrett did
not believe in weighing the outcome of the case was different
than that five to four ruling on substantial burden.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Now, specifically, to what
extent do increased producers' costs constitute a substantial
burden, as the court mentioned?
Ms. Lashmet. The court did look at the increased cost on
producers and the increased cost on consumers when they were
weighing the potential substantial burden analysis in the case,
so I think the court would say that it does have a factor in
that analysis.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Now, are there other
considerations similarly weighed when arriving at this
decision?
Ms. Lashmet. So when the court looks at substantial burden,
it looks at a wide variety of considerations, and those do
include the increased cost on the producer, the increased cost
on the consumer, the cost that may be spread out amongst the
industry as a whole, right? It is not just the producer and the
consumer that face the cost. All along the supply chain, there
are increased difficulties and increased costs when you add
additional regulations like Prop 12. The court took all of that
into consideration.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Now, finally, how do courts
compare the local interest in a law and the impact on
interstate commerce? Is there a subjective nature to this
decision, which can lead to varying views between different
courts?
Ms. Lashmet. Absolutely. There is absolutely a subjective
nature. It is called the Pike balancing test is where the court
weighs those two interests. It is a subjective test. And here,
that is the point that three of the justices made was that the
court really is not well able to conduct that type of
subjective analysis where they are having to weigh California's
interest in food safety and animal welfare against economic
interests that were raised by the plaintiffs in the case.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, thank you for your
excellent analysis of the courts. Thank you.
Ms. Lashmet. Thank you.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Chairman Scott.
The chair now recognizes Mr. Bacon for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you very much. I appreciate you all being
here today.
I tend to agree with the Supreme Court decision. It is not
their role to regulate interstate commerce, but it is our role.
And it seems to me that we can't have 50 state standards when
it comes to pork or anything else like this. It is not fair to
the producers. It is not fair to the processors and the
consumers.
My first question is to Mr. Hord and Ms. Cook. I appreciate
all the cost analysis that you have been given, but if we can
put it down to the most basic level, if you go to the
supermarket, how much more percentage-wise will a consumer pay
because of this rule? What will be the increase to the cost of
pork?
Ms. Cook. On average, across covered products, it is 20
percent.
Mr. Bacon. A 20 percent increase for consumers, and I think
we come from all different parts of the country, but for a low-
income earner, a 20 percent increase in pork is terrible. And
that is what we are doing here. And it doesn't just stop with
California. Other states could be doing similar things. We have
heard of others. So I think it is our role here to get our arms
around this and set one standard for the country.
Mr. Schuiteman, how hard is it to comply as a farm? You
raise hogs. What would you have to do to comply with this on
your farm?
Mr. Schuiteman. I think that is going to vary based on the
facility. We have several different spaces and types of
facilities, and the costs have been quoted $3,500 to $4,500 per
sow. I think that could be on the low end, depending on the
type of facility you have, if you have to move concrete, if it
is simply just replacing inside infrastructure. So it is going
to vary, but it is going to be a cost, and the question on our
side is will we recoup the cost? And with the uncertainty of
the potential patchwork, without that solid--if every state is
going to rule, we just don't know where to go with it.
Mr. Bacon. Would it cost you more than $50,000 to modify
your operation to comply?
Mr. Schuiteman. Pretty easily more, yes.
Mr. Bacon. So maybe $100,000? That is an incredible cost to
each individual farmer. I know it varies based on the size, but
I just think we have to realize this is what we are asking
individual farmers to do to comply with us.
Mr. Cushman, are we at risk of having 50 state standards
that people have to comply with?
Mr. Cushman. Yes, we are, and that was one of the biggest
concerns American Farm Bureau had about this law, and one of
the reasons we decided to sue California on it. Currently, we
run the risk of states constantly moving the goalposts on what
farmers need to do, so after they make those investments, they
have it changed again. The risk of states enacting a patchwork
of legislation like that and kind of mucking up the system,
that is that threat of creating those kind of COVID-like
disruptions we saw to the food supply system, and we are very,
very concerned about that.
Mr. Bacon. And the courts, if I understand it, the Supreme
Court said it is not its role to force a standard. It is our
role. Is that right?
Mr. Cushman. It was a very difficult decision to understand
and read. That is in essence what the court said was that three
justices believed that it was not the Judiciary's role to weigh
in. Two justices did not think we had established that burden
to do so. So the way the makeup worked, we had six that would
have taken the case, five that agreed with our factual
predicate, but the ruling we have left over is essentially yes,
that it is now the ball is in Congress' court to fix the
problem.
Mr. Bacon. As a lawyer, that is our constitutional role is
to regulate interstate commerce.
Mr. Cushman. That is correct.
Mr. Bacon. Mr. Hord, I wanted to clarify something that you
brought up. You said that this rule, this California
proposition, in reality really helps the big farmer, but the
small farmers hurt the most. Do I get that right?
Mr. Hord. No, I didn't say that. I just said that a lot of
times larger farmers have the opportunity to have the capital
and the ability to take the risk on a percentage of their
production where a smaller producer may not have that same
access to capital and the ability to take the risk that comes
because of the uncertainty of what we are discussing here
today.
Mr. Bacon. Thank you for your clarification. I will just
close and just repeat the beginning question. A 20 percent
increase in pork, that is a tremendous cost on the consumer at
all levels of income. So thank you.
With that, I yield.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Bacon.
The chair now recognizes Mr. McGovern for 5 minutes.
Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going
to begin as I began yesterday with my questioning and say that
this Committee should be holding hearings on the impacts that
the big ugly bill (Pub. L. 119-21), which is now law, are going
to have on nutrition programs. I mean, we should be having
before us right now experts, heads of food pantries and food
banks. We ought to have people with lived experience who rely
on these nutrition programs about what will happen when the big
ugly bill forces millions of people off of SNAP. We have 42
million people that are going to see their benefits cut. We are
told that five million people, older adults, veterans, families
with teenagers, former foster youth are at serious risk of
losing their benefits outright. What Republicans did in this
Committee on reconciliation, I believe, is unconscionable, all
to fund and offset the cost of tax cuts for multimillionaires
and billionaires.
And it should be the focus of this Committee to end hunger
in this country and not make it worse. And by the way, ending
hunger is good for the American farmers too. They produce the
food that is purchased with SNAP, and that is where our focus
should be.
Now, bringing me to today's hearing. I am astounded that we
are taking what little time we have before the August recess to
once again have Republicans use Prop 12 as a punching bag to
distract from corporate consolidation in the meat sector. Now,
we have gone around in circles over Prop 12 and other states'
anti-animal cruelty laws for years. And the largest pork
producers are not happy. Sixty-six percent of all Americans
oppose confinement crates. That is from a Harris poll by the
way. They went all the way to the Supreme Court a few years ago
with an unconstitutional argument that undermined the most
basic concepts of Federalism. They lost, and now instead of
moving on, as so many family farmers have done by the way, they
have come to Republicans for a legislative bailout.
But this hearing will not get them closer to overturning
Proposition 12, and that is because this hearing is an
intentional misrepresentation of reality. The reality is that
Prop 12 took effect at the beginning of last year, and the
fear-mongering has fallen flat. Farmers in Iowa have not been
forced to go crate-free if they don't want to. Grocery shelves
are not empty. The egg industry actively supports Prop 12's
cage-free requirements. Major retailers and restaurants support
Prop 12. And many pig farmers, especially the 82 percent of pig
farmers who have fewer than 500 pigs, are now benefiting from
the new market opportunities for humanely raised meat.
Now, a lot of good has come from these state laws, and
Republicans still want everyone to believe that state laws to
make sure pigs have enough room to turn around, as most
Americans want, are some sort of Marxist plot against the
heartland.
And this leads me to the greatest misrepresentation of all
today. There are thousands of farmers who vocally support Prop
12, but Republicans have not given them an opportunity to speak
today. With all due respect to this panel, and I appreciate Ms.
Lashmet's neutrality, this is not a balanced panel. One would
think there is not another side to this argument. But some of
these farmers who support Proposition 12 are here. I have met
them. They are in the audience, and they deserve a voice in
this conversation because their livelihoods are at stake.
And I ask unanimous consent to insert over 150 letters, Mr.
Chairman, that I received from many of these farmers who
support Proposition 12. I ask unanimous consent to put them in
the record.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Editor's note: the letters referred to are located on p. 174.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These farmers have been shut out of this process, and let
the record reflect that. Republicans love to talk about
regulatory certainty, which I figured out is euphemism for
taking away anything they don't like. What about the certainty
for these farmers who have made investments to go crate-free,
who have followed the rules, and now you want to pull the rug
from under them?
Let me make this as clear as possible. If you kill Prop 12,
you are putting independent family farms at risk. They will not
be able to shoulder the cost of going backwards the way the
factory farms can. It will be ``get big or get out'' all over
again. And it will be crystal clear who cheered on the
corporate operators while they ate up the last of the family
farms in America.
And one final thing. When Republicans were fighting with
each other over the big ugly bill, one of the most contentious
issues was a provision to block states from having their own
regulations on AI. It almost tanked the bill. Folks do not like
it when people in Washington try to override local decisions.
And the divides among Republicans on Proposition 12 are not
going to go away.
I have news for my Republican friends. Washington does not
always know what is best. I respect what our states are doing.
And with that, I yield back my time.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Mr. McGovern, you made a
motion to submit something for the record? All right. We are
going to accept that without objection.
I also have a letter from the American Farm Bureau that I
would like to submit for the record. National Pork Producers
Council included this, and over 900 additional Federal, state,
and local farm organizations who write in strong support of
section 12007 of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of
2024.
[The letter referred to is located on p. 162.]
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. And I am submitting for the
record a letter from the American Veterinary Association who
writes in strong support of section 12007 of the Farm, Food,
and National Security Act of 2024, submitting that for the
record, where they oppose Proposition 12 for animal welfare.
[The letter referred to is located on p. 161.]
Mr. McGovern. And Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure
all 150 of my letters are going to be in the record, right?
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGovern. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. With that, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Ms. Cook, we have talked a fair amount today
about how Proposition 12 has been a major driver of increased
costs. I think 20 or 22 percent has been quoted today in
California. I think you talked a little bit about how it can be
$3,000 an animal to make these physical changes to the
operations. Is that about right?
Ms. Cook. It can vary. It can be up to $4,500 or more for
new construction.
Mr. Johnson. And so California could change the rules again
in a couple of years, right?
Ms. Cook. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Imposing a new round of capital investments
for producers.
Ms. Cook. We face that risk today in this environment, yes.
Mr. Johnson. And then you would have what in economic terms
I believe is just called a stranded cost. You get these
pancaking requirements of physical improvements with really no
mechanism to recover those costs in the marketplace. Is my
understanding of that right?
Ms. Cook. In theory, a producer would not undertake these
investments willingly without a guarantee of a return, but in
our current environment, there is no certainty.
Mr. Johnson. That uncertainty has a chilling effect on
investment and new market entrance. My understanding of that is
right?
Ms. Cook. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. Which, over time, is going to further inflate
food prices for Americans that frankly deserve to have
affordable protein. Is that right?
Ms. Cook. If the impacts have the effect of contraction and
that pressure on the industry, then certainly it could increase
pork prices.
Mr. Johnson. So I want to shift a little bit to animal
welfare, either Mr. Hord or Mr. Schuiteman. There have been
some studies quoted today--Mr. Schuiteman, maybe I would start
with you--that there has not been an increase in animal welfare
post-Proposition 12. Is my understanding of that right?
Mr. Schuiteman. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. And in fact, sow mortality went up. The need
for additional antibiotics went up. Is that right?
Mr. Schuiteman. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. So what are the proponents of Prop 12 missing?
What do they not understand about sow behavior? What do they
not understand about animal husbandry that causes them to
misfire so dramatically on their views of what these animals
really need to be safe and sound?
Mr. Schuiteman. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
think within that lies the point that in terms of welfare, we
are where we are today in our production systems because we are
trying to find the best welfare for the sow. And sometimes that
leads us to more confinement, but truly, as we have studied
things over the years, it is the best outcome for the sow, for
her offspring, all the way down the line. It is a constant
moving target, but that is how we got to where we are today was
because of animal welfare.
Mr. Johnson. So every producer I have ever met cares about
animal welfare. They understand that that is a living creature
worthy of decent treatment. But let's assume that wasn't the
case. Let's assume that it was just about dollars and cents. Do
animals under duress thrive? Do animals under duress put on
weight?
Mr. Schuiteman. I think that is a great question, and I
think the interesting thing about a female sow herd is that if
there is poor welfare, your pocketbook will suffer because poor
welfare will lead to decreased production every time. And it is
almost an instant feedback when you are managing a breeding
herd poorly to what you are going to get out at the end, so I
think that is a great question. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. So again, tier one, decent humans care about
animal welfare; but tier two, successful businessmen and
successful businesswomen care about animal welfare because an
animal that is comfortable will produce better economic
results. Am I right?
Mr. Schuiteman. Absolutely.
Mr. Johnson. But what else can you tell us about that? Give
us a sense of how dramatically true that is in the marketplace.
Mr. Schuiteman. I think one thing we discussed here
recently was just how, again, in the production systems that we
developed, whether it be the breeding herd or whether it be the
production herd, our goal is to give every pig the same
opportunity to thrive. And really, if we are doing that, then
our bottom line is in great shape too. And so the big piece of
that is the welfare, the environment, the day-to-day
management.
And like I said in my testimony, if we are going to have to
try to meet an arbitrary target set by people who are away from
the farm, and some of that control is taken away from us,
invariably our ability to do the best for that animal at any
one given time could suffer.
Mr. Johnson. Proposition 12 has, according to the studies
we have discussed today, increased cost to consumers, it has
reduced the viability of small family operations, and it has
injured animal welfare. Proposition 12 is a fantastic failure,
and it is time for Congress to fix that mistake.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I would yield back.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Ms.
Adams of North Carolina for 5 minutes.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like, first of all, to ask for unanimous consent to
submit into the record written testimony from ASPCA opposing
overturning Proposition 12 and other state laws.
[The statement referred to is located on p. 248.]
Ms. Adams. Mr. Hord, I have a question, a few yes or no's
for you. Are you aware that there are pork producers who are
benefiting from the market created by Proposition 12?
Ms. Lashmet. Was that question to me? Sorry.
Ms. Adams. Yes. Mr. Hord? Yes or no, sir?
Mr. Hord. Was that question to me?
Ms. Adams. Are you aware that there are pork producers who
are benefiting from the market created by Proposition 12?
Mr. Hord. There are. There are definitely producers that
are raising Prop 12-compliant pork, yes.
Ms. Adams. Okay. And so Congressman McGovern is introducing
letters from hundreds of these farmers that it would be helpful
if you get to know them because they may be your members. I
think he has already spoken to that. So why is NPPC working
against these farmers?
Mr. Hord. Thank you. Is this a question for me, too, as
well?
Ms. Adams. Yes.
Mr. Hord. Yes, thank you. Well, the challenge is we have a
state that raises 0.1 percent of the pork in the U.S., and so
when they make a mandate, it essentially mandates to the rest
of the country that there has to be conversions to this
mandate. And so I think NPPC's position is the concern that it
is forcing other states to be able to meet the demand of one
state, that of another state, and I think that is the crux of
the concern here, ma'am. Thank you.
Ms. Adams. So let me ask you, does NPPC receive any
government pork commodity check-off funds to your knowledge?
Mr. Hord. Yes, yes. NPPC is a voluntary check-off
organization.
Ms. Adams. Okay. What percentage of your funds consists of
commodity pork check-off funds? Do you know what the percentage
is?
Mr. Hord. I am sorry, can you repeat the question?
Ms. Adams. What percentage of your budget consists of
commodity pork check-off funds?
Mr. Hord. Well, I could not answer what the exact
percentage is being used. Everything for us--NPPC is a public
policy----
Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, you don't have a percentage that you
know of. Okay. Well, let me move on.
I have heard from producers and companies both large and
small that have invested in Proposition 12-compliant systems,
not because they agree with or support Proposition 12, but
because the law was passed in 2018, and they had a business
decision to make. They decided to invest in a compliance system
to supply a large market, and some of those producers have
invested tens of millions of dollars. They have faced nearly 5
years of uncertainty from the initial January 2022
implementation date. And when the Supreme Court ruled in 2023,
they hoped that this was finally a settled matter. Now Congress
is introducing even more uncertainty. Those producers who
invested are the ones who will be hurt.
Ms. Lashmet, have you seen any data that assesses the cost
that these producers will incur to revert back to the
traditional system?
Ms. Lashmet. No, ma'am, I have not seen specific data on
that. I certainly have heard producers discuss that that is a
concern for them, but I don't have specific numbers on that.
Ms. Adams. Okay. In your opinion, will the EATS Act as
written or any preemption of Proposition 12 be subject to
additional legal challenge and additional years of uncertainty
for these producers who are simply trying to follow the law to
have access to a market?
Ms. Lashmet. I think it is safe to say if Congress acts in
this space, it is very likely that it will be challenged in the
courts.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, thank you very much, and thank you
all for your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
And I am submitting for the record a letter from the
Livestock Marketing Association where they offer support for
section 12007. Without objection.
[The letter referred to is located on p. 168.]
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Mr. Mann, you are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
here today. I appreciate the Chairman for having this hearing.
I represent the Big First District of Kansas, 60 primarily
rural counties in western and central Kansas. The Big First is
one of the top swine-producing districts in the country, much
smaller than Iowa and other states, but we generate more than
$640 million in sales, ranked fourth nationally. We have over
1,000 farms raising hogs and pigs each year.
Kansas farmers, ranchers, and ag producers have been
burdened with additional costs to conform with not Kansas law
or even Federal law where they have a seat at the table, but
from a state that is 718 miles from my district's border with a
fraction of their production compared to what we produce in
Kansas. Fellow Kansan President Dwight Eisenhower once said
that farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and
you are 1,000 miles from a cornfield, and that is exactly what
has happened in California with Proposition 12. I look forward
to hearing from you all on your perspectives on the issue and
how it is affecting our ag producers.
Just a few questions, maybe first for you, Mr. Hord. How
does Prop 12 affect U.S. pork producers' ability to access
export markets, particularly given that most foreign buyers
expect a uniform national standard?
Mr. Hord. Thank you for that question. To my knowledge--and
I am obviously a pork farmer, but to my knowledge, I don't know
that the export out of the U.S. Typically, we are trying to
meet that California standard. The concern is for other foreign
trading partners. They are concerned about the fact that they
would have to comply to be able to sell pork or bring pork in
to California, which does give some concerns with the USMCA, as
well as the WTO concerns, so that is a concern of NPPC.
Mr. Mann. In your mind, do inconsistent state requirements
like Prop 12 make it harder for us to compete globally?
Mr. Hord. It does make it a challenge. The fact of the
matter is, though, that mostly Prop 12 is being supplied from
the U.S. market, and so I don't immediately think it is a
global trade issue, although NPPC supports global trade and is
advocating on that on behalf of pork producers.
Mr. Mann. Thank you. Ms. Cook, do you find that there is
any evidence of significant premiums at the store for Prop 12-
compliant pork products such that they would outweigh the
increase in production costs that you have seen for producing
those? What is the market saying as far as the demand for
products that are Prop 12-compliant in California or otherwise?
Ms. Cook. Well, in California, it is the only option for
covered products, so they are paying a lot more than they were
before Prop 12, and they are also paying more than other U.S.
consumers in other states for the same product. We have seen
that in the data.
I think you asked about the cost and the producers. There
is more than just even the farm level cost that goes into what
the consumer has to pay. There are costs incurred at every
level of the supply chain, and so what we are seeing is much
higher prices, and with that, consumers are able to consume
less pork.
Mr. Mann. Are you seeing other states provide a premium or
market pork that is Prop 12-compliant, or what are other states
doing outside of California?
Ms. Cook. Well, I think it is important to recognize that
there is a difference between demand from consumers for certain
products that is communicated through market signals and a
willingness to pay, and then a voter-approved measure that
requires that pork be sold, so we are seeing that in
California. There are other markets for certain products that
are occurring based on consumer demand, but not in the same
restrictive and requirement way that we see with Proposition
12.
Mr. Mann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being
here. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. The chair now recognizes Mr.
Costa because Ms. Brown is allowing it.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Brown.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank Ms. Brown.
Mr. Costa. That is what I was going to do.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Got you.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank Ms. Brown
for the courtesy of allowing me to go before her.
Obviously, this is a hearing that impacts California, and I
would hope to believe, as a third-generation farmer from
California, that this isn't a morning to simply beat up on
California. And I, with all due respect, am not feeling that
the panel that we have here, as good as it is, is balanced in
terms of the different points of view that clearly are involved
with a lot of other elements of agriculture and farmers that
have adjusted and are taking advantage of the opportunities
that Proposition 12 provides.
The hearing today is obviously focused on the grievances on
Prop 12. And let me be clear, I did not endorse Prop 12. It was
a measure approved by the people of the State of California in
2018. It has created a niche marketplace for producers, but we
also need to know that it wasn't fully implemented until July
1, 2023, because of the litigation that took place.
And in terms of the impacts on the market, while some
studies have been cited, I don't think anyone cited the
Oklahoma State University professor of economics, who indicated
from an economic analysis I reviewed there is no indication
that Prop 12 has contributed to elevated pork prices at the
national level. I want to insert that for the record.
[The analysis referred to is located on p. 172.]
Mr. Costa. I think there are a lot of other elements that
impact market prices, and let's start with tariffs. Mexico is
the top valuation destination for U.S. pork last year, $2.5
billion. China is the U.S.'s largest market for pork variety
meat by a value of $1.1 billion. Canada is the top market for
U.S. processed pork and the fourth largest market for U.S. pork
markets at $852 million. So what are we doing with Canada and
Mexico? We are in a trade war. We are in a trade war.
In fact, in 2020, President Trump, after the conclusion of
the U.S.-Mexico trade agreement, I think I remember him saying,
the best and most beautiful, greatest trade agreement ever
known to mankind, now we are in a trade war with our two
biggest trading partners, Mexico and Canada, which accounts for
about 40 percent of our trade, a lot of agricultural trade back
and forth. It makes no sense to me.
And by the way, that provision of USMCA had a good
provision in it. It asked every 5 years for a review period.
Guess what? We are in that 5 year period for the review period.
Why not take advantage of that best, greatest trade agreement
ever known to mankind that was signed by President Trump in
2020? This is a lot about political rhetoric. And I think this
trade war goes to the heart of impacting American farmers.
I am a third-generation farmer. And I can tell you, in
California, we are most fearful about the impacts of our
markets that we have established. Forty-four percent of our
agriculture in California is exported. It is exported. And when
we went through this scenario and Trump won, we lost market
share that we still have not gained back.
So the reality is we are facing losing markets largely due
to uncertainty and inconsistency of this Administration's
inability to negotiate trade deals, 90 days, 90 countries,
maybe here, maybe there. I don't know. But certainly the
uncertainty and the confusion in the marketplace continues to
lead to the questionability of the United States as a trading
partner, and that impacts American farmers. It impacts
California farmers. That is a fact.
So it is a simple economic lesson. Less food being
produced, less food being exported, more tariffs equals higher
food costs. That is the bottom line. And tariffs are a tax on
American consumers, American producers, American agricultural
producers, and that relates to higher food costs.
So I would be remiss if I did not indicate that when we
talk about Prop 12, when we talk about the other initiative,
high-path avian flu was largely responsible for the increase in
the costs of egg production, and that gets overlooked. I mean,
the impact of high-path avian flu, we have depopulated 170
million layers, 30 million this year, and in California, 17
million.
So I yield back the balance by time, but I think that we
are missing the point here.
The Chairman [presiding.] The gentleman yields back, and I
now recognize the Chairman emeritus of the House Agriculture
Committee, Mr. Lucas from Oklahoma.
Mr. Lucas. That is more polite than saying fossil, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate that.
Mr. Schuiteman, your testimony touches on how Prop 12 could
lead to the consolidation of family farms and small businesses.
In your opinion, what will it mean for consumers across the
U.S. if we begin to lose small- and medium-sized producers?
Mr. Schuiteman. Congressman, thank you for the question.
And as we have studied the market worldwide, we have seen, for
example, Europe has put in restrictions similar to what we see
in California, and we have seen their production decline to the
point where they have lost export markets. And so it seems to
me to be a fairly certain statement to say that our production
will decline as we lose small- and medium-sized farmers, making
the product less available.
We have talked at length here about the increase in the
cost of the product at the store. I feel like with the
uncertainty that we are looking at, we are kind of at a little
bit of a tipping point. Are we going to continue to have
quality, affordable protein, or are we going to go the other
way?
Mr. Lucas. Ms. Rocha, what will it mean for your member
companies if we see a reduction in small- and mid-sized
producers? Because you are next in the chain as we go towards
the consumer.
Ms. Rocha. Yes, thank you so much. Again, I believe we will
see a decrease in choice. Ultimately for us, it is about
prices, and so that is where we keep looking at prices. So yet
another regulation put upon restaurants is also something that
obviously concerns us.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Hord, I want to talk a little bit about
administrative burden. In my home district in Guymon, Oklahoma,
we have a Seaboard plant, and they process around 22,000 pigs a
day. Under Prop 12, what additional steps will the plant have
to take to ensure certain pigs are processed and products are
labeled Prop 12-compliant? This is where the road meets the
rubber.
Mr. Hord. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman.
Being a producer, I know intimately what happens at the
producer side. I can speculate a little bit on what happens in
the processing side.
Mr. Lucas. Please.
Mr. Hord. We have to segregate the product, or the pigs
have to be segregated, and then we have to schedule the loads
accordingly, and then they usually sequence those.
From my knowledge, they come into the plant, are segregated
at the plant before they go to the harvest, and then as they go
through that process, then they are segregated all the way into
the freezer and then have to be segregated as those different
products are shipped to California. So, yes, there is an
immense amount of coordination and cost as you track all those
things through. Does that answer your question?
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely it does, and also from the
perspective, livestock is different than many other industries
in that you have a live animal, and from birth to processing,
there are timelines and feed programs and processing. You can't
start and stop the factory, you can't start and stop the chain
flow, correct, from the farm to the----
Mr. Hord. That is correct.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Ms. Cook, and I know Austin Scott
touched on this, your testimony highlights this, but can you
briefly detail the variable cost over time that contribute to
higher overall cost? And do we have an estimate of how much
this is costing consumers now?
Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. When it comes to
variable costs, there are a few things to consider. One, if you
have fewer pigs in a barn, you are probably paying more to heat
that barn, so utilities, also the skilled management and labor
that is required to work under a Prop 12 system, and other
things like feed efficiencies and veterinary care are also
really important costs that could increase under Prop 12. So
studies show that could increase that total cost category up to
15 percent, and that is certainly reflected in the cost
producers need to make that work and then pass on to the
consumer as well.
Mr. Lucas. So potentially cause chaos in the supply chain.
Ms. Cook. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. Exactly.
Mr. Chairman, I can't think of an issue more important than
to consumers all over the country, and maybe the world for that
matter, than this issue, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentlelady from the Buckeye State,
Congresswoman Brown, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Craig.
I want to start by putting today's hearing in context. The
Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. This is settled law. The
Court was clear. States have rights to establish standards for
goods sold within their borders. Proposition 12 wasn't a
Federal mandate. It was a ballot initiative passed
democratically and overwhelmingly by California voters.
And other states are followers too. States across the
country have either already passed or have introduced popular
and often bipartisan measures that reflect local consumer
values on animal welfare, food safety, and consumer
transparency.
This Committee often hears concerns, particularly from my
friends on the other side of the aisle, about Federal overreach
and one-size-fits-all policies that don't work for farmers and
businesses on the ground. Yet here we are doing the opposite,
discussing ways to override democratically enacted regulations
at the Federal level.
The reality is that major food and agricultural companies
across the country have already moved to comply with Prop 12.
They have made investments, integrated new standards into their
supply chain, and adapted to a changing market. That tells us
that these benchmarks are both possible and marketable. What
farmers need right now is certainty, not uncertainty from
Members of Congress reopening what has already been decided.
Mr. Cushman, American Farm Bureau represents millions of
farms of all shapes and sizes across the country. In your
testimony, you mentioned several concerns about farmers
transitioning to comply with Prop 12 standards. However, I am
wondering if you can also speak to some of the challenges
farmers who have already transitioned to Prop 12-compliant
infrastructure may face if Congress were to overturn the law.
What kind of economic impact would those farmers have?
Mr. Cushman. Thank you so much for the thoughtful question.
If Prop 12 was overturned, it would not impact those farmers'
ability to continue their operations in the way that they see
fit. They could continue serving the markets that have a demand
or a request for Prop 12-compliant meat.
What it would do is prohibit states from continuing to
enact these kinds of patchwork of ratcheting up their
requirements, so it would, in that way, protect those farmers
that have made those investments from other states, changing
and having a 25 square foot per sow rule or a 30 square foot
per sow rule.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. And Ms. Lashmet, your testimony also
mentions the investment that many farmers have made to be in
early compliance with Prop 12. Do you have anything to add
about what that impact may be on those farmers?
Ms. Lashmet. Yes, I would agree with Mr. Cushman that none
of the bills we have seen require those farmers to convert back
to the systems that they were under pre-Prop 12. That may
overlook the costs that they have already spent in making those
changes in the first place, right? So they have already made
those changes, they have those sunk costs, and I think that
that is a point that they frequently raise, both in lawsuits
and otherwise when they are looking at those costs, that they
have already spent them. So even if there is no requirement
that they go back in the law, they will have to analyze whether
that is something that they want to do and more costs they
would want to incur.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. And your testimony also notes that
the Supreme Court upheld the California law in a complex but
ultimately affirming decision. In your view as a legal scholar,
what are the implications of Congress intervening to undo a law
that has been both democratically enacted by voters and upheld
by the highest court in the land? Is there any sort of
precedent in recent history for this type of Congressional
action?
Ms. Lashmet. That is something I might have to get back
with you with some supplemental testimony for the record.
Ms. Brown. Okay. Thank you. To all of our witnesses, I
appreciate you being here today and sharing what you are
hearing from producers and stakeholders on the ground when it
comes to Proposition 12. Your insights are valuable to this
Committee.
And with that said, I want to be clear. Proposition 12 has
been settled by the voters of California and by the U.S.
Supreme Court. Meanwhile, this Committee has pressing
unresolved issues before us. That includes the current
Administration's action to freeze Congressionally appropriated
funds, USDA abruptly terminating grant programs, and dismissing
career public servants without cause. I look forward to
addressing those pressing issues in this Committee as well.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr.
Feenstra, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking
Member Craig, for holding this critical hearing. This is a
very, very important hearing.
So I represent the largest hog-producing district in the
nation. I represent the largest hog-producing state in the
nation. And I also represent the largest county in the nation
that produces hogs, and that is over one million hogs that we
have in my individual county.
And I am so proud to have Matt Schuiteman here from our
county that knows. We live it. We breathe it. We see it every
day. We understand Prop 12, all right?
And I want to dig into this a little bit so everybody can
just sort of understand what is happening here. All right?
First of all, I have a bunch of letters here from farms I have
visited in my district firsthand to talk about this egregious
mandate, and I want to bring these stories to light. So
Chairman, if I may ask for unanimous consent for these farmers'
concerns to be submitted to the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The documents referred to are located on p. 170.]
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you. Mr. Schuiteman, let's talk about
what Prop 12 is all about. It is really about the health of the
animal. All right? That is how it all started. All right? It is
very simple. All right? That we want to protect the animal
health.
So when I visited family farms in my district, they noted
that the system has caused increased stress, injury for the
animal, mortality, while limiting individualized animal care.
Right? And yet Prop 12 is supposed to make sure that doesn't
happen. Can you explain what is happening? Why do they have
stress and injuries from Prop 12?
Mr. Schuiteman. I think part of the root of the problem is
just simply the fact that you have an initiative that was
crafted by people who have not lived the industry, who have not
been around the animals. And, those of us who have been around
it for generations can tell you, well, this animal is going to
do this, and if you give this animal this space, she is going
to do this. And that institutional knowledge, what Prop 12
does, is it takes away our ability to act on what we know for
the best interest of the animal.
And maybe it has been settled in other places, but that has
not been settled in Iowa. And we would prefer to have the
freedom to manage our animals the best way we can see fit for
the best possible outcome.
Mr. Feenstra. That is right. Thanks for your expertise on
this. You live it and breathe it every single day.
And think about this. So I just talked about Iowa being the
largest state in the nation for producing hogs. California, on
the other hand, makes up less than \1/10\ of 1 percent of pork
production, \1/10\ of 1 percent, and yet they are creating the
law. And we make 40 percent. Forty percent of the hogs come out
of Iowa, and yet we are bound by a state that is \1/10\ of 1
percent of the hogs. How egregious is that? How clueless is
that when they don't have an idea of what these animals are
going through. And when you create larger pens, they destroy
each other. That is what hogs do. This is just stupid.
So let me go on a little further. So when we have to do
Prop 12, all right, what are the ramifications? Does it cost
you more money? If you have to go down to Prop 12, all right,
we sort of went through this already, but it is going to cost
you how much more per animal? Do you know?
Mr. Schuiteman. We have talked about the $3,500 to $4,500
range per sow or more.
Mr. Feenstra. Yep, $3,500 to $4,500, right? So think about
that. All right. So now it is going to cost the producer that
much more. And then it is noted here that in California the
prices have increased 20 to 40 percent on average. All right?
So prices have increased, the cost for the farmer has
increased, and the animal is far worse off by Prop 12. What are
we doing? What are we doing? This all happens because
California has a liberal progressive agenda that has no idea
what farming is all about.
Let's be clear. Prop 12 is a direct threat to our viability
of family farms, the health and welfare of animals, and the
affordability of pork production in America. I stand with my
Iowa hog farmers, and I urge this Committee to act. Food
security is national security, and Prop 12 is putting both at
risk.
And I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Sorensen, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
Ranking Member, Ms. Craig.
Across Illinois, county fair season is in full swing,
igniting a proud tradition. Shout out to Stephenson County Fair
and McLean County Fair going on right now.
But this isn't just 1 week out of the year. It is not just
funnel cakes, corndogs, and tilt-a-whirls. Farm kids from all
over my district, from Freeport and Kewanee, Monmouth, and
Canton, have been getting up for weeks and months and years
before dawn, raising, prepping their animals in order to show
off their skills. It is a great tradition where we can bring
families from our big cities to our fairgrounds to understand
and appreciate the grit, the pride, the importance of
agriculture and animal husbandry.
In our part of the world, FFA and 4-H organizations,
parents and grandparents have passed down essential values of
animal stewardship to young farmers, rooting them in
responsibility and compassion and in hard work. Their
experience reflects a broader truth. Animal stewardship is not
a partisan issue. It is a core tradition of American
agriculture, and it is something that we are all so proud of.
From small family farms to large commercial operations,
producers understand that the health and the welfare of their
animals are directly tied to the longevity of their business
and the confidence of the consumer. The hands-on experience
gained in daily care, nutrition, health management reflects the
very values that underline innovative agricultural standards.
I live just 2 miles from the bridge that goes from Illinois
into Mr. Feenstra's State of Iowa. No offense to anyone else,
Illinois and Iowa, we produce the best pork in the world,
sorry. But when I am at Fareway or Jewel or Hy-Vee, no shopper
I talk to balks at the idea of making sure that we have minimum
space and welfare requirements for livestock that becomes the
protein on their dinner tables. Why? Because they already
assume it is the case.
On the farm and in this Committee, we have many different
perspectives on what is best. But what is clear is that many of
the practices that Prop 12 promotes, like quality care and
daily health checks and ethical housing, have already been
implemented by a significant number of producers. And I would
challenge people to rectify with that fact that it is exactly
what we teach our kids early on, on the farm.
Though Prop 12 is a voluntary approach, the measure
reflects the enduring values of stewardship that the FFA and
that 4-H have upheld for generations. And I challenge my
colleagues on this Committee. It shouldn't be different from
one political party to the other. Shouldn't policy mirror what
is working in practice, not just in theory?
Ms. Lashmet, thank you for explaining in your testimony the
different sides of the issue. Are you familiar with any
existing or proposed state laws or ballot initiatives that
mirror Prop 12 standards or that would implement a standard
that is vastly different than Prop 12?
Ms. Lashmet. Yes, sir. Thank you for your question. So
certainly there is a very similar law to Proposition 12 in
Massachusetts, which is Question 3. It applies to all three of
the same species as Prop 12. There are also a number of states,
six of them, in fact, have similar laws like Prop 12 for egg
production that impose the requirements not only on the
producers in the state, but also on eggs that are going to be
sold within the state. So those are the similar laws.
I am not familiar with states that have enacted standards
that are vastly different than Proposition 12 at this point.
Mr. Sorensen. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution
doesn't specifically say that the Federal Government can do
anything it wants but that states and the people come first. In
your opinion, do you believe preempting Prop 12 could violate
the 10th Amendment?
Ms. Lashmet. I think that there is always a really delicate
balance whenever Congress acts under the Commerce Clause and it
affects states, and so I think that Congress will have to be
careful to find a balance between the 10th Amendment and the
Commerce Clause.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you. As we continue to debate the
merits, the consequences of Prop 12, it is critical that our
discussions be grounded in facts and not politics. I wasn't
elected to Congress because I was a slick talker. I earned the
trust of the people by collecting data, by deciphering science,
and explaining the results. So parsing out all of the noise, we
can see that this law was written as a return to the
longstanding practices that define true animal husbandry.
But intentions aren't all we have here. The issue is the
broader regional implications for producers, supply chains,
consumer prices, interstate commerce, and that is what is still
an issue for me. And this isn't checkers, it is playing chess.
We must make sure that what we do in this Committee strengthens
the farmer and strengthens producers. Unwanted consolidation
that benefits China or Brazil does a disservice to our farmers
and the neighbors and small hometowns that I am fighting to
protect back home.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Now, keeping with that Illinois theme, I recognize the
gentlelady from Illinois, Congresswoman Miller, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
panel for being here today to examine the very far-reaching
implications of Proposition 12.
Illinois is one of the top pork-producing states in the
country, and I have heard directly from our producers and
organizations like the Illinois Pork Producers Association and
the Illinois Farm Bureau about how Proposition 12 places a
strain on family farms.
The reality is simple. Proposition 12 imposes costly
mandates on farmers in states like mine who have no say in
California's policymaking. Producers in Illinois are telling me
this will force many farmers out of the market altogether,
driving further consolidation and vertical integration in an
already concentrated industry.
And I think it is interesting that my friend from across
the aisle acted like he understands animal husbandry, which I
guarantee you he does not, but he did acknowledge that
producers want their animals to be healthy and live long
because it affects their profits. So let them make the best
choices for their production instead of having politicians that
have no clue about agriculture or animal husbandry promoting
these ridiculous policies.
Smaller operations simply cannot absorb the financial
burden of facility overhauls or navigate a patchwork of
inconsistent state laws. That is what we are going to end up
with. This is just the beginning. This not only threatens the
viability of independent family farms but increases the cost
for consumers. Ultimately, that is what will happen.
And I suppose the plan is once we run American medium and
small producers out of business, we will import more pork from
other countries that we have no idea how they are actually
raising their animals.
So Mr. Schuiteman, can you please speak to how Proposition
12 will accelerate consolidation in the pork industry and what
it means for independent family farms?
Mr. Schuiteman. Well, I think partly to answer that, I
refer back to Ms. Rocha, her testimony. Two quotes that I wrote
down is that, ``Proposition 12 is a death sentence to small
business''; and ``Over-regulation takes food off the plate.''
Clearly, if we are going to lose our small- and medium-sized
producers, we are going to lose product to the market.
How it is going to support consolidation, one way would be
through the cost of construction. Mr. Hord referred to larger
operations being able to segment maybe a portion of their
production for a Prop 12-type market and do something else with
the other ones while smaller producers, as he said, don't have
that opportunity.
And so it is a similar process to what we went through on
our farm. I noted in my testimony that we farrowed until 2018.
One of the factors at that time was with the passing of Prop
12, what does the future look like, and what are we going to
have to spend on our facilities to be able to meet that future?
And because of the uncertainty, we chose to back away a little
bit, at least from that segment of our operation.
Mrs. Miller. Well, I am sorry to hear that.
Mr. Cushman, now that Prop 12 has been upheld and without a
fix from Congress, do you see this setting a precedent for
other states to pass similar extraterritorial regulations?
Mr. Cushman. Yes. Thank you so much for the question, and
that is a large concern of ours. The 2022 Ag Census showed that
we had lost 150,000 farms over 5 years. That is 77 farms a day.
Laws like Prop 12 make it very difficult for small- and medium-
sized farmers to exist, and without a fix from Congress, there
will be nothing for farmers to do from another state, and that
ratchets up their requirements to make it 25 square feet or 30
square feet.
Mrs. Miller. Also, Mr. Cushman, your testimony today has
shown us exactly why Congress needs to provide a fix for
Proposition 12. What risk does this pose for national
agriculture markets and interstate commerce?
Mr. Cushman. I think this would help ensure interstate
commerce continues to be viable throughout the country. The
Supreme Court decision from Gorsuch was clear that Congress is
the appropriate body right now to act on this. In order to
ensure those interstate markets continue to flourish and not be
balkanized by state intervention into production laws of other
states, it would be necessary for Congress to act.
Mrs. Miller. I am just curious. When we import pork, are we
imposing the same kind of standards on them?
Mr. Cushman. Yes. So these standards for Prop 12 will apply
to Canadian and Mexican pork. The Canadian Government has
expressed concern with this. In fact, they have raised concerns
that with the USMCA, it frustrates Federal trade policy. The
USMCA adopts part of the WTO requirements, and under that,
Canada has suggested that this restricts trade more than
necessary and lacks scientific support, as required by the
USMCA.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, and I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Alabama,
Mr. Figures, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Figures. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking
Member Craig, and thank you to all of you guys being here and
bearing through, sitting through a Congressional hearing, which
I know is not at the top of your wish list in your career, but
it is a worthy issue.
For this to have started in California, I have heard a lot
about it in Alabama. I am from the southern part of the state,
Mobile, up to Montgomery and such. Alabama has a lot of pork
producers, and they too are concerned about the implications of
Prop 12 and their ability to be able to participate in the
industry.
But I have also heard on the other side of this, and this
is truly one of those issues that I came to Congress, I don't
come from an ag-exclusive background. My father owned a small
cattle ranch for a little while when I was a child, but this is
one where we had to dig in and learn about and are still
digging in and learning about, and so I appreciate having this
hearing to inform Members of Congress.
I will also note that our colleagues on the other side have
left, but you would have seen this gentleman over my right
shoulder jump across the dais if he had heard them say that
they have the best pork in America, my colleague, Mr. Davis,
from North Carolina.
And actually, let me back up. Before I go any further, I
have an intern that is in her last week with us, Jaleia Latson,
who is here with us, who has helped us not only prepare for
this, but has been a great attribute to our office throughout
her tenure with us, so thank you, Jaleia, and we wish you the
best in your return to Spelman College.
But getting back to task here, this is a tough issue. This
is one where the Supreme Court has spoken in favor of one of
the core principles that my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle stand for and a flagship case of states' rights. But,
this is where one state's rights run up against the rights of
companies that reside and operate in other states, runs up
against their ability to make a living.
And, in Alabama, like many other districts, in my district,
pork production plays a vital role in the economy, so we
understand that. And the State of Alabama, they joined part of
the legal efforts and arguments before the Supreme Court. But
it is an industry. It generates over $150 million in the State
of Alabama and many jobs.
And I recognize that consumers have a right, in any state,
to want higher standards for how their food is produced. Food
quality does matter, animal welfare matters, and there is value
in continuing to improve standards for both. But this presents
the tough question of is this the right way to do it? Is it
informed? Does it make sense?
We know agriculture is not a one-size-fits-all. What is
feasible in one part of the country may not be workable in
another part of the country, different landscapes, climates,
production systems, economies. That is why we have to be
extremely cautious about imposing blanket standards or
standards that have the effect of being a blanket standard,
even when passed in one specific state. Some decisions should
be left to the states who know their own agricultural realities
best. But on the flip side of that coin is some decisions in
one state are having drastic impacts on others.
But as we continue these discussions, we have to prioritize
the producers who are caught in the middle of what is
essentially a political game. And it is a game that is
impacting real lives, real businesses, real people every single
day. And these are complex issues, and they deserve thoughtful
discussion, not just in courtrooms. We know what the Supreme
Court has said. But the Supreme Court has a way of sort of
winking its eye when it says, ``Hey, we know what we said, but
we know what needs to be done or what can be done to provide
the relief that is sought.''
And so with that, look, I will ask a couple of questions
here, but we will probably follow up with some more off-the-
record stuff. We can go down the line, but I know some
producers are now actively considering not selling into
California. Is that a viable strategy at all in you guys'
understanding of the industry?
Mr. Hord. So let me repeat the question. So what you are
saying is: is it viable that some producers don't sell into
California?
Mr. Figures. Correct.
Mr. Hord. Yes. Okay.
Mr. Figures. Could pork producers legitimately make a
living X-ing out California?
Mr. Hord. Yes. So each one of us as individual pork
producers have the opportunity to make an individual decision
whether we would supply Prop 12-compliant pork. The challenge
is with California only producing 0.1 percent of the nation's
pork and having 13 percent of the pork consumed in the U.S., it
would be really detrimental to us as pork producers and the
rest of the pork chain to not supply that. And so in reality,
it is forcing the rest of the states to comply in order to
raise that product for California.
Mr. Figures. I will take that as a no, it is not a viable,
wise, or sustainable decision for pork producers to make that
decision.
My time has expired. I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Minnesota, Mr. Finstad,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Finstad. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Thank you for
holding this hearing today. And Mr. Chairman, I really just
want to thank you for your steadfast leadership on this issue.
You have been a true champion, and I really appreciate working
with you on this.
I represent a very strong powerhouse ag district in
southern Minnesota. Most of my counties have more pigs than
people. And the great hog farmers of southern Minnesota are the
salt of the Earth, folks that have given so much to our
communities, to our schools, to our towns, you name it. They
are just a critical part of what makes southern Minnesota so
great, and so it is an honor to represent all of them. And I
have had a lot of conversations with them over the last few
years, and they have been very crystal clear, loud and clear,
that Congress must fix the Prop 12 piece.
And so with that message I have heard loud and clear from
them, they have also been telling me that they are very
frustrated with the lies and the myths that are around this
whole Prop 12 piece. So on the record, let's just go through
some questions here, but I will just say this, that Prop 12
mandate, it is based on political science. And it has been
pointed out many times, Prop 12 was dreamt up by a bunch of
folks that have never stepped foot in a hog barn. They don't
understand what a gestation pen looks like. They don't
understand the life of a hog farmer in this country, but yet
they have dictated the terms on which we all live our life and
how we lose money in this proposition.
And so, I know the swine industry, you just stumble upon
the way we take care of our hogs. This has been years and
millions of dollars of investments, blood, sweat, and tears to
your farms, multigenerational farms that you have learned
through your grandparents and through your parents, and you are
teaching your kids and your grandkids on how to always evolve
and take better care of those animals.
And so we are going to do yes or no questions if that is
okay. Mr. Hord and Mr. Schuiteman, do you care about the health
and well-being of your pigs?
Mr. Hord. Yes.
Mr. Schuiteman. Yes.
Mr. Finstad. All right. Do you consult with veterinarians
to ensure that your pigs are well cared for?
Mr. Hord. Yes.
Mr. Schuiteman. Yes.
Mr. Finstad. Do you ensure daily that your pigs receive
adequate nutrition and medications when in time for need?
Mr. Hord. Absolutely.
Mr. Schuiteman. Yes.
Mr. Finstad. Is your success as a farmer directly tied to
the health and well-being of your pigs?
Mr. Hord. Yes.
Mr. Schuiteman. Yes.
Mr. Finstad. All right. So thank you. Again, I knew how you
would answer it. I trust you. I trust my neighbors in southern
Minnesota. And the production decisions that are being made
have been years in the making. You all are more efficient now
than you have ever been. You are more health conscious of your
pigs than you have ever been. You didn't stumble upon these
practices.
So we have heard today Prop 12 and similar politically
motivated mandates pose serious threats to consolidation within
the pork industry. This is what I have heard loud and clear
from my farmers in southern Minnesota. As was referenced a
little bit earlier, I think the number was $3,400 a pig.
How many pigs right now does a farmer have to raise to even
break even with that proposition? I mean, there is an amount
that would be not cost-wise to even go down this route. And if
you are faced with that decision, consolidation will be the
logical conclusion. So I guess it is not even a question. I
mean, that is a statement of fact. I have heard it over and
over again from my farmers that there is a price point that
just pretty much ends that multigenerational farm opportunity.
So Ms. Cook, if we don't stop this patchwork, do you
believe the pork industry will consolidate further?
Ms. Cook. Yes.
Mr. Finstad. Yes. All right. So I have read a few press
reports about this hearing. I was disappointed because some of
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said that, well,
we are in listen-only mode. Goodness gracious. We better be in
action mode. We better be in action mode. And I am very proud
of my colleagues on this side of the aisle and the action that
we have taken over the last few years to move Prop 12 into the
bipartisan farm bill that we got through the Committee last
Congress. I am looking forward, with the Chairman's leadership,
to doing it again.
My farmer friends would say listen-only mode on this issue
is pretty much telling you that you are all hat and no cattle.
And I think we have a few folks on this Committee and in
Congress right now that are all hat and no cattle. And it is
time for us to move on this, to create some certainty for the
industry to allow you all to do what you have done best, allow
you to pass that farm on to the next generation.
So Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Before I introduce our next Member to speak, I ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record--speaking of how
states feel about this, submitting for the record letters from
Governors from across the country, led by Iowa Governor Kim
Reynolds, where they express opposition to Prop 12 and ask
Congress to act, as well as submitting for the record a letter
from 16 state attorneys general, led by Iowa Attorney General
Brenna Bird, where they express opposition to Prop 12 and ask
Congress to act.
Without objection, those will be entered into the record.
[The letters referred to are located on p. 153 and p. 154.]
The Chairman. I am now pleased to introduce the gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Don Davis, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman, and to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Chairman, I need to start with a point of order today.
If I am not mistaken, I heard earlier that Illinois somewhere
claimed to be the best pork of the world. That is impossible.
Mr. Figures knows that is correct, and he knew I was coming.
And Mr. Chairman, we need to strike that from the record
because we know that North Carolina has the best barbecue, the
best pork of all.
The Chairman. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I am not
quite sure about striking from the record, but I am more than
happy to host a bacon-off, and myself and the Ranking Member
will be the judges, and you two bring it on. Bring the bacon.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Well, thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman and Madam Ranking Member. I do want, for the record,
to enter into the record that Kinston, North Carolina, located
in eastern North Carolina, is the Guinness Book of World
Records holder for selling the most pulled-pork barbecue
sandwiches in an 8 hour window, and we broke the record after 5
hours.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The article referred to is located on p. 250.]
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. I am very concerned when I
think about why in the world are we here on this topic today. I
am very concerned when one state would take an action that
would disrupt commerce in another state. California's law
requires significant investment for pork producers across the
country, whether they sell into the market or not. Many of you
may not know, but North Carolina has longstanding regulations
limiting the expansion of sow barns and the building of new
barns. Prop 12 and measures like it uniquely burden producers
in eastern North Carolina.
Let's be clear. North Carolina's First Congressional
District, and to be on the record, I have more than 1.3 million
hogs and pigs in my district, way more than people, and we need
a fix. A fix. That is the bottom line. People back home are
trying to figure out what in the world? What do we come up here
and do? They need a fix. We need a long-term solution that does
not disadvantage the eastern North Carolina producers or others
and potentially put some out of business. I will work with
anyone, to be clear, anyone on this Committee to come up with
that fix and a workable solution. But for us to not address
this, I believe, would be a fatal mistake, a fatal mistake for
our pork producers and my constituents.
I have a question, Ms. Cook. Given the regulations on
building and expanding sow barns in North Carolina, what unique
challenges does that present to producers in eastern North
Carolina? Will North Carolina producers be disadvantaged in
complying with Prop 12 or a further patchwork compared to other
states?
Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. In the event that we
see more states adopt these measures or we are facing a
patchwork and North Carolina producers need to incur those
costs to comply, due to the restrictions that you described,
they may have fewer options than other producers in other
states. The only option available to them may be to reduce
their sow herd, which would reduce their production and their
revenues, and that may not be workable for those operations.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. When I speak to producers back
home, they have a fear of the future of their farms. I mean,
there is so much going on right now in the agriculture
community. A whole lot is going on. And I think about costs,
disasters we are experiencing in North Carolina, concerns I
still hear with tariffs, so much that is out there, and all
people want to do is go to work, make an honest day's living.
And many of the people back home say to me, ``I just want to
turn it over to the kid for a future generation.'' That is it.
That is it.
Ms. Lashmet and Mr. Hord, I am going to go ahead and put
you in, can you share briefly your thoughts? What do you see in
terms of in the next few years for producers if absolutely
nothing happens?
Ms. Lashmet. If nothing happens and Congress doesn't act, I
think the concern for producers is that there could be
additional state laws that are passed. And I think it is one
thing if there are state laws that mirror the California law. I
think it could be another thing if we end up with a patchwork
of laws where, as we have discussed, it makes it difficult for
producers to be able to comply with multiple versions of this.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. I am going to give Mr. Hord my
last 10 seconds.
Mr. Hord. Yes. I agree. The patchwork of states would be
devastating to our pork industry.
And I would also like the record to show that I would like
to be part of the pork tasting. So thank you.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I claim the
record and I yield back my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back, and Mr. Hord's
interest is so noted.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr.
Nunn, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nunn. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Don Davis, my fellow veteran here, and
not only a veteran in the military, but a veteran pork-
producing state as well. And while I agree with you, Illinois
and North Carolina produce some of the finest pork in the
world, no one produces more pork than Iowa. So we will have you
out to the Iowa State Fair, flip some pork chops, and Chairman,
Ranking Member, we will have you both as judges in the case. I
think Mr. Hord's going to join us in on that. The great Iowa
State Fair starts in 2 weeks, folks. The countdown has begun.
With this, I also want to say thank you very much to Mr.
Schuiteman and Ms. Cook. Ms. Cook is actually from the great
State of Iowa. In fact, she has helped raise some of that great
pork that has come up, and her incredible family, her mom and
dad, are here with her today too. So we are glad to have an
Iowa gal here who not only is an accomplished economist, but
she has actually seen firsthand how this operates.
And that is one of the reasons we are all here today,
right? Forty-nine states all want to be able to deliver their
products, but for one state, which is telling all the rest of
the Union they can't do it. We know this to be true, and this
is bad policy out of California. It is not just bad policy, it
is an insult to every hardworking farmer in this country who
has been doing it right for generations.
I know this much to be true. In Iowa, we raise 25 million
hogs per year. I know in California, they consume 13 percent of
all pork in this country. So this is not a war against the
people of California, this is a clarification of a bad policy
that has been taken by a few politicians in Sacramento.
Not only is Iowa the top state producing pork, but right
now, our hardworking farmers are facing the toughest economy in
decades, and the last thing they need is more red tape, not
from Washington, D.C., but from the left coast 2,000 miles
away. These regulations aren't just affecting Iowa farmers
either. Proposition 12 has had a tangible impact on consumers
across the country, and I will go back to California on this
one. They have seen a price increase of more than 20 percent on
most pork products, with loins costing 41 percent more than
ever before, which means they have to come to the Iowa State
Fair as well to be able to get bacon and pork chops actually at
a livable price.
The Supreme Court was very clear here. It is up to Congress
to help define this space. We all agree, interstate commerce is
clear. No one state should hold the other 49 hostage. Which is
exactly why I teamed up with my very good friend, Ashley
Hinson, a great Representative from Iowa, on Save Our Bacon Act
(H.R. 4673). This is an effort to put the nonsense and Federal
Government back into the driver's seat on interstate commerce
and take away the nonsense that has been created by the few.
Our bill makes it clear. If you don't grow it, you don't get to
regulate it.
So Mr. Schuiteman, I would like to talk with you a little
bit here, particularly on the area of workforce safety. What is
the most dangerous aspect of Proposition 12 for the producers
or workers inside barns every day as a result of this nefarious
proposition?
Mr. Schuiteman. I think if we lose the ability to confine
our females at key times, that creates danger for the stockman
potentially. As I have talked about a few different times
already today, we have developed our housing systems with a
three-pronged approach in mind, and safety of the stockman
being one of those prongs, and welfare of the animal,
production of the animal. So truly, one of the dangerous things
inside the barn, especially with the breeding herd, is if we
don't have control over when and where we can confine our
animals a little bit for our safety, for their safety, that
adds risk.
Mr. Nunn. We just had Secretary Brooke Rollins come out to
Iowa, and she saw one of our hog farms here, and we had five
veterinarians on-hand who were there providing great care for
the livestock. Nobody takes better livestock care than a
farmer, particularly one who it is part of their breed and
their herd. When you look at this, is there a biosecurity
concern that comes up from states arbitrarily throwing mandates
like this down?
Mr. Schuiteman. Yes, the concern comes from the inspectors
that are potentially brought in. It takes roughly 3 days for
pig disease to be free from the human body if you have
interacted with it. It is not that it affects the human body,
but the human body carries it. And so if the inspection process
doesn't honor that 3 day separation, the potential for disease
spread is very real.
Mr. Nunn. Ms. Cook, in the time that we have left, not only
are you an accomplished economist, as we highlighted here, what
does Proposition 12 do to a family farm like yours?
Ms. Cook. I think when we talk about the uncertainty that
the potential of more measures or a conflicting patchwork
creates, it really jeopardizes not just future investment
decisions, but the ability to pass those farms on for
generations.
Mr. Nunn. I would absolutely agree. Let's not only save our
bacon, let's save our family farms. And Mr. Chairman, we look
forward to seeing you at the state fair for that pork
competition. I yield my time.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Before I introduce our next Member, I want to ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record comments that Canada provided
to the World Trade Organization Technical Barriers to Trade
Committee that outlines their concerns with Proposition 12.
Also submitting a letter from Canadian, United States, and
Mexican Government officials where they outlined their concerns
with Proposition 12 and Question 3.
Without objection, those will be entered into the record.
[The comments and letter referred to are located on p. 150,
and p. 151.]
The Chairman. And now I am pleased to recognize Mr. Messmer
from Indiana for 5 minutes.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today.
It seems like some of my Democratic colleagues have picked
this issue to finally care about states' rights. Mr. Cushman,
does section 12007 restrict any state from implementing their
own standards of production, or does it simply clarify that
states can only implement production standards for livestock
producers in their own states?
Mr. Cushman. Thank you for the question. You are correct.
It only limits states to regulate products within their own
states, production within their own states. It does clarify,
though, that states are not permitted to regulate production
outside of their own state.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you. I want to call attention to a
discrepancy I have seen in the Committee room today. For the
past couple months, myself and other Republicans on the
Committee have wrongfully been accused of limiting food access
for Americans in need, but some of those Members who most
adamantly support those false claims now support a regulation
that has single-handedly increased pork prices in California by
at least 20 percent and is likely to increase prices nationally
if left unchecked.
Ms. Cook, your written testimony identifies the consumer
prices that California residents have experienced as a result
of Prop 12. In the absence of a fix, how will Prop 12 impact
consumer prices? And can we expect it will threaten access to
affordable, protein-dense pork products nationwide?
Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. A big reason why
those prices are higher is because it is much more expensive to
get that pork to consumers and to produce it. So in a situation
where more states adopt these measures or a patchwork of
regulations, more producers are required to undertake more
costly production practices, that could then result in those
much higher prices for not just California but any impacted
market.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Former Ag Secretary Vilsack said
during a visit to the Hill last Congress, ``Without
Congressional action on Prop 12, there will be chaos in the
meat marketplace.'' Mr. Hord, in your written testimony, it
identifies a threat of a patchwork of state regulations to the
American marketplace. If any state can restrict the sale of
products to wage ideological warfare, do you agree that this
creates an environment of instability?
Mr. Hord. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
Definitely one of my personal biggest concerns of this is that
the opportunity for other states to pass non-scientific laws
that would impact or force me to continue to have to make
changes to our facilities in order to produce pork.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you. If there was any evidence to the
necessity of Prop 12, the marketplace nightmare would at least
be for a worthy cause. But, Mr. Hord, you state that Prop 12
advances no public interest, not in animal safety, not human
health, and certainly not on-farm innovation. Mr. Hord, would
you agree that Prop 12 is just another attack against
production agriculture by interest groups that lack an
understanding of the industry?
Mr. Hord. Yes, it definitely was drafted from a perspective
that didn't have input from swine producers or from
veterinarians, and so therefore, definitely was an unscientific
mandate from another state.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Hord. I would like to thank all
the witnesses who have reiterated the necessity of a
Congressional fix to Prop 12. I stand prepared to move forward
with a solution that keeps our food affordable and your farmers
profitable.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
It is with a deep apology I recognize the gentleman from
California that I should have recognized last time, Mr.
Carbajal, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all
the witnesses that are here today.
Look, a lot has been said about California pork, but we all
know it is the best in the whole country, all right? I know
some of my colleagues feel otherwise, but we still make some
pretty good pork, not as much, but we still do.
Professor Lashmet, in your testimony, you noted that during
the Supreme Court hearing on Prop 12, the State of California
highlighted that some farmers had transitioned their operations
to be Prop 12-compliant as proof that these adjustments can
successfully be made. Given the court's decision to uphold Prop
12, what can Congress learn from those producers about how we
can encourage stronger protection for animals while also making
sure farmers and ranchers have the support they need to
succeed?
Ms. Lashmet. I think this is a great example of there being
two voices, right, and folks on both sides of this issue, and I
think that it would be useful for Congress to speak to
producers who have made those compliance decisions to get their
input on whether they were useful for the farm, whether they
did help to increase what they believe is animal husbandry
standards on the farm or not. I think talking to those
producers would be very useful.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. Professor Lashmet, as noted
earlier, the Supreme Court upheld California's Prop 12
authority to establish animal welfare standards for products
sold in California, affirming states' rights. From your
professional perspective, how critical is it for states to
maintain authority to enact such states' rights protections?
Ms. Lashmet. I think certainly under the 10th Amendment any
right not reserved to Congress is reserved to the states, and
so animal welfare standards are certainly an example of a type
of law that has historically been reserved to the states, and
they have made those types of laws. Now, certainly, we have the
balance there between the 10th Amendment and the Commerce
Clause, the power that Congress has, and I think that is where
it is going to be a complex decision for you all to find a
balance between your wanting to act in interstate commerce and
still preserving those states' rights under the 10th Amendment.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you. And finally, Professor Lashmet,
how can states continue to serve as leaders in addressing
complex issues like animal welfare while respecting interstate
commerce?
Ms. Lashmet. Again, I think that is the balance between
that 10th Amendment and the Commerce Clause rights, and I think
California enacted this law that imposes their standards within
their own state, and certainly, there have been a number of
other states, I think 11, that have laws on the books, at least
related to egg production, that do impose standards on
producers within their own states. The distinction here is
California's law also imposes those standards on any product
sold within the state, which is broader--whether or not
appropriate, I will leave that to you all--but certainly
broader than actions other states have taken.
Mr. Carbajal. Great. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. He yields back.
Before I introduce our next Member, I would just ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the
American Association of Swine Veterinarians where they oppose
Proposition 12 due to animal welfare concerns.
Without objection, that will be entered into the record.
[The letter referred to is located on p. 159.]
The Chairman. I am now pleased to introduce the gentleman
from North Carolina, Mr. Harris, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And while I appreciate my colleague from California talking
about the best pork coming from there, I do come from the 8th
District of North Carolina, and we all know North Carolina has
the best pork.
Thank you all on the panel for sharing today your
information and your expertise. Let me ask, Ms. Cook, just one
quick question. Looking through an economic lens, do you think
that large producers or small producers are more likely to be
able to convert to Prop 12 compliance?
Ms. Cook. Thank you for the question. We have talked a lot
about the costs associated with complying with Prop 12 and
measures like it, and for many reasons, larger producers are
going to be the best positioned to undertake those costs. They
can spread costs out over more units of production. They also
have just certain efficiencies that come along with size.
Mr. Harris. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Cushman, as we all know, the work of farmers and
ranchers is long and grueling, and they are constantly
subjected to changing regulations, changing market prices, and
weather events. Most producers have long enjoyed the freedom to
raise their animals in whatever way is suitable for their
individual farming needs. With Prop 12, as we have discussed
today, that freedom has been taken away, and similar state
mandates seem to threaten it further. Mr. Cushman, how do you
expect producers to navigate the patchwork of state laws that
will ensue if a fix for Prop 12 is not provided? And will legal
advice be yet another thing that producers consider before
making production decisions?
Mr. Cushman. Thank you for the excellent question. And to
piggyback a little bit off of Ms. Cook's response, the largest
players, the ones most able to handle these kinds of
requirements, getting legal advice is something that a much
larger farm will be able to handle than a smaller-, medium-
sized farm. With more of these regulations coming out, more
conflicting potential regulations, that makes it much, much
harder for a smaller-, medium-sized farm to survive, and to
become compliant with one of these laws would require
significant resources to do so.
Mr. Harris. Okay. There is a legislative solution to the
problem that we have been discussing today. In fact, I heard it
mentioned by my colleague, Mr. Nunn, a few moments ago. And I
also am a proud cosponsor of Representative Hinson's Save Our
Bacon Act, which says that a state can't impose a standard on
the production of livestock outside their own borders. Mr.
Cushman, again, can you just state clearly for the record, does
the Save the Bacon Act trample on states' rights, as some have
claimed?
Mr. Cushman. It does not trample on states' rights. They
still maintain the right to regulate production within their
state. That is something that states have traditionally done.
All this does is prevent states from regulating outside of
their own borders and by putting inspectors onto Iowa farms or
North Carolina farms.
Mr. Harris. Well, I agree with you that the language here
really does strike the right balance of giving states free rein
to act within their own borders but ensuring that they don't
set mandates for the other 49. As a conservative, I am
typically partial to states' rights arguments, but the
Constitution is clear that there are several instances where
the Federal Government must act. And in this situation, as we
continue to hear just the damage and the dangers that come with
Prop 12, this may very well be that time.
So thank you again, panel, all, for being here to share.
And, Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Before I introduce our next Member for his 5 minute
questioning, I do seek unanimous consent to enter into the
record a letter from the Food Equity Alliance, where they
oppose Proposition 12 due to consumer affordability issues. I
will just read the first sentence of that. ``We, the Food
Equity Alliance of California, feel a responsibility to
reinforce to you that Proposition 12 is exacerbating food
insecurity in California.''
So without objection, the letter will be entered into the
record.
[The letter referred to is located on p. 156.]
The Chairman. I now I recognize the gentleman from Ohio,
Mr. Taylor, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Ranking
Member Craig, for holding this hearing today, and thank you to
all the witnesses for being here and for the sacrifices you
made to spend some time with us today.
One of the main reasons I ran for Congress is to bring
economic activity to Appalachia. Small towns are what make up
southern Ohio, and these towns largely rely on our family
farms. That is why Prop 12 is so devastating. It pushes small
family farms out of business. The bigger operations can afford
to comply with the ridiculous regulations, while smaller farms
are forced out of the market, and 96 percent of the farms in my
district are family farms. I am afraid that Prop 12 will only
cause more consolidation in the industry. That means fewer of
the next generation coming back to the farm.
Mr. Schuiteman, can you talk more about how California's
Prop 12 and other similar state regulations will cause further
consolidation in the ag industry and what that would mean for
rural areas like mine that are already seeing continued loss of
population?
Mr. Schuiteman. Yes, we have touched on this before, but
just to say again, the cost of retrofitting facilities, we have
talked about how these are generational family farms, and so
the facilities they have, just like the knowledge has been
built up over generations, and so the cost of taking one
facility and turning it into something not really totally
different, but still different, is significant.
And I have seen myself, and I have seen other friends of
mine who have just made a decision, you know what, with the
uncertainty, we could build something that is going to end up
being wrong if something else gets passed, and so we are just
going to sit out for a while and see what happens.
Mr. Taylor. And that can lead to them getting out of the
farm business completely, right?
Mr. Schuiteman. Completely, yes.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you.
The 10th Amendment preserves states' rights to adopt their
own ill-advised policies of many kinds, and California has
certainly taken full advantage of that. But too often, as with
Prop 12, California's bad policies seep out into other states
to the detriment of the entire nation. When the Supreme Court
issued its flawed decision in the Prop 12 case a few years ago,
I think it was a clear sign that it will be up to Congress to
resolve this issue.
Mr. Cushman, do you see a case similar to this coming to
the Supreme Court in the future, or do you think it is solely
on Congress to act?
Mr. Cushman. Thank you for the question. The Supreme Court
decision was very, very difficult to understand and parse
through. I mentioned earlier that legal scholars have called it
a paradox, and they have called it a mess to try to understand.
Judges have disagreed on what it means. To reiterate, you need
at least five justices to win a case of the nine. Six agreed
with our legal theory, five agreed we had established a legal
theory but didn't line up quite right.
As to this issue on Prop 12, I do not see this proceeding
in the courts anymore. There is a challenge to Massachusetts
Question 3, which is in the First Circuit appellate court right
now. On this issue, it seems fairly clear that it is up to
Congress to act. Justice Gorsuch's opinion made it very clear
that Congress does have this authority to preempt state laws
that it finds are unwise under the Commerce Clause, and so this
would be up to Congress to fix right now.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thank you.
Turning to my fellow Buckeye where we just kind of know we
make the best pork, we don't have to talk about it all the
time. In your testimony, you dove into the animal welfare side
of Prop 12 discussion, and I am sure one of the common
responses we will hear from certain groups will be how
important Prop 12 is because of the issue of animal welfare.
Mr. Hord, can you just dispel some of the myths surrounding the
animal welfare piece specifically? Can you talk about how Prop
12 is actually worse for animal welfare in many cases?
Mr. Hord. Yes, thank you, Congressman. We as farmers
certainly are concerned about animal welfare, and it is the
priority. If we do not take good care of our animals, then that
is a detriment to us and our livelihood. So housing a lot of
times is not a determining factor of animal welfare. There is
nutrition, there is animal husbandry, there are different other
systems that happen. I can't definitively say that animal
welfare, the impact of it is any different on our farm because
we care for our animals diligently.
Mr. Taylor. Okay. Thanks again to all of you for being
here. And Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Moore, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
witnesses being here today. Ms. Rocha? Is that how you say your
name, Ms. Rocha? Rocha? Okay. That was Alabama version of
Rocha.
Question. You know that since Prop 12 was fully implemented
on January 1st of 2024, that retail pork prices in California
have risen by an average of 20 percent with specific cuts, pork
loins at 41 percent. How have these prices impacted the small
family-owned and operated Latino businesses that you represent?
Ms. Rocha. Thank you, Mr. Moore. Well, 20 percent is a very
high number, and we have already experienced many other
challenges of regulation, so this is yet another regulation on
top of those that affects us. So, as you can imagine, small
businesses such as minority-owned restaurants, we represent
about 1,400 members, it absolutely affects us negatively by
increasing prices and having to make difficult choices of
either not offering pork because of the prices. What I am
looking at, what I am representing is the consumer side of it
with regard to the pricing.
Mr. Moore. Yes, I mean, with inflation, you just add
another 20 percent in addition to that, and that is not very
beneficial. I quoted Ronald Reagan in here yesterday. He said,
``The government's idea on the economy is when it is moving,
you tax it. If it keeps moving, you regulate it. When it fails,
you subsidize it.'' Very often, I think our regulations are
causing some serious problems, certainly for consumers, and now
for producers nationally.
So Ms. Cook, since you are the economic expert on the
panel, how many Californians--I will go back to you, too, Ms.
Rocha, on this. Is it Rocha, did we say?
Ms. Rocha. Oh, Rocha.
Mr. Moore. Sorry, I have to get that right.
Ms. Rocha. It is okay.
Mr. Moore. So how many Californians do the two of you think
would purchase or continue to purchase the Prop 12-raised price
pork given the chances if they could purchase the less
affordable option that was not Prop 12? What do you think, Ms.
Cook? Any idea? Do we have any research or any thoughts on
that?
Ms. Cook. I think what the data is showing us, that with
these much higher prices, Californians as a whole, what the
data is showing is they are willing and able to purchase less
pork. So with that choice restricted from them, we are seeing
them consume less but still paying and spending more.
Mr. Moore. I mean, yes, the families are still struggling,
right, so if they have an option, if they can buy something
that is 20 percent cheaper or 41 percent cheaper in the case of
special cuts, I can imagine why they wouldn't buy the less
expensive. What about it, Ms. Rocha? What do you think?
Ms. Rocha. Yes, I know that our consumers are diverse, and
we appreciate having the choice. So I think that the majority
of our restaurant owners would appreciate having the
availability to purchase pork at a reasonable and affordable
price so that they can make money in their businesses. But I
think, overall, I do believe that we would appreciate having
the choice of purchasing whatever type of pork we would like
to.
Mr. Moore. I mean, I agree. In a restaurant business, labor
costs and food costs are two of your highest costs, and so if
you can help trim that, it helps the business survive the long
haul, so to speak.
Anyway, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield a full
minute and 45 seconds back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.
I am now pleased to recognize the gentleman from
California, Mr. LaMalfa, for 5 minutes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, appreciate it.
I guess I am the only California Republican on this dais here
today, so we do have a different perspective of me living that
firsthand as a citizen, as well as an ag producer there and my
just inherent desire that why would we foist California's
problems on the rest of the country? Why would we foist L.A.
and San Francisco thinking on the other 49 states other than
those that have already jumped in?
So I look at who is driving it, and these are the same foes
as a long time. There is the American Humane Society, which are
good folks at the national level and the American level. Then
you have the Humane Society of the United States, which has
carefully crafted that name to differentiate themselves from
the American Humane Society, and certainly their mission is
crafted completely different than it is about taking care of
animals individually. They raise hundreds of millions of
dollars, and they spend about one percent on the actual humane
treatment of animals, unlike the syrupy ads you would see on
TV.
They are very well-heeled, and they do battle in
California, I will have to say, pretty effectively because one
issue I sided with them on was cutting the fins off sharks and
just leaving the rest of the shark, which doesn't seem very
sportsmanlike to me. If you are going to take game, then you
should use all the game and use it respectfully. But then, one
thing after another, it has been on using hounds for hunting
bear and bobcat, which is actually something helpful for
hunters to differentiate with which one they should be looking
at and which one they should leave.
But then we get down to this issue. The Humane Society of
the United States is well-known to be against the use of
livestock for people's nutrition. So death by a thousand cuts,
I should say, one bit at a time, they are trying to take that
away. They are trying to take away hunting rights. They don't
want people hunting game on any lands. And so this is what you
are up against. So this is a death by a thousand cuts by one
bit at a time.
We had Proposition 2, 10 years before Proposition 12, which
worked to try and make larger areas for animals. There is an
argument for it, right? And the voters passed it. That was
2008, as I recall here. And that was in order to have larger
cages for hens, as well as more space for veal and others.
Well, 2 years later, they worked to amend that interpretation
that other states would now have to do also the same under Prop
2 with their hens, increasing their cage size, which we ran
into that my first term in this Committee here. So California
was dictating how that would be done. So that is Prop 2 back in
2008.
Someone was asking earlier, will they keep doing this? Yes,
California can keep doing it anytime they want because you saw
10 years later Prop 12 was passed, and it is not too tough for
well-heeled organizations to put these things on the ballot and
then convince voters via well-heeled ads running often on TV--I
remember the Prop 12 ads are very dramatic. They had pictures
of animal abuse going on, which we all are against, and what
they were depicting would actually be prosecuted without any of
these laws. There was one particular graphic scene where
somebody--I think it was on a dairy--was picking up a cow with
a forklift, an injured or very ill cow, and so that was shown
as abusive, and this was the picture they were painting of what
livestock raising is like in California.
And so the threat is constantly going to be there from
organizations like this being able to place for $3 million and
a lot of sympathy these issues on the ballot and get them
passed in the Bay Area and L.A. and some of those coastal areas
like that.
If I showed you the map of how these votes went, especially
Prop 12, which took it to an extreme, all the internal counties
in California, all the ones that have any kind of significance
of agriculture voted against Prop 12. It is the coastal areas
and the elite areas of California that are voting this stuff
in.
So I guess in my remaining time I would throw out there,
this does drive costs. We heard a bunch of drama earlier about
people getting kicked off the program or people are going to
go--there will be much hunger, people go hungry when really
what the focus was on illegal immigrants receiving benefits and
people that should be at work receiving endless benefits as
well.
So I guess throwing it back to the panel, if you want to
comment further later with other questioners, you just see this
as affecting the cost of food for everybody, for people using
SNAP, for all consumers, and anybody who wants to dwell on that
in further conversations since I burned my 5 minutes, we know
what the fact is. It is going to make it harder on everybody to
afford food across the country, those on SNAP especially that
we hear so much concern about on the other side that we are
supposedly kicking off on this thing. So California can keep
passing this stuff. We need to resist it and not foist our bad
ideas on the rest of the country.
So I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back.
Before I introduce Mr. Baird, I will take the opportunity
to seek unanimous consent. There has been some misleading
information that Pennsylvania, which is a growing, hog-
producing state, that there is complete opposition in
Pennsylvania, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, my home state,
to basically finding a path forward to overcome Proposition 12.
So seeking unanimous consent to submit for the record an
op-ed by the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau President, Chris Hoffman,
where he offers support for section 12009 of the Farm, Food,
and National Security Act of 2024.
Without objection, this letter will be entered into the
record.
[The article referred to is located on p. 149.]
The Chairman. And now I am pleased to introduce the
gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the
witnesses for being here. I just can't resist--and I hope you
will indulge me, Mr. Chairman. I just can't resist some of the
things I have done in my past, but not all things. Anyway, I
have a Ph.D. in monogastric nutrition, and everyone in this
room is a monogastric, whether you know it or not, but mono--
single--gastric stomach. And so I am going to stand up for the
pigs in this situation because we needed to recognize how
capable they are of adapting to various kinds of environments
and production systems.
And when I was at Purdue working on a master's degree, we
compared gestation systems, and one of those was a pasture
system, the next was a monoslope group housing where you had a
slatted floor up front. We used to call them the Cargill unit.
And then we had a tethered unit as well where you tied them up
with a neck.
And the thing I want to point out here is that we found
over time in that research project--and I found out on the farm
when I was growing up--you end up culling those animals that
aren't well suited to that environment or that building. And a
producer actually knows which is best and which produces the
most and most efficient. Absolutely, they know exactly how that
works. And so what we found, too, as a sideline, I did some of
the earliest work in this country--Europe had done it for a
long time--in artificial insemination in pigs, and that was
part of that project.
But back to what I wanted to mention, we found in that
research that through natural culling you actually ended up
with a suite of animals or a group of animals that was well
suited to that environment. Some of them never really adapted
to the tethering situation, for example, but there were others
that when they went to the farrowing house and came back, they
knew where their stall was in that facility and would go back.
They tended to be the more timid kinds of individuals who were
out in the pasture, they could interact with other individuals,
and in the group housing you had that same kind of concern. So
I just couldn't resist sharing that.
And the other thing I would share in terms of pigs, the
reason that they look for water and look for them, they end up
being in mud holes, so to speak, but they do not have sweat
glands. So the only means they have to cool themselves is
evaporative cooling, and that takes water. And if you really
knew pigs, they would prefer to have a nice just a comfortable
shower than they would to lay in the mud hole, but that is what
it is.
And so you have to give these animals credit, and I don't
think a lot of people recognize how important it is to have the
animals perform well and the efficiency that it takes to be
profitable in that situation.
So I have probably said enough, Mr. Chairman, but I could
share other stories with you, but I can tell you want me to go
on.
Anyway, I want to ask this question from everyone because
the National Pork Producers were concerned about Prop 12, and
we have been concerned about Prop 12 for a long time. But Prop
12 doesn't inherently improve animal welfare. In fact, the
American Veterinary Medical Association, the largest
association representing veterinarians, supports the Chairman's
fix. They do not support Prop 12 because it fails to follow the
science, and it limits the flexibility of farmers and vets in
order to best serve their animals.
So I would like to ask our producers first, what is your
experience with Prop 12 style of housing for sows? Is the
injury incidence higher in those situations, and isn't that bad
for animals? So I will start with our two producers.
Mr. Hord?
Mr. Hord. Thank you, Congressman. Our experience is that
animal welfare is a complex issue of multiple things. As you,
being a Ph.D.--that is impressive--nutritionist, and you
understand there is nutrition, there is animal husbandry, and
our experience is that the biggest impact is how we care for
them and how we take care of them is the leading indicator of
animal welfare. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. And you certainly have to recognize that a
producer, how are you going to make any money if you don't take
care of the animals?
Mr. Hord. Right.
Mr. Baird. And so that is a very important aspect of animal
husbandry so good answer.
Mr. Hord. Yep, for sure.
Mr. Baird. Yes, sir.
Mr. Schuiteman. Thank you, Mr. Baird, for the question and
for your research. I don't have a lot to add to what Mr. Hord
said or to your experiences, but just the ability to care for
your animals, and a big piece of husbandry is understanding the
animal and knowing how the animal acts and knowing what that
animal is going to do, and so I don't have much to add, but I
thank you for your experience.
Mr. Baird. Anyone else care to comment?
So anyway, I guess I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that--I
guess I have already gone over my time, haven't I? Anyway,
thank you for being here and sharing your expertise with us and
for this Committee. It helps us make better decisions. Thank
you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Baird, thank you for sharing your
experience and your knowledge, much appreciated, my friend.
Before we adjourn, I need to extend my apologies. The
Ranking Member wanted to extend her apologies. She was pulled
away. She was hoping that it would time up better, but she
certainly sends her appreciation to all of our witnesses who
went through the time, the cost to travel here and to share
your perspectives.
And let me add my closing as well. Let's be clear about
Prop 12. Prop 12 has hurt small- and medium-sized producers.
Prop 12 has hurt consumers with increased costs, impacting food
affordability. That is something we talk a lot about in a
bipartisan way in this Committee. Prop 12 has the potential, as
we have heard, to actually result in harm for the sows through
the compliance that is required.
Prop 12 ignores agriculture science. And quite frankly,
American agriculture can be defined as science, technology, and
innovation. As we have heard today, Prop 12 has hurt our small
family-owned restaurants and folks in that supply chain for our
restaurants. It is an industry that survives on only, I would
say, a range of three to ten percent profit, closer to three
percent most days. And so any mandate of adding costs will hurt
those family-owned businesses and jobs and food accessibility
for folks that are looking to those restaurants for their
nutrition.
So the question I have, some have claimed that Prop 12 is a
mandate. But what is a mandate? A hundred percent? I would say
that is probably a mandate. Ninety percent? That is pretty
good. That would be a mandate. Eighty percent? Mandate. Let's
go down. I think 51 percent would be a mandate, maybe 50
percent. Now let's be generous. Say 40 percent is a mandate.
And although the Prop 12 initiative passed in 2018, it was far
from a mandate for the record. Only 20 percent of Californians
voted in that election.
And of those 20 percent, only 13 percent that voted in
California approved this ill-thought provision, 13 percent of
Californians. That is not a mandate. And I think that is why we
have seen all the signals, not just from Justice Gorsuch
because I read it from at least two other justices in the
Supreme Court who said this is a responsibility Congress has to
fix.
This Committee will consider a measured correction that
preserves states' rights to control their internal agriculture
practices, will protect interstate commerce, and preserves
states' animal health regulations and laws.
And so a huge thank you to our witnesses for coming here
and sharing your perspective and your expertise. I thought this
was an outstanding hearing.
A thank you to our staff for all of your work to make this
a successful hearing, and to the Members who, quite frankly,
are under a lot of pressure today with a lot of things that are
going on and the time constraints that we are under that came
out and asked questions today.
So under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any question posed by a Member.
This hearing of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:56 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Article by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
[https://pfb.com/congress-must-act-on-state-agricultural-production-
standards-to-protect-producers-and-consumers/]
Congress Must Act on State Agricultural Production Standards to Protect
Producers and Consumers
[May 24, 2024]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
By Chris Hoffman, President, Pennsylvania Farm Bureau
As farmers, we recognize that Americans are increasingly interested
in where their food comes from and how it is produced. This is
especially true with how animals are raised for food production, which
has led some states to impose emotionally satisfying yet
counterproductive animal welfare standards for products sold within
their borders--regardless of where those products originate.
Make no mistake, farmers are committed to the proper care of the
animals they have been entrusted with. They are our livelihood and a
large part of the legacy we hope to pass along to future generations.
Yet rather than protecting animal health, the aforementioned state
standards now threaten to create a patchwork of ill-conceived laws and
regulations that not only fail to protect animals but also increases
consumer costs. This unscientific law weakens food security, which is
linked to national security, and threatens the livelihoods of small
family farms that are the backbone of Pennsylvania agriculture. To
prevent these negative outcomes, Congress must act--and the new Federal
farm bill offers an opportunity for such action.
The 2018 adoption of California's Proposition 12 (Prop 12), a
ballot initiative prohibiting the sale of eggs, veal meat and pork
products from animals unless they meet the state's confinement
standards, is the most recent state action illustrating the need for a
Federal solution to this issue. California consumes about 15% of the
nation's pork, while producing less than a tenth of a percent of it,
meaning they must rely on out-of-state production to meet their demand.
That means pork producers outside the state must follow California
standards if they wish to do business there, regardless of their own
state's laws and regulations.
Due to the implications of California's law on interstate commerce,
the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and the National Pork
Producers Council (NPPC) filed a legal challenge which was rejected in
May 2023 by the U. S. Supreme Court, thus returning the issue to
Congress. If the House and Senate fail to act to remedy this situation,
one state will be allowed to dictate business practices for the entire
nation. This increases the risk of one--or several states--tangling up
America's entire system of interstate commerce by passing unscientific
laws limiting or prohibiting the sale of any type of goods from other
states.
We believe that Congress must act quickly to ensure that states
cannot set the rules for interstate commerce. Fortunately, Rep. Glenn
``GT'' Thompson, in his capacity as Chairman of the U.S. House
Agriculture Committee, has proposed a common-sense solution to address
state actions like California's Proposition 12. Chairman Thompson's
proposal clarifies that states and local governments cannot impose
standards of production, as a condition for sale or consumption, on
livestock produced outside of their borders. This protects a producer's
right to participate in a national market without having to adhere to a
patchwork of costly compliance requirements. It also protects the
rights of states and local governments to impose production standards
as they see fit, but only for livestock raised within their own
borders.
Renovations to become compliant with things like Prop 12 are
financially burdensome for producers of all sizes--especially for many
small family farms--that are already struggling to remain in operation
and would likely not be able to stay in business under a Prop 12-like
regime. The ultimate result will be even more consolidation in
agriculture among a few large entities, which will inevitably translate
to increased prices at the grocery store and fewer families who can
afford high-quality protein-especially those who are already struggling
with high grocery prices caused by inflation and have no interest in
paying a ``premium'' for pork raised under a Prop 12-like system.
Worst of all, the promised improvements to animal health and
welfare under Prop 12-like standards simply do not materialize, in
large part because those standards were created by people with little
to no knowledge or understanding of the realities of veterinary science
and animal husbandry. In the case of the pork industry, sow mortality
rates have increased nationwide since the implementation of Prop 12--an
outcome that the Golden State's Department of Food and Agriculture
(CDFA) admitted would occur before Prop 12 was implemented.
The continued presence of Prop 12 (and other state laws like it)
sets a harmful precedent for animal agriculture and opens the ability
for states to create a similar patchwork of mandated growing practices
for beef, poultry, sheep, and/or dairy. Congress must do its duty to
protect farmers and consumers from unscientific state mandates that
threaten animal health, economic viability, and interstate commerce.
Chairman Thompson has crafted a workable solution in the upcoming farm
bill that can win bipartisan agreement--and which deserves our support.
______
Submitted Comment by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: Mr. Thompson's staff submitted only the comment
submitted by Canada. The hyperlink accesses the full Comment (ID 832)
which includes New Zealand's comment as well as the United States'
response.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[https://eping.wto.org/en/TradeConcerns/Details?imsId=832&domainId=TBT]
United States--State-Level Measures Prescribing Space Requirements for
Farm Animals (ID 832)
June 2024 TBT Committee meeting
Canada
The representative of Canada provided the following statement.
California's Farm Animal Confinement measure was initially notified to
the WTO TBT committee on 7 June 2021, followed by several addenda and a
notification of the final measure on 12 September 2022. Massachusetts'
Prevent Cruelty to Farm Animals measure was notified as a proposed
measure on 29 June 2021 and we understand it is currently in effect.
Canada would like to thank California, Massachusetts and the U.S.
Federal Government for their bilateral engagements on California's
Proposition 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3. Unfortunately, our core
concerns remain unaddressed. Canada is a strong proponent of animal
welfare, as evidenced by our comprehensive Codes of Practice for the
care and handling of farm animals. We also support the right of
governments to develop requirements for food production within their
own jurisdictions. Nevertheless, Canada is concerned about the emerging
patchwork of subnational regulations across the U.S., which mandate
prescriptive agricultural production practices for food to be sold
within a state, including imported products. California and
Massachusetts' measures prohibit the sale of specified food products,
such as types and cuts of meat, where animals were not housed in the
exact manner prescribed in their respective regulations.
Overall, Canada has five main concerns. 1. These measures are not
based on evidence or international standards and do not consider the
entire welfare needs of animals. 2. These measures are not outcome-
based and do not provide an opportunity for the recognition of
equivalence. 3. A patchwork of diverging subnational regulations,
mandating highly-prescriptive production practices, has the potential
to severely restrict trade in agriculture and agri-food products in the
U.S. 4. These measures set a concerning precedent: they signal the
ability of each state to restrict the sale of any product that is not
produced in an exact manner, irrespective of evidence, outcomes or
international standards. If this continues to be replicated in other
states or other regulatory areas, participating in the U.S. market will
become unmanageable. 5. Less trade-restrictive alternatives do not seem
to be taken into consideration. To reiterate, Canada strongly supports
the proper care and handling of farm animals in agriculture production.
However, Canada feels that these measures do not achieve that objective
and establish a concerning precedent of a patchwork of subnational
regulations that restrict trade. We urge the U.S. to consider
mechanisms to address the growing patchwork of regulations and ensure
trade is not unduly restricted.
______
Submitted Letters by Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Letter 1
Chairman Glenn Thompson Ranking Member David Scott
1301 Longworth House Office 1010 Longworth House Office
Building Building
Washington D.C. 20515 Washington D.C. 20515
USA USA
Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow Ranking Member John Boozman
328A Russell Senate Office Building 328A Russell Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515 Washington D.C. 20515
USA USA
Chairman Jason Smith Ranking Member Richard Neal
1139 Longworth House Office 1129 Longworth House Office
Building Building
Washington D.C. 20515 Washington D.C. 20515
USA USA
Chairman Ron Wyden Ranking Member Mike Crapo
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building 219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515 Washington D.C. 20515
USA USA
Dear Chairs and Ranking Members:
Canadian provinces, United States (U.S.) and Mexican states are
writing to express our concerns with California's Proposition 12 and
Massachusetts' Question 3. These regulations are extremely concerning
due to restrictions they place on out-of-state producers to comply with
arbitrary space requirements and the use of breeding stalls for certain
animals. North American producers are already committed to high
standards of animal welfare and care. Our commitment to science and
rules-based trade ensures a predictable and consistent regulatory
environment, which is why the absence of scientific justification for
these regulations is concerning.
Differing regulations between U.S. states as well as stringent
requirements for producers can result in a significant financial burden
for producers who are already facing increased costs for feed, labour,
and transportation. While some pork producers may have resources to
adapt to Proposition 12 requirements, the regulations could push small-
and medium-sized producers out of the market. Pork producers may choose
not to convert to Proposition 12 requirements due to expensive
infrastructure conversion costs and costs related to certification,
audits, segregation for packers, and new registration systems
throughout the value chain. Alternatively, producers may reduce herd
size to accommodate space requirements, leading to lower meat supply in
North America. Additional costs will ultimately be passed onto
consumers, many who already struggle with inflationary pressures and
food insecurity.
Diverging and arbitrary regulations create uncertainty and set a
dangerous precedent that may encourage other countries and states to
develop their own trade-disruptive measures. The U.S., Canada, and
Mexico are all significant pork producers, and our livestock production
systems are highly integrated. Our three countries represent 14 per
cent of total global pork production but are responsible for 41 per
cent of global pork exports. In 2022, North American trade in pork and
pork products exceeded US$5.5 billion. As deeply connected trading
partners, we must avoid barriers to trade that undermine the benefits
of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. It is imperative that we uphold
our collective efforts towards regulatory compatibility and work
together to ensure consumers have access to affordable food and
livestock production can remain profitable.
We strongly believe in the rights of sub-national governments to
regulate in pursuit of legitimate objectives. However, measures that go
beyond in-state rights and impose production practices onto out-of-
state and out-of-country producers are problematic and negatively
impact stability for the sector. We must ensure that current and future
state measures do not disrupt our industries, trade, and supply chain
continuity. U.S. legislators should consider all legislative options to
address this patchwork of state-level regulations. Provinces and states
will continue to collaborate with Federal, state, and industry partners
to look for solutions to eliminate disruptions to the pork sector
resulting from these regulations.
The next Tri-National Agricultural Accord is being held in
Washington, DC, from October 21 to 23, 2024, and participating states
and provinces would be interested to meet with you to discuss this
important matter at that time. We encourage you to contact Keith
Johnson, Trade Policy Analyst, Manitoba Agriculture at [Redacted] with
any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Minister Ron Kostyshyn Minister RJ Sigurdson
Province of Manitoba Province of Alberta
Minister Rob Flack Minister David Marit
Province of Ontario Province of Saskatchewan
Commissioner Rick Pate Commissioner Tyler Harper
State of Alabama State of Georgia
Director Don Lamb Secretary Mike Beam
State of Indiana State of Kansas
Director Chris Chinn Commissioner Doug Goehring
State of Missouri State of North Dakota
Director Brian Baldridge Secretary Blayne Arthur
State of Ohio State of Oklahoma
Commissioner Craig Buttars Commissioner Kent Leonhardt
State of Utah State of West Virginia
Secretary Jaime Montes Salas
State of Sinaloa
Letter 2
June 13, 2023
Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Hon. Chuck Schumer,
Speaker of the House, Majority Leader,
U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, Minority Leader,
U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C.
Dear Speaker McCarthy, Leader Schumer, Leader Jeffries, and Leader
McConnell:
We are the Governors of 11 states. Collectively, our states
represent over 54 percent of the country's pork production and 47
percent of its cattle production. We write to express our
disappointment in the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in National
Pork Producers Council v. Ross, No. 21-468, 2023 WL 3356528 (U.S. May
11, 2023) (``NPPC''). The NPPC opinion upheld California's Proposition
12, rejecting the challengers' argument that California's law
impermissibly burdens interstate commerce in violation of the U.S.
Constitution.
Food security is national security. The United States has one of
the safest and most sustainable domestic food industries in the world.
Our livestock producers efficiently and humanely produce the massive
amounts of animal protein necessary to affordably feed our country's
population. Their resource stewardship is the result of decades of
applying and refining science-based, tried-and-true production
techniques.
Despite California's reliance on its fellow states for food,
Proposition 12 threatens to disrupt the very system Californians depend
on for their pork supply. Its strict, activist-drafted requirements for
pig farming sharply depart from the practices which are lawful in our
states. As Justice Kavanaugh observed, scientific literature suggests
that California's requirements could actually worsen animal health and
welfare. See NPPC, at *23 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part and
dissenting in part). And due to California's market share, 13 percent
of the pork market, it would be prohibitively expensive for producers
to segregate their pork from sales to California as a market
destination from those products destined elsewhere. Instead, to comply
with California's onerous and unscientific requirements, pork producers
will have to bear costs in the hundreds of millions (if not billions)
of dollars. These costs inevitably pass through the system onto
consumers, producers, and workers.
America's pork production system is inherently interstate in its
scope and integration. A single state, or handful of states, should not
have the power to radically disrupt that system. Given the profound
consequences of California's experiment--and cognizant that it should
be the rare case where Congress exercises its Commerce Clause power to
preempt state law--this is a situation where Federal legislation is
appropriate and necessary.
We support the right of individuals to choose how and what animal
products they consume, and of each state to lawfully regulate livestock
production within their respective borders. But the policy and moral
preferences of voters in one state should not--and cannot--dictate how
farmers raise their crops and livestock across the country. It is
imperative that Congress act. Please join us in supporting the
reintroduction of the Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (S.
2619) that had been introduced during the 117th Congress by Sen. Chuck
Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS),
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), and Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS).
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Governor Kim Reynolds Governor Jim Pillen Governor Sarah Sanders
State of Iowa State of Nebraska State of Arkansas
Governor Eric Holcomb Governor Tate Reeves Governor Mike Parson
State of Indiana State of Mississippi State of Missouri
Governor Greg Gianforte Governor Joe Lombardo Governor Kevin Stitt
State of Montana State of Nevada State of Oklahoma
Governor Greg Abbott Governor Glenn Youngkin
State of Texas Commonwealth of
Virginia
Letter 3
August 9, 2023
Hon. Kevin McCarthy, Hon. Chuck Schumer,
Speaker of the House, Majority Leader,
U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries, Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Minority Leader, Minority Leader,
U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C.
Re: Support for Federal Legislation to Fix Proposition 12 after
National Pork Producers Council v. Ross
Dear Speaker McCarthy, Leader Schumer, Leader Jeffries, and Leader
McConnell,
We are Attorneys General representing sixteen states writing in
support of the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (``EATS'') Act.
Our states are disappointed by the United States Supreme Court's
decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, No. 21-468 (U.S.
May 11, 2023). That opinion upheld California's Proposition 12,
rejecting the challengers' arguments that Prop 12 upsets the balance of
power between the states in violation of the Constitution. Eleven
Governors recently sent a letter calling for action. We too think
Congress should exercise its power and fix this problem. The EATS Act
prevents states like California from regulating farmers and ranchers
nationwide, by preserving the right of states and local government to
regulate agriculture within their jurisdictions.
Twenty states signed a Supreme Court brief explaining why allowing
activists in California to dictate to farmers and ranchers how to raise
hogs will cause problems. But this does not stop at hogs. California
can throw its weight around to regulate farmers and ranchers around the
country--and how they raise their crops and livestock. California's
radical climate change agenda does not account for farmers' basic
needs.
Solving the problems Prop 12 creates requires understanding what
went so wrong. California's unscientific approach to raising pork
follows from the fact that Californians barely raise any pork
themselves. A state can always to try to lead by example--passing laws
to regulate agricultural production within its borders. But that is not
what California did. Instead, Californians voted to impose their
radical agenda on out-of-state farmers and ranchers--and in doing so
raise food costs for Americans across the country. Their approach is an
attack on states' authority. As a result, many small- and medium-sized
pork producers may go out of business. All in support of California's
out-of-touch activist agenda.
American farmers and ranchers raise massive amounts of animal
protein as affordably and humanely as possible. American farmers'
techniques have developed over generations to constitute global best
practices. No other country produces pork as delicious and high-quality
as ours. California's radical and unscientific standards show the world
that they do not get what it takes to raise hogs.
California's radical-drafted requirements for farmers are hog wild.
Justice Kavanaugh recognized that California's requirements might even
worsen animal health and welfare. And because California buys about 13
percent of the nation's pork, it is prohibitively expensive for farmers
to separate out California-approved pork from the rest. California's
burdensome regulations will put small, medium, and possibly even large
pork producers out of business. And American consumers won't be able to
afford bacon for breakfast.
America's pork production is nationwide and relies on coordination
across the country. One state, or even a few states, should not upend
that system. And California is learning the wrong lesson--that it can
dictate, and that the nation must follow. Given the direct impact
California's Prop 12 has on interstate commerce, Congress should pass
the EATS Act.
As Attorneys General, we have expertise in defending our states'
laws. The EATS Act gives states the tools they need to protect farmers
and ranchers. By explicitly authorizing courts to issue a preliminary
injunction while a case is pending, the EATS Act ensures that food
markets will not be disrupted while a court figures out whether a
state's new regulation is lawful.
Our states support letting individuals buy the animal products they
want and to allow states to lawfully regulate livestock production
within their own borders. But when a state decides to regulate outside
its borders, and to try to impose its agenda on other states, that goes
too far. Regulations like California's Prop 12 will disrupt farmers'
ability to feed the nation. At a minimum, Prop 12 will force high food
prices on the American people. Congress should make clear that a state
can regulate how livestock is produced within its borders but not in
other states.
Please join us in supporting the Ending Agricultural Trade
Suppression Act cosponsored in the Senate (S. 2019) by Senators Chuck
Grassley (R-IA), Joni Ernst (R-IA), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Ted Budd (R-
NC), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), Deb
Fischer (R-NE), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Eric Schmitt
(R-MO), and Thomas Tillis (R-NC); and cosponsored in the House (H.R.
4417) by Representatives Ashley Hinson (R-IA-02), Mariannette Miller-
Meeks (R-IA-01), Zachary Nunn (R-IA-03), Randy Feenstra (R-IA-04), and
24 other Members of the house.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Brenna Bird
Attorney General of Iowa
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tim Griffin Daniel Cameron
Attorney General of Arkansas Attorney General of Kentucky
Raul R. Labrador Lynn Fitch
Attorney General of Idaho Attorney General of Mississippi
Theodore E. Rokita Andrew T. Bailey
Attorney General of Indiana Attorney General of Missouri
Austin Knudsen Angela Colmenero
Attorney General of Montana Provisional Attorney General of
Texas
John Formella Sean D. Reyes
Attorney General of New Hampshire Attorney General of Utah
Gentner Drummond Jason S. Miyares
Attorney General of Oklahoma Attorney General of Virginia
Alan Wilson Patrick Morrisey
Attorney General of South Carolina Attorney General of West Virginia
Marty Jackley
Attorney General of South Dakota
Letter 4
May 14, 2024
Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. David Scott,
Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chairwoman,
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. John Boozman,
Ranking Minority Member,
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, D.C.
To: The Honorable Representative Thompson; Representative Scott;
Senator Stabenow; Senator Boozman
We, the Food Equity Alliance \1\ of California, feel a
responsibility to reinforce to you that Proposition 12 is exacerbating
food insecurity in California. Proposition 12 disproportionately
impacts our most vulnerable Californians, grocery markets, and
restaurants at a time when they are already struggling to make ends
meet. It is creating chaos and confusion throughout our food supply
chain and producers, processors, grocers, restaurants, and families
need help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://foodequityalliance.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's testimony
before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee
emphasized Proposition 12's impacts on pork producers and processors,
and its disruption to our markets. While we are pleased to see
thoughtful consideration of Prop 12, there was little to no discussion
of the impact of Prop 12's impact on food-insecure households.
Our nation is facing a crisis of food insecurity, which means
limited, uncertain, or inconsistent access to the food necessary for a
healthy life. As of October 2023,\2\ over three million households in
California were considered food-insecure, including over one million
households with children. Food insecurity can lead to hunger, poor
physical and mental health, or poor academic performance. Even worse,
it puts families in the impossible position of choosing whether to pay
their rent or purchase necessary food and medicine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.cafoodbanks.org/hunger-data-reports/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pork prices have become prohibitively expensive for households and
businesses that rely on affordable protein. A new study \3\ has
overwhelmingly confirmed the surge in prices and impact on struggling
Californians. Retail pork prices in California have increased on
average by 20% since July 1, 2023 compared to the rest of the United
States. As a result, California's share of the national retail sales
market for pork has declined, falling from 10% to less than 8% as of
January 31, 2024, hurting producers and consumers alike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/2024/03/19/
v27n3_2_e40mBEN.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposition 12 disproportionately impacts minority families and
businesses, particularly the Asian and Latino communities who rely on
pork as their primary protein staple. Culturally, both Latino and Asian
populations eat more pork compared to the average American who consumes
higher quantities of beef. This is particularly concerning since more
than one in three Latinx adults across California live in food-insecure
households.
We kindly request that Congress keep in mind Proposition 12's
startling impact on American families and businesses as they pursue
relevant legislation. We fear that without Congressional action, these
same food affordability issues are coming for the rest of the country.
Sincerely,
The Food Equity Alliance
California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce
California Grocers Association
California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce
California Pork Producers Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
Latin Business Association
Latino Restaurant Association
National Asian American Coalition
CC:
House Committee on Agriculture Members
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition & Forestry Members
Letter 5
July 21, 2025
Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Thompson,
Thank you for your July 18, 2025, letter regarding the United
States Department of Agriculture's (USDA, ``the Department'') research
on the economic impacts of California's Proposition 12 (``Prop 12'') on
both California pork consumers and pork producers across the United
States. I appreciate your attention to this issue and your commitment
to understanding the policy's far-reaching implications and its impact
on the resiliency of our food system.
In response to your request, I have directed USDA's Economic
Research Service (ERS) and Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) to
update their previous research on the economic landscape surrounding
Prop 12 since its implementation on January 1, 2024.
In the interim, below is a summary of findings, to date.
Impact on U.S. Pork Producers
Prop 12 requires all pork sold in California--regardless of where
it is produced in the United States--to come from breeding pigs housed
in systems that provide a minimum of 24 square feet per sow and allow
the animals to turn around freely. This requirement comes amid the fact
that over 95 percent of the pork consumed in California is shipped to
the State. Not surprisingly, this requirement has contributed to cost
increases within the domestic supply chain.
According to ERS estimates (April 2025), approximately 27
percent of U.S. pork producers have made or are making
investments to comply with Prop 12 housing requirements.
The average capital cost of retrofitting or rebuilding
facilities to meet Prop 12 standards is estimated at $3,500 to
$4,500 per sow, depending on region, existing infrastructure,
and scale of operation.
Compliance costs disproportionately affect small- and mid-
sized producers, who face tighter margins and less access to
capital. As of the first quarter of 2025, 12 percent of small
pork operations (defined as <500 sows) have exited the market
or shifted production away from breeding, citing regulatory
uncertainty and high transition costs.
Effect on California Pork Consumers
California represents approximately 13 percent of total U.S. pork
consumption. Since the enactment of Prop 12:
Per ERS Retail Meat Price Data (June 2025), retail pork
prices in California have increased by 18.7 percent year-over-
year, compared to a 6.3 percent increase nationwide over the
same period.
The average price of pork loin in California increased from
$4.12 per pound in December 2023 to $4.89 per pound in June
2025, with more significant increases observed in some cuts,
such as bacon.
A recent USDA consumer affordability study (May 2025) found
that low-income households in California reduced pork purchases
by 22 percent, indicating price increases are affecting food
access and affordability for economically vulnerable
populations.
Interstate Commerce and Market Fragmentation
Prop 12 has led to partial segmentation in the national pork
market:
Packers and processors now routinely segregate compliant and
non-compliant pork through dedicated supply chains. According
to industry data, about 35 percent of federally inspected
slaughterhouses have systems in place to handle Prop 12-
compliant product.
ERS modeling suggests that such segmentation may increase
transaction and distribution costs by $0.07 to $0.11 per pound
on compliant pork, compounding inflationary pressure.
The Department continues to assess long-term implications for
interstate trade, including potential precedent for similar state-level
laws in other agricultural sectors. Additionally, USDA will continue to
monitor Prop 12's economic effects and will prepare a report with more
recent data. Meanwhile, I will ensure the Department provides
transparent, data-driven insights to inform policymakers and protect
the integrity of the U.S. agricultural system.
As I stated when I visited your Committee earlier this year, I am
committed to working with Congress to find a fix for Prop 12, and the
economic issues it has created. One state should not have the authority
to dictate terms to another state, especially when producers know best
how to care for their animals. It is critical Congress and USDA work
together to safeguard producers and consumers to ensure Prop 12 and
similar laws at the whims of a small minority in one state do not
create economic hardship.
Thank you again for your leadership and partnership on this
important issue. Please do not hesitate to request further briefings or
data requests by having a member of your staff contact the USDA Office
of Congressional Relations at (202) 720-7095.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Brooke L. Rollins,
Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Letter 6
July 21, 2025
Hon. Glenn Thompson, Hon. Angie Craig,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig:
The American Association of Swine Veterinarians (AASV) is a
professional association of veterinarians specializing in swine health,
welfare, and production. Over 1,300 AASV members represent all facets
of the veterinary profession including practice, research, allied
industry, public health, government, academia, and education. It is the
mission of the AASV to increase the knowledge of swine veterinarians,
protect and promote the health and well-being of pigs, advocate
science-based approaches to veterinary, industry, and public health
issues, and promote the development and availability of resources that
enhance the effectiveness of professional activities.
The AASV supports efforts that recognize the responsibility of
veterinarians to work with farmers to ensure swine are raised in a
manner that promotes animal health, animal well-being, and human
safety. Because no single husbandry style is applicable in all
situations, on-farm animal management decisions should be based on the
best available scientific evidence and professional judgement. The
veterinarians and farmers who work with these animals daily are best
informed to make those decisions. Regulatory requirements placing
arbitrary limits on the veterinarian's ability to work with our clients
to promote the best on-farm husbandry practices may not be in the best
interest of the animals under our care.
It is the position of the AASV that, given the variability inherent
in different housing systems, we support the use of sow housing
configurations that provide every animal with access to appropriate
food and water; protect sows and piglets from detrimental effects
associated with environmental extremes, particularly temperature
extremes; reduce exposure to hazards that result in disease, pain or
injury to sows or piglets; allow sows and piglets to express
appropriate behaviors and minimize expression of inappropriate
behaviors within the constraints of the housing type; minimize
aggression and competition between sows; promote good air quality and
allow proper sanitation; facilitate evaluation and care of individual
animals while protecting worker safety; and provide alternative housing
for sows based on evaluation of each sow's individual needs.
There are advantages and disadvantages to any sow housing that
should be considered by weighing scientific evidence and veterinary
professional judgement. The veterinarian's role is to teach and promote
appropriate stockmanship, which is as important as housing type in
meeting the needs of the animals. Methods of selection (genotypic and
phenotypic) should be considered for identifying animals that can
thrive in various housing environments. Furthermore, we support
research that investigates the impact of housing on sow welfare.
California's Proposition 12 prohibits the sale of products based on
arbitrary animal housing requirements on a host of animals--including
swine. The ballot initiative does not objectively improve animal
welfare. In fact, in some cases, it may compromise animal welfare.
A well-established body of scientific literature assessing
biological metrics of sow welfare in individual stalls and group pens
shows that both housing methods can be important tools in managing a
healthy herd. Categorically banning one of them, as Proposition 12
does, will likely harm rather than improve animal well-being. There is
a strong scientific consensus that, in order to maximize animal
welfare, the choice between individual stalls and group pens must be
made on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances faced by
each individual herd and farm. When this choice is made according to
sound husbandry and veterinary principles, animal-welfare outcomes are
similar between group housing and individual stalls.
The scientific evidence thus indicates that both individual stalls
and group pens are valuable management options for sow housing. Which
of them is best to use, in what proportions, and at what times in a
sow's reproductive cycle, are questions that depend on the individual
circumstances of a farm and its herd. Maximizing animal health and
welfare therefore requires housing arrangements for sows in farm herds
to be determined on a case-by-case basis, by farmers and veterinarians
considering all the circumstances of each individual herd and farm.
Without a solution, veterinarians will be restricted in their
options to maximize animal welfare based on a herd's specific needs.
There is no one-size-fits-all housing type that is best for all
sows in all situations. For all sow housing systems, careful husbandry,
facility maintenance, and farmworker training are important to
maximizing sow well-being. The best solution for animal welfare is for
each team of farmers and veterinarians to have flexibility to determine
the housing arrangements that are best for their animals in their
circumstances. Because Proposition 12 would take away that flexibility,
it places at risk the well-being of many animals. Moreover, the Supreme
Court's decision in National Pork Producers v. Ross opened the door for
additional unscientific state regulations across agriculture and
veterinary practice.
The Supreme Court's opinion clearly stated only Congress can
intervene. It is critical Congress assert its constitutional authority
to protect the freedom of veterinarians to maximize animal health and
welfare.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Harry Snelson, D.V.M.,
Executive director,
American Association of Swine Veterinarians.
Letter 7
July 23, 2025
Hon. Glenn Thompson, Hon. Angie Craig,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Austin Scott, Hon. Shontel Brown,
Vice Chair, Vice Ranking Minority Member,
U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C., Washington, D.C.;
Dear Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, Vice Chair Scott, and
Vice Ranking Member Brown:
We write to express our support for legislation to address
California's Proposition 12, clarifying that one state cannot regulate
livestock production beyond its own borders. Livestock producers in our
states should not have to comply with regulations determined by another
state's electorate.
For decades, our livestock producers have implemented science-based
practices and adopted production technologies that have allowed our
nation's food supply to be one of the safest and most sustainable in
the world. The United States is producing high-quality protein as
affordably and humanely as possible. However, through Proposition 12,
California has set arbitrary requirements for how producers should
operate their farming businesses. Out of touch and removed from the
realities of agriculture, California activists now claim to know what's
best for the producers who have raised livestock from generation to
generation.
Livestock production in the United States is inherently interstate
in its design. In the pork industry, nearly 100 percent of the nation's
sow population is raised outside of California. Although California
does not raise hogs, the state does account for 15 percent of the
national pork market. Despite California's lack of hog herd, interstate
commerce allows its consumers to purchase pork products, meeting the
state's market demand for this protein. By imposing unnecessary and
unscientific regulations, Proposition 12 increases the price for
consumers in California and for producers in pork-supplying states.
We support the right of individuals to choose which animal products
they purchase and consume. If consumers in the marketplace create a
demand for products to be raised in a certain way, producers may be
incentivized to change their practices to meet this new demand. We also
support the right of each state to lawfully regulate livestock
production within their own borders. But when one state decides to
regulate another, Federal legislation is appropriate and necessary. We
ask that Congress make clear that each state may regulate livestock
production within its own borders, but not the production of livestock
in other states.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Governor Kim Reynolds Governor Jim Pillen Governor Kevin Stitt
State of Iowa State of Nebraska State of Oklahoma
Governor Tate Reeves Governor Mike Kehoe Governor Glenn
Youngkin
State of Mississippi State of Missouri Commonwealth of
Virginia
Governor Mike Braun Governor Joe Lombardo
State of Indiana State of Nevada
______
Submitted Letters by Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Letter 1
May 20, 2024
Hon. Glenn Thompson, Hon. David Scott,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott:
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) is the nation's
leading representative of the veterinary profession, speaking for more
than 105,000 member veterinarians who care passionately about
protecting animal health, animal welfare, and human health. Informed by
its members' unique scientific training and knowledge, the AVMA offers
strong support for Section 12007 of the Farm, Food, and National
Security Act of 2024, which protects veterinarians' freedom and
flexibility to provide the best care for farm animals.
Proposition 12 (Prop 12) prohibits sales in California of animal
products, regardless of whether they are produced in-state or out-of-
state, that do not comply with certain livestock housing requirements
set by California voters in a 2018 ballot initiative. Because no one
husbandry style is appropriate for all circumstances, regulations aimed
at improving animal welfare should be based upon scientific evidence
and the professional judgement of veterinarians. The arbitrary housing
requirements in Prop 12 do not objectively improve animal welfare and
may unintentionally cause harm.
In addition, allowing one state to dictate animal raising
requirements to other states in order to sell their products in its
state not only interferes with interstate commerce, but carves a path
for future governance of all states by individual states whose laws
they may not agree with. This kind of legislation will create a
patchwork of regulations which are often not scientifically based,
could impact biosecurity, and would be cost prohibitive and cumbersome
for veterinarians and their producer clients to navigate.
The AVMA advocates for policies that advance the practice of
veterinary medicine, animal welfare, and animal and public health.
Without a solution to Prop 12, veterinarians will be restricted in
their options to maximize animal welfare based on a herd's specific
needs. Through Section 12007, we urge Congress to address the
challenges posed by Prop 12 in the next farm bill reauthorization.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Kent D. McClure, D.V.M., J.D.,
Associate Executive Vice President & Chief Advocacy Officer,
American Veterinary Medical Association.
Letter 2
May 21, 2024
Hon. Glenn Thompson, Hon. David Scott,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott:
The undersigned organizations representing the country's farmers,
ranchers, and partners write in strong support of Section 12007 of the
Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024, which provides much
needed certainty in farm country. California's Proposition 12--and the
implications of the Supreme Court's decision in National Pork Producers
Council v. Ross--are causing turmoil in agricultural markets and having
significant detrimental impacts on our members' farms and ranches,
especially small- and medium-sized farms, as explained below. We
strongly urge Congress to include this critical provision in any farm
bill reauthorization to prevent an unworkable patchwork of 50
conflicting state laws throughout the country that snarl interstate
commerce.
Proposition 12, a 2018 California ballot measure, prohibits the
sale of pork, veal, and eggs produced from animals not housed according
to the state's arbitrary requirements. In May 2023, the U.S. Supreme
Court ruled that only Congress has the authority to step in and protect
American agriculture from regulatory chaos posed by laws such as
Proposition 12.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-468_5if6.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his recent testimony before the House Agriculture Committee,
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said, ``if we don't take this
issue [Proposition 12] seriously, we're going to have chaos in the
marketplace.'' \2\ Further reiterating to the Senate Agriculture
Committee, Vilsack said, ``if it [Congress] doesn't figure this out,
there is going to be chaos.'' He emphasized that ``farmers do not need
the chaos, they need clarity and certainty.'' \3\ Our organizations
could not agree more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-agriculture-
secretary-sees-chaos-meat-market-without-congressional-action-2024-02-
14/.
\3\ https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5107918/user-clip-02-28-24-
boozman-vilsack-prop-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without immediate Congressional action, agriculture is at risk of
arbitrary and conflicting state laws across all 50 states, on any
myriad of issues. This will most severely harm small- and medium-sized
farms by imposing massive compliance costs and forcing significant
consolidation throughout agriculture.
According to studies conducted by economists at North Carolina
State University and Iowa State University, constructing new,
Proposition 12-compliant barns can cost 40% more than traditional barns
and 25% more than conventional group housing, not including the
estimated 15% higher operating costs caused by reduced productivity.
These studies also indicate that compliance with Proposition 12 may be
more financially attainable for large, cost-advantaged farms who
benefit from higher profit margins, more favorable lending terms, and
economies of scale. With states free to impose their own requirements
on out-of-state producers, high compliance costs and the risk of ever-
changing regulations will force many small farms to decide between
exiting the business or entering into a production contract, resulting
in fewer, larger farms owning a greater portion of sows in the U.S.
Proposition 12 also poses a significant threat to our relationships
with long standing trading partners who have negotiated trade
agreements with the United States. Compliance with Proposition 12
threatens partners with loss of market access to the most populous
state in the union. Similarly, it undermines the ability of the United
States to negotiate trade agreements across the globe, as countries
could impose similar non-science based regional restrictions on U.S.
exports. Our organizations are also concerned Proposition 12 puts the
United States at risk of retaliatory action on American agricultural
products. This is not a hypothetical theory. The U.S. Government has
already notified the WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade about
the violation that Proposition 12 creates--to which Canada has already
raised concerns.4, 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ directdoc.aspx (wto.org).
\5\ https://www.canada.ca/en/agriculture-agri-food/news/2024/01/
minister-macaulay-concludes-productive-visit-to-washington-dc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some mistakenly believe producers have a choice and can choose not
to sell into the California market. However, when one state accounts
for almost 15% of the national market, this is a clear misunderstanding
of market segmentation and how agricultural markets operate. As
Secretary Vilsack explained before the Senate Agriculture Committee:
``there is not a choice between doing business with California and not
in California. You're essentially going to be driven by that
requirement.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5107918/user-clip-02-28-24-
boozman-vilsack-prop-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 12007 protects our nation's robust food supply chains and
the freedom of farmers across the country to raise food in the best way
possible. This approach also continues allowing states to act
independently, imposing laws that impact commerce within their borders
and regulating practices occurring there. California, and other states,
could continue to regulate pork production within their borders while
protecting the rights of other states to make their own determinations.
As the Supreme Court's decision and Secretary Vilsack made clear:
only Congress has the authority to prevent ``chaos'' in the marketplace
and provide farmers the certainty they need. If Congress fails to act,
the chaos from a segmented market will drive consolidation and force
American family farmers out of business, as the rest of agriculture
remains exposed. We ask Congress to address Proposition 12 in the
upcoming farm bill and urge you to ensure any farm bill reauthorization
provides certainty to producers and protects their investments from a
50 state compliance patchwork.
Sincerely,
National Organizations
Agricultural and Food Transporters National Lamb Feeders Association
Conference of American Trucking
Associations
American Farm Bureau Federation National Milk Producers Federation
American Sheep Industry Association National Pork Producers Council
Beef Alliance National Sorghum Producers
Livestock Marketing Association National Turkey Federation
National Cattlemen's Beef Rural & Agricultural Council of
Association America
National Corn Growers Association U.S. Cattlemen's Association
State Organizations
Alabama Nebraska (cont.)
Alabama Cattlemen's Association Garfield County Farm Bureau (NE)
Alabama Dairy Producers Greeley County Farm Bureau (NE)
Alabama Dept. of Agriculture & Hall County Farm Bureau (NE)
Industries
Alabama Farmers Federation Hamilton County Farm Bureau (NE)
Alabama Pork Producers Holt County Farm Bureau (NE)
Alabama Poultry Producers Howard County Farm Bureau (NE)
Autauga County Farmers Federation Jefferson County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Baldwin County Farmers Federation Johnson County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Barbour County Farmers Federation Kearney/Franklin County Farm Bureau
(AL) (NE)
Bibb County Farmers Federation (AL) Keith County Farm Bureau (NE)
Blount County Farmers Federation Lancaster County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Bullock County Farmers Federation Logan County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Butler County Farmers Federation Loup County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Calhoun County Farmers Federation Madison County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Chambers County Farmers Federation Merrick County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Cherokee County Farmers Federation Morrill County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Chilton County Farmers Federation Nance County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Choctaw County Farmers Federation Nuckolls County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Clarke County Farmers Federation Otoe County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Clay County Farmers Federation (AL) Pawnee County Farm Bureau (NE)
Cleburne County Farmers Federation Pierce County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Coffee County Farmers Federation Polk County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Colbert County Farmers Federation Richardson County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Conecuh County Farmers Federation Rock County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Coosa County Farmers Federation Saline County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Covington County Farmers Federation Saunders County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Crenshaw County Farmers Federation Scottsbluff County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Cullman County Farmers Federation Seward County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Dale County Farmers Federation (AL) Sherman/Valley County Farm Bureau
(NE)
Dallas County Farmers Federation Stanton County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Dekalb County Farmers Federation Thayer County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Elmore County Farmers Federation Thurston County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Escambia County Farmers Federation Washington County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Etowah County Farmers Federation Wayne County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Fayette County Farmers Federation Wheeler County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Franklin County Farmers Federation York County Farm Bureau (NE)
(AL)
Geneva County Farmers Federation Nevada
(AL)
Greene County Farmers Federation Nevada Cattlemen's Association
(AL)
Hale County Farmers Federation (AL) Nevada Farm Bureau Federation
Henry County Farmers Federation New Hampshire
(AL)
Houston County Farmers Federation New Hampshire Farm Bureau
(AL) Federation
Jackson County Farmers Federation Grafton County Farm Bureau (NH)
(AL)
Jefferson County Farmers Federation New Jersey
(AL)
Lamar County Farmers Federation New Jersey Farm Bureau Federation
(AL)
Lauderdale County Farmers New Mexico
Federation (AL)
Lawrence County Farmers Federation New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau
(AL)
Lee County Farmers Federation (AL) Chaves County Farm and Livestock
Bureau (NM)
Limestone County Farmers Federation Dona Ana County Farm and Livestock
(AL) Bureau (NM)
Lowndes County Farmers Federation Grant County Farm and Livestock
(AL) Bureau (NM)
Macon County Farmers Federation Roosevelt County Farm & Livestock
(AL) Bureau (NM)
Madison County Farmers Federation Santa Fe County Farm & Livestock
(AL) Bureau (NM)
Marengo County Farmers Federation Taos County Farm & Livestock Bureau
(AL) (NM)
Marion County Farmers Federation Torrance County Farm & Livestock
(AL) Bureau (NM)
Marshall County Farmers Federation Union County Farm and Livestock
(AL) Bureau (NM)
Mobile County Farmers Federation New York
(AL)
Monroe County Farmers Federation New York Beef Producers'
(AL) Association
Montgomery County Farmers New York Farm Bureau Federation
Federation (AL)
Morgan County Farmers Federation New York Pork Producers Co-op
(AL)
Perry County Farmers Federation Allegany County Farm Bureau (NY)
(AL)
Pickens County Farmers Federation Cattaraugus County Farm Bureau (NY)
(AL)
Pike County Farmers Federation (AL) Cayuga County Farm Bureau (NY)
Randolph County Farmers Federation Chemung County Farm Bureau (NY)
(AL)
Russell County Farmers Federation Ontario County Farm Bureau (NY)
(AL)
Shelby County Farm Bureau (AL) Schuyler Farm Bureau (NY)
Shelby County Farmers Federation Seneca County Farm Bureau (NY)
(AL)
St. Clair County Farmers Federation Steuben County Farm Bureau (NY)
(AL)
Sumter County Farmers Federation Yates County Farm Bureau (NY)
(AL)
Talladega County Farmers Federation North Carolina
(AL)
Tallapoosa County Farmers North Carolina Cattlemen's
Federation (AL) Association
Tuscaloosa County Farmers North Carolina Department of
Federation (AL) Agriculture & Consumer Services
Walker County Farmers Federation North Carolina Farm Bureau
(AL) Federation
Washington County Farmers North Carolina Livestock Auction
Federation (AL) Markets Association
Wilcox County Farmers Federation North Carolina Pork Council
(AL)
Winston County Farmers Federation North Dakota
(AL)
Arizona North Dakota Farm Bureau Federation
Arizona Cattle Feeders Association North Dakota Lamb and Wool
Producers Association
Arizona Farm Bureau Federation North Dakota Pork Council
Arizona Pork Council North Dakota Stockmen's Association
Apache County Farm Bureau (AZ) Ohio
Coconino County Farm Bureau (AZ) Ohio AgriBusiness Association
Graham County Farm Bureau (AZ) Ohio Cattlemen's Association
Greenlee County Farm Bureau (AZ) Ohio Dairy Producers Association
Maricopa County Farm Bureau (AZ) Ohio Farm Bureau Federation
Navajo County Farm Bureau (AZ) Ohio Pork Council
Yuma County Farm Bureau (AZ) Ohio Sheep Improvement Association
Arkansas AgCredit, ACA (OH)
Arkansas Farm Bureau Ashland County Farm Bureau (OH)
Arkansas Farm Bureau Poultry Ashtabula County Farm Bureau (OH)
Committee
Arkansas Pork Producers Association Brown County Farm Bureau (OH)
Benton County, Farm Bureau (AR) Butler County Farm Bureau (OH)
Boone County Farm Bureau (AR) Carroll County Farm Bureau (OH)
Carroll County Farm Bureau (AR) Champaign County Farm Bureau (OH)
Franklin County Farm Bureau (AR) Clark County Farm Bureau (OH)
Madison County Farm Bureau (AR) Clermont County Farm Bureau (OH)
Sebastian Farm Bureau (AR) Clinton County Farm Bureau (OH)
Washington County Farm Bureau (AR) Columbiana County (OH)
California Cuyahoga County Farm Bureau (OH)
California Wool Growers Association Defiance County Farm Bureau (OH)
California Pork Producers Delaware County Farm Bureau (OH)
Association
Colorado Fayette County Farm Bureau (OH)
Colorado Cattlemen's Association Franklin County Farm Bureau (OH)
Colorado Farm Bureau Fulton County Farm Bureau (OH)
Colorado Livestock Association Geauga County Farm Bureau (OH)
Colorado Pork Producers Council Greene County Farm Bureau (OH)
Colorado Wool Growers Association Hamilton County Farm Bureau (OH)
Otero County Farm Bureau (CO) Harrison County Farm Bureau (OH)
Connecticut Henry County Farm Bureau (OH)
Connecticut Farm Bureau Association Jefferson County Farm Bureau (OH)
Delaware Lake County Farm Bureau (OH)
Delaware Farm Bureau Logan County Fam Bureau (OH)
Delaware Pork Producers Association Madison County Farm Bureau (OH)
Sussex County Farm Bureau (DE) Mahoning County Farm Bureau (OH)
Kent County Farm Bureau (DE) Medina County Farm Bureau (OH)
New Castle County Farm Bureau (DE) Mercer County Farm Bureau (OH)
Florida Miami County Farm Bureau (OH)
Farm Credit of Northwest Florida Montgomery County Farm Bureau (OH)
Florida Association of Livestock Paulding County Farm Bureau (OH)
Markets
Florida Cattlemen's Association Portage County Farm Bureau (OH)
Florida Farm Bureau Federation Preble County Farm Bureau (OH)
The Meat Sheep Alliance of Florida Putnam County Farm Bureau (OH)
Bay County Farm Bureau (FL) Shelby County Farm Bureau (OH)
Bradford County Farm Bureau (FL) Stark County Farm Bureau (OH)
Clay County Farm Bureau (FL) Trumbull County Farm Bureau (OH)
Columbia County Farm Bureau (FL) Tuscarawas County Farm Bureau (OH)
Escambia County Farm Bureau (FL) Van Wert County Farm Bureau (OH)
Hamilton County Farm Bureau (FL) Warren County Farm Bureau (OH)
Levy County Farm Bureau (FL) Wayne County Farm Bureau (OH)
Sumter County Farm Bureau (FL) Williams County Farm Bureau (OH)
Washington County Farm Bureau (FL) Oklahoma
Georgia Oklahoma Farm Bureau Federation
Georgia Department of Agriculture Oklahoma Pork Council
Georgia Farm Bureau Caddo County Farm Bureau Federation
(OK)
Georgia Livestock Markets Canadian County Farm Bureau (Ok)
Association
Atkinson County Farm Bureau (GA) McClain County Farm Bureau (OK)
Barrow County Farm Bureau (GA) Okfuskee County Farm Bureau (OK)
Bartow County Farm Bureau (GA) Oklahoma County Farm Bureau (OK)
Ben Hill County Farm Bureau (GA) Okmulgee County Farm Bureau (OK)
Berrien County Farm Bureau (GA) Ottawa County Farm Bureau
Federation (OK)
Bibb County Farm Bureau (GA) Payne County Farm Bureau (OK)
Bulloch County Farm Bureau (GA) Pottawatomie County Farm Bureau
(OK)
Butts County Farm Bureau (GA) Pushmataha County Farm Bureau (OK)
Camden County Farm Bureau (GA) Roger Mills County Farm Bureau
Federation (OK)
Carroll County Farm Bureau (GA) Rogers County Farm Bureau (OK)
Catoosa County Farm Bureau (GA) Seminole County Farm Bureau (OK)
Chattooga County Farm Bureau (GA) Texas County Farm Bureau (OK)
Cherokee County Farm Bureau (GA) Tulsa County Farm Bureau (OK)
Clarke County Farm Bureau (GA) Washington County Farm Bureau (OK)
Cobb County Farm Bureau (GA) Woodward County Farm Bureau (OK)
Coffee County Farm Bureau (GA) Oregon
Columbia County Farm Bureau (GA) Oregon Cattlemen's Association
Cook County Farm Bureau (GA) Oregon Farm Bureau Federation
Crawford County Farm Bureau (GA) Oregon Pork Producers Association
Decatur County Farm Bureau (GA) Clatsop Farm Bureau (OR)
Dooly County Farm Bureau (GA) Coos-Curry County Farm Bureau (OR)
Dougherty County Farm Bureau (GA) Crook-Wheeler County Farm Bureau
(OR)
Douglas County Farm Bureau (GA) Deschutes County Farm Bureau (OR)
Echols County Farm Bureau (GA) Harney County Farm Bureau (OR)
Elbert County Farm Bureau (GA) Hood River County Farm Bureau
Federation (OR)
Emanuel County Farm Bureau (GA) Jackson County Farm Bureau (OR)
Evans County Farm Bureau (GA) Klamath Lake County Farm Bureau
(OR)
Floyd County Farm Bureau (GA) Linn County Farm Bureau (OR)
Forsyth County Farm Bureau (GA) Umatilla/Morrow County Farm Bureau
(OR)
Gilmer County Farm Bureau (GA) Wasco County Farm Bureau (OR)
Glascock County Farm Bureau (GA) Yamhill County Farm Bureau (OR)
Gordon County Farm Bureau (GA) Pennsylvania
Gwinnett County Farm Bureau (GA) Pennsylvania Farm Bureau Federation
Habersham County Farm Bureau (GA) Pennsylvania Livestock Auction
Association
Hall County Farm Bureau (GA) Adams County Farm Bureau (PA)
Hancock County Farm Bureau (GA) Armstrong County Farm Bureau (PA)
Harris County Farm Bureau (GA) Beaver/Lawrence County Farm Bureau
(PA)
Hart County Farm Bureau (GA) Bedford County Farm Bureau (PA)
Henry County Farm Bureau (GA) Berks County Farm Bureau (PA)
Irwin County Farm Bureau (GA) Blair County Farm Bureau (PA)
Jasper County Farm Bureau (GA) Bradford Sullivan County Farm
Bureau (PA)
Jeff Davis County Farm Bureau (GA) Butler County Farm Bureau (PA)
Jefferson County Farm Bureau (GA) Cambria County Farm Bureau (PA)
Jenkins County Farm Bureau (GA) Centre County Farm Bureau (PA)
Lanier County Farm Bureau (GA) Clarion Venango Forest County Farm
Bureau (PA)
Lincoln County Farm Bureau (GA) Clearfield County Farm Bureau (PA)
Long County Farm Bureau (GA) Clinton County Farm Bureau (PA)
Lowndes County Farm Bureau (GA) Columbia County Farm Bureau (PA)
Lumpkin County Farm Bureau (GA) Crawford County Farm Bureau (PA)
Macon County Farm Bureau (GA) Cumberland County Farm Bureau (PA)
Madison County Farm Bureau (GA) Dauphin County Farm Bureau (PA)
McDuffie County Farm Bureau (GA) Elk County Farm Bureau (PA)
Meriwether County Farm Bureau (GA) Erie County Farm Bureau Federation
(PA)
Morgan County Farm Bureau (GA) Fayette County Farm Bureau (PA)
Murray County Farm Bureau (GA) Franklin County Farm Bureau (PA)
Newton County Farm Bureau (GA) Fulton County Farm Bureau (PA)
North Fulton County Farm Bureau Greene County Farm Bureau (PA)
(GA)
Oconee County Farm Bureau (GA) Huntingdon County Farm Bureau (PA)
Oglethorpe County Farm Bureau (GA) Indiana County Farm Bureau (PA)
Peach County Farm Bureau (GA) Juniata County Farm Bureau (PA)
Pickens County Farm Bureau (GA) Lancaster County Farm Bureau (PA)
Pierce County Farm Bureau (GA) Lehigh County Farm Bureau (PA)
Polk County Farm Bureau (GA) Luzerne County Farm Bureau (PA)
Putnam County Farm Bureau (GA) Lycoming County Farm Bureau (PA)
Rabun County Farm Bureau (GA) Mckean/Potter/Cameron County Farm
Bureau (PA)
Screven County Farm Bureau (GA) Mercer County Farm Bureau (PA)
South Fulton County Farm Bureau Mifflin County Farm Bureau (PA)
(GA)
Spalding County Farm Bureau (GA) Montour County Farm Bureau (PA)
Thomas County Farm Bureau (GA) Northampton/Monroe County Farm
Bureau (PA)
Toombs County Farm Bureau (GA) Northumberland County Farm Bureau
(PA)
Union County Farm Bureau (GA) Schuylkill/Carbon County Farm
Bureau (PA)
Walker County Farm Bureau (GA) Snyder County Farm Bureau (PA)
Walton county Farm Bureau (GA) Somerset County Farm Bureau (PA)
Warren County Farm Bureau (GA) Susquehanna County Farm Bureau (PA)
Wayne County Farm Bureau (GA) Tioga/Potter County Farm Bureau
(PA)
Wilkes County Farm Bureau (GA) Union County Farm Bureau (PA)
Hawaii Warren County Farm Bureau (PA)
Hawaii Sheep and Goat Association Washington County Farm Bureau (PA)
Hawaii Pork Industry Association Wayne/Pike County Farm Bureau (PA)
Idaho Westmoreland County Farm Bureau
(PA)
Idaho Farm Bureau Federation Wyoming Lackawanna County Farm
Bureau (PA)
Idaho Wool Growers Association York County Farm Bureau (PA)
Bear Lake County Farm Bureau (ID) South Carolina
Benewah County Farm Bureau (ID) South Carolina Farm Bureau
Bingham County Farm Bureau (ID) South Carolina Livestock Auction
Markets Association
Bonner County Farm Bureau (ID) South Dakota
Caribou County Farm Bureau South Dakota Cattlemen's
Federation (ID) Association
Clearwater/Lewis County Farm Bureau South Dakota Farm Bureau Federation
(ID)
Custer County Farm Bureau (ID) South Dakota Pork Producers Council
Elmore County Farm Bureau (ID) South Dakota Sheep Growers
Franklin County Farm Bureau (ID) Tennessee
Fremont County Farm Bureau (ID) Tennessee Cattlemen's Association
Gem County Farm Bureau (ID) Tennessee Farm Bureau Federation
Idaho County Farm Bureau (ID) Tennessee Pork Producers
Association
Jefferson County Farm Bureau (ID) Tennessee Sheep Producers
Association
Jerome County Farm Bureau (ID) Knox County Farm Bureau (TN)
Lemhi County Farm Bureau (ID) Texas
Madison County Farm Bureau (ID) Texas Cattle Feeders Association
Minidoka County Farm Bureau (ID) Texas Farm Bureau Federation
Nez Perce County Farm Bureau (ID) Texas Pork Producers Association
Oneida County Farm Bureau (ID) Texas Sheep & Goat Raisers'
Association
Payette County Farm Bureau (ID) Anderson County Farm Bureau (TX)
Power County Farm Bureau (ID) Angelina County Farm Bureau (TX)
Teton County Farm Bureau (ID) Archer County Farm Bureau (TX)
Valley/Adams Farm Bureau (ID) Atascosa County Farm Bureau (TX)
Illinois Austin County Farm Bureau (TX)
Illinois Beef Association Bailey County Farm Bureau (TX)
Illinois Corn Growers Association Bandera County Farm Bureau (TX)
Illinois Farm Bureau Federation Baylor County Farm Bureau (TX)
Illinois Pork Producers Association Bexar County Farm Bureau (TX)
Illinois Soybean Growers Bowie County Farm Bureau (TX)
Farm Credit Illinois Brazoria-Galvestion County Farm
Bureau (TX)
Calhoun County Farm Bureau (IL) Brown County Farm Bureau (TX)
Carroll County Farm Bureau (IL) Callahan Shackelford County Farm
Bureau (TX)
Cass-Morgan Farm Bureau (IL) Cameron County Farm Bureau (TX)
Champaign County Farm Bureau (IL) Cherokee County Farm Bureau (TX)
Christian County Farm Bureau (IL) Childress County Farm Bureau (TX)
Coles County Farm Bureau Federation Clay County Farm Bureau (TX)
(IL)
Cook County Farm Bureau (IL) Cochran County Farm Bureau (TX)
Crawford County Farm Bureau (IL) Coke-Sterling County Farm Bureau
(TX)
DeKalb County Farm Bureau (IL) Coleman County Farm Bureau (TX)
DeWitt County Farm Bureau (IL) Collin County Farm Bureau (TX)
Douglas County Farm Bureau (IL) Comanche County Farm Bureau (TX)
DuPage County Farm Bureau (IL) Cooke County Farm Burrau (TX)
Edwards County Farm Bureau (IL) Coryell County Farm Bureau (TX)
Effingham County Farm Bureau (IL) Crosby County Farm Bureau (TX)
Franklin County Farm Bureau (IL) Dawson County Farm Bureau (TX)
Gallatin County Farm Bureau (IL) Deaf Smith/Oldham Farm Bureau (TX)
Hamilton County Farm Bureau (IL) Denton County Farm Bureau (TX)
Hancock County Farm Bureau (IL) El Paso County Farm Bureau (TX)
Henry County Farm Bureau (IL) Erath County Farm Bureau (TX)
Jackson County Farm Bureau (IL) Falls County Farm Bureau (TX)
Jefferson County Farm Bureau (IL) Fayette County Farm Bureau (TX)
Johnson County Farm Bureau (IL) Fisher County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kane County Farm Bureau (IL) Foard County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kankakee County Farm Bureau (IL) Fort Bend County Farm Bureau (TX)
Knox County Farm Bureau (IL) Frio County Farm Bureau (TX)
Lake County Farm Bureau (IL) Gaines County Farm Bureau (TX)
LaSalle County Farm Bureau (IL) Gray/Robert's Farm Bureau (TX)
Lee County Farm Bureau (IL) Grayson County Farm Bureau (TX)
Macon County Farm Bureau (IL) Guadalupe County Farm Bureau (TX)
Macoupin County Farm Bureau (IL) Hale County Farm Bureau (TX)
Madison County Farm Bureau (IL) Hamilton County Farm Bureau (TX)
Marshall-Putnam Farm Bureau (IL) Hansford County Farm Bureau (TX)
Mason County Farm Bureau (IL) Hardin County Farm Bureau (TX)
Massac County Farm Bureau (IL) Harris County Farm Bureau (TX)
McDonough County Farm Bureau (IL) Hemphill County Farm Bureau (TX)
McLean County Farm Bureau (IL) Henderson County Farm Bureau (TX)
Menard County Farm Bureau Hill County Farm Bureau (TX)
Federation (IL)
Mercer County Farm Bureau Hockley County Farm Bureau (TX)
Federation (IL)
Moultrie County Farm Bureau (IL) Hopkins Rains County Farm Bureau
(TX)
Ogle County Farm Bureau (IL) Howard County Farm Bureau (TX)
Peoria County Farm Bureau (IL) Hunt County Farm Bureau (TX)
Perry County Farm Bureau Federation Jack County Farm Bureau (TX)
(IL)
Piatt County Farm Bureau (IL) Jackson County Farm Bureau (TX)
Pike-Scott Farm Bureau (IL) Jasper County Farm Bureau (TX)
Pulaski-Alexander Farm Bureau (IL) Jim Wells County Farm Bureau (TX)
Richland County Farm Bureau (IL) Johnson County Farm Bureau (TX)
Rock Island County Farm Bureau (IL) Karnes County Farm Bureau (TX)
Saline County Farm Bureau (IL) Kaufman County Farm Bureau (TX)
Sangamon County Farm Bureau (IL) Kerr County Farm Bureau (TX)
Schuyler County Farm Bureau (IL) Kimble County Farm Bureau (TX)
St. Clair County Farm Bureau (IL) Kinney-Val Verde County Farm Bureau
(TX)
Stark County Farm Bureau (IL) Lamb County Farm Bureau (TX)
Stephenson County Farm Bureau (IL) Lampasas County Farm Bureau (TX)
Tazewell County Farm Bureau (IL) LaSalle County Farm Bureau (TX)
Union County Farm Bureau (IL) Leon County Farm Bureau (TX)
Vermilion County Farm Bureau (IL) Liberty County Farm Bureau (TX)
Wabash County Farm Bureau (IL) Limestone County Farm Bureau (TX)
Warren-Henderson County Farm Bureau Lipscomb County Farm Bureau (TX)
(IL)
Washington County Farm Bureau (IL) Live Oak County Farm Bureau (TX)
White County Farm Bureau Federation Lubbock County Farm Bureau (TX)
(IL)
Will County Farm Bureau (IL) Lynn/Garza County Farm Bureau (TX)
Williamson County Farm Bureau (IL) Martin County Farm Bureau (TX)
Winnebago-Boone Farm Bureau (IL) Mason County Farm Bureau (TX)
Woodford County Farm Bureau (IL) Matagorda County Farm Bureau (TX)
Indiana Maverick County Farm Bureau (TX)
Agri-Business Council McCulloch County Farm Bureau (TX)
Indiana Beef Cattle Association McLennan County Farm Bureau (TX)
Indiana Corn Growers Association Medina County Farm Bureau (TX)
Indiana Dairy Producers Midland County Farm Bureau (TX)
Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc. Mills County Farm Bureau (TX)
Indiana Pork Producers Association Mitchell County Farm Bureau (TX)
Indiana Sheep Association Montague County Farm Bureau (TX)
Indiana Soybean Alliance Montgomery County Farm Bureau (TX)
Fayette County Farm Bureau (IN) Nacogdoches County Farm Bureau (TX)
Franklin County Farm Bureau (IN) Navarro County Farm Bureau (TX)
Grant County Farm Bureau (IN) Nueces County Farm Bureau (TX)
Howard County Farm Bureau (IN) Palo Pinto County Farm Bureau (TX)
Jefferson County Farm Bureau (IN) Parker County Farm Bureau (TX)
Johnson County Farm Bureau (IN) Parmer County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kosciusko County Farm Bureau (IN) Pecos Reeves County Farm Bureau
(TX)
Perry County Farm Bureau (IN) Polk County Farm Bureau (TX)
Warren County Farm Bureau (IN) Refugio County Farm Bureau (TX)
Warrick County Farm Bureau (IN) Robertson County Farm Bureau (TX)
Iowa Rockwall County Farm Bureau (TX)
Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Rusk County Farm Bureau (TX)
Iowa Cattlemen's Association San Jacinto County Farm Bureau (TX)
Iowa Corn Growers Association Wilbarger County Farm Bureau (TX)
Iowa Farm Bureau Federation San Patricio County Farm Bureau
(TX)
Iowa Pork Producers Association Scurry-Stonewall-Kent County Farm
Bureau (TX)
Kansas Shelby County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kansas Farm Bureau Federation Starr County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kansas Livestock Association Stephen's County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kansas Pork Association Terry County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kentucky Titus County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kentucky Cattlemen's Association Tom Green County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kentucky Farm Bureau Federation Travis County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kentucky Pork Producers Association Van Zandt County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kentucky Poultry Federation Victoria County Farm Bureau (TX)
Kentucky Sheep and Wool Producers Walker County Farm Bureau (TX)
Association, Inc.
Kentucky Soybean Association Waller County Farm Bureau (TX)
Louisiana Washington County Farm Bureau (TX)
Louisiana Department of Agriculture Webb County Farm Bureau (TX)
and Forestry
Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation Wheeler County Farm Bureau (TX)
Calcasieu Parish Farm Bureau (LA) Wichita County Farm Bureau (TX)
Cameron Parish Farm Bureau (LA) Willacy county Farm Bureau (TX)
East St. James Farm Bureau (LA) Wise County Farm Bureau (TX)
St. Helena Parish Farm Bureau (LA) Young County Farm Bureau (TX)
Vermilion Parish Farm Bureau Zavala County Farm Bureau (TX)
Federation (LA)
Maryland Utah
Maryland Farm Bureau Federation Utah Farm Bureau Federation
Maryland Pork Producers Association Beaver County Farm Bureau (UT)
Maryland Sheep Breeders Association Utah Pork Producers Association
Anne Arundel County Farm Bureau Cache County Farm Bureau (UT)
(MD)
Baltimore County Farm Bureau (MD) Davis County Farm Bureau (UT)
Carroll County Farm Bureau (MD) Duchesne Farm Bureau (UT)
Cecil County Farm Bureau (MD) Emery County Farm Bureau (UT)
Harford County Farm Bureau (MD) Iron County Farm Bureau (UT)
Howard County Farm Bureau (MD) Morgan County Farm Bureau (UT)
Michigan North Box Elder County Tremonton
(UT)
Michigan Cattlemen's Association Piute County Farm Bureau (UT)
Michigan Corn Growers Association Salt Lake County Farm Bureau (UT)
Michigan Farm Bureau Federation Sanpete County Farm Bureau (UT)
Michigan Pork Producers Association South Box County Farm Bureau (UT)
Michigan Soybean Association Summit County Farm Bureau (UT)
Allegan County Farm Bureau (MI) Tooele County Farm Bureau (UT)
Bay County Farm Bureau (MI) Uintah County Farm Bureau (UT)
Berrien County Farm Bureau (MI) Weber County Farm Bureau (UT)
Calhoun County Farm Bureau (MI) Virginia
Cass County Farm Bureau (MI) Virginia Farm Bureau
Cheboygan County Farm Bureau (MI) Virginia Livestock Markets
Association
Clinton County Farm Bureau (MI) Virginia Pork Council
Genesee County Farm Bureau (MI) Albemarle County Farm Bureau (VA)
Gratiot County Farm Bureau (MI) Amherst County Farm Bureau (VA)
GreenStone Farm Credit Services Appomattox County Farm Bureau (VA)
(MI)
Hiawathaland Farm Bureau (MI) Augusta County Farm Bureau (VA)
Hillsdale County Farm Bureau (MI) Bedford County Farm Bureau (VA)
Ingham County Farm Bureau (MI) Bland County Farm Bureau (VA)
Ionia County Farm Bureau (MI) Botetourt County Farm Bureau (VA)
Iron County Farm Bureau (MI) Brunswick County Farm Bureau (VA)
Jackson County Farm Bureau (MI) Buckingham County Farm Bureau (VA)
Kalamazoo County Farm Bureau (MI) Campbell County Farm Bureau (VA)
Kent County Farm Bureau (MI) Caroline County Farm Bureau (VA)
Lenawee County Farm Bureau (MI) Carroll County Farm Bureau (VA)
Livingston County Farm Bureau (MI) Charles City-James City-New Kent-
York County Farm Bureau (VA)
Mecosta County Farm Bureau (MI) Charlotte County Farm Bureau (VA)
Montcalm County Farm Bureau (MI) Chesapeake Farm Bureau (VA)
Newaygo County Farm Bureau (MI) Chesterfield County Farm Bureau
(VA)
Oceana County Farm Bureau (MI) Clarke County Farm Bureau (VA)
Osceola County Farm Bureau (MI) Craig County Farm Bureau (VA)
Ottawa County Farm Bureau (MI) Culpeper County Farm Bureau (VA)
Shiawassee County Farm Bureau (MI) Dinwiddie County Farm Bureau (VA)
St. Clair County Farm Bureau (MI) Essex County Farm Bureau (VA)
St. Joseph County Farm Bureau (MI) Fauquier County Farm Bureau (VA)
Van Buren County Farm Bureau (MI) Floyd County Farm Bureau (VA)
Minnesota Fluvanna County Farm Bureau (VA)
Minnesota Agri-Growth Council Franklin County Farm Bureau (VA)
Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation Frederick County Farm Bureau (VA)
Minnesota Lamb & Wool Producers Giles County Farm Bureau (VA)
Association
Minnesota Milk Producers Gloucester-Mathews Farm Bureau (VA)
Association
Minnesota Pork Producers Grayson County Farm Bureau (VA)
Association
Minnesota State Cattlemen's Greene County Farm Bureau (VA)
Association
Minnesota Turkey Growers Greensville County Farm Bureau (VA)
Association
Arrowhead Regional Farm Bureau (MN) Halifax County Farm Bureau (VA)
Beltrami County Farm Bureau (MN) Hanover County Farm Bureau (VA)
Blue Earth County Farm Bureau (MN) Henry County Farm Bureau (VA)
Brown County Farm Bureau (MN) Highland-Bath County Farm Bureau
(VA)
Carver County Farm Bureau (MN) Isle of Wight County Farm Bureau
(VA)
Cass County Farm Bureau (MN) King & Queen County Farm Bureau
(VA)
Chisago County Farm Bureau (MN) King George County Farm Bureau (VA)
Clay County Farm Bureau (MN) King William County Farm Bureau
(VA)
Cottonwood County Farm Bureau (MN) Lee County Farm Bureau (VA)
Dakota County Farm Bureau (MN) Louisa County Farm Bureau (VA)
Dodge County Farm Bureau (MN) Lunenburg County Farm Bureau (VA)
East Polk County Farm Bureau (MN) Madison County Farm Bureau (VA)
Faribault County Farm Bureau (MN) Mecklenburg County Farm Bureau (VA)
Fillmore County Farm Bureau (MN) Middlesex County Farm Bureau (VA)
Freeborn County Farm Bureau (MN) Montgomery County Farm Bureau (VA)
Goodhue County Farm Bureau (MN) Nansemond County Farm Bureau (VA)
Headwaters Regional Farm Bureau Nelson County Farm Bureau (VA)
(MN)
Hennepin County Farm Bureau (MN) Northampton County Farm Bureau (VA)
Houston County Farm Bureau (MN) Nothumberland-Lancaster County Farm
Bureau (VA)
Huron County Farm Bureau (MN) Nottoway County Farm Bureau (VA)
Jackson County Farm Bureau Page County Farm Bureau (VA)
Federation (MN)
Lyon County Farm Bureau (MN) Patrick County Farm Bureau (VA)
Martin County Farm Bureau (MN) Pittsylvania County Farm Bureau
(VA)
McLeod County Farm Bureau (MN) Powhatan County Farm Bureau (VA)
Mower County Farm Bureau (MN) Prince Edward County Farm Bureau
(VA)
Nicollet County Farm Bureau (MN) Prince George County Farm Bureau
(VA)
Olmsted County Farm Bureau (MN) Prince William-Fairfax Farm Bureau
(VA)
Scott County Farm Bureau (MN) Pulaski County Farm Bureau (VA)
Sibley County Farm Bureau (MN) Rappahannock County Farm Bureau
(VA)
Stearns County Farm Bureau (MN) Richmond County Farm Bureau (VA)
Steele County Farm Bureau (MN) Roanoke County Farm Bureau (VA)
Swift County Farm Bureau (MN) Rockbridge County Farm Bureau (VA)
Todd County Farm Bureau (MN) Rockingham County Farm Bureau (VA)
Wabasha County Farm Bureau (MN) Russell County Farm Bureau (VA)
Washington-Ramsey County Farm Scott County Farm Bureau (VA)
Bureau (MN)
Winona County Farm Bureau (MN) Shenandoah County Farm Bureau (VA)
Mississippi Smyth County Farm Bureau (VA)
Mississippi Cattlemen's Association Southampton County Farm Bureau (VA)
Mississippi Department of Stafford County Farm Bureau (VA)
Agriculture and Commerce
Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation Surry County Farm Bureau (VA)
Mississippi Pork Producers Sussex County Farm Bureau (VA)
Association
Missouri Tazewell County Farm Bureau (VA)
South Central Cattlemen's Virginia Beach Farm Bureau (VA)
Association (MO)
Missouri Farm Bureau Federation Warren County Farm Bureau (VA)
Missouri Pork Association Washington County Farm Bureau (VA)
Missouri Sheep Producers Wise-Dickenson County Farm Bureau
(VA)
Missouri Department of Agriculture Wythe County Farm Bureau (VA)
Montana Washington
Montana Farm Bureau Federation Washington Cattle Feeders
Association
Montana Pork Producers Council West Virginia
Montana Stockgrowers Association West Virginia Livestock Marketing
Association
Nebraska Wisconsin
Nebraska Cattlemen Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation
Nebraska Corn Growers Association Wisconsin Pork Association
Nebraska Department of Agriculture Dairy Business Association
Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation Clark County Farm Bureau (WI)
Nebraska Pork Producers Association Door County Farm Bureau (WI)
Nebraska Sheep and Goat Producers Dunn County Farm Bureau (WI)
Association
Nebraska Soybean Association Langlade County Farm Bureau (WI)
Nebraska State Dairy Association Lincoln County Farm Bureau (WI)
Boone County Farm Bureau (NE) Marathon County Farm Bureau (WI)
Box Butte County Farm Bureau (NE) Marinette County Farm Bureau (WI)
Boyd County Farm Bureau (NE) Marquette County Farm Bureau (WI)
Brown County Farm Bureau (NE) Monroe County Farm Bureau (WI)
Buffalo County Farm Bureau (NE) Outagamie County Farm Bureau (WI)
Burt County Farm Bureau (NE) Price County Farm Bureau (WI)
Butler County Farm Bureau (NE) Racine County Farm Bureau (WI)
Cedar County Farm Bureau (NE) Shawano County Farm Bureau (WI)
Cherry County Farm Bureau (NE) Taylor County Farm Bureau (WI)
Clay County Farm Bureau (NE) Waukesha County Farm Bureau (WI)
Colfax County Farm Bureau (NE) Waupaca County Farm Bureau (WI)
Cuming County Farm Bureau (NE) Waushara County Farm Bureau (WI)
Custer County Farm Bureau (NE) Wood County Farm Bureau (WI)
Dawes County Farm Bureau (NE) Wyoming
Dixon County Farm Bureau (NE) Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation
Douglas County Farm Bureau (NE)
Fillmore County Farm Bureau (NE)
Frontier County Farm Bureau (NE)
Additional Organizations
APC Proteins (IA) Georgia Energy Propane
ASI Women Hillcrest Farms Inc in Dearing (GA)
Automated Production Huvepharma, Inc. (MO)
Big D Ranch JYGA Tech USA (KS)
Colonial Farm Credit, ACA (MD/VA) Landwehr Land & Cattle
Compeer Financial MetaFarms (MN)
Cool Spring Cattle (GA) Phillips Farms
Crow Land & Cattle Professional Swine Management (IL)
Pork LLC (IA) Standard Nutrition Company (NE)
Dairy (PA) Steven and Meg Williams Farm, LLC
Edge Dairy Farmer Cooperative (WI) Weisinger Farms (IA)
Elanco Animal Health Wiechman Pig Company, Inc. (NE)
Farm Credit Mid-America
CC: Members of the House Agriculture Committee
Letter 3
July 18, 2025
Hon. Glenn Thompson, Hon. Angie Craig,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig:
I write on behalf of Livestock Marketing Association (LMA) to
support efforts to address the negative impact of California's
Proposition 12 on production agriculture. As you are aware, LMA
represents more than 80 percent of the regularly selling local
livestock auction markets across the United States, as well as other
livestock marketing businesses. Each of our member markets sell
livestock for hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of livestock
producers.
In recent years, we have become concerned with a trend of producers
stepping away from livestock production without new producers coming
behind them. Agriculture is not optional. America's food chain is only
as strong as our family farms and ranches. Freedom to operate and
certainty of requirements are fundamental to the future viability of
livestock producers.
This needed certainty is jeopardized by California's Proposition
12, a 2018 California ballot measure that prohibits the sale of pork,
veal, and eggs produced from animals not housed according to the
state's requirements, regardless of in which state the livestock were
raised.
Livestock producers worry about the precedent this could set for
the future. Additional states creating their own specifications would
lead to a patchwork of requirements that would be impossible to
navigate. Additionally, there are significant costs associated with
complying with new requirements, which would be disproportionally
challenging on smaller producers.
We appreciate the leadership of the House Agriculture Committee in
including Section 12007--Ensuring the Free Movement of Livestock
Derived Products in Interstate Commerce--in the Farm, Food, and
National Security Act of 2024 (H.R. 8467), passed out of Committee in
May 2024. Unfortunately, this legislation did not advance out of the
House of Representatives during the 118th Congress.
We urge Congress to include a similar provision in any farm bill
reauthorization to prevent an unworkable patchwork of 50 conflicting
state laws. Thank you again for your commitment to American agriculture
and ensuring producers have the certainty needed to succeed.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mike VanMaanen,
LMA President.
______
Submitted by Statement Hon. Austin Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia; on Behalf of American Veterinary Medical Association
On behalf of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA),
which represents over 108,000 veterinarians across the United States,
we thank you for the opportunity to provide our views regarding
California's Proposition 12 (Prop 12).
In a 2018 ballot initiative, California voters passed Prop 12,
which prohibits sales of animal products in their state that do not
comply with specific livestock housing requirements, whether those
products are produced in California or elsewhere. The requirements in
Prop 12 are not scientifically based, have not been objectively
demonstrated to reliably and consistently improve animal welfare, and
may unintentionally cause harm. Any regulations aimed at improving the
welfare of animals should be based upon scientific evidence and the
professional judgement of veterinarians.
In addition, allowing one state to dictate husbandry requirements
to other states not only interferes with interstate commerce, but opens
the door for future governance of all states by an individual state.
The resulting convoluted patchwork of regulations would be cumbersome
and cost prohibitive for veterinarians and their clients to navigate.
Ensuring good animal health and welfare requires a veterinarian to have
the freedom and authority to recommend the best course of action for
each unique situation.
Veterinarians have scientific training and expertise that allows
them to provide the best possible care for animals living in a range of
housing types. AVMA is opposed to Prop 12, which restricts
veterinarians' flexibility to provide the best care possible based on
animals' specific needs. We urge Congress to address the numerous
challenges presented by Prop 12 and protect veterinarians' ability to
maximize animal health and welfare.
______
Submitted by Letter Hon. Randy Feenstra, a Representative in Congress
from Iowa; on Behalf of Blake Edler, E 2 Farm LLC
Dear Mr. Brandt,
Thank you for the opportunity to share how Proposition 12 is
impacting my operation. I greatly appreciate Congressman Feenstra's
continued leadership on this issue.
I am not Prop 12 compliant, but I am currently operating under open
pen gestation (OPG)--a housing method that is essentially a scaled-down
version of Prop 12. While OPG was introduced with welfare intentions,
in practice, it has resulted in serious animal health and management
challenges. Expanding to full Prop 12 compliance would only exacerbate
these problems and threaten the survival of family farms like mine.
Here are the key impacts we're facing:
1. Decreased Animal Welfare:
Group gestation housing--whether OPG or Prop 12--increases
aggression, stress, and death loss. When sows are forced to
establish a pecking order, we see more injuries, more
abortions, and more long-term stress. This isn't animal
welfare--it's a government--mandated fight club. The system
works against animal health, not for it.
2. No Ability to Provide Individualized Care:
In group systems, it's nearly impossible to isolate sows that
need medical treatment or special diets, or even to monitor
them closely. The design removes our ability to provide
individualized care, and any producer who's been in a pen
of aggressive sows knows how dangerous it can be--for both
animals and people.
3. Infrastructure Costs Are Devastating:
Transitioning from OPG to Prop 12-compliant facilities would
require millions in capital investment--costs that are
simply unaffordable. Family farms cannot survive under
these mandates, and many of us will be forced to close or
sell to large integrators. This is not about welfare--it's
about wiping out small producers.
4. Increased Labor in a Shrinking Workforce:
Group housing systems require more labor, especially when
you're constantly managing injuries, sow dynamics, and
welfare breakdowns. But rural labor is already scarce. Prop
12 expects us to do more with fewer hands, and it's not
realistic or sustainable.
5. No Market Incentive-Only Losses:
Even if we could meet Prop 12 standards, there's no real market
premium. Retailers don't pay enough to offset the increased
cost of infrastructure, labor, and death loss. In fact,
compliance would increase financial losses, not reduce
them. There's no viable economic path forward under these
regulations.
I urge the Committee to understand that policies like Prop 12 do
not reflect science-based animal husbandry. They punish responsible
farmers, degrade animal care, and accelerate industry consolidation.
Thank you for the opportunity to share this perspective and for
continuing to fight for common sense in agriculture policy.
Sincerely,
Blake Edler,
E 2 Farm LLC.
______
Submitted Letters by Hon. Randy Feenstra, a Representative in Congress
from Iowa
Letter 1
Representative Feenstra,
I am writing this in hopes to convince you to continue to push for
a legislative fix for California Prop 12.
As you know, I am a farrow to finish producer from your district.
The century farm in which I am a part owner has already been impacted
by this over reaching out of state law. We previously were able to sell
market hogs to a packer in California. Since this legislation had gone
into effect, we have been locked out of this market. This limiting of
market opportunities has impacted each of the four families invested in
our operation.
Our scale does not allow us make the necessary $2,000 per sow
investment to meet these requirements. As independent producers the
regulations are causing us to have serious discussions about the future
of our swine operation.
Please continue to work for a legislative fix to this issue.
Tim Schmidt,
Hawarden, IA.
Letter 2
To Whom It May Concern:
We own and operate a family farm in northwest Iowa, raising wean-
to-finish pigs. Dean and I are proud to have our two sons farming
alongside us. Together, they also own shares in a sow unit in Kansas.
When the time came for a major renovation, they explored what it
would take to make the sow farm Proposition 12 compliant.
Unfortunately, the numbers simply didn't work for a farm our size. To
comply, they would have had to reduce sow numbers by roughly 33% or
more. That kind of cut would create a domino effect across our entire
operation--driving up the cost per pig dramatically, increasing labor
and input expenses, and leaving empty spaces in our nurseries and
finishing barns.
At the end of the day, complying with Prop 12 would have made it
impossible for our family farm to remain sustainable long-term. So, we
made the difficult decision not to pursue Prop 12 compliance.
We are both fifth-generation pig farmers, have been raising pigs
most of our lives and understand what it takes to keep animals healthy
and well cared for. Evidence-based research shows Prop 12 does not
improve pig health, and it also puts the caretakers working in these
barns at a higher risk of injury.
We care deeply about the people who buy our pork. Our goal has
always been to produce a nutritious, flavorful, and affordable product
for families across the country. If farms like ours are forced to
comply with Prop 12, it will drive food costs higher and make pork less
affordable for everyone.
For the sake of family farms and American consumers, we urge
policymakers: Stop Prop 12. Let us keep pork affordable and accessible
for all.
Thank you,
Dean & Linda Schroeder, Iowa pork farmers.
Letter 3
Hello,
My name is Harvey Williams, and I am responding to a request for
letters from producers about the negative impacts Proposition 12 has
had on the swine industry. I have worked in the industry on both the
integrated side and now on the independent producer side. Proposition
12 can have a negative impact on any size swine operation. Below are a
few examples of personal experiences where Proposition 12 has affected
myself or fellow producers in my area.
There have been several family/independent farrowing operations
that have had to shut down because of the burdensome cost of becoming
Prop 12 compliant. These operations have already had to struggle with
tough markets and health issues in their herd. It was simply not
realistic to either expand their current building size or decrease the
number of sows to fit the Prop 12 standards. Producers had to make the
tough choice of continuing to farrow pigs with no Prop 12 premium,
close the doors of the farrowing unit, or retrofit their farrowing unit
into another style of operation.
With the decreased number of farrowing operations, large integrated
operations replaced the gap of local wean pigs available in the
industry. Large farrowing operations in the Midwest, Carolinas, and
Canada were able to afford the cost of becoming Prop 12 compliant. This
raised the prices of open market wean pigs which put another strain on
producers. The worst part is producers that are paying a higher price
for a Prop 12 compliant wean pig but are not getting a premium at the
packing plant for this same pig. Larger operations that were able to
become Prop 12 compliant filled most of the marketing contracts for the
added premium. Now there is another challenge of raising a Prop 12
compliant pig for an increased price but not getting any market
incentive for that pig.
Overall, Proposition 12 and Question 3 have had and will continue
to have a negative impact on the industry. Family farms are struggling
to follow standards created by non-consumers in other states that are
not science-based. If legislation is not created to prevent a patchwork
of state interstate-commerce restrictions, then we will not be able to
stop the snowball effect. This will spiral out of control and make it
even more difficult for an already struggling industry.
Sincerely,
Harvey Williams
Letter 4
July 16, 2025
Hon. Randy Feenstra,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Representative, Feenstra,
I am writing to share the negative impact that California
Proposition 12 has had on pork producers.
Pork producers have faced some of the worst economic times in 2023
and 2024. The economic losses were significant. During that same time
producers were faced with cost of complying with Proposition 12
requirements. This has created a significant negative economic impact
on pork producers.
Proposition 12 will also drive family farms out of business.
Because of the compliance cost and the return on investment, this will
force family farms out of business. The cost to renovate a swine farm
is about $2,000 per sow. Will drive producers out of business.
Finally, pork producers are committed to the well-being and care of
their animals. This proposition does nothing to ensure that animals
have better well-being.
We need a legislative fix to this issue.
Aaron Juergens,
President,
Iowa Pork Producers Association.
Letter 5
July 17, 2025
I am writing to you today in strong support of addressing in the
House farm bill the challenges posed by Proposition 12. It is crucial
for the stability of agricultural producers like me who are committed
to ensuring access to safe and affordable protein for all. The Trump
Administration and House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson
recognize the potential chaos that Proposition 12 may create in the
marketplace if not addressed. It is imperative for Congress to retain
the Federal fix to Proposition 12 in the farm bill to provide much-
needed stability.
Following the implementation of California Proposition 12, my
family has experienced firsthand the disruption caused by arbitrary
state regulations, especially within the U.S. pork industry. At a time
when food prices are on the rise, such propositions and the possibility
of similar ones in the future will place unfair burdens on hardworking
American families and lead to even higher prices. The price of pork in
California has gone up 20-40% since Prop 12 full implementation January
1, 2024.
Our family farm is not Proposition 12 compliant and the price to
convert is millions of dollars. We are still recovering financially
from 18 months of the worst economic times in the pig industry. Pig
farmers take top-notch care of their animals every day and Prop 12 does
not improve the care of animals. It is just a step towards a meat-free
society that does not want animal agriculture--this is the ultimate
goal of the groups that funded the California Prop 12 ballot
initiative. This patchwork will lead to other drastic measures in the
future. It is interesting to note that California Farm Bureau reports
that it takes $100 million to defeat or win a state-wide ballot measure
in California--that makes it nearly impossible for small groups with
little funding to have a voice and make a difference in the process.
Last year, I visited California on a Farm Bureau trip and while at
a Raley's grocery store, we talked to a butcher. He said that consumers
are asking why has pork gotten more expensive--they didn't even
remember what Prop 12 is. I compared a 16 oz package of Hormel Black
label bacon and the cost was $10.99 in California. In my home town in
Iowa it was $4.99, less than half the cost. That price difference is
staggering and will weigh heavily on lower to middle income families
just trying to serve a meal.
I urge Congress to support a national solution to prevent a
patchwork of restrictions on our farms from other states. Maintaining a
Federal fix to Proposition 12 in the farm bill offers the clarity and
certainty that our agricultural community needs to continue supporting
our nation's food supply. Locally, my work ensures that all Americans
have access to an affordable and nutritious protein source. I urge you
to vote to keep the Proposition 12 fix in the farm bill to help me
safeguard my life's work and protect this industry. Food security is
national security.
Trish Cook,
Pig farmer from Iowa.
______
Submitted Analysis by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress from
California
Pork Prices Lag Behind Chicken, Beef and Average Food Prices (2018-
2025)
Proposition 12 was approved by California voters in November 2018,
with initial space requirements for egg-laying hens, veal calves, and
breeding pigs taking effect on January 1, 2020. Full enforcement of
sales restrictions--banning the sale of non-compliant pork, eggs, and
veal in California--began on January 1, 2022. However, due to a pending
lawsuit that the Supreme Court eventually ruled Prop 12 as
Constitutional, enforcement of pork provisions was delayed until July
1, 2023.
Based on our review of the existing literature, we have only
located one recent empirical study analyzing the impacts of Proposition
12 on pork prices. In this study, three USDA-affiliated economists \1\
have analyzed the Circana retail scanner data to study any early
impacts of Proposition 12 on retail pork prices in CA and the Rest of
the U.S. There was no evidence of price impacts on covered pork
products outside of California.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hawkins, H., Arita, S., & Meyer, S. (2024). Proposition 12 pork
retail price impacts on California consumers. Berkeley (CA): Giannini
Found Agric Econ, Univ. Calif. https://s.giannini.ucop.edu/uploads/pub/
2024/03/19/v27n3_2_e40mBEN.pdf.
\2\ This was also predicted by the analysis of UC Davis Professors
Richard Sexton and Daniel Sumner: https://www.supremecourt.gov/
DocketPDF/21/21-468/228373/20220617170252460_
21-468AgriculturalAndResourceEconomicProfessors.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma State University professor of economics, Dr. Bailey
Norwood stated, ``From the economic analyses I've reviewed, there is no
indication that Prop 12 has contributed to elevated pork prices at the
national level. Moreover, I don't see any logical reason why Prop 12
would influence pork prices outside of California.''
To test the very same hypothesis using publicly available data, our
team has collected item-level price data from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS). We find that, from 2018 to 2025, BLS's prices of pork
product categories that are fully covered by Prop 12 (bacon, boneless
and bone-in pork chops) have grown significantly less than overall food
prices (CPI), beef and chicken prices as shown below in Figure 1.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Data sources: https://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-atlantic/data/
averageretailfoodandenergy
prices_usandmidwest_table.htmhttps://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-
importance/, https://www.bls.gov/cpi/data.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1: Time Series of Pork Prices with Other Food Prices (6-Month
Moving Average, 2018 = 100)
Comparing average prices between 2018 and the first half of 2023
with the period after (considering the pre- and post-enforcement
periods), Prop 12 covered retail pork products show only modest price
increases through mid-2025, namely 8% to 11% range (see Table 1 below).
In contrast, given high-inflation environment, especially for food
products, beef prices climbed 26%, and chicken rose 24% over the same
period.\4\ During the same time period, the average CPI-Food index rose
19%. Other pork product categories that are partially covered by Prop
12 (inclusive of ground or cooked pork products) showed higher price
increases, but still overall fell short of beef and chicken prices,
with the exception of the ``All ham'' category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Beef prices are a combination of ground beef, beef roasts,
steaks, and other uncooked beef products, weighted using relative
importance in the CPI basket. On the other hand, pork prices in the
chart are driven from bacon, and the simple average of boneless and
bone-in pork chop prices. Those three are the only categories that are
fully covered by Prop 12, and available in the BLS data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, based on USDA's meat disappearance data, there
has been no significant changes in the overall per capita pork
consumption throughout this time period either.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-
detail?chartId=112856.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, the data suggests that retail prices for pork have
generally lagged behind price increases for other proteins and food
prices as a whole.
Table 1: Comparison of Pork Prices with Other Food Prices (Pre- and Post-
July 2023)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan. 2018-June July 2023-May % Change in
Item 2023 2025 Prices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food (Index) 276.88 330.33 19.31%
Beef $6.15 $7.73 25.64%
Chicken $1.61 $1.99 24.22%
Bacon $6.16 $6.82 10.75%
Pork chops bone-in $4.15 $4.50 8.53%
Pork chops $4.14 $4.60 11.17%
boneless
All pork chops * $3.73 $4.31 15.35%
Pork ham * $4.68 $5.62 20.24%
All ham * $3.56 $4.53 27.06%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note (*): Includes products not covered by Prop 12.
Authors' Note: Intelligent Analytics and Modeling has been
hired by The Responsible Meat Coalition \6\ to analyze the
effects of California's Proposition 12 on nationwide pork
prices. This white paper contains our preliminary and draft
findings on the subject, based on our initial analysis of
publicly available resources, and our findings are subject to
change upon further analysis of data and information.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Our team has started its work on July 11th, 2025.
\7\ Please note that a comprehensive analysis would need to include
a supply chain analysis, retail pricing strategies (such as loss leader
for staple product groups), product mix, geographic distribution of
supply and demand factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Submitted Letters by Hon. James P. McGovern, a Representative in
Congress from Massachusetts
undated
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
At ABC Beef, short for About Being Conscious Beef, we raised cattle
along the banks of the James River in Nelson County, Virginia, using
regenerative agriculture practices. Our cattle were raised and finished
entirely on pasture, grazing a diverse array of grasses and forbs.
While we are not certified organic, our farming and animal care methods
mirror organic principles: no confinement, no synthetic inputs, and a
deep respect for the land, the animals, and the people we feed.
We write today in strong support of California's Proposition 12 and
the values it upholds. Although it doesn't directly regulate beef, its
preservation is essential to protecting the direction of food and
farming in this country. Prop 12 affirms that consumers have a right to
know, and influence, how their food is produced. It protects ethical,
transparent farming and gives producers like us a fair chance in a
marketplace too often dominated by the lowest-cost, least-conscious
methods.
We are deeply concerned about efforts to overturn Prop 12,
especially through legislation like the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act (S. 1326). Stripping states of the ability to set higher
standards for food sold within their borders does not protect
agriculture, it protects consolidation. It undermines the growing
number of farmers and ranchers who are working to restore soil health,
humanely raise animals, and connect directly with informed consumers.
People want beef raised consciously, without cruelty or chemicals,
and with care for the land and the people who work on the farms. When
consumers choose food produced in ways that restore our healthy water
cycles and climate, our choices help actively rebuild our ecology and
economy. Prop 12 supports that vision, and its reversal would be a step
backward for all of us.
Sincerely,
ABC Beef.
To the Committee,
At Rosy Hill Organics, we are a regenerative organic farm located
in York, South Carolina. We raise chickens for both eggs and meat, as
well as hogs for pork. Our standards are above reproach, giving respect
to our animals, our land and our community--keeping everyone healthy
and nurtured is our top priority. Our work is grounded in soil health,
animal welfare, and community accountability.
I'm writing to express support for Proposition 12 and its
preservation (and opposition to the EATS Act or other attempts to
dismantle it). As a producer, I see this not as an obstacle, but as an
opportunity--to differentiate, to lead, and to meet a growing demand
for humane products. Importantly, the law gave everyone time. Prop 12
was approved by voters in 2018.
Let's be clear: rolling it back now undermines the producers who
played by the rules and invested in a better way forward.
Thank you,
Rachel Abplanalp,
Rosy Hill Organics,
York, SC.
Dear Committee Members:
At Rehoboth Family Farms in Iowa, our happy hens have always had
the space and freedom to express natural behaviors. Treating animals
well is a core part of how we farm, and it's also good business.
We support Proposition 12 because it sets reasonable, humane
standards that responsible farmers can and already do meet. Compliance
hasn't been difficult for farms like ours, it simply reflects how we've
raised animals for years.
What's more, Prop 12 has opened doors. It has created market
opportunities for producers who invest in higher-welfare systems and
want to reach consumers who care about how their food is produced.
That's good for farms, good for animals, and good for the future of
agriculture.
We urge you to defend Proposition 12 and reject any effort to
overturn it through the farm bill or legislation like the EATS Act. Let
the farmers doing it right thrive.
Sincerely,
Violet Ahrenholtz.
Dear Congressman McGovern, Congresswoman Craig and Members of the
House Agriculture Committee,
I'm writing concerning a dangerous attempt to undo laws like
California's Proposition 12. I proudly served my country as a U.S.
Marine for 8 years at Camp Lejeune. My wife served in the U.S. Army for
4 years in Germany. As a proud veteran who dedicated years of my life
in service to our country, my commitment to serving my nation continues
in a new form. Alongside my wife, I now serve our country as a small
family farmer. Transitioning from my military service to the
agricultural sector, we have embraced the role of cultivating and
nurturing the land, providing sustenance to our community, and
contributing to the economic well-being of our nation.
Like the EATS Act before it, the Food Security and Farm Protection
Act presents a severe risk to the state laws that help American farming
families like mine. It's a Federal overreach that would hurt New York's
rural communities. What's more alarming is its potential to throw open
our agricultural gates to foreign corporations, granting them the power
to operate virtually unregulated. If this Act were to pass, it would
undermine hard working American farmers.
Our farm is fully Prop 12 compliant, our sows have space to turn
around, root, and live naturally without crates. We made that choice
because it's better for the animals, and frankly, it's what our
customers want. Prop 12 helps ensure that farms like mine, that invest
in humane, responsible practices, aren't undercut by cheaper, confined
systems. I ask that you please prioritize American family farms over
foreign corporations, and strongly oppose any attempts to jeopardize
Proposition 12.
Sincerely,
Nathan and Marline Allanach,
ALL Family Farm,
Naturally Raised Berkshire Pigs,
Middletown, NY.
My name is Dick Allen, and I run Dick Allen's Honeybees in Palmer,
Alaska, where I produce honey, beeswax, and bee pollen using practices
that support both healthy pollinators and healthy ecosystems. As a
beekeeper, I know firsthand how much consumers value transparency and
integrity in their food system.
That's why I oppose the EATS Act.
This bill would take away the rights of states like California to
set basic standards for how animals are treated--standards supported by
voters and consumers who care about where their food comes from and how
it's produced.
Beekeepers may not raise pigs or chickens, but we understand what
it means to work in partnership with nature, and we depend on a food
system that values responsibility over exploitation. Proposition 12
rewards farmers and ranchers who prioritize animal welfare and public
trust. The EATS Act undermines both.
Please stand with small-scale producers and the people we serve.
Protect state rights. Uphold Proposition 12. Oppose the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Dick Allen,
Dick Allen's Honeybees, Alaska.
Dear Members of the Committee,
I am the sole proprietor of Busy Ewe Farm & Fibers. I have
``Specialty Raised'' Registered ATSA Teeswater Rams & Ewes, and am a
very small farm committed to ethical land stewardship, humane livestock
care, and transparency in how my animals are raised and take pride in
producing wholesome sustainable food and fiber. I urge you to oppose
the so-called Food Security and Farm Protection Act, formerly known as
the EATS Act, and any similar efforts that would repeal or invalidate
state-level laws like California's Proposition 12. We need to maintain
our states' rights!
Let's be clear: this bill is not about protecting farms. It's about
stripping states and communities of their right to set baseline
standards for food safety, animal housing, environmental protection,
and land use. It is imperative that states have he right to regulate to
the situations for their area and their producers. We cannot have a one
size fits all regulation. Thoughtful, phased-in reforms are possible
and welcomed by consumers and many producers alike when voted by the
residents of that area. Prop 12 was passed by CA voters, upheld by the
Supreme Court, and gave producers more than 5 years to adapt.
As a small farm, I have worked hard to build trust with my
customers, trust built on knowing where their food and fibers come
from, and how our animals live. This bill would undercut that trust. It
would force states to accept products from systems that disregard
animal welfare, often rely on intensive confinement, and externalize
environmental harm onto local communities.
The majority of Federal laws have multiplied and created additional
regulations that have eliminated the small farmer as we don't have the
financial resources to implement all of the said regulations that will
benefit the small farmers but in reality, undermine and harm our
livelihoods.
The current requirement for USDA labeling of meat and the increased
regulations that have shut down many of our butcher shops have
increased our costs over 85% for processing our animals to offer to
customers in neighboring states. How has this benefited the small
farmers?
We urge you to defend the rights of states, support the
constitutional intent of states' rights, the rights of small farmers,
the integrity of responsible agriculture, and the freedom of consumers
to support farms that reflect their values.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Brenda Anderson,
Busy Ewe Farm and Fibers.
Subject: Support for Proposition 12/Opposition to the EATS Act and
Save Our Bacon Act
Dear Chair Thompson and Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
We are writing on behalf of Date Creek Ranch, a long-standing
environmentally focused, family-operated ranch in Arizona. Since 1985,
our ranch has proudly provided grass-fed beef, lamb, pastured chickens,
and natural pork to families across the region. Today, we continue our
legacy of producing meats that are as nutritious and humane as they are
sustainable.
We raise pigs, and we understand the challenges and
responsibilities that come with doing it right: raising animals with
space, dignity, and respect for natural behaviors. So, we were happy to
see California pass Proposition 12.
Prop 12 created a clear, values-based market for farmers who
prioritize animal welfare and responsible farming. It gave us access to
more customers who care deeply about how their food is raised and who
are willing to support farms that align with those principles. In a
time when small- and mid-sized farms are often squeezed out, Prop 12
has created market opportunities.
The EATS Act and the newly introduced Save Our Bacon Act would
erase that progress. They would take away the ability of states to
respond to their residents' concerns, destroy opportunities for
responsible producers, and hand even more power to industrial meat
corporations that cut costs by cutting corners.
These bills are not about helping farmers; they are about
protecting a few multinational players at the expense of every rancher
and consumer who believes food can and should be better. That's not
freedom, and it's certainly not fairness.
At Date Creek Ranch, we believe in raising animals in a way that
heals the land, nourishes our communities, and upholds integrity from
soil to supper. We believe consumers should have the right to know how
their food is produced, and support farms whose values reflect their
own.
For the above reasons, we respectfully urge this Committee to
oppose the EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act, and to defend Proposition
12.
With respect and thanks,
Ryan Barteau & Savannah Figueroa,
On behalf of Date Creek Ranch,
Wikieup, AZ.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
Barton Farm is a small, family-run cattle operation in northern
Mississippi. We raise Hereford cattle on pasture. Our cattle are raised
with space to roam, fresh forage, and without confinement, because it's
better for the animals, and better for the families we feed.
We strongly oppose the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (S.
1326), and other attempts to overturn California's Proposition 12.
Despite its name, this bill does not protect farms like ours. In fact,
it does just the opposite. By stripping states of the right to set
standards for the products sold within their borders, it gives even
more power to massive corporate operations, and pushes small,
responsible farms like ours further to the margins.
Proposition 12 creates space in the market for producers who
already farm the right way. We understand livestock. We know what
humane care looks like, and we support a food system that respects both
animals and the people who raise them. Rolling back Prop 12 just to
benefit industrial confinement operations undermines that goal, and it
sends the wrong message about who Federal policy is designed to serve.
Please oppose the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (along with
other attempts to gut Prop 12) and stand with the farmers who are
working to do things right.
Sincerely,
Barry Barton,
Barton Farm.
Dear Members of the Committee:
My name is Donna Bascom, and I represent Bascom Farm, a
diversified, family-run operation in New Hampshire. I submit this
testimony in firm opposition to the so-called Food Security and Farm
Protection Act, a bill that, despite its title, undermines both food
security and the long-standing rights of states and communities to
govern the quality and safety of food produced and consumed within
their borders.
At its core, this bill is not about farm protection. It's about
removing control from local consumers, farmers, and land stewards and
handing it to the largest, most consolidated segments of the
agricultural industry. It would prohibit states from setting basic
standards on the types of food products sold within their borders--no
matter the consequences to local economies, public health, or the
environment.
This is not an abstract debate. When we lose the ability to set
standards at the state or regional level, we open the door to
industrial practices that have already proven destructive: manure
lagoons leaching into drinking water, unchecked antibiotic use
contributing to drug-resistant bacteria, and foodborne illness
outbreaks.
Bascom Farm urges this Committee to recognize what's truly at stake
here: not just the way a product gets to market, but who gets to decide
how it does. If you support food sovereignty, responsible land
management, and public health, this bill should alarm you. If you
believe in states' rights and the principles of federalism, this bill
is very problematic And if you care about the future of farming in New
Hampshire and beyond, this bill is a major red flag.
We respectfully urge you to reject the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act.
Thank you for your time.
Donna Siobhan Doel Bascom,
Bascom Farm.
Dear Congresswoman Craig,
Blossom Bluff Orchards in California's Central Valley grows organic
peaches, nectarines, and citrus using regenerative methods.
As California farmers, we support Proposition 12 as part of a
shared agricultural ethic: transparency, care, and quality. It's
consistent with the way we farm and the kind of food system we believe
in.
It also affirms the right of states to listen to their voters and
take a stand for higher standards. Undermining that right benefits no
one, except the few who profit from cutting corners.
We hope you'll protect the voice of California voters and uphold
Proposition 12.
Respectfully,
Blossom Bluff Orchards.
To the Committee,
At Blueberry Ridge Farm in Fairmont, West Virginia, we invite our
community to pick their own organic berries, connecting people to fresh
food and the land it comes from. Our farm reflects local values and
personal responsibility.
We are opposed to the EATS Act, the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act and attempts to weaken California's Proposition 12.
Regardless of what it's called now, these are attacks on state
sovereignty. State governments have the right to set standards that
reflect the will of their voters. Undermining those rights in favor of
centralized corporate lobbying is a step backward for agriculture and
democracy alike.
Please stand up for state-level autonomy and local food systems.
Reject any attempts to undo Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Blueberry Ridge Farm,
Fairmont, West Virginia.
Dear Representatives Craig, Carbajal, and McGovern,
My name is Robert Brubaker, Jr., and I'm a fourth-generation farmer
from Manheim, Pennsylvania. Today, I farm alongside my two sons, making
up the fifth generation on our family farm with the hope that a sixth
generation will one day continue our legacy.
Like many others, we operate a small family farm. In our case, we
run a sow breeding and piglet production operation. When California
voters passed Proposition 12, and the Supreme Court later upheld it,
our family saw an opportunity. We recognized that if we were willing to
make the financial and time commitment, we could serve a market that
was willing to pay a premium for higher animal welfare standards.
That's exactly what we did. We transitioned our sow facility to
meet Prop 12 standards. Our sows now live in open pens with room to
move freely, and I can confidently say: I wouldn't want to go back to
the old-style barns. Our animals are healthier. Our employees are more
satisfied. And the sows are visibly more content. Productivity has also
improved, which is one of the clearest signs that animals are thriving
in their environment.
It's important to point out that producing hogs in Pennsylvania is
already $8-$16 more expensive than in other regions. So, for small
family farms like ours, having access to a specialized, value-driven
market like California's has helped create a path to long-term
sustainability.
Now, with proposals like the EATS Act gaining momentum, that very
market and the investment we made into it is at risk. Some producers
may be urging you to vote against Prop 12, but those producers didn't
make the investment we made. They still have markets for their pigs. If
Prop 12 is overturned, it won't affect them, it will hurt farmers like
us who stepped up, made the change, and are serving these standards. It
would unravel our business model and threaten the viability of
continuing our multigenerational operation.
Let's also be honest about the bigger picture. Over 60 major food
companies like McDonald's, Costco, Wendy's, and Kroger are already
moving away from crate-raised pork because they know it's not what
their customers want. This is where the market is heading, and forward-
thinking farms like ours are trying to stay ahead of that curve.
That's why I respectfully ask you to continue supporting
Proposition 12 and reject proposals like the EATS Act. Please don't
overturn the voter-approved standards that allow small family farms
like ours to compete. This is not just about policy, it's about our
livelihood, our future, and the legacy we've worked so hard to build.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Robert ``Bob'' Brubaker, Jr.
Dear Committee Members,
My name is Anthony Byars, and I run 3191 Farm in Alabama. We've
been raising pigs here, proudly without the use of gestation crates
(the cages that confine sows while they're pregnant).
California's Prop 12 gives farmers who prioritize animal welfare a
way to stand out and reach a broader market. When voters ask for better
treatment of animals, and the courts uphold that decision, Congress
should not step in and unravel it.
Proposals like the EATS Act would throw all of this progress into
chaos. Let states make laws that reflect the values of their people.
Let farmers continue to meet those expectations--and benefit from them.
Sincerely,
Anthony Byars,
3191 Farm,
Alabama.
Dear Members of the Committee,
As a proud farmer from Arizona, I can tell you that farming today
is about more than growing food, it's about meeting expectations,
earning trust, and doing right by the people we feed. Consumers
increasingly want to know that their food is produced ethically, with
care for animals, the environment, and public health. That's not a
passing trend, it's the future of farming.
Proposition 12 is a thoughtful response to that shift. It gives
farmers a framework to align with growing consumer demand for humane,
transparent practices. It also gives consumers confidence that the
system reflects their values. This law is not about imposing burdens.
Rather, it sets a new standard that responsible farmers can meet and be
proud of.
That's why I'm deeply concerned about legislation like the EATS Act
and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act. These proposals would
erase years of progress and tell consumers and farmers alike that their
efforts don't matter. Farmers who have made real investments to raise
animals humanely and sustainably would be punished, and the public's
trust in agriculture would be eroded.
We should be encouraging forward-thinking practices, not
undermining them. I urge you to stand with those of us working toward a
more ethical, sustainable food system. Please protect Proposition 12
and reject any attempt to roll it back.
Thank you for your time and for listening to the voices of working
farmers.
Sincerely,
April Christie
To the Committee,
At Churchill Orchard in Ojai, California, we grow fruit with a
focus on land stewardship, quality, and transparency. Our customers
care deeply about how their food is grown and so do we.
We oppose the EATS Act and any version of it that overrides the
will of voters and strips states of the right to set basic food
standards. California's Proposition 12 is one example of a state-led
effort to bring integrity and accountability to our food system.
Responsible producers shouldn't be penalized for doing things the right
way. Instead, this legislation rewards industrial consolidation while
silencing local voices.
Please protect the right of states to uphold integrity in
agriculture. Oppose the EATS Act and uphold Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Churchill Orchard,
Ojai, California.
Dear Rep. John Mannion,
I am aware that the House Agriculture Committee is holding a
hearing on Prop 12 on Wednesday 7/23. As a farmer who raises cattle,
pork and chickens in your district, I am writing to express my hope
that you will attend that hearing, oppose efforts to repeal Prop 12,
and share that your constituents, like me, oppose the EATS Act and any
attempts to overturn state laws. Local communities know what is best
for them and should be able to pass laws protecting animal welfare,
farmers and consumers.
Though its supporters claim to be protecting independent farmers
like me, the EATS Act or any similar attempt to roll back state laws
like California's Prop 12 would undermine farmers by removing important
market opportunities for those of us who have already invested in more
humane animal housing systems to meet the growing demand for higher-
welfare products.
At Otter Creek Farm, we raise grass-fed beef cattle, pasture-raised
pigs, chickens, and laying hens in systems that prioritize animal
welfare, land health, and transparency. These practices-certified by
trusted third parties--come with higher costs, but they also yield
better outcomes for the animals, the environment, and our community.
If Prop 12 is overturned, it would signal a step backward for farm
animal welfare nationwide. The law not only ensures minimum space
requirements for animals like sows and hens, but also restricts the
sale of meat and eggs from systems that don't meet these standards.
Without it:
Factory-farmed products raised under inhumane, confined
conditions would flood the market--including in states like
California that have historically led the demand for higher-
welfare food.
The price advantage for confinement-based systems would
widen, making it harder for farms like ours--who invest in
quality, not shortcuts--to compete fairly.
Consumer trust and momentum toward better farming practices
would erode, undercutting years of education, advocacy, and
relationship-building with values-driven customers.
Small-scale, high-welfare producers like us risk being priced
out of mainstream markets, despite offering superior nutrition,
transparency, and stewardship.
Prop 12 isn't just about pigs in crates--it's about protecting the
future of ethical, sustainable farming. For Otter Creek Farm and others
like us, overturning it would threaten both our principles and our
bottom line.
Eliminating laws like Prop 12 would further entrench the industrial
confinement system that puts farmers like me at a disadvantage in the
marketplace every day. I fully support local control and the ability
for states to take action against the consolidation of the agriculture
industry in support of a more humane and healthy food system.
Thank you for your consideration,
Elizabeth Collins and Bradley Wiley,
Johnsonville, NY.
Otter Creek Farm (https://ottercreek.eatfromfarms.com/)
Graceful Acres Farmstay (https://ottercreek.eatfromfarms.com/page/
graceful-acres-farmstay)
OCF Cattle LLC (https://ottercreek.eatfromfarms.com/page/ocf-cattle)
To Whom It May Concern,
I'm writing as a farmer who supports Proposition 12 and what it
represents. It's not radical, it's simply humane. Undoing it through
the EATS Act or similar legislation sends the message that animal
welfare can be traded away for convenience.
Please don't allow that. Let voters' choices stand.
With respect,
Beth Conrey,
Berthoud, CO.
Hon. Angie Craig,
Representative,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. James P. McGovern,
Representative,
Washington, D.C. 20515
Hon. Salud O. Carbajal,
Representative,
Washington, D.C.;
Dear Ranking Member Angie Craig, Representative Jim McGovern, and
Representative Salud Carbajal:
I'm Aaron Corbett, CEO of North Country Smokehouse, a family-owned,
artisanal meat smokehouse based in Claremont, New Hampshire. North
Country Smokehouse has been crafting smoked bacon, ham, and sausage for
over a century, staying true to traditional methods and exceptional
quality. What truly sets us apart is our unwavering commitment to
ethical sourcing and animal care.
We are proud to be a subsidiary of duBreton, a North American
leader in Certified Humane' and organic pork. Our parent
company has been raising pigs 100% crate-free since 2003, far exceeding
even the most stringent animal welfare standards. Every hog that goes
into North Country's smoked meats is raised with ample space,
comfortable bedding, and the freedom to engage in natural behaviors--no
gestation crates, no stressful confinement.
Because of this, North Country Smokehouse was among the very first
in the industry to achieve formal certification for compliance with
California's Proposition 12. In fact, when Prop 12's rules came into
effect years ago, our company was more than ready: we had been gearing
up for years, scaling our supply of Prop 12-compliant pork through
duBreton's network of over 400 family farms.
The enactment of Prop 12 in California (and a similar standard in
Massachusetts) represented a major opportunity for a company like ours.
We had new retailers and food-service clients reaching out almost daily
once the law took effect. We expanded production shifts, hired more
workers at our smokehouse, and proudly shipped Prop 12-compliant bacon
to California, just as we've had been doing in Massachusetts.
The California and Massachusetts laws are good for our business and
good for our farmers. It validated our long-term investments in
responsible farming. Instead of being undercut by substandard, inhumane
pork, we found ourselves rewarded in the marketplace for our higher
standards. This is how it should be.
Now, imagine our dismay when we learned of the proposed Ending
Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act. This Federal legislation
would obliterate Prop 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3 in one fell
swoop. From where I sit, overseeing a business that has flourished by
adhering to these better standards, the EATS Act is nothing less than a
dire threat to our company's success. If this Act passes, the carefully
constructed market incentives that have allowed responsive producers
like us to succeed will vanish overnight. Let me break down the
consequences for North Country Smokehouse and our network:
Lost Markets and Customers: Many of the new customers we
gained--those retailers and distributors who came to us for
Prop 12-compliant bacon--could very well revert to their old
suppliers if those suppliers are allowed to sell non-compliant
(crate-raised) pork again. The EATS Act would force California
and Massachusetts to accept products that do not meet their
current standards. That means our competitive advantage in
those states evaporates. The result: our sales would drop, and
so would the sales of any other responsibly-focused brand. For
a smokehouse of our size (we're not a multinational
corporation--we're a regional, family-run business), losing
those contracts would hurt us immensely. It might mean scaling
back production or delaying growth plans that were based on
expanding demand for higher-welfare products.
Stranded Investments in Animal Welfare: North Country
Smokehouse and duBreton have invested enormous resources over
the years to raise the bar on animal welfare. We've invested in
third-party humane certifications, organic certifications, and
auditing processes to assure customers of our claims. All that
investment made sense when laws like Prop 12 signaled a trend
toward stricter standards--we were ahead of the curve and
positioned to lead. But if the EATS Act reverses that tide, we
and our farmers are left holding the bag. Those investments
don't disappear, but their financial returns do. It is a
painful prospect to consider that doing the right thing early
could become a competitive disadvantage because the law would
suddenly reward those who did nothing. We'd find ourselves
having spent millions on world-class animal husbandry, only to
compete against global corporations that spent zero and now
face no requirement to ever improve. It's demoralizing for our
farmers, to say the least. How do I look them in the eye and
explain that Congress may effectively say ``It doesn't matter
that you raised the bar, our market just got taken away by
Congress''? This is the kind of policy whiplash that makes
farmers distrust government.
Impact on New England and Local Networks: I want to
emphasize that Massachusetts' Question 3 is essentially our
home market standard. We are based in New England; many of our
local grocery partners in Boston and throughout Massachusetts
rely on North Country Smokehouse for compliant bacon and hams.
If the EATS Act strikes down Q3, it will harm New England
businesses directly. Here in New Hampshire and neighboring
Vermont, we have a proud tradition of small-scale, humane
farming. The Massachusetts law has been a boon to our regional
food system by creating demand for local humane products.
Eliminating it would hurt New England farmers and food
producers in favor of distant industrial operators with lower
standards. It feels like an attack on our local agricultural
identity, led by interests that have no stake in our
community's values. Representative McGovern, as a Massachusetts
lawmaker, I know you understand how hard-won Q3 was and how
strongly your constituents support it. Representative Carbajal,
California's Prop 12 is the twin of Q3 and equally cherished by
your constituents. And Representative Craig, even though
Minnesota doesn't have an identical law, many Minnesota pig
farmers have adapted to serve those who do (some of them supply
companies like ours). This is truly a national issue that
touches even states without their own confinement bans, because
it's about allowing markets for higher-welfare products to
flourish.
From a business perspective, I also must mention stability and
planning. We ramped up production to meet Prop 12 demand, including
securing additional organic hog supply from duBreton's farms and
ensuring our smokehouse capacity could handle large orders from West
Coast clients. These are not spigots that can be turned on and off
without cost. If EATS were to pass and Prop 12 enforcement vanished, we
could be left with more supply than demand. Oversupply could force
prices down and squeeze margins for us and our farmers. In the worst
case, farms might have to scale down herds or even shutter, and we
might have to reduce our workforce that proudly produces what had been
a fast-growing product line. It's tragic to contemplate this reversal
after the hopeful surge we experienced when Prop 12 kicked in. It was
like a new dawn for responsible agriculture--and EATS threatens to
plunge us back into darkness.
The EATS Act would be devastating not just economically, but
morally. North Country Smokehouse has built its brand on doing things
the right way for animals, farmers, and quality. To see that ethic
potentially undermined by a Federal law catering to the lowest common
denominator is disheartening. I strongly urge you to oppose the EATS
Act and prevent it from becoming law. The momentum in agriculture
should be toward better practices and empowering states to be
``laboratories of innovation'' for food policy. If some states want to
go above and beyond to support responsible farming and family farms,
the Federal Government should not tear that down. Please stand with
companies like North Country Smokehouse, with our farmer partners, and
with the consumers who want these choices. Stopping the EATS Act is
critical to preserving a fair, values-driven market and keeping
businesses like ours thriving. Thank you for your attention and for
your continued support of ethical and family-scale agriculture.
Sincerely
Aaron Corbett,
Chief Executive Officer, North Country Smokehouse.
To the Members of Congress,
My name is Vincent Costa, and I run Sacred Garden Farm in Phoenix,
Arizona.
I'm writing to express my support for Proposition 12 and my strong
opposition to the EATS Act and its newer version, the Food Security and
Farm Protection Act. These Federal bills are deeply concerning because
they would strip states of the right to protect animals, ensure
transparency, and respond to the values of their own residents.
Small farms like mine are built on trust, trust in how food is
grown, how animals are treated, and how the land is cared for. Prop 12
reflects that trust. It gives ethical farmers a fair shot and honors
the wishes of millions of voters who want a better food system. The
EATS Act would do the opposite, it would silence those voices and
reward those who cut corners.
Farming isn't one-size-fits-all, and Federal overreach like this
hurts the people trying to do it right. Please defend Prop 12 and
reject the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Vincent Costa,
Sacred Garden Farm,
Phoenix, AZ.
Dear Committee Members,
Along with chickens, I raise pigs in Romulus, Michigan. Out here,
we raise animals on pasture, with space to move and root around like
pigs are meant to.
Michigan made the choice to phase out the use of cruel confinement
methods for pigs, and we were proud to see it. It gave farms like mine
a chance to grow our customer base. When Prop 12 passed in California,
it only amplified that momentum.
Now we hear that some in Congress want to rip all that away. The
EATS Act, the farm bill language, whatever you call it, it's a mistake.
You're not just stepping on state rights; you're undermining farmers
like me who have adapted, invested, and built trust around doing things
better.
Animal welfare matters. And so does honoring the people (voters,
farmers, families) who are trying to make the food system more humane.
Keep Prop 12 and laws like it in place. And let us keep doing what we
do best: raising animals with care.
Respectfully,
Detroit Flight Path Farm.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
My family's commitment to agriculture runs deep. From my father
raising Jersey cattle in Clarksburg, West Virginia, to our current
small, multi-generational Hereford operation at Dunrovin Farm in
Crozet, Virginia, we've spent decades committed to raising animals with
care, integrity, and purpose.
We support Proposition 12 because it reflects the values we've
built our farm around, ethical treatment of animals, respect for the
land, and a food system that honors transparency and responsibility.
Laws like Prop 12 don't hinder good farmers. They allow consumers to
make informed choices, and they create space in the market for farmers
who go above and beyond to do things right.
Efforts like the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, which would
gut Prop 12, threaten not just animal welfare standards, they threaten
family farms like ours that have built their reputations on quality,
trust, and compassion. We're not asking for favors; we're asking for
fairness. Let voters and states continue to uphold standards that
prioritize responsible agriculture.
Please preserve Proposition 12 and reject attempts to undermine it.
Sincerely,
Dunrovin Farm,
Crozet, Virginia
As a family farmer and as a farm that welcomes eco-tourism in
southwestern Wisconsin, I urge you to vote against the EATS [A]ct.
Urban people are hungry to see healthy and thriving small family farms
that treat domesticated animals and their human care givers with
dignity. Allowing the barbaric treatment of the very animals that are
sacrificed for our food is no longer an option for many of us. I urge
you to vote your conscience and not be swayed by industrialized ag
which has moved far from the intrinsic relationship between human
beings and the production of food that should be considered sacred--for
our health and for that of the entire ecosystem.
Thank you,
Adena Eakles,
Founder, Echo Valley Farm.
To the Committee,
At EcoGarden Oasis in Sheridan, Wyoming, we support pollinators by
offering supplies that help people grow healthy gardens and sustain bee
populations. Whether it's through home gardening or food production,
our goal is to support sustainable ecosystems and local resilience.
That's why we oppose the EATS Act, its rebranded [from] (the Food
Security and Farm Protection Act), and any attempts to undo Proposition
12. These efforts strip away the ability of states to respond to local
values, environmental concerns, and consumer demand. Decisions about
food policy should be made by the people most affected, not by
centralized forces or lobbying from multinational agribusiness.
We urge you to reject this Federal overreach and preserve states'
rights and the local food systems we all depend on.
Sincerely,
EcoGarden Oasis LLC,
Sheridan, Wyoming.
To the Committee,
At Flippin Bees in Columbia, we provide bee removal services and
are proud advocates for pollinator health. Bees are essential to food
security, and our work helps protect both ecosystems and agriculture.
We oppose attempts to weaken California's Proposition 12, like the
EATS Act (and the identical legislation introduced under a new name)
because it strips states of the right to regulate agricultural
practices in ways that reflect local values and environmental needs.
From pollinators to livestock, farming is never one-size-fits-all. This
legislation undermines local autonomy in favor of industrial interests.
Please protect states' rights and support food systems that value
sustainability and diversity.
Sincerely,
Greg Flippin,
Flippin Bees,
Columbia, MO.
To the Committee,
Franklins Farm Blooms and Heirlooms in Illinois grows heirloom
vegetables and using no-till and pollinator-friendly practices. We're
part of a growing movement of farms that prioritize soil health,
biodiversity, and responsible stewardship.
I am also a President of a [501(c)(3)] farmers['] market that works
with tiny producers who want to grow and process small quantities of
meat animals for sale to their community members. Proposition 12 will
give them a fair opportunity to profitably raise a small number of
animals in a humane manner that can then be sold by that local producer
to their local community. It will allow for a tighter network of
community food providers.
We support Proposition 12 because it gives a fair shot to producers
who invest in quality over quantity. It sets a reasonable, humane
baseline for animal care that reflects what many small farmers are
already doing.
Please preserve Prop 12 and help ensure a future where ethics and
transparency in food production are protected, not erased.
With gratitude,
Franklins Farm Blooms and Heirlooms
Dear Rep. Foushee,
As a farmer who raises livestock and poultry in northern Durham
County, I am writing to express my support for Prop 12 and laws like it
across the country. Local communities know what is best for them and
should be able to pass laws protecting animal welfare, farmers and
consumers in their state.
On July 23rd, the House Agriculture Committee is holding a hearing
on the ``implications'' of Proposition 12, which bans the sale of
caged/crated eggs, pork and veal in California. Under the guise of
protecting independent farmers like me, some House Members are
attempting to roll back Prop 12. In reality, overturning Prop 12 would
undermine independent farmers by removing important market
opportunities for those of us who have already invested in more humane
food animal practices to meet the growing demand for higher-welfare
products.
We take immense pride in providing humane and healthy meats and
eggs to eaters in Durham, Orange and Wake Counties and would love to
see a NC version of Prop 12. While this is unlikely given the current
political climate, it is important to stand up for a community's right
to make the decision to hold the ag industry to minimal welfare
standards. Who knows, NC might want to support the thousands of small,
humane farmers who sell at one (or multiple) of the almost 300 farmers'
markets in the state or the hundreds of co-ops or Whole Foods and pass
our own Prop 12. It would be unfortunate if the precedent is set so
that other states could ignore our laws or even overthrow them.
I urge you to fully support local control and the ability for
states to take action against the consolidation of the ag industry in
support of a more humane and healthy food system. I urge you to oppose
any future efforts to overturn Prop 12, whether by the EATS Act or
otherwise.
Thank you for all you do for district 4,
Samantha Gasson,
Bull City Farm.
Hon. Angie Craig,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Salud Carbajal,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. James P. McGovern
Washington, D.C.
Dear Ranking Member Angie Craig, Representative Salud Carbajal, and
Representative Jim McGovern:
My name is Phil Gatto, and I am the Co-Founder and CEO of True
Story Foods, a family-owned meat company based in California. True
Story Foods partners with a network of small family farms--from the
Midwest heartland--to raise pigs humanely, without gestation crates or
cages. True Story was founded on the belief that the best meat comes
from respecting traditional methods: animals raised with room to roam,
cared for by farmers who are stewards of their land. We pride ourselves
on offering products that consumers can feel good about--a ``true
story'' behind every bite, where animals are treated well and family
farmers can make an honest living.
When California's Proposition 12 was enacted by voters, we at True
Story Foods welcomed it wholeheartedly. In fact, Prop 12's standards
(such as giving mother pigs room to at least turn around) mirrored the
practices we already had in place from day one. But that's not to say
Prop 12 had no effect on us; on the contrary, it validated our business
model and spurred major growth opportunities.
Suddenly, large retailers and distributors in California and
Massachusetts needed sources of pork that met these new humane
requirements. True Story Foods was ready and able to meet that demand.
Over the last couple of years, we've invested significantly--millions
of dollars--to scale up our Prop 12-compliant supply chain to serve the
California market. This included supporting our farmers as they built
additional housing that exceeds the required space per pig, obtaining
third-party certifications for compliance, and expanding our processing
capacity to handle more crate-free pork. These were big investments for
a mid-sized, family-run company like ours, but we made them with
confidence because Prop 12 opened a pathway for sustainable growth
aligned with our values.
Today, True Story Foods supplies Prop 12-compliant pork products to
grocery chains, restaurants, and meal services around the country.
We've proven that raising pigs with care is not only the ethical
choice--it's a viable business when the market rewards it. Our farmers,
some of whom are in states like Missouri and Iowa, have seen their
efforts pay off as they ship pork to high-demand markets throughout
California and Massachusetts. This progress, however, is now under an
existential threat from the proposed EATS Act. If the EATS Act were to
become law, it would erase Prop 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3
overnight, nullifying the very standards that have allowed companies
like ours to succeed. The consequences for True Story Foods would be
severe and immediate.
First, the EATS Act would undermine the huge investments our
farmers have made. As one example, one of our partner farmers in the
Midwest recently spent a substantial sum converting their barns to meet
California's requirements--installing new penning systems, enrichment
for the pigs, and dedicating more floor space per sow. This farmer did
so knowing that California is a robust market that cares about animal
welfare. If the EATS Act passes, that farmer's operation will
technically no longer need to meet those standards to sell into
California--but they can't exactly undo those investments.
Instead, they will be stuck facing international competitors who
avoided all such investments and can now sell into California because
Congress gave them a free pass on responsible husbandry. It would be
nothing short of heartbreaking for me to call that farmer and tell them
that Washington just crushed their businesses.
Many of our other farmers are in the same boat: they invested
millions collectively to become Prop 12-compliant, in partnership with
us. The EATS Act blatantly threatens the livelihoods of these farmers
by stripping away the market framework that made their investments
worthwhile. As a CEO, I worry that some of our suppliers could go out
of business or exit hog farming altogether if their market evaporates.
Second, overturning these state laws would harm True Story Foods'
business directly. Prop 12 and Q3 leveled the playing field--everyone
selling pork in California and Massachusetts had to meet the same basic
humane criteria. We could compete fairly on the basis of quality and
craftsmanship, without being undercut by industrial producers who
confine animals in cruel, high-density systems. EATS would reverse
that.
We would once again be forced to compete against giant
conglomerates that produce pork at with little regard for animal
welfare or small-farm viability. These companies have economies of
scale and vertically integrated systems that dwarf family farmers.
Prop 12 gave consumers confidence that any bacon or ham they bought
locally met a decent standard, which opened the door for brands like
ours that emphasize quality and ethics. If EATS knocks down those
standards, we fear losing many of our retail placements and food-
service contracts as the market floods with old-style pork. In blunt
terms, the EATS Act threatens the future of our business. It would yank
away the stability and growth we've enjoyed and throw us back into a
race-to-the-bottom market we specifically set out to transcend.
Beyond the immediate economic threat, I want to emphasize what a
backward step the EATS Act represents for our society. True Story Foods
joined a coalition of crate-free pork farmers and responsible meat
companies to speak out in Washington, D.C., precisely because we see
EATS as an attack on fundamental American values. Voters in California
and Massachusetts made a clear, democratic decision that they want no
part in products derived from extreme animal confinement. Our company's
experience has shown that honoring those values is possible--we are
doing it successfully! For Congress to swoop in now and nullify those
state laws would send a chilling message. It says to consumers: ``You
don't get to choose, through your laws, products that align with your
morals.'' It says to farmers: ``Don't bother innovating or improving
animal welfare--the Federal Government will come in and destroy your
farm.'' And it says to companies like mine: ``Your good deeds are not
only unrecognized, but will be penalized; you should have just stuck
with the cruel status quo.'' This is why I consider the EATS Act a
dire, existential threat. It threatens not just our bottom line, but
the very vision of a more humane, transparent food system that we have
been working toward.
Representatives Craig, Carbajal, and McGovern, I appeal to you
today with urgency and sincerity: please do everything in your power to
stop the EATS Act. As lawmakers from Minnesota, California, and
Massachusetts, you each understand how important local agricultural
standards can be--whether it's protecting family farms, consumers, or
animal welfare. California and Massachusetts have been national leaders
in raising the bar for how farm animals are treated, and Minnesota is
home to many independent farmers who have embraced those higher
standards to serve those markets. Don't let a few powerful agribusiness
interests derail this progress. On behalf of True Story Foods, our
employees, our farm partners, and the customers we proudly serve, I
urge you to oppose the EATS Act in any form. Stand with us as we defend
the hard-won progress toward ethical farming and an honest food system.
Thank you for championing what is right and for considering this
testimony as you deliberate on the farm bill and related matters.
Sincerely,
Phil Gatto,
Co-Founder & CEO, True Story Foods.
To Whom It May Concern:
My name is Matt Goettl, and I own and operate Goettl Grove LLC in
Minnesota. We raise pigs and goats in a humane, pasture-based system
that emphasizes animal welfare, environmental stewardship, and consumer
trust. Our pigs roam freely in the woods and forage naturally. This
woodlot pork model reflects Minnesota values of responsible animal
care.
I am writing in strong opposition to the EATS Act. This bill would
override important state laws that protect animals, family farmers, and
the integrity of our food systems. It would favor large industrial
operations over small-scale, ethical farms like mine. I believe
Minnesotans (and all Americans) have a right to demand higher welfare
standards and transparency in how food is raised.
One thing that is often overlooked is the voice of the people.
California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3 were
passed by popular vote. These were not policies pushed solely by
elected officials--they were decisions made directly by the people who
showed up at the ballot box to vote for stronger animal welfare
protections.
The EATS Act disregards that voice. It pushes a corporate agenda
above the rights of citizens who made a choice and exercised their
democratic right to vote.
Please reject the EATS Act and uphold the right of states, and the
people, to support responsible farming and animal care.
Sincerely,
Matt Goettl,
Goettl Grove LLC,
Minnesota.
To the Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
We at Green Thumb Farm are purveyors of the highest quality local
Missouri wildflower honey.
We have been growing organically/sustainably on our land with
sensitivity and caring for all living beings since our location here in
1996.
We support Proposition 12 because it creates a food system where
transparency and ethics are expected, not exceptional. The next
generation is watching, and they want to know: are we going to reward
good farming or the cheapest possible production?
Prop 12 answers that with action. It's not just about animals, it's
about values. Let's keep it.
Thank you,
Green Thumb Farm,
Missouri.
Dear Committee Members,
At Griffith Family Farm here in West Virginia, we raise our animals
with patience, care, and respect. Growing a chicken for meat takes
around 8 weeks, while pork can take anywhere from 6 months to 2 years
depending on the breed. That time matters. It gives us the chance to do
things right, to raise animals in clean, open environments, with the
ability to move, root, peck, and behave like animals were meant to.
When an animal lives a good life, it shows in the quality of the
meat and in the pride we take as farmers. We don't rush it. We don't
cut corners. And we're not alone, many small farms across the country
are doing the same. Proposition 12 recognizes that kind of stewardship.
It doesn't demand perfection; it simply expects the basics: room to
move, standards for care, and a market that values better treatment of
animals.
Efforts to gut Proposition 12 through the EATS Act or any other
vehicle are dangerous. They don't protect farmers, they protect
consolidation, cut corners, and erase the value of doing things the
right way. West Virginia, like many other states, has farmers who
believe that raising animals well is part of raising food well.
Proposition 12 has helped create space in the marketplace for that
belief.
We urge Congress to defend the right of states to set humane
farming standards and to support the farmers and families working hard
to meet them.
Sincerely,
Griffith Family Farm,
West Virginia.
Dear Congressman McGovern:
The recently proposed Food Security and Farm Protection Act--a
Federal bill that's identical to the previously introduced EATS Act--
has us really alarmed as stewards of the land at Blueyah Blueberry
Farm. While this Federal bill claims to strengthen the food supply, it
would wipe out states' abilities to set agricultural standards. It
strips communities of control of food policy. That's a real threat to
Iowa farmers and our rural communities.
Iowa has laws in place to guard against both livestock and plant
diseases, like Iowa Code 177A.5. If the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act passes, those protective measures could be nullified.
That's not just bad policy, it's dangerous.
Local conditions and communities' needs vary, which is why food
policy is best left in the hands of the states. Decisions that affect
our farms shouldn't be handed over at the expense of proven Iowa
safeguards.
For these reasons, we urge Members of Congress to reject the Food
Security and Farm Protection Act.
Jenna Hammerich,
Blueyah Organic U-Pick Blueberry Farm.
Hon. Angie Craig,
Representative,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. James P. McGovern,
Representative,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Representative Craig and Representative McGovern,
My name is Will Harris and I own a family farm called White Oak
Pastures in Bluffton, Georgia. We raise cattle, sheep, goats, hogs, and
poultry . . . we slaughter them . . . and we ship the product to
consumers in 48 states from our online store. Our farm is nearly 160
years old, and I am the fourth generation of my family to own it. Two
of my daughters and their spouses are in management today, and we
employ 165 employees. We are the largest private employer in our
county. We sell about $30 million of product per year.
Before California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts's Question 3,
securing buyers was much more challenging. As much as we believed in
our company's values and were committed to staying family-owned, we
struggled to compete for contracts against large, corporate
conglomerates. Corporate giants, including foreign-owned ones like
Smithfield and JBS, were out-bidding us and pushing us out of the
market. Consolidation in the U.S. pork industry has caused the number
of hog farms to plummet by 93% over the last 55 years, while hog
production has increased due to these corporations' concentrated and
exploitative business models. We are one of the few smaller operations
that have survived.
Proposition 12 was one of the best things to happen for our
company. The law opened the door to market opportunities that were
previously dominated by the monopolistic meatpackers. We were already
Prop 12 compliant. We now believe that we will have more business with
virtually the same management and labor. Last year, we had record gains
with about a million dollars in total net revenue.
Unfortunately, some industry groups, such as the National Pork
Producers Council (NPPC) and the North American Meat Institute (NAMI),
have vehemently opposed Proposition 12, claiming that the law would
hurt small farmers. But in reality, Proposition 12 is helping to keep
small farms like ours alive. Despite their claims, lobbying groups like
the NPPC represent the interests of large meatpackers, not small
farmers. Today, just four multinational corporations--Smithfield Foods,
Tyson Foods, JBS USA, and Cargill--control 67% of the pork processing
market. Those four companies are who the lobbying groups truly
represent, not us. Laws like Proposition 12 give us real American
farmers a fighting chance.
It has come to my attention that the House Agriculture Committee
wishes to examine the implications of Proposition 12. Here at White Oak
Pastures, the implications have been nothing but positive. Because of
Prop 12, we have more sales, more consistent income, and perhaps most
importantly, a brighter future for our employees, our family, and our
farm. Please do everything in your power to protect us by protecting
this law.
Sincerely,
Will Harris,
White Oak Pastures,
Bluffton, Georgia.
To the Members of the House Agriculture Committee:
My name is Elaine Heath and I manage The Garden at Spring Forest in
Hillsborough. I urge you to oppose efforts to undermine Proposition 12.
This law represents not only a fair timeline for producers, but also a
vital shift toward a food system that reflects consumer values and
public health concerns.
Proposition 12 wasn't just about animal space--it's about
mitigating public health risks tied to overcrowding and intensive
confinement. Better living conditions for animals lead to better health
outcomes for consumers.
We should be encouraging states and producers who lead on these
fronts, not penalizing them.
Thank you,
Elaine Heath,
The Garden at Spring Forest,
Hillsborough, NC
Dear Congressman McGovern,
We run Union Hill Grassfed Beef on the western slopes of the
Cascades in Washington State. We raise grass-fed cattle and chickens,
grazing them rotationally without confinement, antibiotics, or
hormones.
Proposition 12 upholds values that mirror our practices:
transparency, animal welfare, and land stewardship. When voters say,
``We want food produced under humane conditions,'' it's not just a
policy choice--it's democracy at work. Ignoring that sets a dangerous
precedent and undermines the ethical producers consumers increasingly
want to support.
We urge you to defend Prop 12.
Respectfully,
Peter Hendrickson,
Union Hill Grassfed Beef, WA.
To the Members of Congress,
At Horneman Family Organic Farm in Regan, North Dakota, we raise
our animals in wide open spaces where they can move freely, express
natural behaviors, and live the way animals are meant to live. This
kind of farming isn't just good for the animals, it's good for our
land, our families, and the people we feed.
We oppose the EATS Act because it threatens the rights of states
and the integrity of farmers like us. Laws like Proposition 12 reflect
what consumers are asking for: more humane, transparent food systems.
The EATS Act would undermine it by giving an unfair advantage to
industrial operations that rely on confinement and cut corners.
We don't need Federal overreach that protects the lowest standards.
We need policies that support independent family farms that are doing
things right.
Please stand with responsible farmers. Oppose the EATS Act, and
uphold Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Horneman Family Organic Farm,
Regan, North Dakota.
Dear Congressman McGovern,
We understand Proposition 12 because we raise egg-laying hens. At
Edgewise Farms, we have a mixed flock that ranges over about 4 acres
but has access to forty. We collect fresh eggs three times daily.
Our hens roam freely, scratch in the dirt, and enjoy access to the
outdoors every day. We're fully compliant with Proposition 12, and
proud of it, our hens aren't confined to cramped cages, and their
welfare is a core part of how we farm. Prop 12 has helped create a
market that values this kind of humane, transparent production. It also
gives consumers confidence in the food they're buying.
If laws like Prop 12 are overturned, it makes a mockery of our
efforts and props up industrial models that cut costs at the animals'
and farmers' expense.
Keep Prop 12. It's good law, and good sense.
Sincerely,
Nathan Huntley,
Edgewise Farms,
Oklahoma.
To Whom It May Concern:
I'm Jill Johnson, co-owner of Crane Dance Farm in Middleville,
Michigan. We raise pigs, cattle, lambs, chickens, and ducks on pasture,
using regenerative practices that honor both the animals and the land.
Our animals live naturally, with straw bedding, sunshine, and the
freedom to move, how farming should be.
The EATS Act is an alarming threat to everything we stand for. It
would strip states of their ability to require even the most basic
animal welfare standards, and it would undermine consumer trust by
forcing all of us to accept the lowest common denominator.
Please understand: this bill does not help small farmers. It helps
industrial meat giants who confine animals in cruel conditions.
Responsible farmers like us will be forced to compete against producers
who cut corners at the expense of animals and rural communities.
I urge you to oppose the EATS Act and defend Michigan's right to
support ethical agriculture.
With respect,
Jill Johnson,
Crane Dance Farm, Middleville, MI.
Dear House Agriculture Committee,
I'm Nancy Kiefat of Alerohof LLC in North Dakota. I'm writing to
voice my strong opposition to Federal efforts to overturn Proposition
12, whether through the EATS Act, the so-called Food Security and Farm
Protection Act, or other measures.
Prop 12 sets a reasonable, humane baseline for animal care. It was
voted in by the people, upheld by the Supreme Court, and supported by
many farmers who meet welfare standards. Markets are changing, and
responsible producers are rising to meet that demand.
Federal overreach undermines farmers who are already doing the
right thing and tells voters their values don't count. Let's protect
Prop 12, not tear it down.
Sincerely,
Nancy Kiefat,
Alerohof LLC,
North Dakota.
To the Members of Congress,
We are the King family, owners of Frog Holler Farm in Brooklyn,
Michigan. We are a working farm, rooted in soil and community. (We're
not to be confused with a separate wholesale distributor in Ann Arbor,
Frog Holler Produce, which serves retail markets.)
We are writing today in strong support of Proposition 12 and in
firm opposition to the EATS Act and any Federal legislation that seeks
to override hard-won state standards like it.
Proposition 12 reflects the values of a growing number of Americans
(including Michiganders as our state has passed similar legislation),
people who believe animals should be raised humanely and that
transparency in food production matters. These standards support
ethical farmers, encourage better practices, and give consumers
confidence in the food they bring home to their families.
The EATS Act would erase those gains. It would strip states of
their ability to protect animals, consumers, and local farmers by
nullifying laws passed through democratic processes. For small farms
like ours, it would tilt the playing field even further in favor of
industrial agriculture and take away one of the few tools we have to
stand out: integrity.
Farming is about trust. Trust between farmers and the land, and
between producers and the people we feed. We ask you to protect that
trust. Please defend Proposition 12 and reject the EATS Act and other
attempts to dismantle it.
Sincerely,
The King Family,
Frog Holler Farm,
Brooklyn, Michigan.
Dear Members of the Committee,
At Uncommon Beef in Montana, our name reflects our mission: to
raise cattle in ways that respect the land, the animals, and the people
who rely on us for food. We operate with a deep commitment to animal
welfare, our cattle live their lives on pasture, with room to roam,
graze, and express natural behaviors.
We support Proposition 12 because it upholds the basic principle
that how animals are treated matters. It ensures that veal, eggs, and
pork sold into California meet minimum humane standards, standards that
align with what more and more consumers are demanding and what
responsible farmers already practice.
Efforts to overturn Prop 12, like the so-called Food Security and
Farm Protection Act, would not only erase those humane standards, but
they would reward the cheapest, most industrialized forms of
confinement, at the expense of both animals and the farmers who treat
them well.
Our farm doesn't cut corners, and we don't believe producers should
be able to hide poor practices behind weak laws. Prop 12 is a step
toward a food system that respects animals and gives farmers doing
right by them a fair chance.
Please defend Proposition 12 and reject efforts to dismantle it.
Sincerely,
Catherine Kirchner,
Owner--Uncommon Beef.
Dear House Agriculture Committee,
My name is Belinda Kiser, and I farm in West Virginia. We raise our
animals outdoors and grow vegetables with care for the earth and our
community.
California's Prop 12 says that animals deserve space to move and
that consumers deserve to know their food comes from humane systems.
That's responsible, not radical.
Efforts to overturn Prop 12, like the EATS Act and others, put
corporate interests above decency and fairness. These laws threaten the
integrity of farming and the rights of states to uphold public values.
I ask you to stand with farmers and citizens. Oppose the EATS Act,
the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and the Save Our Bacon Act.
Uphold Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Belinda Kiser,
Everything Green, WV.
Dear Members of the Committee,
As an organic farmer in southeastern Minnesota, I've been raising
healthy crops and livestock without the use of CAFOs (Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations) for nearly 30 years. My pigs are raised in a
way that fully complies with California's Proposition 12, no gestation
crates, no extreme confinement, just honest, humane animal care. That's
the kind of farming that more and more consumers want, and Prop 12
ensures that those values are reflected in the marketplace.
Unfortunately, efforts like the EATS Act, now misleadingly renamed
the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, would strip states like
California of the right to enforce these standards. That would mean the
elimination of critical protections not only for animals, but also for
food safety, disease prevention, and public trust in agriculture. It
would also give an unfair advantage to industrial-scale CAFOs that
continue to rely on practices the public finds unacceptable.
I recently traveled to Washington with other farmers and food
businesses to urge Congress to reject harmful efforts like the Food
Security and Farm Protection Act. What we heard across the spectrum is
that consumers, companies, and fellow farmers, is that people do not
want to see Prop 12 overturned. They want food produced with care,
transparency, and accountability.
I urge you to stand with the farmers who are doing the right thing,
and with the voters who demanded better. Protect Prop 12, and oppose
the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (and all other efforts to
undermine this critically important law).
Sincerely,
Eric Klein,
Hidden Stream Farm/Klein Family Farms
Elgin, MN
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
At Katharsis Meadows, we are committed to raising food in ways that
care for animals, the land, and the people we feed. On beautiful hills
and valleys, we raise pastured Berkshire pigs, free range chickens,
Muscovy ducks for eggs and meat, and goats for goat milk soap, meat and
fleece. We see Proposition 12 as a step in the right direction, and one
that creates opportunities for farmers, like us, who raise their hens,
pigs and calves with space to move.
This law reflects consumer expectations and public concern. More
than that, it reinforces the idea that states have the right to
establish meaningful standards for food sold within their borders.
Bills like the EATS Act and the Food Security and Farm Protection
Act don't protect farms, they strip away accountability and undermine
responsible farming. We urge you to stand against them.
Proposition 12 and laws like it deserve protection.
Thank you,
Katharine Kramer,
Katharsis Meadows,
Blanchardville, WI.
To the Committee,
At Mission ABQ Learning Gardens in Albuquerque, New Mexico, we grow
produce and grains with a focus on education, sustainability, and
nourishing our local community. We believe that food justice starts
with transparency and local control.
The EATS Act, and its rebranded counterpart, is an assault on those
principles. Based on an attempt to undo California's Prop 12, it would
take decision-making power away from states and communities and hand it
to corporate agriculture. That's not in the best interest of farmers,
consumers, or the environment.
Please stand with local food systems and the people who depend on
them. Oppose the EATS Act and protect Prop 12 and state agriculture
laws like it.
Sincerely,
James Landry,
Mission ABQ Learning Gardens,
Albuquerque, NM.
To the Committee,
At Suki Farms in Powder Springs, Georgia, we raise alpacas with
care, purpose, and a commitment to sustainable agriculture. We are
firmly opposed to the EATS Act and any renamed version of it.
This legislation strips states of their rights and serves the
interests of large industrial operations, not independent farmers like
us. Local control and transparency matter. Laws like California's
Proposition 12 are examples of how states can set thoughtful standards
that reflect the values of their residents. Without that ability, small
farms lose their voice.
Please protect laws like Prop 12. Protect states' rights and
support the farms that reflect the values of their communities.
Sincerely,
Ric Larred,
Suki Farms,
Powder Springs, GA.
Dear Members of Congress,
We are Kerry & Michelle Loggins from Poplar Creek Farm & Produce in
Wentworth, North Carolina. We raise pigs on pasture-happy pigs who roll
in mud, root in the earth, and live in a way that honors their nature.
It's not just better for them; it's better for us, our soil, and our
customers.
We are writing to express our deep opposition to the EATS Act. This
bill threatens to erase the progress North Carolina and other states
have made in animal welfare and local food transparency. It hands
control of farming standards to the Federal Government and mega-
industrial producers who don't share our values.
The families who buy from us do so because they care how their food
is raised. The EATS Act would rob them of that choice.
Please stand up for small farmers and vote no on the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Kerry & Michelle Loggins,
Poplar Creek Farm & Produce, NC.
To the Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter.
The attempt to override Prop 12 through Federal legislation is a
dangerous precedent. It disregards both the democratic process and
states' rights. Farmers who comply with humane standards benefit from
these laws, not suffer. The EATS Act would hand control over to
industrial producers with no regard for the consequences on farms like
mine. That's unacceptable.
Accordingly, I ask that the Committee please continue to listen to
the will of voters and uphold laws like Prop 12. Thank you for your
time.
Respectfully,
Lone Star North Farm,
Townsend, Tennessee.
To the Committee,
At Longleaf Pasture Farm in Jasper, Florida, we raise cattle, hogs,
and chickens organically and humanely. We believe in transparency,
responsible stewardship, and giving animals a life worth living.
Prop 12 does not hurt family farms. It opens up market
opportunities for farms like ours that already meet or exceed those
expectations.
Please protect the rights of states and the interests of
independent farmers. Reject attempts to weaken Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Longleaf Pasture Farm,
Jasper, Florida.
To the Committee,
At Longshadows Ranch in Hulbert, Oklahoma, we grow culinary and
medicinal herbs with care and purpose. Our work supports well-being,
biodiversity, and a deeper connection between land and life.
We oppose the EATS Act (whether in its original or rebranded form)
and other attempts to weaken California's Proposition 12 because they
strip states of the right to regulate how food is produced and sold.
State and local governments need the flexibility to support small
farms, responsible practices, and consumer choice.
Please defend state sovereignty and the future of independent
farming. Oppose the EATS Act and any other attempt to dismantle Prop 12
and laws like it.
Sincerely,
Longshadows Ranch,
Hulbert, Oklahoma.
To the Members of Congress,
We are seeing an uprising of concern for animal welfare reform in
this country. In the age of information, more and more people are
discovering how their food is produced and we are not happy. The will
of the public is being felt from the free-market to the ballot box and
the factory farm industry in this country is scrambling for any way to
preserve the status quo. Their disdainful practices have been exposed
and rather than adapt, they run to Congress. That's where the EATS
[A]ct comes in, or the King amendment, or whatever they are calling it
this time. The factory farm lobby had to re-brand their legislation but
it's still lurking in the farm bill, waiting to sneak through and
abolish the sovereignty of every state in this nation. We need our
elected officials to stand up to the special interests for once. We
need you to serve the will of the public. We need you to regulate
multi-national corporations instead of private citizens. Please stand
up for the family farms and the consumers across this great nation. We
are tired of being ignored and trampled upon. We are building our new,
better way of life that rings with truth for all who choose to see. We
want you there with us. We only ask that you do what you know is right
and reject amendments like the EATS [A]ct that seek silence the will of
the public of this great nation.
Patrick Madden,
Mastodon Farm,
Clayton, MI.
Dear Members of the Committee,
As a proud and dedicated farmer, I have always believed that the
standards we hold ourselves to impact not just the quality of the
products we produce, but also the trust we build with our consumers. It
is because of that belief that I support Proposition 12, which
establishes basic, humane standards that reflect what most Americans
expect from their food system. These aren't radical ideas. Instead,
they are practical and achievable.
It is alarming to see Federal efforts like the EATS Act and the
Food Security and Farm Protection Act attempt to strip away those
standards. These bills threaten states' rights and ignore the growing
number of farmers who are already working to meet or exceed Prop 12's
requirements. I urge you to defend this progress, defend the hard-
working farmers, protect Proposition 12 and support a future in
agriculture that prioritizes sustainability, safety, and transparency.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Matlock,
Cobblestone Farm, Colorado.
To the House Agriculture Committee,
Farming is more than a business--it's a way of life rooted in
responsibility. Many of us in agriculture see ourselves as caretakers:
of animals, of land, and of the communities we feed. That's why
Proposition 12 matters. It affirms the principle that how we raise
animals reflects who we are as a society.
This law doesn't impose anything unreasonable. It simply ensures
that food production meets basic standards of decency. When voters
chose to pass Proposition 12, they were expressing a value shared by
many of us in agriculture: that integrity and compassion should guide
how we grow food.
Legislation that seeks to overturn Prop 12 ignores that public
mandate and undermines the credibility of farmers who believe in doing
the right thing. We should be working to build trust with the people we
feed, not eroding it.
Thank you for considering the voices of those of us committed to
responsible farming. We respectfully urge you to protect Proposition 12
and reject attempts to undermine it.
Sincerely,
Andrew and Beverly McDowell,
Hidden Pond Farm LLC.
Congresswoman Craig,
At MeMaws Honeybees and Double SS Farm in Lebanon, Missouri, we
raise goats and egg-laying hens (along with bees) and pay special
attention to their welfare. We're part of a growing network of farmers
who believe food should come from systems that nurture, not exploit,
animals and the land.
Proposition 12 reflects the will of voters who support that vision.
Attempts to dismantle it not only silence democratic process, but also
harm the viability of farms like ours. Please continue to support
ethical, independent agriculture by defending Prop 12.
Sincerely,
MeMaws Honeybees and Double SS Farm.
Dear Members of the Committee,
Protect Proposition 12.
My name is Peggy M. Miller, and I operate/own Highland Winds LLC in
Missoula, Montana. As a grower of herbs for sale, and a medical
herbalist, I've come to learn the importance of organics and healthy
food.
While I don't raise livestock, I support Proposition 12 and similar
laws because they protect something fundamental: the right of states
and consumers to demand ethical standards in the food they buy and the
ethics of raising healthy animals.
Prop 12 ensures that products sold in California meet basic animal
welfare requirements. That's not government overreach, that's voters
choosing to align their values with their purchases. Undermining that
right doesn't just affect pigs or chickens, it affects farmers like me,
who work hard to meet the expectations of thoughtful consumers.
Family farms thrive when laws recognize the importance of care,
transparency, and integrity. That's what Prop 12 does. Please protect
it, and what it stands for.
Sincerely,
Peggy M. Miller,
Owner: Highland Winds, LLC
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
My name is Kara O'Brien, and I run a small farm stay (three
airbnbs) in Atlanta, Georgia that includes a few beloved alpacas,
bunnies, chickens, guanacos, llamas, bamboo forest, dogs, cats,
reclaimed buildings, and a welcoming environment for guests to
reconnect with land, animals, and rural life in an urban setting.
I care deeply about how we treat animals and grow food in this
country. In fact, our small farm began with a desire to keep chickens
and teach my daughter that they can live long lives of care, while
providing us breakfast, as they live happy healthy free range lives as
long as they wish.
That's why I'm writing to express my strong support for
California's Proposition 12, and to urge you to reject any Federal
legislation, including the EATS Act or the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act, that seeks to weaken or override it.
Prop 12 reflects what more and more people are asking for: food
raised with care and conscience. It doesn't force farmers to do
anything; it simply sets expectations for what's allowed in
California's marketplace, a state whose residents made their values
clear at the ballot box. Voters wanted to stop extreme confinement of
animals. They wanted transparency. They wanted better choices. And many
farmers around the country rose to meet that call.
We should be encouraging that shift, not undoing it through Federal
overreach.
From my vantage point, guests who visit and stay at our farm are
curious about where food comes from, and they want to support systems
that reflect their values. They love that our animals are rescued and
pampered. They love that they are aging well past their expected
lifetime. They love the care and devotion we lavish on these lovely
sentient beings.
When we ignore or override those values/ethics, this basic level of
humanity, we erode trust but more deeply, we betray our own sense of
morality.
Please preserve state laws that reflect their citizens choosing a
more humane and kinder standard. And please protect the rights of
responsible farmers who have already invested in doing better.
As humans, we can and should do better towards animals.
Respectfully,
Kara O'Brien,
Atlanta, GA.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
I'm David Ogburn, a cattleman from Leoma, Tennessee. I raise
Hereford bulls and females and am a proud member of the Tennessee
Cattlemen's Association. I'm writing to ask you to oppose the EATS Act,
the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and the Save Our Bacon Act.
As Mike Schultz, founder of the Kansas Cattlemen's Association,
recently explained, ``The EATS Act is nothing but a Trojan Horse
designed to put family farmers out of business and give multinational
conglomerates like JBS and Chinese-owned Smithfield an even greater
advantage than they already have.''
California's Prop 12 created opportunities for producers who want
to do right by animals and consumers. The Save Our Bacon Act is just
another attempt to roll back those standards and let the big players
cut corners.
I stand with the many cattle producers, hog farmers, and poultry
growers across the country who are saying enough is enough. Defend Prop
12. Oppose the EATS Act and the Save Our Bacon Act.
Sincerely,
David Ogburn,
Leoma, TN.
To: Members of the House Agriculture Committee
Oh Goodness Homestead is a small family farm in Olympia, WA, where
we raise goats.
We support Proposition 12 because it helps responsible farming
having a chance to survive in a system dominated by massive operations.
Prop 12 isn't a burden to us; it's a signal to consumers that how
their food is produced matters. It aligns the marketplace with values
that small farmers have always carried: respect for animals, the
environment and public health.
Rolling it back would do real harm, not to corporate agriculture,
but to families like ours who are trying to do it right.
Sincerely,
Oh Goodness Homestead
Dear Members of the Committee,
Farming is about more than producing food. It is about doing the
right thing by consumers, animals, andthe land. Proposition 12 and
similar laws set reasonable standards to ensure that food is
producedethically and safely. That is not extreme. Rather, it is what
the public expects, and it is what I believe in as a farmer.
I respectfully urge you to safeguard Proposition 12 and similar
laws by rejecting attempts to squander them. Bills like the EATS Act
and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act undermine the progress we
have made towards a more sustainable and transparent food system.
Instead of lowering the bar, let's raise it. Please protect Proposition
12 so that our food system can continue to flourish.
As owners of Fox Run Vineyards, our family is keenly aware of the
impact we have on the community and the environment. Our mission at Fox
Run Vineyards is to reduce our environmental impact through meaningful
and consistent changes to our business each year. In 2002 Fox Run was
certified a Lake Friendly Farmer, which means none of our farming
practices will negatively impact the water quality of Seneca Lake, and
In 2023, Fox Run was named a certified sustainable vineyard by the New
York Wine & Grape Foundation.\1\ We understand the need for strict
legislation to product the food we buy in our stores and the grapes and
wines we produce here in the Finger Lakes. Keep the current standards
and Protect Proposition 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://newyorkwines.org/industry/sustainability/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respectively,
Scott Osborn,
President and Co-Owner
Fox Run Vineyards.
Dear Members of the Committee,
Pemberley Farms is a small, independent egg farm located in
southeastern Nebraska. Our hens are raised on pasture with access to
the outdoors year-round, and we market directly to consumers who care
about where their food comes from and how it's produced.
We are writing today in strong opposition to the so-called Food
Security and Farm Protection Act (S. 1326), which is anything but
protective for small farms like ours. The bill is a thinly veiled
attempt to overturn Proposition 12 in California and strip states of
their right to set standards for the food sold within their borders.
That is a dangerous precedent, for farming, for democracy, and for the
future of local food systems.
Our farm meets Prop 12 standards, and then some, not because we're
forced to, but because we believe it's the right way to farm. When
voters in California said they wanted to support higher animal welfare,
they opened up opportunity for farmers like us who already do things
the right way.
S. 1326 would undercut that progress by shielding industrial
operators from accountability and turning back the clock on animal
welfare and consumer trust. It sends a message that corporations, not
voters, get to decide about agriculture. That's not freedom, and it's
not food security.
If this bill becomes law, it won't help small farms, it will crush
them. It will reward confinement and corner-cutting, and penalize
farmers who go above and beyond to raise animals humanely. We urge you
to reject this bill and defend both state sovereignty and the future of
ethical, sustainable farming in America.
Thank you for your time and your commitment to supporting
responsible farmers.
Sincerely,
Pemberley Farms.
To the Committee,
At Pinedora Farms in Arizona, we grow vegetables using permaculture
design in commercial greenhouses and are deeply committed to organic
farming, holistic nutrition, and education. Through our community
programs, including children's farming experiences, health and
sustainability courses, and support for off-grid living, we aim to
inspire a new generation to care for the [E]arth and each other.
We support Proposition 12 because it affirms values that matter to
farms like ours: ethical stewardship, transparency, and the right of
people to choose food that aligns with their beliefs. The EATS Act, and
any attempt to revive it, would undermine those values and remove
states' ability to set standards that reflect their communities.
A better food system depends on integrity, education, and respect,
not shortcuts. Please protect Prop 12 and reject the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Pinedora Farms,
Arizona.
Re: Support for Proposition 12 and Humane Farming standards
Dear Committee Members,
Recent claims blaming California's Proposition 12 for rising egg
prices are misleading. Proposition 12 simply establishes modest,
commonsense standards for eggs produced and sold in California--
standards that prevent needless animal suffering and reduce food safety
risks.
As a farm that specializes in eggs and poultry, we want to set the
record straight: Proposition 12 and other cage-free laws are not the
cause of price increases. The real driver is the ongoing avian flu
outbreak, which has devastated poultry farms across the nation.
The egg regulations under Proposition 12 took effect in January
2022. Independent economic research, including studies from
institutions like UC Davis, has shown that the law's impact on egg
prices has been minimal.
By contrast, the avian flu outbreak has been catastrophic. In the
final quarter of 2024 alone, over 20 million egg-laying hens were
culled due to the disease. This dramatic loss in supply has led to the
current rise in egg prices. Regardless of whether hens are raised in
cage-free, conventional, or pasture-based systems, such losses affect
supply and cost for everyone.
Farmers who have invested heavily in cage-free systems would be
severely harmed if Proposition 12 were repealed. Many of us have spent
years and substantial resources upgrading our operations to meet both
humane standards and growing consumer demand. Rolling back these laws
would destabilize the market and punish those of us working toward a
more ethical and sustainable future.
More importantly, Proposition 12 is simply the right thing to do.
It ensures that hens have enough space to move naturally, spread their
wings, and engage in basic behaviors that promote health and well-
being. Extensive research has shown that extreme confinement causes
severe stress and physical ailments in animals.
At Tzaddik Farm, we see firsthand that happier, healthier hens
produce better-quality eggs. Consumers are increasingly demanding food
that reflects their values--and laws like Proposition 12 help make that
possible.
Farmers who have embraced humane practices should not be penalized.
Rather than weakening these hard-fought reforms, we should strengthen
disease prevention efforts and support those committed to responsible,
sustainable agriculture.
I urge Members of this Committee not only to preserve Proposition
12, but to champion similar reforms nationwide.
Nathan Rakov,
Tzaddik Farm.
Regarding S. 1326
As owners of a small Ohio farm that follows organic farming
practices, we feel that the current laws regarding animal welfare and
the humane raising of farm animals are inadequate. The Food Security
and Farm Protection Act (formerly the EATS [A]ct) should not be passed
because it restricts the rights of any states willing to define and
confront animal welfare within their borders.
Historically legislation for human rights, food safety,
environmental protection, and even auto emissions, has often originated
in a forward-looking state, and then gone on to be adopted nationally.
In most cases this has served in the best interests of our society.
Please do not infringe on the rights of our ``states'' to move in a
direction they feel best serves their citizens.
Tom Rapini and Valerie Garrett,
A's and O's Farm,
Mentor, OH.
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Craig, and Members of the
Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. My name is
Julie Rawson, and I co-own Many Hands Organic Farm in Barre,
Massachusetts. For over 40 years, we have grown food rooted in natural
principles--organic, regenerative, and humane. We are proud to provide
our community with high-quality produce, meat, and eggs raised with
care for animals, people, and the planet. This philosophy has shaped
our success, and it reflects the values of the customers and neighbors
we serve.
That's why I must express deep concern over attempts to override
state laws like Massachusetts' Question 3 and California's Proposition
12, both passed by voters to ensure basic humane standards for farm
animals. These laws are not radical. They reflect a broad, bipartisan
public consensus that farm animals should not be kept in extreme
confinement.
Some special interests in the pork industry now seek to undo these
laws. This is a direct threat to farmers like me, and to the very idea
of state-level decision-making in agriculture. If enacted, policies
like the EATS Act or Food Security and Farm Protection Act would force
us to compete with low-cost, low-welfare industrial products, many from
foreign-owned companies, regardless of what our communities have voted
for or believe in.
This provision is not just bad policy, it's a betrayal of
democratic process and market fairness. State laws like Question 3 and
Proposition 12 have opened opportunities for ethical producers to
thrive. Dismantling these important laws would shut those doors,
prioritizing corporate consolidation over consumer demand and public
interest.
Massachusetts and California voters chose to end the intensive
confinement of animals. That choice deserves respect not erasure at the
Federal level.
We are grateful to Representative Jim McGovern for his leadership
in defending farmers, states' rights, and the humane treatment of
animals. I urge all Members of this Committee to join him.
Sincerely,
Julie Rawson,
Co-owner, Many Hands Organic Farm,
Barre, Massachusetts.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
We are Renegade Ridge, a small, independent pig farm committed to
raising animals with care, dignity, and respect. We proudly exceed
Proposition 12 standards, our pigs live outdoors, with space to root,
roam, and live as pigs are meant to. We chose this model not just
because it's humane, but because it's healthier for the animals and
safer for the people who eat our food.
Proposition 12 set a baseline for decency. It's a reflection of
evolving science and public values, an acknowledgment that extreme
confinement is not only cruel but also linked to increased disease
risk. By ensuring animals have basic freedom of movement, Prop 12
improves welfare, reduces stress-related illness, and promotes safer
food.
Laws like Prop 12 also give farmers like us, who do the right thing
every day, a fair shot. When industrial producers cut corners with
extreme confinement, they undercut farmers committed to ethical,
sustainable practices.
We urge you to reject any legislation, including the so-called Food
Security and Farm Protection Act, that would undo this progress.
Rolling back Prop 12 would harm animals, compromise public health, and
reward the worst actors in the industry at the expense of responsible
farmers.
Respectfully,
Renegade Ridge.
Dear Members of the Committee,
Right from the Hive is a small beekeeping operation in upstate New
York, committed to ethical practices and healthy ecosystems. We work
closely with local farms and understand how important it is to align
farming with public trust.
Proposition 12 gives consumers a voice and supports farmers who
already raise animals with compassion. Trying to override it only
serves those looking to cut corners. It undermines both the integrity
of the food system and the rights of states to govern within their
borders.
Let's not move backward. Keep Prop 12 intact.
Sincerely,
Right from the Hive,
New York.
To the Committee,
At Iron Quail Ranch in Marana, Arizona, we regeneratively raise
meat goats and poultry with care and respect for both the animals and
the land. Like many small producers, we believe that farming should
reflect the values of the communities it serves, not be managed through
distant Federal regulation.
I support state and voter rights over Federal regulation. The EATS
Act, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, or any other name would
strip states and local farmers of the ability to set their own
agricultural standards. That's not just bad policy, it's a direct
threat to small ranches like mine that rely on transparency, integrity,
and local trust.
Please stand up for state sovereignty and for independent farmers
across the country.
Reject the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Michael Rodocker,
Iron Quail Ranch,
Marana, Arizona.
Dear Members of the Committee,
We raise pigs the old-fashioned way at Rosy Buck Farm, on pasture,
with fresh air, sunshine, and space to roam. Proposition 12 represents
a basic standard of decency. It's not extreme to say animals should be
able to turn around and lie down comfortably.
When voters in California passed Prop 12, they sent a clear
message: consumers care about how their food is raised. And for those
of us already raising pigs humanely, that's good news. Prop 12 creates
an opportunity for small and responsible farmers.
Overturning this law would be a step backward--for the animals, for
farmers like us who already meet these standards, and for consumers who
want to make informed, ethical choices. Please keep Prop 12 intact.
Sincerely,
Rosy Buck Farm.
To the Committee,
At Yes Ma'am Country Harvest in Gillette, Wyoming, we raise cattle
with a commitment to integrity, animal care, and serving our local
community. We believe that states should have the freedom to reflect
the values of their residents in how food is produced and sold.
We strongly oppose the EATS Act, under any name, because it strips
states of their ability to enact meaningful agricultural standards.
Laws like California's Proposition 12 are examples of how states can
respond to voter concerns with thoughtful policies. The EATS Act would
erase those decisions--handing more power to industrial agriculture and
taking it away from farmers and communities.
Please stand with independent producers and protect the right of
states to guide their own agricultural future. Reject the EATS Act and
keep Prop 12 and laws like it intact.
Sincerely,
Madison, Janell, & Laura Roush,
Yes Ma'am Country Harvest,
Gillette, WY.
To the Committee,
At Bit of Elysium in Ocala, Florida, we raise goats and chickens
with care and intention, participating in a tradition of small-scale
dairy farming that prioritizes animal well-being and land stewardship.
We support laws like California's Proposition 12. We oppose the
EATS Act (and any repackaged version of it) because it attacks the
right of states to enact policies that reflect their citizens' values.
Whether it's about food safety, ethical treatment, or environmental
standards, those decisions belong with the people and their
representatives and not multinational corporations. Farm animals
deserve to live a healthy, clean, and comfortable life even those that
are destined for the table. We support laws like California's
Proposition 12 to keep the animals and the people that work with them
healthy.
Please reject this overreach and stand with independent farmers and
local communities. And please protect Prop 12 and laws like it.
Sincerely,
Candace Roy,
Bit of Elysium, mini Lamancha goats.
To the Committee,
At Sammy's Farm in Grape Creek, Texas, we raise free-range animals
and believe in giving our animals a good life. We also believe in the
freedom of states to choose how food is produced and sold within their
borders.
We serve a community that increasingly asks where its food comes
from and how it was produced. Proposition 12 gives us the framework to
answer those questions with integrity.
The law's multi-year timeline was generous by agricultural
standards. Responsible family farmers have seen the benefits: stronger
markets, better animal health, and growing trust from our buyers.
We urge you to stand against any Federal attempt to weaken Prop 12,
like the EATS Act. Let the states lead when they are willing to raise
the bar.
Sincerely,
Sammy's Farm,
Grape Creek, TX.
To the Committee,
At Horizon Honey LLC in Beulah, Wyoming, we care for bees and
produce honey that reflects the health of our land and the integrity of
our practices. Pollinators are foundational to food production, and so
is trust in where that food comes from.
Proposition 12 sets commonsense standards for animal housing and
gives both producers and consumers peace of mind that the basics of
humane care are being met.
These are not extreme standards. They reflect what responsible
farms already do.
Please preserve Proposition 12; it's working. And I urge the
Committee to reject the EATS Act, Food Security and Farm Protection Act
and any attempts to dismantle Prop 12 or laws like it.
Sincerely,
Colt Sell,
Horizon Honey LLC,
Beulah, Wyoming.
To the Committee,
I recently heard about the disastrous EATS Act. As a former
regenerative agriculture farmer in Michigan and remain deeply committed
to responsible, independent agriculture. I believe states should have
the right to support farmers who prioritize quality and ethical
practices.
As a Michigan shepherd who made the well-being of my sheep a top
priority, I saw firsthand how standards in our state reflected the
public's growing concern about how food is produced. Michigan passed an
anti-confinement law that phases out extreme confinement of egg-laying
hens, veal calves, and pregnant pigs, ensuring animals have enough
space to lie down, turn around, and extend their limbs. These reforms
mirror the intent behind California's Proposition 12, and represent a
broader movement toward transparency, animal welfare, and consumer
trust. Whether in Michigan or elsewhere, states must retain the ability
to set and uphold these kinds of reasonable protections.
The EATS Act would strip that ability away. It would override
voter-approved laws and reward large-scale operations that resist
transparency and accountability. Farmers had ample time to adjust to
these standards. Choosing not to was a business decision, not a
justification to dismantle progress others worked hard to achieve.
Please stand with independent farmers, past and present, and with
states that are trying to do the right thing. Protect local laws like
Prop 12 and reject the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Brian J. Smith,
Former Michigan Farmer and Concerned Citizen.
To the Committee,
My name is Leah Smith, and my family owns Nodding Thistle, a 72
acre organic and diversified farm in Nashville, Michigan. Since 1984,
we have practiced sustainable farming with a focus on organically grown
vegetables, herbs, small berries, fruit trees, and humanely raised
dairy and beef cattle, and egg-laying and ``table carcass'' chickens.
Our philosophy is rooted in working with nature--not against it--to
produce healthy, flavorful food through practices like soil building,
diverse crop selection, the fostering of beneficial insect populations,
and minimal irrigation. We believe that sustainability, transparency,
and animal welfare are essential to the future of American agriculture;
that it is what many of both farmers and consumers want.
I am writing in strong support of California's Proposition 12 and
in firm opposition to the EATS Act and any reincarnation of it in the
House farm bill. These Federal efforts seek to override state-level
agricultural standards, including vital animal welfare laws, and would
upend the democratic process that allowed voters to adopt policies
reflecting their values.
Many of us have made serious investments in compliance with these
higher standards--not because we were forced to, but because we believe
it is the right way to farm. To nullify those laws now would be both
economically and morally irresponsible. It would punish farmers who
stepped up, reward those who refused to adapt, and undermine the
consumer trust that is so essential to our local economies. A lack of
this trust is, in my opinion, already leading to a lack of patronage.
The EATS Act and similar provisions in the current House farm bill
would also violate state sovereignty--denying Michiganders, and
citizens across the country, the ability to make decisions about the
kind of agriculture we want in our communities. This approach is deeply
undemocratic, and it clearly does not represent the will of the people.
Even though Proposition 12 is California's business, Michigan could be
next.
In contrast, Proposition 12 reflects a growing consensus among
consumers and farmers alike--that higher welfare standards matter, and
that farming can be both ethical, environmentally sound, and
economically viable, as well as truly beneficial to human health.
I urge you to reject the EATS Act and all related language that
would invalidate state laws. Uphold Proposition 12, and with it, the
voices of farmers and voters working for a more responsible and
ultimately resilient food system.
Sincerely,
Leah Smith,
Nodding Thistle Farm,
Nashville, MI.
To: Congresswoman Angie Craig and Congressman Jim McGovern
My name is Stephen Soros, and I run The Song of Orchids, a small
specialty farm on the Big Island of Hawai`i. We cultivate rare tropical
orchids and fruit using regenerative practices passed down over
generations.
Though we do not raise animals, we stand firmly in support of
California's Proposition 12. It reflects a growing national movement to
align food production with compassion and care. When big industry
fights laws like Prop 12, it's often to preserve the status quo of low-
cost, low-welfare production. But Prop 12 helps build a future where
integrity is rewarded, not punished.
Please protect Proposition 12 and laws like it. The soul of
American agriculture depends on it.
Mahalo,
Stephen Soros,
The Song of Orchids,
Honoka`a, HI.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
At Sourland Farm, we run a small family operation atop the Sourland
Mountain in Hillsborough Township, New Jersey. We raise egg-laying hens
and provide our local community as well as far beyond with the freshest
natural eggs possible, which are collected daily. Because we work in
small batches, we see the impact of every choice we make on our
animals, our land, and the people we serve. Our customers expect and
demand the very best products from our farm, be it eating eggs, fertile
eggs, or live poultry.
That's why we strongly support Proposition 12 and oppose any
Federal effort to weaken or overturn it. This law sets basic, humane
standards for how animals are treated. For those of us who raise hens
with care, giving them room to move, peck, and behave naturally, Prop
12 validates our values.
Our customers buy from us because they know we prioritize animal
welfare. They want eggs that come from hens that weren't confined to
cages their entire lives and are fed all-natural feed that is
Antibiotic Free, GMO Free, Hormone Free, Vaccine Free, Pesticide Free,
Chemical Free. Prop 12 reinforces that growing market and keeps
industrial producers from cutting corners at the expense of both
animals and smaller farms like ours.
Family farms should be part of the solution, not collateral damage
in a system that puts profit over principles. We urge you to uphold
state-level laws like Prop 12 and protect the right of voters to choose
higher standards for food and farming.
Respectfully,
Sourland Farm,
``Happy Hens Lay Healthy Eggs''.
Dear Committee Members,
As a Connecticut-based farm, we strongly support Proposition 12.
The law reflects a basic truth many small farmers already know: how
animals are treated matters. We've watched how efforts like Prop 12 are
reshaping the agricultural landscape in a good way, rewarding values-
driven farming, not cutting corners. The EATS Act and similar proposals
threaten to erase that progress. Please reject those efforts and stand
with the farms that reflect what voters and consumers overwhelmingly
support.
Amelia South,
Black Sun Farm.
Dear Committee Members,
My name is Amy Surburg, and I run Berry Goods Farm, where we raise
laying hens and grow food for our family and our community. I'm a
former engineer turned farmer and mother of five. These days, I spend
more time observing the ecosystem in our backyard than any lab, and
I've come to understand just how connected everything is. Our chickens
fertilize the soil and help manage pests, and in return, they get to
live the way chickens should--able to move, scratch, perch, and spread
their wings.
That's why I support Proposition 12, because it reflects the kind
of thoughtful, practical animal care that farmers like me already
believe in. Prop 12 hasn't just affirmed better standards; it has
created real market opportunities for those of us who prioritize
humane, sustainable practices. We've seen increased demand from buyers
who want eggs from farms where animals aren't crammed into cages. That
demand supports small-scale, diversified farms like ours and encourages
more farmers to rethink how they raise animals.
I strongly oppose efforts to dismantle laws like Prop 12 through
Federal overreach, such as the EATS Act or provisions in the farm bill
that would block states from setting humane farming standards. Voters
across the country (including here in Indiana) want food systems that
reflect compassion and integrity. Those voices deserve to be heard.
We're raising our kids on this farm to understand where food comes
from, how to be good stewards of our animals, and why doing what's
right matters for our health and the health of our community. Please
don't take that choice away from our family or the many others who
believe farming can be both ethical and productive.
Sincerely,
Amy Surburg,
Farm Owner,
Berry Goods Farm LLC.
Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
We are Patty and Erick Taylor of Devon Point Farm in North
Stonington, Connecticut, where we raise humanely treated beef and pork,
including happy, healthy pigs raised outdoors with care and respect.
I'm writing to express my strong support for Proposition 12 and
opposition to the EATS Act, and to share what I've seen firsthand: that
higher standards for animal welfare aren't just ethical, they're also
good for business.
I've worked with pigs long enough to know what they need to thrive.
They are intelligent, social animals. When they're given the space to
move freely, root, and rest comfortably, they're healthier, more
resilient, and less prone to stress and illness. The core standards
outlined in Prop 12, like ensuring animals can turn around and lie
down, reflect what many of us who care deeply about animal welfare
already know and practice.
Since Prop 12 passed, we've seen growing demand from buyers who
want pork from systems that meet these standards. It's created market
opportunities for farms like mine that prioritize animal care and
transparency.
Proposition 12 was passed by voters, upheld by the Supreme Court,
and gave the industry years to adapt. It reflects a broader change
happening in agriculture, and it's one we should be leaning into, not
fighting against.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective. I hope you
will stand by Prop 12 and the farmers who are helping build a more
humane and future-focused food system.
Sincerely,
Patty and Erick Taylor,
Devon Point Farm,
North Stonington, CT.
Dear Rep. Cline,
As a farmer who raises goats and swine in your district, I am
writing to express my support for Prop 12 and laws like it across the
country.
Local communities know what is best for themselves and should be
able to pass laws protecting animal welfare, farmers and consumers. On
July 23rd, the House Agriculture Committee is holding a hearing on the
``implications'' of Proposition 12, which bans the sale of caged/crated
eggs, pork and veal in California.
Under the guise of protecting independent farmers like me, some
House Members are attempting to roll back Prop 12.
In reality, overturning Prop 12 would undermine independent farmers
by removing important market opportunities for those of us who have
already invested in more humane animal housing systems to meet the
growing demand for higher-welfare products.
I own and operate a small farm in the Shenandoah Valley near
Bridgewater, raising Nubian dairy goats and Gloucestershire Old Spot
heritage pigs for sale as breeder animals for other farms here in
Virginia and throughout the country. Rolling back proposition 12 would
allow farmers to produce more product in less space, thereby profiting
unfairly from their inhumane farming practices. It would further
disadvantage me in competing with big Ag, my business competitor,
competitors that receive handouts from the Federal farm bill (handouts
that I do not receive), competitors that raise animals in horrid
conditions to achieve an economy of scale advantage that would require
me to sell my conscious to match.
Eliminating laws like Prop 12 would further entrench the industrial
confinement system that puts farmers like me at a disadvantage in the
marketplace every day.
I fully support local control and the ability for states to take
action against the consolidation of the agriculture industry in support
of a more humane and healthy food system.
I urge you to oppose any future efforts to overturn Prop 12,
whether by the EATS Act or otherwise.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bill Theiss,
Fawn Crossing Farms,
Bridgewater, VA.
To the Members of Congress,
My name is Bobby Tucker, and I run Okfuskee Farm in Siler City,
North Carolina. We raise pastured pork, pigs that are given space to
roam, root, and live as pigs were meant to. Rather than altering the
inherent nature of pigs, we work with their characteristics and
integrate it as an ecological tool. This plays a part of our whole farm
management, that also includes sheep, steers, fruit and nut crops, and
mixed vegetables. Our farming methods, and ultimately the high-quality
products that they yield, are the foundation of what our customers
value.
We support Proposition 12 because it reflects the kind of farming
that respects animals and rewards responsible animal and land
stewardship. Our pigs have room to forage, socialize, and live without
being confined in crates. That's not just a moral choice, it results in
healthier animals, reduced input costs, and stronger trust with our
customers.
Since the law was passed, we've seen growing demand from retailers
and restaurants who are looking for pork that meets Prop 12 standards.
That demand has created real business opportunities for producers like
us who raise animals with care and transparency.
Prop 12 didn't just set rules, it responded to a clear shift in
what consumers expect from their food. Overturning it would not only
ignore those expectations, it would penalize farmers who are already
meeting them.
Proposition 12 isn't some radical new idea; it aligns with what we
already do. It rewards humane animal care, and integrity over
confinement-based shortcuts. The EATS Act, on the other hand, is a
giveaway to industrial agriculture and would strip away the rights of
both consumers and states.
North Carolina is full of people who care about how animals are
raised and want to support farmers--particularly small farmers--who
utilize humane livestock and land stewardship practices. Please protect
laws like Prop 12 and reject the EATS Act, because ethical hog farming
matters.
Sincerely,
Bobby Tucker,
Okfuskee Farm,
Siler City, NC.
Dear Chairman Glenn ``GT'' Thompson and Members of the Committee:
We're proud to farm in Pennsylvania, the state Chairman Thompson
represents. At Two Creek Farm, we raise pigs on pasture and rotate them
across our wooded acreage in a way that supports soil health and animal
well-being.
Proposition 12 reflects values we see right here in Pennsylvania:
decency, independence, and doing right. This law ensures animals raised
for food are treated with respect, and it recognizes farmers who've
chosen more humane, more resilient systems.
Undermining Prop 12 through Federal overreach doesn't serve farmers
or consumers. It serves the biggest players in the industry, while
making it harder for farms like ours to compete and grow. Please
protect Prop 12 and oppose legislation like the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act.
Respectfully,
Two Creek Farm.
To the Members of Congress,
My name is John Ubaldo, and I operate John Boy's Farm in Cambridge,
New York, where we raise registered Berkshire pigs, Black Angus cattle,
and a variety of poultry. Every animal is treated with respect and
raised in a manner that reflects traditional, ethical agriculture.
I strongly oppose the EATS Act. This bill would take away the
ability of New York and other states to enact commonsense protections
for farm animals. It threatens the future of farms like mine, which
depend on quality, transparency, and consumer trust, not factory-style
production.
The EATS Act may claim to be about commerce, but in reality, it
silences local voices and puts honest farmers at a disadvantage.
Please oppose the EATS Act and protect the rights of states,
farmers, and consumers.
Respectfully,
John Ubaldo,
John Boy's Farm, Cambridge, NY.
To the Members of the Agriculture Committee,
I am asking you to oppose the Food Security and Farm Protection Act
which would strip states of their right to determine their agricultural
practices.
At Udder Blessings in Colorado, we believe in laws like
California's Proposition 12 (and our own state's laws that prohibit
farm animal intensive confinement).
The Food Security Act allows the cruel practices of puppy mills and
intensive confinement where animals spend their entire lives barely
able to move in filthy, dangerous conditions. These conditions increase
the risk of bird flu and other diseases and increase the need for heavy
antibiotic use which is harmful not only to the animals, but to our
overall food supply. Consumers deserve to know that their food comes
from animals treated with care. It's good for farmers, good for
animals, and good for trust in agriculture.
This [A]ct also causes an unfair disadvantage for farmers who raise
their animals in healthy, humane conditions.
Please oppose the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and the
overreaching impact it will have on states' rights and local farms.
Sincerely,
Udder Blessings,
Colorado Springs, CO
Dear Representatives Craig, Carbajal, and McGovern,
My name is Jeff Ward. I'm a hog farmer in Mankato, Minnesota. I've
raised pigs most of my life, and I'm writing today in support of Prop
12. Rolling back Prop 12 is bad news for American farmers who have made
investments and are working hard to make a living to keep food on the
table.
When California voters adopted Prop 12 and the Supreme Court upheld
it, many hog farmers saw it as a business opportunity. Same with the
law in Massachusetts. And they're not asking for anything extreme--just
that pigs be able to stand up, lie down, and turn around. That's common
sense.
Now along comes legislative attempts such as the EATS Act, trying
to bulldoze all that progress. If it passes, the contracts farmers have
signed and the barns they rebuilt could all go down the drain. It's
like pulling the rug out from under folks who did the right thing.
I hear folks claim that the EATS Act is about protecting farmers.
Well, I am a farmer--and I don't feel protected. The EATS Act doesn't
help independent farms. It helps the biggest players, the ones that
never changed, the ones still hanging on to outdated ways. It helps the
processors who want total control, not folks who are working hard to
farm with integrity.
If you're wondering where the industry's headed--look at the
buyers. McDonald's, Costco, Wendy's, Safeway--they've all committed to
getting rid of crate pork. They're not doing that for fun. They're
doing it because their customers demanded it.
Here's the truth: there's a divide in the pork world right now. The
big lobbyists in D.C. say they speak for farmers, but they don't.
They're pushing hard to eliminate Prop 12, and if you listen to them,
Prop 12 is to be blamed for everything in the world. But it doesn't
reflect what's happening on the ground. Meanwhile, those of us actually
doing the work--we're adapting, we're innovating, we're succeeding. And
we're proud of the way we raise animals.
I've been at this a long time. I've changed with the times. And
I've seen firsthand: you can be a good farmer, raise healthy animals,
and still sleep at night knowing you did right by them.
I respectfully ask that you support Prop 12. Don't punish the
hardworking farmers who made investments. Don't roll back standards
voters and consumers clearly support. Let's build a pork industry we
can be proud of--one that supports small- and mid-sized farms.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Jeff Ward,
Hog Farmer,
Mankato, Minnesota.
Dear Members of the Committee,
At Skip Rock Ranch, located near Pearsall, Texas, we raise cattle
with a simple mission: to produce honest, healthy beef the way our
grandparents did. Our animals are born and raised on pasture, graze
freely on native grasses, and are never given hormones, steroids, or
antibiotics. We practice low-stress, humane handling techniques and
work with a small-town butcher, allowing our customers to know exactly
where and how their food is raised.
We support Proposition 12 because it represents the values we hold
dear, animal welfare, transparency, and food raised with integrity.
This law reflects what many Americans are calling for: a shift away
from industrialized confinement and a return to food systems rooted in
care, quality, and accountability.
Being from Texas, it pains me to tell you that California actually
did something right with Prop 12. The way we raise animals today in the
U.S. is frightening. Our family rarely eats chicken or pork, unless we
get it directly from the farmer, because we know how it is likely
raised on factory farms in battery cages and gestation crates. We do
have our own backyard chickens for eggs, which helps.
As a country, we've drifted too far from the source of our food.
Meat that once came from trusted local butchers now often arrives in
shrink-wrapped trays, shipped in from mega-feedlots and even overseas.
Meanwhile, family farms and small processors are squeezed out. Prop 12
helps put the focus back on where food comes from and how animals are
treated before they become part of our meals.
Efforts to overturn Prop 12 through the so-called ``Food Security
and Farm Protection Act'' don't protect food or farms, they protect
unchecked consolidation and a race to the bottom. Farmers like us, who
raise animals with care and work directly with consumers, are
undermined when laws allow the worst practices in agriculture to
dominate the marketplace.
We urge the Committee to preserve Proposition 12 and defend the
rights of states and voters to demand higher standards in agriculture.
It's not just about animal welfare, it's about the integrity of our
food system and the survival of independent, values-driven farms like
ours.
Respectfully,
Scott Wilbeck,
Skip Rock Ranch.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee:
At Wild Goose Ranch in Missouri, we raise a flock of 600 sheep on
open pasture, with access to fresh water, healthy forage, and the
freedom to move and thrive. It's a good life for them, and that care
and respect show up in their health and in the quality of what we
produce.
That's why we believe standards like Proposition 12 are so
important. They recognize and reward the kind of ethical, responsible
farming that puts animal welfare and transparency first, not
confinement and shortcuts.
We are strongly opposed to the EATS Act, which would erase these
kinds of hard-earned, commonsense standards. It threatens the progress
being made across the country and puts independent family farmers at a
disadvantage while giving an edge to industrial operations that cut
corners.
We urge the Committee to stand strong: preserve Prop 12, and reject
the EATS Act, for farmers like us who believe in doing things the right
way.
With thanks,
Wild Goose Ranch,
Missouri.
Dear Members of the Committee,
At Woods & Stems in Indiana, we grow mushrooms using regenerative
practices. While we don't raise animals, we believe laws like
Proposition 12 are crucial for building a food system that values
ethical treatment, transparency, and sustainable farming.
Consumers are demanding higher standards. Prop 12 helps ensure
small farms with humane practices are not pushed aside by industrial
producers cutting corners. This is about protecting a future where
quality and care matter.
Thank you for standing with family farms and voters who want
better.
Sincerely,
Woods & Stems.
Dear House Agriculture Committee Members,
My name is Trisha Zachman, and I'm an Niman Ranch hog farmer and
owner of Feathered Acres Learning Farm + Inn in Belgrade, Minnesota.
I'm writing to urge you not to roll back Proposition 12--an important
policy that protects the values of farmers, consumers, and animals
alike.
Rolling back Prop 12 would devastate independent farmers like me
who have built our farms to meet and exceed these standards. We've made
significant investments in ethical, humane farming because there is a
market for it--and because it's the right thing to do. Our pigs are not
raised in confinement crates. They are not part of a system that treats
them like machines. They are raised with dignity, and Prop 12 supports
this way of farming.
This policy also creates a rare and critical opportunity for new
and beginning farmers to enter the market. In an industry dominated by
vertical integration and industrial-scale operations, niche markets
like the one supported by Prop 12 offer a foothold--one where farmers
can compete not by getting big, but by doing things better. Eliminating
this policy would remove one of the few remaining viable entry points
for the next generation of livestock farmers.
Our rural community is stronger because of the relationships we've
built with customers who care where their food comes from. Local
grocers, chefs, and families actively choose to support farms that
align with their values. When those markets disappear, so does the
ability for farms like ours to survive--and with it, a piece of rural
America.
Please don't turn your back on the future of farming. Stand with
independent producers, rural communities, and the millions of Americans
who support humane, transparent, and local agriculture. Uphold
Proposition 12.
Nolan & Trisha Zachman
To the Members of Congress,
At Feathered Acres Farm in Belgrade, Minnesota, we raise pigs with
care, space, and respect. As a small, independent hog farm, our animals
are never treated like cogs in a machine--they're raised outdoors with
the ability to move freely and root naturally, the way pigs are meant
to.
We strongly oppose the EATS Act. This legislation would wipe out
state-level standards like California's Proposition 12, which simply
ensures that animals have enough space to turn around. These are
commonsense, humane standards that reflect what consumers want and what
responsible farmers already provide.
Prop 12 has opened up a real pathway for small and beginning
farmers to enter the hog industry--an industry that has largely been
taken over by large-scale, corporate-controlled operations. Without
access to high-volume processing plants or industrial infrastructure,
new farmers need niche markets like crate-free or pasture-raised pork
to survive and grow. Prop 12 creates a demand for higher-welfare,
specialty products that allow us to command a fair price and compete on
values, not volume.
Instead of being forced to conform to a system that favors
consolidation and confinement, beginning farmers can carve out a future
by raising animals in alignment with their ethics and the expectations
of today's conscious consumers. These opportunities bring young people
back to the land, support farm-based entrepreneurship, and revitalize
rural communities through job creation and local investment.
Prop 12 is a farmer-friendly law that's good for animals,
consumers, and the future of agriculture. The EATS Act, on the other
hand, would erase that progress and make it harder for farms like ours
to compete with CAFOs that put profit over principle.
Please support responsible farming and the right of states to set
meaningful standards. Stand against the EATS Act, and uphold Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Trisha Zachman,
Feathered Acres Farm,
Belgrade, MN.
Dear Committee Members,
Prop 12 isn't radical; it's reasonable. As a family farmer, I know
firsthand that giving animals enough space to move, turn around, and
lie down isn't just humane, it's common sense. This law reflects how
many of us already operate. Efforts like the EATS Act threaten to
punish farms that choose to do better. Please reject it. And please
preserve Prop 12 and laws like it.
Sincerely,
Zephyr Family Farm.
To the Committee,
At New Story Farm, we believe food should tell a better story, one
rooted in compassion, sustainability, and integrity. Located in
Hutchinson, MN, we raise our animals with care and respect,
prioritizing their welfare, the health of our land, and the trust of
the people who buy our food.
We support Proposition 12 because it reflects values we live by
every day: humane treatment of animals, transparency in agriculture,
and the right of states to uphold higher standards. This law didn't
appear overnight, it was passed by voters who demanded better. And it
aligns with what more and more consumers are asking for: food produced
without cruelty or confinement.
The EATS Act would take us backwards. It would wipe out laws like
Prop 12, silencing voters and stripping states of the right to set
their own standards. Worse, it would give industrial factory farms even
more power, at the expense of small-scale, ethical farms like ours.
This isn't just a policy debate. It's a question of whether we
reward producers who do the right thing or allow those who cut corners
to dictate the future of farming.
Please protect laws like Prop 12 and reject the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Daniel and Stephanie Zetah,
New Story Farm, MN.
dated
March 2024
Dear Senator/Representative:
On behalf of Massachusetts' family farms, we're writing to
respectfully request your help in stopping legislation that would harm
Massachusetts and our communities.
In the past two farm bill debates, hundreds of farmers spoke out
against the highly controversial ``King amendment,'' a measure that
could gut an array of state laws in Massachusetts and the rest of the
country. The amendment, sought by former Representative Steve King, was
fortunately kept out of the final 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, but now
some industrial CAFO lobbyists are pushing for the Ending Agricultural
Trade Suppression (EATS) Act (S. 2019/H.R. 4417) or other similar
legislation also modeled after Rep. King's legislation, to be included
in this year's farm bill. We urge you to oppose the EATS Act and any
measure intended to undermine state or local agricultural laws.
States and localities should continue to have the right to set
standards on agricultural products sold within their borders. These
standards prevent a race to the bottom when it comes to pollution, food
safety, animal welfare, and public health. Massachusetts' farmers have
invested significant amounts of time and money to comply with state
laws in Massachusetts and in other domestic markets, and the EATS Act
would pull the rug out from under us.
Please ensure that neither the EATS Act nor any similar attack on
state and local agricultural laws is included in the farm bill. Thank
you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Full Well Farm, Adams Ellison Farms Beef, Ludlow
Ancient Ponies Farm, Amherst Pine Meadow Alpacas, Mattapoisett
Carrot Corner Farm, Amherst Mann Orchards Inc., Methuen
Sunset Farm, Amherst Thatcher Farm, Milton
Hames & Axle Farm, Ashburnham Falls Farm LLC, Montague
Silver Oak Farm, Ashby Positively Goats, Natick
Bloom Woolen Yarns, Ashfield Walker Farm at Whortleberry Hill,
New Braintree
Bug Hill Farm, Ashfield Angel Hair Alpaca Farm, North
Grafton
Growing a Bunch Farm, Ashfield Abundance Farm, Northampton
Sweet Birch Herbals, Ashfield Cider Crossing Farm, Northfield
Whitney Acres Farm, Ashfield Crooked Trail Farm, Orange
Happy Hollow Farm, Barre Emma's Acres Alpacas, Oxford
Many Hands Organic Farm, Barre Oxford Farms, Oxford
Mindful Garden Farm, Barre Golden Rule Farm, Plymouth
White Rabbit Farm, Barre Colchester Farm, Plympton
Grown Up Farm, Belchertown A Mire Farm, Rehoboth
Phoenix Fruit Farm, Belchertown Rosasharn Farm, Rehoboth
Sentinel Farm, Belchertown Lanzoni's, Rochester
Heart Beets Farm, Berkley Cream of the Crop Farm, Russell
Balance Rock Farm, Berlin Dragon Tree Farm, Savoy
Eden Trail Farm, Bernardston Seven Arrows Farm, Seekonk
Daniels Farmstead, Blackstone Taylor Girls Farmstead, Sharon
Fiddlers Blue Farm, Bolton Moon in the Pond Farm, Sheffield
Greenleaf Farm, Brockton Sky View Farm, Sheffield
Bent Birch Farm, Brookfield Hopestill Farm, Sherborn
Allandale Farm Inc., Brookline Lightning Ridge Farm, Sherborn
Bay End Farm, Buzzards Bay Warm Colors Apiary, South Deerfield
Edgewood Cranberries, Carver The Bitty Red Barn, Southampton
Fresh Meadows Farm, Carver K E Farm Maple Products,
Southbridge
Wilder Brook Farm, Charlemont Meadow View Farm., Southwick
Kelso Homestead Farm, Chester Gardening The Community (GTC),
Springfield
Bare Roots Farm, Chesterfield Sixteen Acres Garden Center,
Springfield
Native Earth Teaching Farm, Springfield Food Policy Council
Chilmark (SFPC), Springfield
The Grey Barn and Farm, Chilmark Pineo Family Farm, Sterling
Black Thistle Farm, Clinton Sagatabscot Orchards, Sterling
K & L Organic Growers, Colrain White Pond Farm, Stow
Jordan Farm, Dartmouth Little Brook Farm, Sunderland
River Bard Farm, Deerfield Spring Rain Farm, Taunton
Riddle Brook Farm, Douglas Longnook Meadows Farm, Truro
Dunlap Farm, Dracut Bear Hill Farm, Tyngsborough
Farmer Tim's Vegetables, Dudley Chockalog Farm, Uxbridge
Beaver Brook Farm, East Bridgewater Ironstone Farm, Uxbridge
Rhineland Acres Farm, East Chase Hill Farm, Warwick
Bridgewater
Coonamessett Farm, East Falmouth Wareham Quail Farm, West Wareham
Chicoine Family Farm, Easthampton Emery Family Farm, Westborough
Upinngil, Gill Yellow Stonehouse Farm, Westfield
Mountain Orchard LLC, Granville Outlook Farm, Westhampton
Golden Egg Farm, Hardwick Wind Eagle Farm, Westminster
Harvard Alpaca Ranch, Harvard Aeonian Farm, Westport
Flora Farm, Haydenville Allen Farms, Westport
The Benson Place, Heath C Ledoux Wood Farm, Westport
Happy Goats Farm, Holliston Ferry Farm, Westport
Flor Farm, Holyoke Skinny Dip Farm, Westport
Nuestras Raices, Inc., Holyoke Stonehaven Farm, Westport
Long Life Farm, Hopkinton Sweet Goat Farm, Westport
Ladybug Farm Produce, Hubbardston Lombrico Farm, Whately
Hillside Herbals, Jefferson Quonquont Farm, Whately
DragonWing Farm, Lanesborough Dufresne's Sugar House,
Williamsburg
Red Shirt Farm, Lanesborough North Wind Farm, Winchendon
The Farm at the Winthrop Estate, Shared Harvest Winter CSA,
Lenox Winchester
Dancing Bear Farm, Leyden Hilltown Market, Worthington
Good Bunch Farm, Lincoln Justamere Tree Farm, Worthington
Raja Farms, Lincoln
June 9, 2025
Hon. John Boozman, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman, Chairman,
Senate Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Amy Klobuchar, Hon. Angie Craig,
Ranking Minority Member, Ranking Minority Member,
Senate Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Boozman, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Klobuchar,
and Ranking Member Craig:
We write to you today to discuss the pressing attack on common-
sense animal welfare regulations.
Currently, a small group of Congressmembers is attempting to push a
piece of legislation called the Food Security and Farm Protection Act
(S. 1326) a renamed version of the Ending Agricultural Trade
Suppression (EATS) Act (S. 2019, H.R. 4417) introduced in the 119th
Congress.
If passed, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (formally
known as the EATS Act) would eliminate virtually all state and local
legislative powers to impose standards or conditions on the ``pre-
harvest'' production of agricultural products entering their own
borders. This includes regulations related to food safety, disease and
pest control, and government procurement.\1\ In doing so, the Act would
overturn California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3, two
state laws that require farm animals to be raised without cruelty and
ban the sale of pork, eggs, and veal that don't comply with certain
animal welfare laws.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ McGill, K., Linder, A., & Eberly, K. (Green, C. Ed.). (2023).
Legislative analysis of S. 2019/H.R. 4417: The ``Ending Agricultural
Trade Suppression Act.'' Harvard Law School, Brooks McCormick, Jr.
Animal Law & Policy Program. https://animal.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/
uploads/Harvard-ALPP-EATS-Act-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The provisions in the Food Security and Farm Protection Act are not
new: In fact, similar versions of this bill have been introduced 5+
times--and met with uproar and strong opposition from a diverse set of
more than 5,000+ groups, including American farmers, consumers, and
businesses.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Diverse Opponents of the EATS Act.'' (n.d.). Retrieved April
18, 2025, from https://docs.google.com/document/d/
1eQgmpVGKskImh1NlPukUXDO76DS55CaJ/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This attempt should be treated similarly: We, the undersigned
companies, strongly urge you to oppose the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act and any of its iterations for the following reasons:
1. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act Counters Consumer Demand
for Common-Sense Production Standards
California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3
were passed overwhelmingly by voters in the 2018 and 2016
elections, respectively. Specifically, 63% of California
residents voted in favor of Proposition 12 and 78% of residents
voted in favor of Massachusetts' Question 3.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Makovec, A. (2024, April 2). U.S. farm bill on track to
invalidate the will of California voters. CBS News Bay Area. https://
www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/u-s-farm-bill-on-track-to-invalidate-
the-will-of-california-voters/; The New York Times. (2017, August 1).
Massachusetts question 3_minimum size requirements for farm animal
containment_results: Approved. The New York Times. https://
www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/massachusetts-ballot-measure-3-
improve-farm-animal-confines.
These state ballot measure results are just one example of
the growing consumer demand for products made with common-sense
animal welfare standards aligned with their expectations and
values. A recent study revealed that 80% of Americans are
concerned about the negative impacts of industrial animal
agriculture on animal welfare, second only to their concern
about its effect on public and community health.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
(2023). 2023 industrial animal agriculture opinion survey. https://
www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/2023_industrial_ag_sur
vey_results_report_052523_1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act Would Reverse Progress and
Investments in Animal Welfare
The Food Security and Farm Protection Act is a direct
response to recent legal and legislative success in the animal
welfare industry. If passed, the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act would overturn laws that require veal calves,
breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens to be housed according to
specific standards for freedom of movement, cage-free design,
and minimum floor space, and that prohibit a farm owner or
operator from knowingly confining specific animals in a cruel
manner.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ California Department of Education, Nutrition Services
Division. (2022, October). Proposition 12--Farm animal confinement
(Management Bulletin FDP-03-2022). https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/nu/fd/mb-
fdp-03-2022-a.asp.
Under the ruse of ``protecting farmers from costly
regulations,'' the Food Security and Farm Protection Act would
reverse major progress in humane farming practices, and it
would harm farmers that have already taken steps and made
investments in order to become Proposition 12-certified. For
example, the egg industry is now around 40% cage-free, and more
than 1,250 pork producers and distributors are Proposition 12-
compliant.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ United Egg Producers. (2025). Facts & Stats. https://
unitedegg.com/facts-stats/; Miller, C.J. (2024, January 4). Over 1,250
producers in compliance under California's Prop 12. Hoosier Ag Today.
https://www.hoosieragtoday.com/2024/01/04/over-1250-producers-
compliant-prop-12/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act Threatens the Balance of
Power in U.S. Government
The Food Security and Farm Protection Act aims to erode the
long-standing ability of state and local authorities to set
agricultural regulations within their borders, and it threatens
to undermine states' ability to pass laws and ballot measures
related to food safety, disease and pest control, and other
public health and welfare matters.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ McGill, K., Linder, A., & Eberly, K. (Green, C. Ed.). (2023).
Legislative analysis of S. 2019/H.R. 4417: The ``Ending Agricultural
Trade Suppression Act.'' Harvard Law School, Brooks McCormick, Jr.
Animal Law & Policy Program. https://animal.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/
uploads/Harvard-ALPP-EATS-Act-Report.pdf.
In 2023, the Supreme Court held that the regulatory
structure outlined in California's Proposition 12 was
constitutional. The court ruled that the state could establish
its own rules on meat sold in the state, even if that means
that products produced outside of the state must comply with
the law. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act--if passed--
would thus not only overturn voter-affirmed laws in multiple
states but would also run afoul of U.S. Supreme Court
precedent.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ McGill, K., Linder, A., & Eberly, K. (Green, C. Ed.). (2023).
Legislative analysis of S. 2019/H.R. 4417: The ``Ending Agricultural
Trade Suppression Act.'' Harvard Law School, Brooks McCormick, Jr.
Animal Law & Policy Program. https://animal.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/
uploads/Harvard-ALPP-EATS-Act-Report.pdf.
While some companies remain silent in the name of cheaper
production costs, we believe it is our responsibility to amplify the
concerns of our customers and business partners through our platforms.
As organizations with a direct impact on the U.S. food system, we must
never prioritize profit over the people, animals, and planet who
produce our food.
We, the undersigned companies, are proud to join forces with our
brave colleagues in farming in calling on Congress to reject the Food
Security and Farm Protection Act. We hope that you will listen to the
voice of American businesses, American farmers, and the American public
and avoid reversing animal welfare advancements and disrupting the
state-Federal equilibrium of the U.S. Government.
Thank you for your time and consideration. We welcome the
opportunity to collaborate with you on this important issue.
Sincerely,
Mike Salguero, Founder & CEO Hungryroot
ButcherBox
Watertown, MA New York, NY
Actual Veggies Kipster
Miami, FL North Manchester, IN
Applegate Natural Grocers
Bedminster, NJ Lakewood, CO
Bon Appetit Management Company Niman Ranch
Redwood Shores, CA Westminster, CO
Boulder Organics North Country Smokehouse
Louisville, CO Claremont, NH
Campfire Treats Open Farm
Rocklin, CA Dover, Delaware
Coleman Natural Foods ParsleyPet
Westminster, CO Kyle, TX
Crowd Cow Perdue Foods
Seattle, WA Salisbury, MD
duBreton USA Solutions Pet Products
Claremont, NH Littleton, CO
Earth Animal Thrive Market
Southport, CT; Westminster, MD Los Angeles, CA
Grass Roots Farmers' Co-op True Story Foods
Leslie, AR Fairfield, CA
Handsome Brook Farms White Oak Pastures
New York City, NY Bluffton, GA
Happy Valley Meat Company Whole30
Brooklyn, NY Salt Lake City, UT
Hickory Nut Gap Farm LLC Wild Nosh Pets
Fairview, NC Lafayette, CO
Home Place Pastures
Como, MS
July 16, 2025
Dear House Agriculture Committee Member,
Coleman All Natural Meats is the largest supplier of no antibiotics
ever, humanely raised, fresh and processed pork in the country, a
natural foods pioneer since 1875. We are writing today to express our
opposition to the Food Security and Farm Protection Act--formerly the
EATS Act--and any legislation that would roll back California's
Proposition 12 or Massachusetts' Question 3. Such a move would have
significant consequences for our company and network of pork producers
across eight states raising crate-free pigs.
All our pork suppliers made the choice to convert their operations
to be Proposition 12-certified. That was not an easy decision. It meant
a significant financial investment--an investment made in good faith
based on the passage of this state law by a vote of the people that was
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. They took on this challenge because
it opened new market opportunities. We pay a healthy premium for every
Prop 12-compliant pig our farmers supply.
Many Coleman farmers have shared that their operations have
improved after conversion, with better production results and lower
stress for people and pigs. Any legislation that eliminates Prop 12 and
Question 3 would pull the rug out from under these farmers, putting
these investments--and their farms--at risk.
Prop 12 has been a welcome opportunity for our supplier farms. No
farm or business is being forced to participate in the California
market. Producers that choose to meet Prop 12 standards do so because
they see it as an opportunity to tap into a more premium, stable
market. Prop 12 gave farmers an open door to those willing to innovate.
Despite what some industry voices are claiming, Prop 12 has not
caused widespread disruption in the marketplace. It went into full
effect in January 2024, and pork is still flowing to California stores
today. Price fluctuations have moderated as the market has evolved. The
only uncertainty that remains is not driven by Prop 12, but by the
threat of Federal legislation that would override the law.
If enacted, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act/EATS Act (or
any legislation like it) would invalidate the good-faith efforts of our
farmers and penalize companies like ours that chose to lead.
We respectfully urge you to reject the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act, the EATS Act and any legislation that would rollback
Prop 12 or Question 3. We would welcome the opportunity to speak with
you further about how Prop 12 is working in practice--and what's really
at stake for our company and family farmers in our network.
Sincerely,
Mel Coleman, Jr.,
Vice President,
Coleman Natural Meats.
July 17, 2025
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
I am writing as a pork producer who has successfully transitioned
to be Proposition 12 compliant. We are a third generation family farm
with 50 employees and eight contract grower family farms. We produce
100,000 market hogs per year. We supply our pigs to Perdue for its
Coleman Natural brand. Perdue feels like a partner; it is family owned,
U.S. owned and focused on quality. Switching from commodity to crate-
free and Prop 12 compliant was better for us financially, better for
the welfare of the animals and better for our employees.
The main reason we converted our operation from a conventional
commodity model to the more value-added premium market is we felt there
was an inevitable push of consolidation by large agribusiness, and
their model is least cost driven. Farms that supply to them are
squeezed for more pigs at cheaper price--that's it. This is not a bad
thing to get more efficient and be a least cost producer, however you
will see more and more consolidation until only the largest
multinational industry players are left. I do not believe this
consolidation is in the best interest for my family's farm or rural
communities.
Transitioning to crate-free has benefited our operation. We have
seen unchanged production numbers--from conception rate to weaned pigs
per litter. It does take a slightly different workforce focused on
animal husbandry and more tech savvy. While there were up-front
investments made and we have slightly reduced the number of sows per
barn, the ultimate cost to our operation has been slight, an estimated
3%. We more than make up for this cost in the premium we are paid to
serve California and other crate-free, natural markets.
We urge you to maintain Proposition 12 to support family farms like
mine. The pork industry is not united on this issue. As time has
passed, farmers and others in the industry have seen that the law
merely creates opportunity to those who are interested in a higher
premium market and those who are not interested can continue business
as usual. Prop 12, although imperfect like many laws, was voted on by
the voters of a state by significant margin, it was upheld by the
Supreme Court and farmers have invested and adapted to the law to the
betterment of their animals and employees. To change the law now would
cause unnecessary instability in the marketplace and punish those of us
who invested in our farms.
I am happy to provide additional information or discuss my
experience further.
Sincerely,
Jared Schilling,
KJMM Pork and Grain,
New Athens, IL.
July 18, 2025
Dear House Agriculture Committee Member,
We write to you as a fourth-generation, family-owned U.S. food and
agriculture company to express our support for California's Proposition
12, the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act. We respectfully ask
for your opposition to efforts that would overturn Prop 12. Proposition
12 is important progress for both animal welfare and American farmers
and if rolled back, would have an immediate negative impact on not just
livestock but also our company's network of Proposition 12-certified
hog farmer suppliers.
Now in our second century, Perdue Farms has long recognized the
importance of humane animal care. Our vision is ``to be the most
trusted name in food and agricultural producer.'' That trust extends to
our animal care and welfare commitments, and through our ``Commitments
to Animal Care'' \1\ * we embrace our responsibility to ensure animals
are treated with dignity and respect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://corporate.perduefarms.com/responsibility/animal-care/
commitments/.
* Editor's note: a website snapshot has been taken, and the
underlying report, Perdue Farms 2024 Animal Care Report, are both
retained in Committee file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our dedication to animal welfare is further demonstrated by our
ownership of Niman Ranch and Coleman Natural Foods. Both brands are
pioneers in producing crate-free pork, adhering to stringent animal
welfare standards that exceed industry norms. Together, Niman Ranch and
Coleman Natural partner with over 530 crate-free hog farmers across 16
states.
We continue to listen--and respond--to consumers, customers and
other stakeholders, continuously innovating and improving in what we
produce and what we do. Like many other pork producers across the
country, some of our partner farms have put significant time and
resources into building new barns or retrofitting old facilities to
become Proposition 12-certified. We have supported our farmer network
in this pursuit.
California's Prop 12 law has opened new markets for Niman Ranch and
Coleman Natural farmers, helping the pork industry and rural
communities throughout the country. To abruptly require farmers to
change course by reversing Proposition 12 would create instability in
the industry and harm farmers that have made investments to participate
in the California marketplace.
We believe the Proposition 12 standards for pork are consistent
with the evolving expectations of consumers and reflect a growing
understanding of animal welfare best practices. While we acknowledge
the challenges associated with implementing new regulations, we also
recognize the importance of innovation in business and of states
serving as laboratories of democracy. We are committed to working with
stakeholders, including producers, retailers and policymakers to
support the continuation of Proposition 12.
Thank you for your consideration of our position. We are available
to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Herb Frerichs,
General Counsel,
Perdue Farms.
Hon. Angie Craig,
Representative,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Salud O. Carbajal,
Representative,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. James P. McGovern
Representative,
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representatives Craig, Carbajal, and McGovern,
My name is Brent Hershey, and I'm a pork producer from Marietta,
Pennsylvania. I own and operate Hershey Ag, where I've raised around
3,000 breeding sows and tens of thousands of market hogs each year for
about 40 years.
I'm writing to raise my voice my strong opposition to the EATS
Act--a radical proposal that would devastate my business and family
farmers across the country.
For most of my career, I did things the way the industry told me
to. That included confining mother pigs inside gestation crates--metal
cages barely larger than the pig's own body. A mother pig confined this
way cannot walk or turn around during her 4 month pregnancy. After
nursing her piglets, she's returned to the crate, repeating this cycle
for years.
Dr. Temple Grandin, an inductee in the Meat Industry Hall of Fame
and arguably the most respected animal scientist in the history of our
country, put it bluntly: ``Gestation crates for pigs are a real problem
. . . I think it's something that needs to be phased out.''
I used to defend crates, assuming they were necessary. But over
time, I began to question the ethics and economics of it. I visited
farms using group housing--where pigs could move--and saw a better way.
When California's Prop 12 was upheld by the Supreme Court, I
decided to remove every gestation crate from my operation. Now my sows
live in open pens with room to move freely--and our results speak for
themselves. Our animals are healthier. Productivity has improved. My
workers are more engaged, able to practice real husbandry. Morale on
the farm has never been higher.
Prop 12 and Massachusetts' law set basic, very modest humane
standards for pork sold in those states--ensuring pigs can stand up,
lie down, and turn around. These laws took effect in 2022. Remember the
fearmongering about ``bacon shortages''? It never happened. Three years
in, the supply chain remains strong and steady.
Even the President of the Iowa Pork Producers Association recently
acknowledged there's now ``been enough production change to meet Prop
12 demand,'' and producers who don't want to comply ``really don't have
to.''
It's a choice--one many of us made--and we've been rewarded with
access to new markets.
But the EATS Act threatens to unravel it all.
Farmers like me built new business models around these standards.
We signed contracts. We invested in infrastructure. If EATS passes, all
of that gets wiped out. It would financially devastate my company and,
for consumers, throw supply chains into chaos.
This may be a windfall for those pushing for greater
consolidation--but for independent American family farmers, it's
nothing short of an existential threat to our livelihood.
I heard strange claims that these laws raise pork prices
nationally. As a farmer who tracks every penny, I can tell you: feed,
fuel, and labor costs are what's driving prices. Not animal welfare
standards in two states.
Let's also be honest about where this industry is heading.
Consumers overwhelmingly oppose the use of gestation crates. Over 60
major food companies--McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Costco, Kroger,
Safeway, IHOP, and many more--are moving away from crate pork. They
know it's a practice they can't defend to their customers.
And here's the hard truth: there's a civil war in the pork industry
right now. Not between farmers and consumers--but between NPPC
leadership and many of us farmers on the ground. While they lobby for
the EATS Act in Washington, we're out here doing the work--adapting,
improving welfare, and thriving in markets that reward it. Their
actions don't protect us. They jeopardize everything we've built.
I used to defend confining pigs in tiny cages. But I've changed.
And I have proven we can have a strong, profitable pork industry
without relying on practices the public rejects. Roughly \1/2\ of U.S.
pork already comes from farms using group housing--and that number is
growing. See my YouTube . . . search ``Brent Hershey Prop 12
Successes''.
So I urge you: reject the EATS Act. Don't overturn the voter-
approved standards in California and Massachusetts. Don't destroy the
market that's helping farmers like me succeed while treating animals
with decency.
Instead, let's move forward. Support innovation. Support
independent farmers over more consolidation. Let's build an industry
that respects both people and animals.
Thank you for listening. I'd be honored to answer any questions you
have.
Sincerely,
Brent Hershey, Hershey Ag.
Dear Representative Craig,
I am writing to you as a fifth generation farmer from Le Sueur, MN.
There have been many changes as our family's diversified farm has
adapted to challenges and pursued opportunities. One stabilizing
component has always been livestock, namely, hogs.
I am writing to share our farm's concern over efforts to roll back
Proposition 12.
For the past 25 years my brother and I have raised livestock for
the Niman Ranch pork company. As farrow to finish hog farmers, this
market opportunity has allowed us to continue to raise pigs profitably
by responding to evolving and increasing consumer demand for pork
raised in conditions that do not confine gestating sows for the
entirety of their piglet producing lives.
Our farm had an opportunity to adopt the confinement system when
the commodity pork model began to transform and impoverish the
independent hog farmer system in the 1970's. Our parents rejected that
for the same reasons my brother and I do now. The conditions in which
sows are raised matter; the improved health and longevity of sows on a
farm related to the lower stress in non crate systems matters; and
raising pigs in a manner that aligns with our animal husbandry values
and consumer values tied to animal welfare, matters.
As a Proposition 12 certified hog farm in MN CD 2, it matters to us
that markets like Niman Ranch who pay us a fair price for the pigs we
raise in non crate systems continue to respond to increased consumer
demand. The ability of states like California to pass laws like Prop 12
will only make these markets more robust and responsive to consumer
preference, and also result in a more equitable sharing of the consumer
dollar with independent hog farmers like us.
We thank you for your leadership in MN CD 2, and ask that you use
your power as CD 2 representative and Agriculture Committee Member to
oppose and vote against legislation that would restrict California's
Proposition 12.
Sincerely,
Tom Nuessmeier,
Nuessmeier Brothers LLC.
Dear House Agriculture Committee Member,
On behalf of Niman Ranch, a network of over 600 independent family
farmers and ranchers, I write to express strong opposition to efforts
to overturn California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts' Question 3
including the highly controversial Food Security and Farm Protection
Act. This proposed legislation threatens to undermine states' rights,
stifle agricultural innovation, harm farmers and rural communities and
disregard the evolving preferences of American consumers.
For decades, Niman Ranch has demonstrated that a market exists and
thrives for humanely raised products. Our supplier network includes
over 500 Prop 12-certified, crate-free hog farms spanning across 16
states. Many of our farmers transitioned to crate-free hog farming to
join Niman Ranch and have experienced firsthand the economic viability
that humane practices can generate. We pay our farmers a stable premium
and our business model has been proven to generate more jobs and
economic value for rural farming communities.\1\ *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://nimanranch.com/press/small-farm-economic-impact-
analysis/.
* Editor's note: the press release, and the underlying report, The
Economic Contribution of Niman Ranch Hog Production in Iowa, are both
retained in Committee file.
State initiatives like California's Proposition 12 and
Massachusetts' Question 3 are not burdens but catalysts for positive
change, creating a stable, premium market opportunity for farmers who
invest in specialized production practices. Prop 12 does not force any
pork company or out of state farm to convert their operation or sell
into California. The argument that Prop 12 will hurt small farmers or
lead to consolidation is counter to our experience as a company.
The Food Security and Farm Protection Act represents a dangerous
Federal overreach of states' authority to establish agricultural
standards that reflect the values and demands of their citizens. By
attempting to invalidate state laws concerning agricultural production
methods, the proposed legislation would:
Undermine States' Rights and Local Control: It would strip
states of their constitutional authority to regulate commerce
within their borders and protect their citizens' interests,
setting a concerning precedent for Federal interference in
diverse state economies.
Harm Farmers and Disrupt a Stable Market: Farmers who have
already invested significant capital and effort to meet crate-
free standards would be unfairly penalized. Rolling back Prop
12 would destabilize markets that are already responding to
consumer preferences and local laws, creating uncertainty and
potentially devaluing existing investments in farm
infrastructure. We are over 18 months into full implementation
of Prop 12; the industry has adapted, and the market has
stabilized. The Food Security and Farm Protection Act would
create instability, spur further lawsuits and hurt our business
and farmer network along with other crate-free producers.
Stifle Innovation and Progress: By imposing a lowest-common-
denominator standard, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act
would discourage the very innovation and investment that
forward-thinking farmers are embracing. It would send a clear
message that Federal policymakers prioritize industrial models
over diversified, sustainable and humane agricultural systems
that are gaining traction and supporting a resilient rural
America.
Niman Ranch believes in a robust agricultural system that respects
farmers' autonomy, responds to market signals and state laws and
upholds the principles of animal welfare. We do not see these values in
conflict--in fact, we strongly believe by focusing on all these factors
we will build a stronger, more resilient pork industry.
Respectfully, we urge you to consider the detrimental impacts of
the Food Security and Farm Protection Act on states' rights, farmer
livelihoods and rural opportunities.
Sincerely,
Paul Willis
Founding Hog Farmer,
Niman Ranch.
July 19, 2025
Aloha,
My husband and I have been farming in Hawai`i since 1978, and we
grow a variety of fruits and vegetables. We understand the long history
of the rules and regulations that have developed locally in Hawai`i to
protect the safety of our food system.
The central aim of the EATS Act remains the same: to federally
overrule Prop 12 and similar state and local health, safety, and
welfare laws. By doing so this will have dire consequences for the
safety and the health of the nation's food supply which is already at
risk due to the labor shortage.
We urge you not to pass this Bill.
Mahalo,
Nancy Redfeather and Gerry Herbert,
Kawanui Farm, Hawai`i.
July 20, 2025
Dear Congresswoman Craig and Members of the Committee:
I'm Elizabeth ``Liz'' Townsend, owner of Berried Delights, a small,
family-run berry farm and jam/jelly kitchen in Newcastle, Wyoming. I,
with the help of my family, grow and harvest berries, rhubarb, and wild
grown fruits. These products are then used to create jams, jellies,
fruit syrups, etc., which are then sold to local markets.
Proposition 12 creates a market for food raised with integrity.
Consumers want to support farms and businesses that reflect their
values, and Proposition 12 ensures they can.
I've seen too many good farms fold under pressure from industrial
competition that refuses to play fair. Laws such as Proposition 12
protect the future of farming that feeds communities, not corporations.
Please preserve Proposition 12, it is critical for responsible
farmers and rural communities.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Townsend,
Berried Delights,
Newcastle, Wyoming.
July 21, 2025
To the Committee,
At the Hamakua Chocolate Farm in Hawaii, we cultivate cacao trees
to produce fine chocolate with care for the land and the ecosystem. Our
work reflects Hawaii's unique agricultural heritage and the power of
regional food systems. Our work is rooted in respect for nature,
responsible stewardship, and transparency--values shared by many small
farms across the country and reflected in California's Proposition 12.
We write today in strong support of Proposition 12, and in
opposition to any effort to repeal or override it.
Though we do not raise animals ourselves, we stand in solidarity
with farmers who prioritize ethical and sustainable practices,
including those who ensure animals have the space to move freely and
live in conditions that reflect basic decency. Proposition 12 affirms
that principle. It doesn't impose anything radical--it simply sets
minimum welfare standards that align with what many conscientious
farmers already do.
This law was democratically passed by voters and implemented with a
generous timeline. It supports consumer trust, marketplace fairness,
and a more transparent food system. To override it now would undermine
state rights, consumer expectations, and the leadership of farmers who
have chosen a better way to work with the land.
We respectfully urge you to protect Proposition 12 and uphold the
values of integrity, sustainability, and respect that guide our work--
and the work of so many across the country.
With aloha,
Sincerely,
Dan Corson,
Hamakua Chocolate Farm,
Hawaii.
Hon. Glenn Thompson, Hon. Angie Craig,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Agriculture Committee, House Agriculture Committee,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chair Thompson and Ranking Member Craig:
As a producer myself, I understand the importance of controlling
costs. However, as someone who sells products both through distribution
and directly to individual customers, I know that my product must
remain competitive--meaning it has to be both desirable and reliable if
I want to maintain their support. It's a relationship built on trust
and dependability. What they expect from me is a product that is both
cutting-edge and dependable.
The kind of innovation and skill that creates my product is
unlikely to come from a top-down directive or bureaucratic mandate, but
rather from the efforts of individual producers to meet marketplace
demands.
In 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12 with a nearly \2/
3\ majority vote. This law sets very basic animal health and welfare
standards for eggs, pork, and veal sold within our state. Essentially,
the electorate laid out a challenge to the producers, demanding that
they meet the marketplace's demand. The producers of California met
that challenge and often exceeded it.
Currently, there is an ongoing discussion, partly driven by
concerns that some may fall behind. Please put their concerns into
proper perspective and avoid suppressing the efforts of producers who
are doing their best to meet marketplace demands. This is not the way
to foster a thriving, healthy, and more resilient agriculture and food
system.
Sincerely
George R. Davis,
Porter Creek Vineyards, Partner,
California Farmers Union, President.
To the Committee,
At Dew Dance Farm in Sanford, North Carolina, we raise heritage
breeds and grow crops using sustainable methods. While we don't sell
meat, we care deeply about how animals are raised and treated, and we
pass those values on through the educational programs we offer in fiber
arts and farming.
We oppose the EATS Act, in any form, because it erodes the ability
of states to set ethical and sustainable standards. Laws like
California's Proposition 12 are one example of how states can choose to
reflect local values and support responsible farming. Local communities
should have the freedom to shape food systems that reflect their
values.
Please reject the EATS Act and preserve the right of states to
support responsible farming practices.
Sincerely,
Dew Dance Farm,
Sanford, North Carolina.
To the Committee,
At Ashwood Acres in Abingdon, Virginia, we raise cattle, goats,
sheep, pigs, chickens, and guardian dogs on our family farm. Our
philosophy is deeply influenced by Joel Salatin and his vision of
regenerative, transparent farming rooted in respect for the land, the
animals, and the consumer.
The EATS Act, and any rebranded version of it, is a direct threat
to that vision. By overriding state-level standards like California's
Prop 12, the Act gives more power to corporate agriculture and strips
away the right of states to support ethical, independent producers.
This legislation doesn't level the playing field. It tilts it
further in favor of multinational consolidation, making it harder for
farmers like us to compete fairly while staying true to our values.
Please protect states' rights and farms that prioritize integrity.
Please protect Prop 12 and laws like it, and oppose the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Ken Hassler,
Ashwood Acres,
Abingdon, Virginia.
To the Committee,
As someone who has grown produce in New Jersey, I've seen firsthand
how important it is for states to have the authority to guide their own
agricultural standards. Local food systems rely on that autonomy.
The EATS Act, and any legislation that mimics it, takes that power
away from states and hands it to corporate agriculture. That's not good
for small producers, and it's not good for consumers. States like New
Jersey and California have already passed laws, including Proposition
12, that reflect the will of voters and promote more humane,
transparent food systems. The EATS Act would erase those protections.
Please protect state-level decision-making and reject attempts to
dismantle laws like Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Ray Hofmann,
Stoney Lane Farm,
Lumberton, NJ.
Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
We are Lauren and Jeremy Jennings from Rose Hollow Farm. We are
located on San Juan Island, Washington, a community that relies on
small family farms. We raise sheep for both wool and meat, using
rotational grazing and low-stress handling methods. We also raise goats
for milk, meat, and breeding stock.
As a family farmer, I support Proposition 12 because it promotes
transparency and responsibility. Too often, markets are skewed in favor
of industrial operators who sacrifice animal welfare and public health
for efficiency. That's not how we do things on our farm.
Prop 12 gives ethical producers a fighting chance. It's not about
restricting commerce; it's about ensuring that those who farm the right
way aren't edged out by those who exploit loopholes.
Don't let the big players rewrite the rules. Keep Prop 12 in place,
and stand with responsible, farmers like us.
Thank you,
Lauren and Jeremy Jennings,
Rose Hollow Farm.
At Koenigs' Acres Farm here in Hampton, Iowa (where we produce
fruits and vegetables, chickens and turkeys, honey, jams and jellies),
we've always believed that how an animal is raised matters--not just
for the animal's sake, but for the quality of the food we feed our
families and communities. We take pride in raising animals with care,
letting them live naturally and without confinement. That's just good
farming.
That's why I support Prop 12. It sets a reasonable bar: animals
raised for food should have enough space to stand up, lie down, and
turn around. As farmers, we know that better treatment means healthier
animals and higher-quality food. It's something more consumers are
asking for, and it's something many of us are already doing.
I'm deeply concerned about efforts to erase laws like Prop 12
through the EATS Act or other measures. These are voter-backed laws
that reflect what people want in their food system. Iowa may not have
the same laws, but we should all have the right to make those choices
at the state level without interference from big corporations or
distant lobbyists.
Please protect Prop 12 and the rights of farmers who are doing
things right. Don't let shortsighted provisions undo the progress we're
making toward a more ethical, transparent food system.
Sincerely,
Karen Koenig,
Koenigs' Acres Farm,
Hampton, Iowa.
Members of the Committee,
I represent Martha Owen Woolen. Everyone comes from a long line of
farmers, I had to learn from the start when deciding to raise sheep
chickens and rabbits. I believe that animals should be treated with
decency and that the public deserves to support farms that do so.
Proposition 12 is a standard that aligns with what many of us have
been doing all along. It should not be weakened by Federal legislation
designed to serve the lowest common denominator.
Please protect the rights of states to set higher standards.
Sincerely,
Martha Owen.
Dear House Agriculture Committee Member,
I am writing regarding the House Agriculture Committee hearing on
Prop 12 on Wednesday 7/23. I am a farmer based out of Redwood County
Minnesota and for more than 20 years I raised crate-free pigs that I
sold both locally through direct marketing and nationally through Niman
Ranch. I appreciated and enjoyed raising pigs with a focus on quality
and higher standards rather than just scale and quantity. The natural,
crate-free market helped my family stay on the farm and support our
local community.
For farmers like me, who have invested in higher welfare practices,
Prop 12 helped slightly level the playing field and better compete in
an increasingly consolidated industry. Prop 12 created a valuable niche
and encouraged the entire industry to innovate to better meet consumer
demand for higher welfare products.
While I retired from raising hogs in December of 2023, I can speak
to the harms repealing Prop 12 would have on independent farms like
mine throughout the district, state and beyond. If Prop 12 were rolled
back, compliant farms would be harmed by losing an important market,
and those who invested in barn conversions could potentially even put
their farm at risk.
I hope that you will attend the hearing on July 23, oppose efforts
to repeal Prop 12, and share that your farmer constituents, like me,
oppose the EATS Act and any attempts to overturn state laws. Local
communities know what is best for them and should be able to pass laws
protecting animal welfare, independent family farmers and consumers.
Frankly, pork producer organizations should not be advocating against
those independent livestock farmers who have built these specialized
markets and offer the kind of pork products consumers have voted for
and stated they want.
Thank you for your consideration,
Paul Sobocinski,
Wabasso, MN.
Dear Committee Members,
At Swazey Farms in New Jersey, our work with bees has taught us how
delicate and interconnected life really is. Stewardship of animals,
whether insects or livestock, requires respect, responsibility, and a
willingness to evolve when we know better.
That's why we support Proposition 12. Humane treatment of farm
animals isn't just a California concern, it reflects values shared
across states, including right here in New Jersey, where gestation
crates are now banned. When voters and farmers come together to raise
standards, it deserves support, not interference.
Proposals like the EATS Act or similar provisions would erase state
progress and silence the voices of those who believe better care for
animals benefits everyone, from farmers to consumers to the animals
themselves. Please stand with those who choose compassion and integrity
in agriculture.
Respectfully,
Swazey Farms,
New Jersey.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee:
We're a small farm in Connecticut. Every seed we plant is rooted in
care--for our community, our soil, and for the ethics behind how food
is grown. That's why we support California's Proposition 12. It aligns
with a vision of agriculture that's thoughtful and respectful. We don't
see it as burdensome. We see it as necessary.
Farmers like us don't want a race to the bottom. Laws like Prop 12
raise the bar in a good way. Congress should reject efforts like the
EATS Act and stand with the many farmers who know we can, and must, do
better.
Sincerely,
Mary Ellen Vigeant,
Down to Earth CSA Farm,
Stafford Springs, CT.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee:
As the owners of Wanda Farms, my wife and I are proud to raise
animals with care, respect, and a commitment to humane treatment.
Faith, family, and farm are at the heart of our vision, along with a
deep sense of accountability and service to our own community. We
produce pasture-raised pork, beef, poultry, and eggs in a way that
reflects a simple philosophy: animals deserve to live a life as close
to nature as possible. We treat our animals well, providing them with
high-quality feed, access to pasture, and a free-range environment.
These principles don't just yield superior products; they're the
ethical backbone of our farm.
Unfortunately, this way of farming is under threat. A proposed
``fix'' to Prop 12 and laws that set higher standards would be nothing
short of a repeal of laws that promote humane treatment of animals and
public health.
Overwhelmingly approved by California voters in 2018, this law
prohibits the sale of pork from pigs raised in intensive confinement.
This measure, and a dozen other state laws like it in red, blue and
purpose states, reflects voters' increasing demand for transparency in
our food system and humane care of animals in agriculture. Congress
should not override the voice of the people. Dismantling Prop 12 would
strip states of the right to set their own agricultural standards. It's
an anti-democratic move that undermines the will of voters and
threatens to drag state and local governments into endless legal
battles over nullifying carefully considered laws.
If Congress rolls back Prop 12, farmers across the country will be
plunged into regulatory chaos. Many producers have already made
investments to meet or exceed welfare standards because they represent
where farming is headed, not where it's been. Even the National Pork
Producers Council has reported that over 40% of U.S. pork production
already involves group housing for breeding pigs, rather than confining
them in tiny cages for the majority of their lives.
Prop 12 and laws like it are a step toward a future where American
farming reflects the values of our society. These measures respect
animals and consumers alike, recognizing that quality pork should come
from pigs who were treated humanely. For Congress to intervene and
negate this progress is to tell farmers and consumers that the way we
raise food doesn't matter. But at Wanda Farms, we know that it does.
We urge you to reject any attempt to gut Prop 12 and laws like it,
and respect the progress that farmers, consumers, and voters have
demanded, supported, and implemented.
Joe Wanda,
Wanda Farms.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
We are a small, biodiverse farm in New Mexico built from the ground
up with the intention of healing--land, food, community, and ourselves.
We grow mushrooms, daffodils, and herbs using indigenous and
permaculture practices. We farm without chemicals because we believe
deeply in the interconnectedness of life.
That's why we support Proposition 12.
To us, it's a reflection of a worldview that says animals deserve
space to move, breathe, and simply be. It affirms something many
farmers already live by: that ethics and responsibility belong at the
heart of agriculture.
Federal proposals like the EATS Act would take a sledgehammer to
that progress. They would undo the work voters, consumers, and farmers
have done to build a more humane food system. We reject that.
As parents raising two small kids on a farm, teaching them to care
for creatures big and small, we believe what we model matters. Let's
model care. Let's stand for dignity in food and farming. Let
Proposition 12 stand.
Sincerely,
Wildhood Farm,
New Mexico.
July 22, 2025
Dear Committee Members,
As advocates for organic, sustainable agriculture in New Jersey,
the Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey (NOFA-NJ)
stands in strong support of California's Proposition 12. This law
reflects core values shared by farmers, consumers, and communities who
believe in humane treatment of animals and integrity in our food
system.
Here in New Jersey, we recently passed legislation banning the use
of gestation crates and extreme confinement of pigs. That law is based
on the understanding that such practices are incompatible with both
animal welfare and the humane standards increasingly demanded by the
public.
California's Prop 12 is aligned with these same principles. It sets
baseline expectations that food sold in the marketplace should not come
at the cost of cruelty. Undermining these protections through Federal
legislation like the EATS Act or similar proposals would override the
will of voters and legislators in states across the country who have
worked hard to advance meaningful reforms.
We urge the Committee to reject any effort to preempt state animal
welfare laws and to support Prop 12 as a model for responsible, values-
based agriculture.
Sincerely,
Cali Alexander, H.O,
Policy Chair,
Board of Directors,
Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Jersey (NOFA-NJ).
In Defense of Proposition 12
Dear Members of the Committee,
At Amaltheia Dairy in Montana, we raise goats and pigs using
practices that put animal welfare first. Our pigs live outdoors, with
plenty of room to root and forage.
Proposition 12 aligns with those values. It ensures the animals
behind the food on grocery shelves are treated with basic dignity. It
also helps farms like ours, who have invested in ethical, sustainable
practices, find fair access to markets like California.
To roll back this progress would send a message that big industry
gets to write the rules, no matter what voters say. We urge the
Committee to stand with responsible farmers and defend Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Amaltheia Dairy
Dear Esteemed Members of the Committee,
Ambling Ambystoma Farm is a certified organic farm (CCOF) located
on the central California coast in Santa Cruz County, and is named for
the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum).
We support Proposition 12 wholeheartedly. Undoing Prop 12 sends the
message that profit trumps principle. That isn't the future we want for
American agriculture. Prop 12 is a baseline, not a burden. It gives
conscientious producers the opportunity to thrive without being
undercut by industrial shortcuts.
Thank you for defending integrity in farming.
Ambling Ambystoma Farm.
To the Committee,
At Sue's Blueberries in Portland, Oregon, we've built our farm on
trust, quality, and a strong connection with the people who pick and
eat our fruit. That connection depends on transparency and the ability
of states to reflect local values in their food standards.
The EATS Act and its rebranded version would take that power away--
preempting state laws like Prop 12 and paving the way for centralized
control by large agribusinesses. That's not the kind of future we want
for farming.
Please oppose this Federal overreach and support farmers and eaters
who value integrity and choice.
Sincerely,
Susan Anderson,
Sue's Blueberries,
Portland, OR.
Dear Committee Members,
At Avery Family Farm, our motto is ``bringing smiles and healing
souls'' As a North Carolina farm, we support Proposition 12 because it
acknowledges what many of us already know: how we treat animals matters
to our customers, our land, and our communities. Any legislation that
weakens Prop 12 undermines farmers who are trying to do better. We ask
you to respect state rights and voter mandates. Reject the EATS Act and
protect forward-thinking policies like Prop 12.
Thank you.
Avery Family Farm
Dear Members of the Committee,
We write to you from Beauregards Farm in Big Lake Township, Maine,
where we grow fresh produce for our community with a focus on quality,
care, and environmental responsibility. While we do not raise livestock
ourselves, we support Proposition 12 because we believe in a food
system where all farms, whether growing vegetables or raising animals,
are held to basic standards of integrity, safety, and humane treatment.
We work hard to grow food that reflects our values: stewardship of
the land, care for the community, and respect for the living systems
that sustain us. Prop 12 embodies those same principles. It sets
minimum space standards for farm animals, ensuring they can turn
around, lie down, and live without constant confinement. These are
commonsense, baseline conditions that consumers widely support, and
many farmers already meet.
As produce farmers, we also understand the importance of public
trust in our food system. Customers want to know their food is grown
and raised responsibly. Prop 12 gives them that confidence. Prop 12 is
a step toward a more just and transparent food system, something we
believe benefits all producers, whether they grow vegetables or raise
animals.
We urge you to protect Proposition 12 and reject attempts to take
this decision out of the hands of the states, the voters, and the
farmers who are building something better.
Sincerely,
Beauregards Farm,
Big Lake Township, ME.
To the Members of the Committee,
I'm a farmer from Stockholm, Wisconsin and I'm writing to express
my strong opposition to the EATS Act or any other legislation that
would weaken states' authority to regulate animal welfare and farming
practices.
My wife and I get approximately \1/3\ of our household income most
years from producing and selling animal proteins (beef, eggs, and
chicken), mainly direct-to-consumer. Over my lifetime, I have watched
animal proteins across the board lose market share to so-called plant-
based alternatives. I believe much of this shift has been driven by
consumers' animal welfare concerns. Simply put, many people no longer
trust the food industry to treat animals humanely and are choosing to
eat less animal products as a result.
States have taken steps to restore public trust by implementing
reasonable, common sense animal welfare standards. Small- and mid-sized
producers like me, who interact with our animals daily and care deeply
about their well-being, stand ready to comply with these standards,
because we understand that in the long run, restoring consumers' trust
in their food will benefit farmers as much as it benefits animals and
the public.
Unfortunately, a handful of greedy corporate actors, driven by the
logic of short-term cost-cutting, are pushing the EATS Act to shut down
state-level regulation. What they don't seem to realize is that even if
the regulations go away, the ethical concerns of shoppers are here to
stay. State legislators are in the best position to understand those
concerns and balance them with economic realities and the needs of
producers in their region, and allowing thoughtfully crafted state
regulations to stand is the best path forward for farmers and eaters.
There is no need for Federal involvement in this issue.
Sincerely,
W. Geoffrey Black,
Avodah Farm, LLC,
Stockholm, WI.
Dear Members of the Committee,
At R.G. Bees LLC in Beulah, Wyoming, we care for bees and
contribute to the health of our food system through sustainable
pollination. Bees are essential to life and so is the right of
communities to govern their food and farming practices.
We support laws, like California's Proposition 12, that are based
on these same principles. Accordingly, we oppose the EATS Act, and any
renamed version of it, because it overrides state authority and
compromises the will of voters. Every state has unique ecosystems and
values. They must retain the right to respond accordingly.
Please reject attempts to roll back Prop 12 via the EATS Act or any
other measure and stand up for states' rights and the small producers
who support them.
Sincerely,
Renee Brunson,
R.G. Bees LLC,
Beulah, WY.
Dear Committee Members,
As a Pennsylvania farmer, I believe Proposition 12 represents an
important step forward in ensuring the humane treatment of animals.
Chairman Thompson now has the opportunity to listen to voices from
his own state--voices of farmers who support Prop 12, who believe in
better standards, and who don't want to see progress rolled back by
sweeping proposals like the EATS Act.
The marketplace is changing, and those of us who farm with care and
intention are ready to meet that demand. Please defend Proposition 12
and reject any efforts to override it.
Sincerely,
Matt Carter,
Carter Farm,
Pennsylvania.
To the House Agriculture Committee,
When people purchase products from our farm, they're not just
buying food, they're placing trust in how we care for our land and the
food they feed their families. Proposition 12 helps strengthen that
trust by setting clear, reasonable standards that reflect what most
consumers already expect: transparency, food safety, and responsible
stewardship. As a farmer, I am proud to meet those standards.
That is why I am deeply troubled by attempts to undo this positive
progress. Bills like the EATS Act and the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act would undermine the ethical and sustainable practices
that farmers like me have worked hard to uphold. They would strip away
the ability of states to respond to their voters and rob consumers of
the confidence they deserve.
I urge you to protect Proposition 12 and stand with those of us
committed to building a more transparent, trustworthy, and humane food
system.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Nicholas Choate-Batchelder,
Midnight Sun Farm,
Illinois.
Esteemed Members of the Commi4ee,
As the owner of Tru Farm, a small farm in Florida, I believe
Proposition 12 represents fair, commonsense standards that reflect what
today's consumers are asking for. It ensures that farm animals have
basic space to move and express natural behaviors. These aren't extreme
measures; they're simple steps that align with the growing public
demand for a food system that is both ethical and sustainable.
Today's consumers want transparency. They want to know where their
food comes from and expect it to be produced with care for animals, the
environment, and public health. Proposition 12 promotes that
transparency and supports food safety by encouraging better farming
practices. Repealing it through Federal legislation would be a step
backward. It would send a message that progress, consumer trust, and
responsible farming don't matter. I urge you to protect Proposition 12
and reject any attempt to dismantle it.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Chris Dawes
Dear Committee Members,
At EdenGreen, our microgreen farm in Idaho, we've built our model
on care, precision, and sustainability. Urban farming teaches you to
make the most of every inch--and to think deeply about the systems we
depend on to grow food responsibly.
That's why we support California's Proposition 12, and similar
laws. These standards reflect a basic truth: how we treat animals
matters, and policies should uphold humane, thoughtful practices in
food production.
Proposals like the EATS Act and other attempts to weaken Prop 12
undermine the progress being made toward a more ethical and sustainable
food system. They threaten the right of states to set standards that
reflect the values of their voters and the direction consumers are
clearly moving in.
We urge you to defend Proposition 12 and reject any legislation
that strips states of the ability to protect animal welfare and support
responsible farming.
Sincerely,
EdenGreen,
Idaho.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
I'm Alescia Forland of Loxley Farm Market in Alabama. I urge you to
oppose the EATS Act, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, and any
efforts to dismantle Proposition 12.
This isn't just about California. It's about whether states can
decide what standards they want for the food sold within their borders.
It's about whether farmers who invest in better practices will be
supported or undercut.
I support Prop 12 because it helps guide agriculture in a more
responsible direction. That's something we should build on, not block.
Thank you for your time,
Alescia Forland,
Loxley Farm Market,
Alabama.
Dear Committee Members,
Missouri farmers like us know what it takes to build trust with the
people who buy from us. Proposition 12 speaks to those values. It gives
meaning to food raised with care. Overriding it through Congressional
action would betray both producers and consumers who are choosing
better. Please protect state-level progress. Say no to the EATS Act and
stand up for Prop 12.
Respectfully,
Four Oaks Farm.
Dear Members of the Committee,
Farmers know what stewardship means. We see it every day in the
care we give. Proposition 12 is a reflection of that ethos, and I ask
that you defend it.
Laws like the EATS Act strip away the ability of people to shape
food systems that reflect their values. Let California and other
states' voters be heard. Let their standards stand.
Thank you,
Phyllis Franzoy,
Mark Anthony Farms.
To the House Agriculture Committee,
As the owner of Frost Sheep and Desert Frost Farms in Arizona, I
urge you to reject the EATS Act, the so-called Food Security and Farm
Protection Act, and any attempts to gut Proposition 12.
Prop 12 is about accountability. It tells consumers: you deserve to
know how your food is raised. And it tells farmers: there are
opportunities when you raise animals with care. This is the direction
farming should be heading, not toward less transparency and less local
control.
The Federal Government shouldn't be in the business of invalidating
the progress states have made or silencing the voices of voters. Let
Prop 12 stand. Let farmers grow toward higher standards, not away from
them.
Sincerely,
Ryan Frost,
Frost Sheep,
Desert Frost Farms.
Dear Committee Members,
Proposition 12 matters because it reflects a growing consensus that
animals deserve to be treated with basic decency. It's not complicated.
People care, and so do many of us in agriculture.
Federal proposals like the EATS Act would take that choice away,
not just from California, but from every state trying to raise the bar.
That's wrong. Please stand with the farmers and citizens who believe in
something better.
Sincerely,
Mark Gibson,
Berry Haven Farms.
Dear Committee Members:
I represent Greentree Naturals, a small farm in Idaho rooted in
ecological stewardship and the belief that food should be produced in
ways that are both ethical and sustainable.
We write today to express our strong support for California's
Proposition 12, and to voice serious concerns about Federal legislative
efforts, such as the EATS Act, that seek to undermine it.
Proposition 12 sets a baseline for how animals should be treated.
It doesn't impose radical change, it affirms a simple principle:
animals deserve enough space to move, lie down, and turn around.
Efforts to erase Prop 12 through Federal preemption would set a
dangerous precedent. Not only would they override the will of
California voters, but they would also strip all states, including
Idaho, of the ability to enact policies that reflect the priorities and
ethics of their residents. That kind of top-down approach runs counter
to the spirit of local agriculture and state governance.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit our views. We ask that you
stand with farmers, consumers, and animals, and preserve the future of
ethical agriculture in this country.
Sincerely,
Diane Green,
Greentree Naturals--Certified Organic Farm,
Sandpoint, Idaho.
Aloha Members of the Committee,
At Mohala Farms in Hawai`i, we work in close connection with the
land and our community. We believe in food systems rooted in care: care
for the [E]arth, for animals, and for those we feed.
That's why we support Proposition 12. It's not just about one
state; it's about a broader movement to make farming more humane, more
transparent, and more aligned with the values of the people who eat
what we grow.
Please reject the EATS Act and the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act, which would undercut that progress. We believe
communities and states must retain the right to set standards that
reflect their values. And please keep Prop 12 in place.
With gratitude,
Sincerely,
Mark Hamamoto,
Executive Director.
Dear Committee Members,
At Helsing Junction Farm in Washington, we believe that animals
deserve space to move and express natural behaviors. Our state has
already recognized this by passing a cage-free law, and we support
efforts like California's Proposition 12 for the same reason.
Proposals like the EATS Act would undo the progress states have
made. Farmers who treat animals humanely and consumers who care about
how food is produced should not be overruled. Please reject any attempt
to weaken Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Helsing Junction Farm,
Washington State.
Committee Members,
Three Hearts Farm in Montana supports Prop 12 because it aligns
with the basic principle that animals deserve room to move and behave
naturally. It's not a burden, it's a reflection of values that many
farmers already share.
Let's not allow Congress to silence that progress through bills,
like the EATS Act, that favor industrial scale over moral scale.
Protect the choices states and citizens have made, and uphold Prop 12.
Respectfully,
Rachael Hicks,
Three Hearts Farm, MT.
Dear Committee Members,
At Honey Sweetie Acres, our goats are more than livestock, they are
partners in the work we do every day. We are committed to raising
animals with care, respect, and space to live as they were meant to.
That philosophy is not only better for the animals, it produces better
results in every way: from health to quality to customer trust.
That's why we support California's Proposition 12. Laws like Prop
12 reflect a growing understanding that how we treat animals matters,
not just ethically, but economically and socially. They affirm that
animal welfare is not a fringe concern, but a mainstream value that
many farms already uphold.
Attempts to weaken or repeal Prop 12 through measures like the EATS
Act ignore the progress that's being made on farms like ours across the
country. We don't need lower standards. We need consistent, fair
policies that recognize farmers who do the right thing and protect the
ability of states to set higher bars for welfare.
Please reject provisions that would dismantle Prop 12 and similar
efforts. We need to move forward, not backward.
Sincerely,
Honey Sweetie Acres,
Owensville, Ohio.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee:
My name is Sara Jones, and I serve as Co-Director of Tucson
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA). At our core, we work to
strengthen the connection between local farmers and the people they
feed, guided by a commitment to sustainability, transparency, and
community resilience. These values shape how food is grown, sourced,
and shared every day. Proposition 12 reflects these same values by
establishing humane and transparent standards for animal agriculture
that align with what consumers increasingly demand: food produced with
integrity and respect for both animals and the environment.
Proposition 12 provides a clear, practical framework for
responsible animal care, giving both farmers and consumers confidence
in the food supply. These are practical standards that responsible
producers across the country should support. Upholding this law helps
reward those who are doing the right thing and sends a powerful message
that accountability matters in agriculture.
At its heart, Proposition 12 is about building trust between farms,
families and communities. Undermining it would weaken that trust and
move us further from a food system rooted in fairness, responsibility,
and stewardship. I respectfully urge the Committee to protect the
integrity of Proposition 12. Thank you for considering this testimony
and for your service to the agricultural community.
Sincerely,
Sara Jones,
Tucson Community Supported Agriculture.
To the Committee,
My name is Gabriel Kenyatta, and I operate Gardenscapes GCK in
Crawfordsville, Arkansas.
I'm writing in support of Proposition 12 and in opposition to the
EATS Act and its revived form, which threatens state-level food
standards and undermines farmers who operate with integrity.
I believe in farming that reflects responsibility, not just to land
and animals, but to the people who eat the food we grow. Prop 12
supports that vision. It gives consumers more confidence and gives
small farmers the ability to compete on values, not just volume.
The EATS Act and attempts to strike down Prop 12 would erase those
gains. They're an attack on local choice, and responsible agriculture.
Farmers should not be punished for doing the right thing, and voters
should not be overruled by corporate influence.
Please reject the EATS Act, protect Prop 12 and stand up for
fairness, food democracy, and the future of responsible farming.
Sincerely,
Gabriel Kenyatta,
Gardenscapes GCK,
Crawfordsville, AR.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
We represent a small farm in Connecticut that believes the future
of agriculture lies in integrity and compassion. Proposition 12 and
laws like it set reasonable standards for humane treatment. The attempt
to override it through Federal legislation not only ignores voter
voices, it undermines good agricultural practices. Let's build forward,
not backward. Please preserve Prop 12.
Janet Kramka.
Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
We are a small family farm in Morris, Connecticut, operating
Lakeside Farm right at our home on Route 109. We use organic practices
to grow a wide variety of seasonal fruits and vegetables, and we
prepare everything ourselves, from heirloom tomatoes and greens to
berries, herbs, and homemade jams.
We're writing in support of Proposition 12 and in strong opposition
to the EATS Act and its rebranded version. These Federal efforts would
strip states of the right to set standards that reflect local values,
and that's a serious concern for farms like ours.
Farming is personal, hands-on work. Consumers want to know how
their food is produced, and more and more of them are asking for
humane, sustainable practices. We believe in meeting that demand, not
hiding from it. Prop 12 supports transparency, responsibility, and
local control. The EATS Act undermines all three, favoring large-scale
industrial interests over small farms that do things the right way.
Please protect the right of states to make laws that reflect their
people's values. Support Prop 12, and reject the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Lakeside Farm,
Morris, Connecticut.
Dear Committee Members,
I write today as an organic farmer and gardener in Arizona to
express strong support for California's Proposition 12. I urge you to
oppose any Federal attempts that seek to dismantle Prop 12 or override
the will of state voters.
Arizona was one of the first states to ban the confinement of
pregnant sows and veal calves in 2006. That law came from voters, just
like Prop 12, and it reflected how Arizonans value animals, food
quality, and responsible farming. Laws like Prop 12 have created market
opportunities for producers who raise animals humanely.
Undoing Prop 12 would reward the worst actors and hurt those who've
invested in doing things right.
Please stand up for farmers, animals, and the rights of states to
improve food policy; uphold Prop 12 and laws like it.
Sincerely,
Keith Lierman,
Tucson Organic Gardeners President.
Dear Committee Members,
What happens on farms matters far beyond property lines. The public
has every right to expect humane standards, and California's
Proposition 12 (and similar laws in my own state of Colorado) is a
reflection of that expectation. Trying to nullify it through Federal
overreach is not just a policy mistake, it's a moral one. We stand
firmly against the EATS Act and other measures that aim to roll back
ethical progress. Please do the same.
Thank you,
Michael Moss,
Kilt Farm.
Dear Members of the Committee,
I'm writing on behalf of Oahe Hills Ranch Premium Beef, where we
raise cattle with a commitment to quality, animal care, and responsible
land stewardship. We strongly support California's Proposition 12, and
we oppose any Federal efforts to repeal or override it.
As ranchers, we understand the importance of treating animals with
respect, not only because it's right, but because it results in
healthier animals and a better product. Proposition 12 is grounded in
that same principle. It sets basic space requirements for animals and
supports more humane, thoughtful production systems. These standards
aren't burdens, they're benchmarks for integrity in agriculture.
We know firsthand that today's consumers are asking more questions
about where their food comes from and how it was raised. They want
transparency, and they want to support producers who take the time to
do things right. Laws like Prop 12 create market clarity and ensure
that producers committed to higher standards aren't undercut by those
relying on outdated, industrial-scale confinement.
The law was passed by voters, upheld by the Supreme Court, and
implemented with years of lead time. That's more than fair. In fact,
it's a blueprint for how agricultural policy should work: clear goals,
realistic timelines, and accountability.
At Oahe Hills Ranch, we've built our brand on trust and quality.
Proposition 12 supports both. Please protect this important law and
stand with the farmers and ranchers who are leading the way toward a
better future for agriculture.
Sincerely,
Oahe Hills Ranch,
South Dakota.
Dear Chairperson and Members of the Committee,
I represent Lazy Moon Ranch, a small, family-run farm in Butler
County, Kansas. Our farm is built on a foundation of sustainable
agriculture and humane animal care. At Lazy Moon Ranch, we treat our
animals with compassion and respect. We work with them every day, and
that hands-on experience has taught us that when animals are given the
space and care they need, they thrive.
As a farmer who strongly believes in animal welfare, I view
California's Proposition 12 not as a burden, but as a standard of
responsible farming. It requires that animals have room to move freely
and express natural behaviors--conditions that lead to healthier
animals and safer food. These values resonate with today's consumers,
who want to know how their food is produced. Meeting those expectations
not only strengthens trust in agriculture, but also reinforces our role
as stewards of the land and caretakers of the animals we raise.
Efforts at the Federal level to dismantle Proposition 12 would
undermine both the will of California voters and the broader, growing
commitment to ethical and sustainable farming across the country.
Millions of Americans supported Prop 12 because they believe in
transparency, food safety, and the humane treatment of animals.
Overturning it would ignore that clear message and set back the
progress farmers like me have worked hard to achieve.
Preserving Proposition 12 sends a powerful message that American
agriculture can evolve while staying true to its core values of care,
responsibility, and integrity. This isn't about one state imposing its
will on others. It's about raising the bar for how we feed our nation.
I urge you to protect this important law and the future it represents
for farmers, animals, and consumers alike.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jerramy & Erin Pankratz,
Lazy Moon Ranch.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
As a proud Wisconsin farmer, I believe in treating farmed animals
with care and respect. That is why I support Proposition 12. It sets
fair, reasonable standards that align with how many of us already
farm--with decency, transparency, and respect. Voters asked for better
animal welfare and food safety standards, and farmers like me are
meeting that demand.
The EATS Act, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and similar
bills would wipe out the progress so many of us have made. It is wrong
to let big interests override the will of the people and undercut those
of us who are doing things right. I urge you to stand with Proposition
12 and protect what it stands for.
Thank you,
Parisi Family Farm.
Dear House Agriculture Committee Members:
At Tawanda Farms, where we raise grass-fed sheep and beef cattle,
we love our animals and it's important that we treat them with respect
for the livelihood they have given us. It's not just our farm that
believes this, but the majority of Californians. Our state has
consistently shown that we value humane treatment of animals and
responsible food production. Through ballot measures like 2018's
Proposition 12, voters made it clear: Californians want a food system
that reflects our values.
That's why a recently introduced, misleadingly named Federal bill,
the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, is so alarming. This bill
would override the will of voters, wiping out humane and food safety
standards California residents voted to put in place.
For family farms like ours, this is more than politics, it's
personal. We've seen firsthand how important it is for states to have
the ability to set standards for humane and responsible food production
and sales. We also know that farmers have invested time, care and money
into aligning operations with what Californians expect. Rolling back
standards rewards industrial-scale producers, many of which are
foreign-owned, that cut corners and undermine farmers who are doing the
right thing.
We urge Members of Congress to reject the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act and stand with the people of California and responsible
farmers.
Carol Pasheilich,
Tawanda Farms, CA.
Dear Committee Members:
At Podunk's Ranch in southwestern Colorado, family tradition and a
sincere commitment to sustainability stand at the heart of everything
we do. As a woman-owned farm, we are dedicated and responsible stewards
of the land, following sound grazing principles, ensuring high animal
welfare standards, and implementing sustainable practices that reflect
deep respect for the animals and environment that sustain us. This
approach not only guides our daily operations, it has helped us build
lasting trust with a loyal network of customers who count on us to
provide responsibly sourced food for their families.
However, the values that define and guide our farm are now under
threat. Attempts to undo California's Proposition 12 and laws like it
dismantle hard-won, voter-approved animal welfare protections across
the country.
Here in Colorado, we have enacted our own laws regarding the
confinement of pigs, calves, and egg-laying hens, laws that reflect a
growing understanding that intensive confinement of farm animals is
inconsistent with both animal welfare and public health. In fact, a
recent survey by the Animal-Human Policy Center at Colorado State
University found that over 80% of Americans support measures to end
confinement practices. This isn't a partisan issue. It's a public
values issue.
Overriding state-level protections and silencing the will of voters
would transfer power from local communities and their elected officials
to large corporate interests, many of which are foreign-owned, whose
primary motivation is profit. That is not responsible governance. It
undermines the fundamental principle that citizens have a right to
shape the standards under which their food is produced.
This is a defining moment. We ask you to stand with the people.
Defend the values that sustain our farms and our communities. Support
responsible farming, democratic decision-making, and the right of
states to lead on agricultural policy. Please support Prop 12 and laws
like it.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective.
Sincerely,
Podunk's Ranch, Colorado.
Dear Committee Members,
I farm because I believe in working with integrity--toward the
land, the animals, and the people who rely on us. Proposition 12 and my
own state's Question 3 support that approach.
Attempts to strip away such laws through legislation like the Food
Security and Farm Protection Act tell farmers like me that our values
don't matter. But they do. And so do the values of voters who passed
these measures.
Please protect those values.
Sincerely,
Wenona Racicot,
Chockalog Farm.
Dear Members of the Committee,
As a small family farmer from Idaho, I strongly support preserving
Proposition 12. This law is not extreme, it simply ensures that animals
raised for food are given basic freedoms, such as the ability to move
around and lie down comfortably. These are reasonable, common-sense
standards that form the foundation of humane, responsible farming. They
also contribute to a safer, more transparent food system.
When laws like Proposition 12 are upheld, it sends a clear message
that the agriculture industry values more than just profit. It shows
that we care about how food is produced, not just the end result.
That's how we build trust with consumers. In contrast, efforts to roll
back these standards (like the EATS Act and similar proposals) send the
wrong message. They tell the public that the ethical treatment of
animals doesn't matter, and that the will of voters can be ignored.
That's not the future we should be moving toward. The standards in
Proposition 12 reflect a future where farming is both ethical and
sustainable. That's the kind of agriculture I'm proud to be a part of.
Thank you for your time.
Mike Reid,
Paradise Springs Farm.
To the House Agriculture Committee,
I became a farmer because I care deeply about how food is produced
for not just my family, but for every family in my community.
Proposition 12 aligns with what so many Americans believe: that animals
should be treated humanely, and that food safety begins on the farm. It
reflects shared values of compassion, care, and responsibility.
I am concerned that bills like the EATS Act and the Food Security
and Farm Protection Act would erode that trust by stripping states of
their right to set thoughtful standards. These bills threaten the
connection between farmers and consumers, one that Proposition 12 has
helped strengthen. Please defend this progress and support a food
system we can all be proud of.
Respectfully,
Elizabeth Robb.
Hon. Angie Craig,
Representative,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Salud O. Carbajal,
Representative,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. James P. McGovern,
Representative,
Washington, D.C.
Dear Representatives Craig, Carbajal, and McGovern,
My name is Blake Sensenig, and I'm a pork producer from Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania. I own and operate a 600 head sow breeding and
weaner piglet producing barn. I produce over 15,000 piglets each year.
California's Proposition 12 and Massachusetts Question 3 provided
our family an opportunity to enter the pigs business. We built our new
sow farm 3 years ago to cater to this market sector. We are opposed to
any Federal legislation that would interfere with the states right to
determine their own food production standards. Overturning these
established market channels would be a significant blow to our business
plan/model and ability to run a profitable new pig farm.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns with you.
Sincerely,
Blake Sensenig.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
At Songbird Haven Farm here in Washington, we take pride in growing
food that supports the broader ecosystem, above and below the soil. Our
practices are rooted in long-term sustainability, care for the land,
and a deep respect for the interconnectedness of life.
That's why we support Proposition 12. Like Washington's own cage-
free standards, Prop 12 reflects a growing consensus among farmers,
voters, and consumers that food should be produced in ways that are not
only safe and sustainable, but also humane.
Efforts to override these hard-won state laws are deeply
concerning. They ignore the will of the people, undermine democratic
decision-making, and threaten the integrity of independent farms trying
to do things the right way.
We ask you to protect state-level standards like Prop 12 and reject
any attempt to weaken them via the EATS Act, farm bill or other
Congressional action.
Thank you,
Songbird Haven Farm,
Washington State.
Dear Members of the Committee,
My name is Jerry Steckler, and I run Steckler Grassfed in Dale,
Indiana. We produce organic, grass-fed, pasture-based food with a focus
on animal welfare, soil health, and transparency, because we believe in
doing right by both the land and the animals in our care.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the importance
of Proposition 12 to independent farmers who are deeply committed to
ethical livestock practices.
Proposition 12, passed by the voters of California in 2018, is not
merely a regulation, it is a declaration that consumers and farmers
alike care about how animals are treated in our food system. It
requires that animals such as pigs, calves, and egg-laying hens be
raised in conditions that allow them to move freely and express basic
behaviors that align with any farmer's understanding of humane care.
At Steckler Grassfed, we've always believed that healthy soil,
healthy animals, and healthy communities are interconnected. Our
animals are raised on pasture, where they can engage in their natural
behaviors. This is not only better for the animal, but it leads to
healthier products and greater trust with our customers.
Proposition 12 supports farmers like us who have invested in humane
systems. When large-scale industrial farms are allowed to undercut
responsible producers by confining animals in cruel, restrictive
environments, the market punishes those of us doing the right thing.
Prop 12 begins to correct that imbalance. It says that if you want
access to California's market, you must meet minimum standards of
decency in animal care. That's not only fair, it's a reflection of what
the public wants and what responsible farming requires.
Let me be clear: Proposition 12 is not an attack on farmers. It is
a recognition that animal welfare, food quality, and consumer values
matter. It's a safeguard for the integrity of our food system and for
the families who have built their farms on trust, ethics, and respect,
for animals and people alike.
I urge this Committee to support Proposition 12 and to resist any
efforts, like the EATS Act, to weaken or override it. Let us not step
backward into a system that favors volume over values. Instead, let us
lift up the farmers who are already doing it right.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Sincerely,
Jerry Steckler,
Steckler Grassfed,
Dale, IN.
Dear Committee Members,
At Secret Keepers Ranch here in Wisconsin, we raise pigs with care,
space, and dignity. Our customers know that when they purchase from us,
they're supporting a farm that refuses to cut corners when it comes to
how animals are treated.
Proposition 12 affirms the kind of values we already live by on our
farm. It rewards the hard work of producers who prioritize animal well-
being and gives consumers confidence in the standards behind their
food. We know pork production without confinement is possible and
profitable; we do it every day.
Efforts like the EATS Act would undo years of progress and punish
the very farmers who are doing it right. We urge you to reject those
measures and uphold Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Cathy Stoll,
Secret Keepers Ranch--Wisconsin.
Dear Committee Members,
At Tiny Giant Farm in Kalamazoo, Michigan, we built our farm on the
belief that small, everyday actions can lead to big, lasting change.
That's why we support California's Proposition 12 and Michigan's own
crate-free standards, because how animals are treated in our food
system matters, and our policies should reflect that.
We farm small so we can farm responsibly. That means staying close
to the land, listening to what it needs, and doing right by the animals
and people who depend on it. Proposition 12 gives voice to those
values. It's a policy rooted in respect: for animals, for farmers, and
for consumers.
Efforts to undo laws like Prop 12b (through the EATS Act or other
Federal overreach) would silence the work that farms like ours do every
day to raise the bar. Voters in California and Michigan have made it
clear: humane treatment of animals is not optional. It's a basic
expectation.
We urge you to reject any provision that would weaken these laws.
Let the states lead where they've already shown the courage to act.
Sincerely,
Tiny Giant Farm,
Kalamazoo, MI.
Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
My name is Walt Tysinger, and I operate WildSide Farm in Chapel
Hill, North Carolina. Our motto is Healthy Soil. Healthy Food. Healthy
People. That principle guides everything we do, from how we treat the
land to how we raise food for our community.
I'm writing in strong support of Proposition 12 and in opposition
to the EATS Act and any attempt to revive it under a new name. These
bills are harmful because they would take away states' ability to
uphold higher standards for animal welfare, food quality, and
transparency, the very values our farm stands on.
Prop 12 helps support farmers like me who choose ethical,
sustainable practices. The EATS Act would do the opposite. It would
give more power to industrial operations and erase the progress states
have made to meet the expectations of informed consumers.
We need more accountability in agriculture, not less. I urge you to
protect Prop 12, reject the EATS Act, and stand with independent
farmers and the people who support them.
Sincerely,
Walt Tysinger,
WildSide Farm,
Chapel Hill, NC.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
At Valley Flora Farm, our work is rooted in care, care for the
land, for our community, and for the values that guide responsible food
production. As a small mother-and-two-daughter-run farm in Oregon,
we've seen firsthand how thoughtful policies, like Oregon's own animal
welfare and cage-free standards, support both humane farming and public
trust.
Proposition 12 reflects that same spirit. It aligns with the
direction many of us have already embraced: producing food in ways that
honor the dignity of animals and the expectations of informed
consumers.
Any attempts to override Prop 12 (via the EATS Act or other
Congressional action) would undo progress, progress shaped by years of
effort, investment, and commitment from farmers and voters alike. We
urge you to reject any provisions that seek to undermine state laws
like Prop 12.
Let's protect the integrity of food grown with purpose and care.
Sincerely,
Valley Flora Farm,
Langlois, OR.
Dear Recipient,
As members of the Pennsylvania Pork Producers Strategic Investment
Program, we are writing to share our opposition of repealing
California's Proposition 12 (``Prop 12'') and Massachusetts Question 3
(``MA Q3''). Pushing for this legislation to be repealed will lead to
more consumer distrust at a time when consumers are interested in
learning more about their food supply. While we do not support a
patchwork of state-issued standards, our consumers deserve a choice in
how their safe, wholesome pork is produced. Producer success and
lasting consumer trust rely on change and innovation.
We strongly believe in pork producers' ability to meet the requests
of their consumers. Prop 12 and MA Q3 do not force producers to make
production changes. Hog producers are free to choose how to respond to
market demands, and each producer will make this decision based on what
is best for their business. Historically, Midwestern hog producers have
enjoyed the advantage of low-cost production due to their proximity to
the corn belt. We believe market dynamics help drive innovation in our
industry and allow hog producers to fill a niche market created by
consumer demands. Pennsylvania producers are positioned to meet this
demand, drawing on established production practices and animal
husbandry methods.
Furthermore, utilizing our expertise in animal husbandry, we feel
strongly that investment in different types of production practices is
valuable for the long-term viability of the pork industry in
Pennsylvania. For Pennsylvania pork producers to remain competitive, it
is imperative for the industry, and Pennsylvania specifically, to
remain a leader of progressive animal care and to ensure flexibility to
meet the ever-changing demands of consumers.
In that regard, please do not repeal Prop 12 or MA Q3.
Sincerely,
Matt Walters, Kurt Good,
PA SIP Co-Chair PA SIP Co-Chair
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
At Willowbrook Farm and Sheep Dairy, we are proud to be a veteran-
owned family farm raising sheep, chickens, goats, and fresh eggs. In
2021, we invested in a water system to ensure our sheep could thrive,
because doing right by our animals is simply how we farm.
We stand firmly against the EATS Act because it would erase state-
level standards like Prop 12, standards that reward transparency,
responsibility, and humane practices, and that give farmers like us a
level playing field and a chance to compete with integrity.
Our farm is built on service, not shortcuts. Please protect the
rights of states and the values of hard-working farmers like us. Uphold
Prop 12, and say no to the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Willowbrook Farm and Sheep Dairy,
Arkansas.
Dear Committee Members,
At Winged Elm Farm in Philadelphia, Tennessee, we raise pigs,
cattle, and lamb with care and intention for our direct-market
customers. We believe that how an animal lives directly affects the
quality of the food it produces--and more importantly, it's the right
thing to do.
We support California's Proposition 12 because it recognizes what
responsible farmers already know: extreme confinement like gestation
crates is inhumane. Our animals have space to move, graze, root, and
live naturally. Not only is this better for their well-being, but it's
also what our customers expect and deserve.
Prop 12 has created new market opportunities for farms like ours--
farms that prioritize humane treatment and thoughtful animal husbandry.
We urge Congress to reject any attempt to weaken this progress, whether
through the EATS Act or other preemption efforts.
Let the people who care about how food is produced, farmers and
consumers alike, continue to make those choices at the state level.
Sincerely,
Winged Elm Farm,
Philadelphia, TN.
July 23, 2025
Dear Committee Members,
At Anita's AREA Farms in Arizona, we believe in raising animals
with care, respect and basic humanity. Standards like those in
Proposition 12 reflect values that responsible farmers already uphold.
Efforts to weaken Prop 12 would undermine both animal welfare and
the trust consumers place in food producers. We urge you to defend Prop
12 and support farms that are doing things right.
Sincerely,
Anita's AREA Farms, Arizona.
Dear Chair Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Esteemed Members of
the Committee:
We are running a small farm in Mendocino County, California, on
which we grow many fruits and vegetables as well as raising pigs,
chickens, ducks, pigeons, and cows. We urge you to vote NO on the EATS
Act in Congress. California voters passed Prop 12 mandating humane
conditions for farm animals. The EATS Act and other attempts to roll
back Prop 12 would hurt responsible farmers like us since it would
encourage large, industrial producers with no regard for animal
husbandry to cut corners. We strongly support raising animals more
humanely than CAFO's do.
We support Prop 12, and we oppose the EATS Act.
Thank you,
Nikki [Ausschnitt] and Steven [Krieg],
Petit Teton Farm,
Yorkville, CA.
Dear Members of the Committee,
We are proud to say we are farmers. At Bean Hollow Grassfed, we
raise pigs, cattle, and sheep on diverse pastures and wooded lands
where animal health, soil health, and ecosystem health are deeply
interconnected. Every task we do, from fixing fences to rotating
pastures, is part of a larger mission to farm in a way that's good for
animals, good for people, and good for the planet.
Our pigs live in wooded areas where they root, forage, and express
their natural behaviors. Proposition 12 sets a baseline standard that
animals should be able to move freely. For farms like ours that go
beyond these standards, Prop 12 helps ensure that industrial
confinement systems don't set the market terms for everyone else.
Efforts to dismantle Prop 12 threaten not only animal welfare, but
also the viability of farms that are trying to do things right. When
voters demand higher standards, those decisions should be respected,
not overridden. We urge you to preserve Prop 12 and reject any
attempts, like the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, that would
strip away states' ability to set basic, responsible standards.
Thank you for your time and for listening to farmers who are doing
the work on the ground.
Sincerely,
Bean Hollow Grassfed
Dear Members of the Committee,
My name is Angela Bivens, and I own and operate White Stone Ranch
in Webster, Texas, where we raise Hereford cattle on open pasture. We
take pride in maintaining high standards for animal care, land
stewardship, and transparency in how we operate.
While Proposition 12 focuses on the treatment of pigs, veal calves,
and egg-laying hens, it represents something bigger for producers like
me. It's about a shared commitment to quality, ethics, and the right of
states to reflect the will of their people. California voters passed
Prop 12 because they wanted to support a food system that values humane
treatment of animals. That's their right, and frankly, it's a message
we hear more and more from consumers across the country.
Undermining Prop 12 would send the signal that national policy is
more responsive to powerful processors than to the people who do the
work or the citizens who vote. That's not good for farmers, and it's
not good for democracy.
Please respect state rights, respect the voices of voters, and
support a future where integrity in agriculture is not just encouraged,
but protected.
Sincerely,
Angela Bivens,
White Stone Ranch, TX.
Hon. Glenn Thompson, Hon. Angie Craig,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Craig:
We, the undersigned farmers, raise hogs in compliance with
California's Proposition 12 and supply pork to this important market.
We write today to thank those Members of Congress who have rejected
attempts to strip us of this opportunity, and to urge all Members to
continue standing with American family farmers.
For us, this market is not political, but rather an opportunity to
improve the financial success of our operations. Proposition 12 has
created a stable, premium market that allows us to sustain our farms,
invest in better infrastructure and livestock care, and continue
farming in an increasingly consolidated industry. We readily decided to
comply with these standards, made the necessary investments, and now
rely on this market as a part of our farms' financial futures.
In the last Congress, language was included in the House farm bill
draft that would eliminate this market opportunity. It would undercut
the very market we have worked hard to serve, penalizing farmers who
chose to innovate and respond to consumer demand.
Meanwhile, it would protect those who refused to adapt, including
the largest corporate pork producers, such as China-owned Smithfield
Foods. Multinational firms do not need Congress to shield them from
competition, but family farmers like us need fair access to markets we
have earned.
We respectfully ask you to reject any proposal that would dismantle
the market created by Proposition 12, and again thank the many Members
of Congress who continue to stand with independent farmers and the
consumers we serve.
Sincerely,
Mike Butcher, Palmyra, Illinois Gary Mudd, Silex, Missouri
Jeff Kuhn, Shabbona, Illinois Pat Mudd, Silex, Missouri
Steve Maxwell, Rush Hill, Missouri Terry Mudd, Silex, Missouri
Daryl Mudd, Silex, Missouri Wes Rynders, Greenfield, Missouri
Dave Mudd, Silex, Missouri Brian Sjostrand, Hartsburg,
Missouri
Dean Mudd, Silex, Missouri Jean Sjostrand, Hartsburg, Missouri
Debbie Mudd, Silex, Missouri Bob Street, Whiteside, Missouri
Don Mudd, Silex, Missouri
cc: Members of the House Committee on Agriculture
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
My name is Debbie Duplisea, and I operate Happy Hollow Farm in
Barre, Massachusetts. I'm writing to express my support for
California's Proposition 12 and my own state's Question 3; along with
my opposition to any legislative effort (such as the EATS Act or the
Food Security and Farm Protection Act) that seeks to weaken or override
these important laws.
Like Question 3, Prop 12 represents a step forward in how we
approach food production. It sets a basic expectation that animals
should be treated with dignity and that consumers have a right to know
how their food is produced. Undoing it would be a step backwards, for
farmers, for public trust, and for the integrity of our food system.
Please respect the will of the people, the role of states in
shaping food policy, and the values that responsible farmers uphold
every day. Stand against efforts to dismantle Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Debbie Duplisea,
Happy Hollow Farm,
Barre, Massachusetts.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
At Taste of the Wind, raising animals with care and respect is our
way of life. From pasture-raised eggs to responsibly produced chicken,
beef, and lamb, we know what it takes to raise animals humanely and
sustainably. These values aren't just good for the animals; they're
good for our customers and our rural community.
That's why we support Proposition 12 and strongly oppose efforts
like the EATS Act that would override it. Prop 12 creates real
opportunities for farmers like us who prioritize animal welfare, and
preserves local autonomy in choosing what and how we eat and raise
food. It recognizes the kind of care and stewardship we already
practice and want to see adopted as sustainable and healthy for lives
across the food shed.
Trying to wipe out these state-level laws, like Prop 12, with one-
size-fits-all legislation only serves corporate interests, not family
farmers, not the animals, and certainly not the people who eat the
food.
We urge you to support Prop 12 and laws like it; stand with
responsible farmers; and reject the EATS Act and other attempts to
weaken Prop 12.
Sincerely,
BJ Edwards,
Taste of the Wind,
Wyoming.
Dear Committee Members,
Ekvn-Yefolecvlket oweyat, pum etvlwvt emvkerrickv ohfvccvn
nak cen hocciceyat, fvccuset ontos. Eyasketv teropotten cen
hoccicet okes. Ohhonvyepakvccvs.
We submit this testimony on behalf of Ekvn-Yefolecv, a climate-
positive, income-sharing ecovillage community of Indigenous Maskoke
People who, after 180 years of having been forcibly removed, returned
to our homelands in what is commonly known as Alabama with unwavering
commitments to: revitalizing Maskoke language and culture, regenerative
agriculture for food sovereignty, ecological restoration, endangered
species conservation, restorative economics, and natural building
construction.
Our ancestors made a covenant with the Creator that we would be
caretakers of all human and non-human life situated within the
bioregional ecology in which Maskoke People resided since time
immemorial until our forced removal. Today, our community is situated
on 7,498 acres where we daily strive to live into this covenant--
unequivocally the core of our Maskoke identity. We do not view non-
human beings as mere commodities. Rather, as Indigenous regenerative
farmers, our ecovillage recognizes that the beings with whom we co-
reside in this ecosystem, including the agricultural environment, are
integral to our ecological, spiritual, and linguistic survival. Our
commitment to regenerative agriculture is grounded in reverence for
life and reciprocity. We ensure the bison and endangered livestock
breeds (American Guinea Hogs, San Clemente Island Goats, Gulf Coast
Sheep and eight chicken breeds) that we raise are provided a species-
rich pasture with diverse forbs, graminoids, nuts and fruits, through
which they are regularly rotated. As these animals mature on pastures,
our community provides them opportunities to live long lives--
recognizing that they contribute immensely to ecosystem restoration in
these lands we cherish as Maskoke People. We hold traditional
ceremonies to honor the life of every single animal we cull, therein
offering deep gratitude for the nourishment they provide not only to
our community, but likewise to our customers who purchase meat from us
because they appreciate the ways in which we care for these animals.
Proposition 12 represents a modest but meaningful affirmation of
these principles. It ensures that animals raised for food are afforded
space and dignity, and it opens pathways for food systems that nourish
without dominating. It affirms what we know to be true through
thousands of years of Maskoke teachings, traditional ecological
knowledge and practices: when we treat animals with care, our
communities and ecosystems thrive in return.
We oppose legislative attempts, like the EATS Act, that seek to
erase hard-won protections such as Prop 12. These efforts erode food
sovereignty, undermine sustainable agriculture, and deepen the
disconnection between people, animals, and the land.
We call upon Congress to respect the authority of communities and
states to uphold values that align with ecological responsibility and
justice for all beings. Protecting Proposition 12 is one small act
toward restoring right relationships with all life.
Mvto pumapohicackat, ce kicaketos (to all of you, we
express gratitude for listening)
Ekvn-Yefolecv Ecovillage
Dear Committee Members,
From South Carolina, we watch as Prop 12 sets an example. It's a
law rooted in respect--for animals, for farmers, and for the people who
care about where their food comes from. Undoing it through legislation
like the EATS Act would be a blow to farmers who work ethically and
communities who support them. We urge you to protect Prop 12 and reject
efforts that strip away hard-earned progress.
Thank you,
Fire Ant Farms, SC.
Dear Committee Members,
At GG's Alpaca Farm in Kansas, we care deeply for our animals and
understand what humane treatment means day in and day out. Proposition
12 sets a minimum standard of decency, not a radical one. Any Federal
attempt to overturn it would prioritize industrial convenience over
care, and that's not a path we want agriculture in this country to
take. Please stand up for animal welfare and the farmers who practice
it. Protect Prop 12.
Thank you,
GG's Alpaca Farm LLC,
Kansas,
Dear Esteemed Committee Members:
My name is Brian Grantham, and I am a former cattle farmer from
rural Arkansas. I appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony
in support of Proposition 12 and to express strong opposition to
efforts such as the EATS Act and the Food Security and Farm Protection
Act, which seek to undermine it.
Though I no longer actively farm, I spent many years living close
to the land and to the animals in my care. I believe deeply in the
importance of raising livestock with dignity. We worked hard each day
to provide our animals with the space, attention, and humane
environment they deserved. For me, this was never about politics--it
was about values. And those values are shared by millions of consumers
who care how their food is produced.
Proposition 12 represents a step toward more responsible, ethical
farming. It affirms that animals should be able to move freely and live
in conditions that reflect a basic standard of decency.
Federal proposals like the EATS Act would override the will of
voters and strip states of the ability to uphold these values. That's
not about easing burdens on farmers--it's about silencing local voices
and reversing progress.
I urge this Committee to recognize that many farmers, past and
present, support humane standards and oppose any effort to roll them
back. We should not allow the interests of industrial operations to
drown out the voices of those who believe in transparency, decency, and
accountability in agriculture.
Thank you for your time and for considering the perspectives of
farmers like me who care about the integrity and future of our food
system.
Sincerely,
Brian Grantham,
Former Farmer, Arkansas.
Dear Members of the Committee,
At Guidry Organic Farms in Louisiana, we're known for our organic
pecans, but we also raise egg-laying hens. And when you care for hens
every day, you learn what they need to thrive. They need room to
stretch their wings. They need sunlight. They need to move around and
express their natural behaviors like scratching, dust bathing, and
laying eggs in peace. That's not radical, it's just responsible, humane
animal care.
That's why we support California's Proposition 12 and other efforts
like it. These are commonsense standards that reflect how family
farmers across the country already treat their animals. Prop 12 isn't
extreme; it simply asks producers to meet a baseline of decency. It
also gives consumers the right to support farms that reflect their
values.
We've seen firsthand how healthier, less-stressed hens lead to
better eggs and a better environment. Our hens aren't confined to
battery cages, and we never saw the need for that. Instead, we treat
them with care, and they reward us with strong, steady production.
Efforts to overturn Prop 12 or strip away the rights of states to
set animal welfare standards, like the so-called Food Security and Farm
Protection Act, are misguided. They take power away from voters, hurt
responsible farmers, and prioritize the lowest standards over what's
right.
We urge the Committee to stand with family farms and animal
welfare. Preserve Proposition 12 and protect the right of states to set
fair, science-based standards.
Sincerely,
Guidry Organic Farms.
Dear Committee Members,
At Alpacas at Lone Ranch in White City, Oregon, we raise alpacas
with care, purpose, and respect for the animals and the environment.
Our farm is built on values of ethical stewardship, transparency, and
quality.
We strongly oppose the EATS Act, under any name, because it
threatens the ability of states to set their own agricultural
standards--standards that often go beyond the bare minimum and reflect
the expectations of today's consumers. Laws like California's
Proposition 12 are important examples of how states can lead the way in
promoting responsible and humane farming practices. The EATS Act would
erase that progress.
Please protect states' rights and the farmers who are committed to
doing things the right way. Protect Prop 12. Reject the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Renate Gyuro,
Alpacas at Lone Ranch,
White City, Oregon.
Dear Members of the Committee,
As an organic farmer in Arizona, I support California's Proposition
12 and urge you to reject any attempt to override it, including the
EATS Act or the Food Security and Farm Protection Act.
Prop 12 reflects what our customers expect: food from farms that
prioritize health, safety, and humane treatment of animals. It doesn't
dictate how farmers operate; it simply says that if you want to sell
into California, you meet basic standards. That's fair, and it has
created opportunity for producers like me who already go above and
beyond.
Food safety and animal welfare matter. Please protect these values,
and keep Prop 12 as it was enacted.
Sincerely,
Stanley Hagyard.
To the Members of Congress,
My name is Jolene Hammond, and I raise pigs at Basswood Acres in
Dresser, Wisconsin. On our farm, we believe animals deserve to be
treated with care and respect, not just because it's good farming, but
because it's the right thing to do.
I strongly support California's Proposition 12 and urge you to
reject the EATS Act and any Federal legislation that would override it.
Proposition 12 reflects a shift in public values--a growing
recognition that how animals are treated matters. It gives consumers
the right to food raised under humane conditions and gives farmers like
me the opportunity to meet that demand by raising animals responsibly
and ethically. After all, you are what you eat!
The EATS Act and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act would
strip states of the ability to set these higher standards. It would
erase progress and force all of us to accept the bare minimum,
regardless of how we farm or what our customers want. That's not
freedom. That's corporate protectionism at the expense of independent
producers and informed consumers.
I ask you to stand with the many farmers who are doing things the
right way. Support Prop 12, and please reject the EATS Act and other
Federal attempts to override Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Jolene Hammond,
Basswood Acres,
Dresser, Wisconsin.
Dear Members of the Committee:
As a CSA farm in Tennessee, we believe in building a food system
rooted in care--care for the land, for our animals, and for the people
we feed. We operate close to the soil and close to our community.
That's why we support California's Proposition 12 and oppose any
attempt, like the EATS Act, to overturn it.
Prop 12 sets basic expectations: that farm animals should be able
to move. This isn't a radical demand. It's a common-sense standard that
matches what customers increasingly expect.
Trying to block these kinds of laws doesn't just go against animal
welfare, it goes against the very idea of local control. Our
communities should have the right to shape the kind of food system we
want, just like Californians and voters in other states have already
done.
Congress should protect the freedom of farmers to farm with
integrity and the freedom of states to uphold meaningful standards.
Please reject any provision that would strip away those rights.
Respectfully,
Hernandez Family Organics.
Dear Members of the Committee,
At Hidden Gem Farm in Tennessee, we operate a community-supported
agriculture (CSA) program rooted in care for the land, for people, and
for the animals in our food system. We raise chickens, ducks, and
turkeys on our farm, and we partner with another local farm that
humanely raises and processes the beef we sell. This model reflects
values of transparency, collaboration, and respect for life.
California's Proposition 12 reflects those same values. It upholds
the right of states to require more humane standards for animals raised
for food, and it was passed overwhelmingly by voters who want better
systems.
That's why we urge you to protect Prop 12 and reject any provision
in the farm bill, EATS Act, or other Federal legislation that would
strip states of their ability to set higher agricultural standards.
These decisions should remain in the hands of the people and the
communities directly impacted by them.
Sincerely,
Hidden Gem Farm,
Tennessee.
Dear Committee Members,
My name is Richard Holcomb. I'm now retired, but for many years I
ran Coon Rock Farm in North Carolina, where we raised pigs and hens the
way nature intended--on pasture, with space to move, forage, and live
well. Our animals were never confined in tight crates or cages because
we knew that good farming meant respecting the life of the animals in
our care.
That's why I support California's Proposition 12. It reinforces
practices that many sustainable farms, including mine, have long
followed. Letting animals move freely isn't radical--it's responsible.
And it reflects what more and more consumers are asking for.
Farming with animal welfare in mind never held us back--it helped
us thrive. Prop 12 has created opportunities for farms willing to meet
humane standards. Federal efforts like the EATS Act or the Food
Security and Farm Protection Act threaten to erase that progress and
silence the choices states and voters have made.
I urge the Committee to defend Proposition 12 and protect the
ability of farmers who prioritize animal care to keep doing what's
right--for the animals, the land, and the people they feed.
Respectfully,
Richard Holcomb,
Retired Farmer, Former Operator of Coon Rock Farm,
North Carolina.
To the Committee,
Cobblestone Valley Farm in Preble, New York is a diversified
Organic Dairy, also raising organic beef, pastured pork, organic
poultry, and eggs; with care and respect. We believe in fair
competition, humane treatment of animals, and allowing states to set
standards that reflect the values of their communities.
The new version of the EATS Act, like the original, is a Federal
overreach. It would erase state-level laws like Prop 12 that are
farmer-friendly and recognize the importance of responsible farming.
Far from protecting farmers, this legislation puts power in the hands
of the largest corporate interests and weakens trust in our food
system.
We urge you to oppose the EATS Act, preserve California's
Proposition 12 and protect the rights of states and family farms.
Sincerely,
Paul & Maureen Knapp,
Cobblestone Valley Farm,
Preble, New York.
I'm Christy Krieg from KC Sunshine Farm in Indiana. I support
Proposition 12 and respectfully ask the Committee to oppose the EATS
Act and the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (which are
identical).
Prop 12 is about giving voters to have the law reflect their shared
values for the humane treatment of animals. The law was not rushed. It
was carefully implemented and has helped create new market
opportunities for producers who care about responsible farming.
Federal efforts to roll back Prop 12 would undo progress that
matters to animals, to food safety, and to farming families who take
pride in their work.
Thank you for considering our voice in this conversation.
Sincerely,
Christy Krieg,
KC Sunshine Farm Indy,
Indiana.
To the House Agriculture Committee,
I respectfully urge you to defend Proposition 12 against the wave
of Federal proposals seeking to dismantle it. The EATS Act, the Food
Security and Farm Protection Act, and similar bills are out of touch
with what Americans want, and what many farmers already practice.
I am a proud Minnesota farmer, and I'm proud to stand in solidarity
to uphold laws like Proposition 12. Prop 12 is not extreme. It's
reasonable, and it reflects a future that respects both animals and the
people who care for them.
Thank you,
Claire Lande,
Owner and Farmer,
Farm Lande LLC, Minnesota.
Dear Members of the Committee,
Today's consumers do not just want food, they want to know that it
was produced responsibly, sustainably, and ethically. As a farmer, I've
seen firsthand how aligning with these values, animal welfare, food
safety, and transparency, builds trust with customers and creates
lasting relationships. Proposition 12 provides a clear framework for
farmers to meet these expectations and stay competitive in a modern,
evolving marketplace.
Unfortunately, bills like the EATS Act and the Food Security and
Farm Protection Act threaten to undo the meaningful progress
Proposition 12 represents. Overriding this law through Federal action
would not only disregard the will of the voters, but also penalize
farmers who have invested in better practices. It would send a
troubling signal that ethical progress in agriculture is optional.
Farming is evolving, and that's a good thing. Let's support
policies that help move agriculture forward, not backward. I urge you
to protect Proposition 12 and reject any attempt to undermine it.
Thank you,
Meg McGuire,
Colorado Farmer.
Dear Committee Members,
Raising healthy, high nutrient quality food is a far better farming
goal than turning out high volume yields. We know firsthand that real
farming is about far more than yields. It's about intentional
stewardship of valuable resources for the long-term. It's about humane
interactions of all relationships, the animals, the land, and local
communities.
Proposition 12 respects these relationships by establishing basic,
common-sense standards of animal care. The EATS Act and similar
proposals betray that respect in favor of high yields and unchecked
farm consolidation.
We ask you to defend the rights of states and the principles behind
laws like Proposition 12.
Thank you,
Maggie McQuown,
Resilient Farms LLC,
Red Oak, IA.
Dear Congressman McGovern,
We Meadowlark Hearth Farm in western Nebraska are proud beef
producers. We support Proposition 12 because it aligns with the core
values of small-scale agriculture: stewardship, integrity, and respect
for land, animals, and people.
Efforts to roll back Prop 12 threaten the sovereignty of states and
the survival of farms like ours. Farmers who go the extra mile should
not be penalized while others race to the bottom.
Please protect Proposition 12 and the voice of voters who supported
it.
Respectfully,
Meadowlark Hearth Farm,
Scottsbluff, NE.
Dear Members of the Committee,
We're writing from Muddy Feathers Farm in Orangeburg, South
Carolina, a small, diverse family farm where we raise chickens, ducks,
goats, and even emus. Our animals are part of our daily lives, and we
treat them with the care and respect they deserve. That's not just good
ethics, it's good farming.
Proposition 12 is important because it reflects what many small
farms like ours already practice: giving animals the space and
conditions to live naturally. It sets a basic, humane baseline. Animals
should not be confined so tightly they can't turn around. That's not
farming, that's cruelty.
We urge you to defend Prop 12 and reject efforts like the EATS Act
and others aimed at undoing it. These attempts don't help farmers, they
undermine those of us doing it right. Let farmers who prioritize animal
welfare continue to thrive.
Thank you for listening to farmers like us.
Sincerely,
Muddy Feathers Farm,
Orangeburg, SC.
Dear Committee Members,
At Odd Duck Asylum, our journey began in 2015 with a single injured
goose named Baba. Since then, we've cared for animals of all kinds--
giving them safety, space, and the chance to live the way nature
intended.
That experience has taught us a lot about what animals need to
thrive. We support Proposition 12 because it sets basic, humane
standards that align with what we've seen firsthand: animals suffer in
confinement, and they flourish when treated with dignity.
Efforts to overturn Prop 12 (like via the EATS Act) send the wrong
message. States should be able to set policies that reflect compassion
and common sense. Please stand with the voters, the animals, and the
people who care for them.
Sincerely,
Odd Duck Asylum
To the Committee,
Organic Appalachian Farm is a small farm in Franklin, North
Carolina. We're writing to express our support for Proposition 12 and
our opposition to the EATS Act and its updated form. This kind of
Federal overreach threatens to silence both farmers and voters who want
a more ethical, transparent food system.
We believe states should have the right to set basic standards that
protect animals, consumers, and farmers who go the extra mile. Prop 12
reflects values that matter to us, and to the growing number of
customers who care how their food is produced. The EATS Act would erase
those efforts and reward industrial shortcuts that don't align with
responsible farming.
Please stand with independent farms and support the right of states
to uphold meaningful standards. Reject the EATS Act and defend Prop 12.
Sincerely,
Organic Appalachian Farm,
Franklin, NC.
To the Members of Congress,
My name is Melody Peters, and I am an organic gardener in southern
Arizona. I am writing in support of California's Proposition 12 and in
strong opposition to the EATS Act and similar Federal efforts to
override it.
As someone who grows food with care for the soil, the ecosystem,
and the people who eat from it, I believe how food is produced matters.
Proposition 12 reflects a growing public understanding that animals are
not just commodities. They are living beings who deserve humane
treatment. This law also reflects the will of voters to support farming
systems that value transparency, decency, and sustainability.
The EATS Act threatens to take that choice away, not just from
Californians, but from anyone who believes that states should be
allowed to support higher standards in agriculture. It would override
democratically enacted laws and force all of us to accept the lowest
common denominator when it comes to food production and animal welfare.
This isn't just about one law in one state. It's about preserving
the right of states and communities to protect public values, support
responsible farmers, and ensure food systems align with the ethics of
the people they serve.
I urge you to reject the EATS Act and uphold Proposition 12. Please
allow states to continue building food systems that honor life,
stewardship, and accountability.
Sincerely,
Melody Peters,
Organic Gardener,
Tucson, AZ.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
My name is Stephanie Ramthun, and I run Tampa Bees in Florida.
While we are primarily beekeepers, our work connects us deeply to the
land, ecosystems, and ethical stewardship of all creatures, large and
small.
That's why I support California's Proposition 12. It's a step
toward more humane, transparent, and sustainable food production.
Voters in California (and in red, blue and purple states) have made it
clear that extreme confinement of animals raised for food is not
acceptable.
Rolling back these laws through the farm bill, or any attempt like
the EATS Act, would silence the voice of voters and reward industrial-
scale operations that put profit over welfare. It would take away
states' rights to set their own standards and push ethical producers
out of the marketplace.
I urge you to protect Prop 12 and stand with the many farmers,
ranchers, and food producers, like us, who believe good food starts
with good practices.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Ramthun,
Tampa Bees,
Tampa, FL.
Dear Committee Members,
At Scheel Family Farm & Flour Mill here in Michigan, we've always
believed that how food is grown and raised should reflect respect, for
the land, for the animals, and for the people who rely on both. That's
why we strongly support California's Proposition 12 and stand firmly
against efforts to dismantle it through legislation like the EATS Act
or the so-called Food and Farm Protection Act.
Michigan has its own laws to protect farm animals from extreme
confinement, and we're proud of them. They're not burdens, they're
standards that help build trust with customers and align with the
expectations of the communities we serve. These kinds of laws create
space for producers who are willing to take the care to do things
right.
Prop 12 is in that same spirit. It was passed by voters and upheld
by the Supreme Court. Efforts to override it would rob states, and
citizens, of the ability to demand higher standards in agriculture.
We urge the Committee to preserve the rights of states like
California and Michigan to protect animal welfare and support farmers
who are committed to responsible, forward-thinking practices.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Scheel,
Scheel Family Farm & Flour Mill,
Michigan.
Dear Committee Members,
I'm Diane Skoss of Windsong Farm in Warren, New Jersey, and I'm
writing to support Proposition 12 and to voice my strongest opposition
to any legislation that seeks to undo it (like the EATS Act and the
Food Security and Farm Protection Act).
Prop 12 was the fruit of years of public engagement, industry
input, and voter decision-making. It sets reasonable, clear standards
and has opened up new opportunities for farmers committed to
responsible production.
Undoing it would be a setback for all of us, farmers and eaters
alike. Please reject these misguided efforts to strip states of their
right to lead.
With appreciation,
Diane Skoss,
Windsong Farm,
Warren, NJ.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
My name is Bill Theiss, and I raise pastured pigs at Fawn Crossing
Farms in Bridgewater, Virginia. I'm writing today in strong support of
California's Proposition 12 and to urge the Committee not to support
any Federal effort, including the so-called Food Security and Farm
Protection Act, that would undermine it or similar laws passed by other
states.
As a farmer who works directly with pigs every day, I can tell you
that how we raise animals matters, not just for their well-being, but
for the quality of food we produce and the integrity of the farm
economy. Prop 12 set basic, reasonable standards: animals like sows
should be able to turn around. If we can't agree on that, then we've
lost sight of what good animal husbandry really means.
At Fawn Crossing Farms, we go well beyond Prop 12. Our pigs live
outdoors with space to root, wallow, and act like pigs. It's better for
the animals, and it's better for our customers who increasingly demand
transparency and humane practices.
Undermining Prop 12 would reward the worst actors in the system and
punish the rest of us who are building a better future for agriculture,
one based on sustainability and trust. Please stand with farmers who
are doing it right. Leave Prop 12 in place, and let states continue to
set standards that reflect their voters' values and their farmers'
capabilities.
Sincerely,
Bill Theiss,
Fawn Crossing Farms,
Bridgewater, VA.
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
My name is Holly Whitesides, and I co-own and operate Against the
Grain Farm in Zionville, North Carolina. We raise pigs, goats, beef
cattle, and laying hens, and we do it with care, transparency, and
respect for the animals and the land we steward.
I'm writing today in strong support of California's Proposition 12,
and in firm opposition to the EATS Act, the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act, or any other attempt to dismantle or override Prop 12
or laws like it.
On our farm, animal care is a commitment we live by. Our pigs are
raised outdoors on pasture. Our animals have space to move, root,
stretch, and behave like animals are meant to. This isn't radical; it's
responsible farming. And Proposition 12 helps create market
opportunities for farms like ours by supporting consumers who want to
know that the food on their plate comes from animals treated with basic
decency.
Prop 12 didn't tell us how to farm; it simply said if producers
want access to the California marketplace, they need to meet a baseline
of animal welfare. That opened the door for values-aligned farmers
across the country. It recognized care, not confinement. And it gave
farmers like me opportunity.
Efforts to undo this through Federal overreach would punish those
of us who've done the right thing. They would take power away from
voters and from farmers who are trying to feed their communities with
integrity.
I urge you to protect Proposition 12 and reject any legislation
that would roll back the progress it represents.
Thank you for your time and commitment to fair, humane farming.
Sincerely,
Holly Whitesides,
Against the Grain Farm,
Zionville, NC.
Dear Committee Members,
At Woods Rose Market, we support Proposition 12 because it sets
important standards for animal welfare that reflect growing consumer
expectations. Protecting these measures ensures that farms committed to
humane practices can continue to thrive and provide quality products.
We urge the Committee to uphold Prop 12 and reject any efforts to
weaken these vital protections.
Sincerely,
Woods Rose Market,
Livingston, MT.
July 25, 2025
To the Committee,
At Squashington Farm in Wisconsin, we believe in farming that
reflects care--care for the land, for the food we produce, and for the
communities we nourish.
We are writing in support of Proposition 12 and in opposition to
attempts to weaken it (for example, via the EATS Act or the Food
Security and Farm Protection Act). These Federal efforts threaten the
rights of states to adopt higher standards that reflect the will of
their voters and the values of small, independent farmers.
Prop 12 recognizes practices that are best for responsible farmers,
animals, and consumers--the kind that many of us have embraced not
because we had to, but because we believe it's the right way to farm.
The EATS Act would erase that progress and allow industrial agriculture
to dictate the terms for everyone.
Please stand with farmers who are doing things right. Defend Prop
12 and reject the EATS Act.
Sincerely,
Sarah Leong and Patrick Hager,
Squashington Farm,
Wisconsin.
Dear Committee Members,
My name is Lance Samuel, and I run Bushels and Bags Farm in South
Carolina. I strongly support Proposition 12, and I respectfully ask you
to oppose the EATS Act, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, and
any similar attempts to erase the rights of states to regulate how food
is produced and sold within their borders.
As farmers, we are constantly adapting, weather, markets, supply
chains. Prop 12 is no different. It's a law that's been on the books
for years. Farmers had time to prepare. And many responsible producers
have already aligned with its values, raising animals better and
building trust with consumers.
Prop 12 is about doing better. Please keep it in place.
Thank you,
Lance Samuel,
Bushels and Bags Farm,
South Carolina.
July 26, 2025
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
We are writing from Allandale Farm, located in Brookline,
Massachusetts. As a working farm and a longstanding part of our local
food system, we support policies that reflect more ethical,
transparent, and sustainable agriculture.
That's why we stand in strong support of California's Proposition
12, and our own state's Question 3, both passed overwhelmingly by state
voters. Both laws reflect what people across the country know to be
true: animals deserve to be raised with a basic level of care, and
consumers deserve to know the standards behind the food they purchase.
As farmers, we understand what it means to care for the land, our
workers, and the animals in our food system. We also know that public
trust in agriculture depends on showing that our practices reflect our
shared values. Proposition 12, Question 3 and similar state laws help
do just that. They help ensure that large-scale producers can't cut
corners on the backs of animals, or at the expense of smaller, more
responsible farms like ours.
Efforts like the EATS Act and the so-called Food Security and Farm
Protection Act threaten to undo years of progress and override the will
of voters in both Massachusetts and California. These bills would erode
state-level food standards and undermine trust in the very concept of
local food democracy.
We urge you to reject any legislation that seeks to dismantle
California's Proposition 12, Massachusetts' Question 3, or any similar
state agriculture policies. Please protect the rights of states, and
support farmers who are doing things the right way.
Sincerely,
Allandale Farm,
Brookline, MA.
Dear Committee Members,
State-level food and farming laws, like California's Prop 12,
aren't threats, they're opportunities. They let responsible farmers
choose practices that reflect our values and serve customers who care
about where their food comes from. When Congress entertains provisions
like those in the EATS Act, it puts that opportunity, and our autonomy,
at risk.
Let states lead. Let farmers grow. Let's keep Prop 12 standing, and
reject measures like the EATS Act that would weaken state agriculture
laws.
Respectfully,
Firewatch Ranch,
South Dakota.
July 27, 2025
To the Members of Congress,
My name is Karen Arthur, and I am an organic grower committed to
responsible agriculture and environmental stewardship. I am writing in
strong support of California's Proposition 12 and in firm opposition to
the EATS Act and any Federal attempts to override state-level
agricultural standards.
As an organic producer, I understand that how we grow food, and how
we treat the animals in our care, matters deeply. Proposition 12
reflects a growing awareness that animals are sentient beings, not just
units of production. It also reflects the will of voters who want food
systems grounded in ethics, transparency, and sustainability.
The EATS Act threatens to strip away those hard-won protections,
not only from Californians, but from every state that values the right
to raise standards and support responsible farming. It would erase
democratically passed laws and force every state to abide by the
weakest rules in the nation, regardless of what local communities
believe is right.
This is bigger than California. It's about protecting state and
local authority to create food systems that reflect our values,
recognize good farming practices, and protect public trust.
I urge you to reject the EATS Act and defend Proposition 12. Let's
stand for humane treatment, state sovereignty, and the future of
responsible farming.
Sincerely,
Karen Arthur,
Organic Grower.
To the House Agriculture Committee:
My name is Deana Bowling, and I run The Family Goat Farm in
Bolivia, North Carolina. As a small farmer, I'm writing to express my
strong opposition to the EATS Act and the newly introduced Save Our
Bacon Act.
These bills are a direct threat to local agriculture and rural
livelihoods. They aim to strip away the rights of states to set their
own standards and make decisions that reflect the values of their
citizens. That's un-American and anti-farmer.
Prop 12 represents progress. It created more opportunities for
farmers who are willing to treat animals humanely. It's opened up new
markets for those of us who prioritize responsibility and
sustainability. Don't take that away.
Please defend Prop 12 and oppose these harmful bills. Protect small
farms like mine.
Sincerely,
Deana Bowling,
The Family Goat Farm,
Bolivia, NC
Dear Members of the Committee:
We submit this testimony on behalf of Benjamin Dick Farms, Inc. and
Ransom Elk Ranch, based in North Dakota, with deep roots in responsible
agriculture and rural community values.
We are writing to express our firm opposition to the proposed Food
Security and Farm Protection Act. These bills threaten to undermine the
very foundation of federalism on which this country is built.
Regardless of one's views on how agriculture should be conducted, it is
not the role of the Federal Government to nullify the sovereign
decisions made by individual states about commerce within their
borders.
Our farms believe in local control, and our operations are shaped
by the unique needs, values, and resources of our state. If Congress
can override state-level agricultural standards simply because a
product comes from out-of-state, what stops the Federal Government from
applying that logic to any state regulation in any sector? This is not
about agriculture; it's about eroding the 10th Amendment and the rights
it guarantees.
In closing, we urge you to reject the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Benjamin Dick,
Benjamin Dick Farms, Inc. & Ransom Elk Ranch, ND.
To the Honorable Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
My name is Lanitta Horner, and I own Holistic Green Things, an
urban farm in Arizona specializing in microgreens. Though I don't raise
livestock, I care deeply about safe, clean, and ethically produced
food, and so do our customers.
Prop 12 gives consumers a say in how animals are treated and what
products are allowed into their communities. Attempts to erase that
through legislation like the EATS Act are not about food safety or
supply; they're about centralized control and undermining public will.
As a food producer, I stand with others who support transparency
and responsibility. Keep Prop 12 intact. Reject the EATS Act and
similar efforts.
Sincerely,
Lanitta Horner,
Holistic Green Things, Arizona.
To the Honorable Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
We at Long Life Farm in Massachusetts grow nutrient-dense food that
bursts with flavor by utilizing organic, biological, and mineral-
balanced farming techniques. Our name, Long Life Farm, reflects our
mission: to support a longer, healthier life for the land, the farmer,
their family, and the community. We are proud to be certified organic
by Baystate Organic Certifiers and deeply committed to practices that
nourish people and the planet.
We are writing today in strong support of Proposition 12 and in
strong opposition to the EATS Act.
Similar to Question 3 in my home state, Prop 12 represents more
than just animal welfare--it is a reflection of the values held by the
people of California and shared by many Americans across the country.
It rewards farmers who invest in better living conditions for animals
and gives consumers the freedom to support food systems aligned with
their values.
The EATS Act, on the other hand, would erase the hard work and
integrity of farmers who care about humane standards. It would strip
states of their right to support higher-welfare farming and remove
important distinctions between factory-style operations and those of us
striving for sustainability and care. That's not freedom--it's
corporate overreach.
We urge Congress to protect state-level standards like Prop 12 and
Question 3, and reject the EATS Act. Let independent farms like ours
continue to serve our communities with honesty, intention, and care.
Sincerely,
Long Life Farm,
Hopkinton, MA.
July 28, 2025
To the House Agriculture Committee:
As a farmer, I see my role as more than just producing food, it's
about being a responsible steward of the land and a trustworthy member
of my community. Every decision I make reflects a commitment to long-
term sustainability and integrity. That's why I support Proposition 12
and strongly urge you to oppose any efforts to weaken or overturn it.
This law aligns with the values that guide my own farm: transparency,
accountability, and respect.
Proposition 12 represents a meaningful shift toward farming
practices that prioritize health and ethical treatment. Consumers want
to know that their food comes from farms that reflect their values.
They want to support farms that care for the land, not exploit it.
Upholding Proposition 12 is a step toward honoring that relationship
and ensuring a fair, transparent agricultural system. I urge the
Committee to respect the will of voters, protect state-level standards
like Prop 12, and stand with the farmers who believe that ethics and
stewardship belong at the heart of American agriculture.
Thank you,
Don Bikowicz.
House Committee on Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
Re: Support for Proposition 12 and Opposition to the EATS Act and
Save Our Bacon Act
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
My name is Stephen Parker, and I operate Wonderland Farms, LLC in
La Grange, Kentucky, where we produce eggs, honey, and vegetables. I'm
writing to express my strong support for California's Proposition 12
and to urge you to oppose the EATS Act and the recently introduced Save
Our Bacon Act.
Prop 12 opened up a market for farmers like me: small, values-
driven producers who raise animals in ways that reflect care, space,
and dignity. For farmers like us, Prop 12 wasn't a burden; it was a
business opportunity.
The EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act would undo all of that. These
bills would strip states of the right to enact standards for food sold
within their borders, and instead force every state to accept the
lowest common denominator set by corporate agriculture. That's not
freedom. That's a corporate takeover of food policy, and it would
punish farmers like me who've invested in responsible practices.
Prop 12 was passed by voters. It reflects the will of consumers.
Why should the Federal Government override that just to serve the
interests of a handful of multinational pork corporations?
I urge you to stand with independent farms, with responsible
agriculture, and with the right of states to set their own standards.
Defend Prop 12, and please vote No on the EATS Act and Save Our Bacon
Act.
Sincerely,
Stephen Parker,
Wonderland Farms, LLC,
La Grange, KY.
Dear Committee Members,
I am Dr. Karen Walasek, writing from Hillhouse Farm in southwest
Virginia. I represent one of many small, principled farms across this
country that believe farming should be rooted in dignity, for animals,
for people, and for the land.
I am alarmed by attempts to nullify Prop 12 through Federal
legislation like the EATS Act. These efforts would strip states of
their autonomy and force consumers to accept products that don't align
with their values.
Prop 12 is not burdensome; it's humane. And it reflects a shift
toward better food systems. Responsible farms are already meeting and
exceeding these standards because customers demand it, and because it's
the right thing to do.
Don't stop progress for the sake out-of-touch corporations. Please
vote no on these anti-Prop 12 bills.
Sincerely,
Karen Walasek, MFA, Ph.D.,
Hillhouse Farm, VA.
July 29, 2025
To the Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
We are Ken and Carolyn Marrota from Dreamland Farmstead in
Coopersburg, Pennsylvania. As small farmers, we believe that the future
of agriculture lies in transparency, ethics, and sustainability.
The EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act are disastrous for all three.
These bills would wipe away years of progress in creating a food system
that values both animals and the people who raise them.
Prop 12 gave responsible farmers market opportunities, and the
chance to connect with customers who want humane standards. Don't let
that be undone. Protect the rights of states. Protect small farms.
Oppose the EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act.
Sincerely,
Ken and Carolyn Marrota,
Dreamland Farmstead,
Coopersburg, PA.
House Committee on Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
Subject: Support for Proposition 12; Opposition to the EATS Act and
Save Our Bacon Act
Dear Members of the House Agriculture Committee,
I am Julie Pavlock, writing on behalf of Foothill Farm, our
certified organic, multigenerational family farm in the Mission Valley
of Western Montana. We have been stewarding the land and growing
healthy, ethical food for generations, and I'm writing today to
strongly oppose the EATS Act and the Save Our Bacon Act.
California's Proposition 12 represented a meaningful step toward
greater accountability, animal welfare, and transparency in
agriculture. And, despite what some large industry lobbyists claim, it
has also created real economic opportunities for farms like ours--
producers who care deeply about how animals are treated and how food
reaches consumers.
The EATS Act and its latest version, the Save Our Bacon Act, would
undermine everything that farms like ours stand for: local control,
responsible practices, and not cutting corners. These bills would
override state-level laws and erase hard-won markets for farmers who
are trying to do better. That's not deregulation; that's Federal
favoritism for the lowest standards money can buy.
Our customers, whether in Montana or across state lines, value the
effort we put into responsible farming. Why should that be invalidated
just to give massive pork corporations special treatment?
I respectfully urge this Committee to defend Prop 12 and reject the
EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act. Protect our right to farm responsibly,
and the rights of states to support those efforts.
Sincerely,
Julie Pavlock,
Foothill Farm,
Mission Valley, MT.
July 30, 2025
To the House Agriculture Committee,
My name is Ted Domville, and I help run Elodie Farms, a goat farm
in Rougemont, North Carolina.
I never thought I'd be writing testimony to Congress, but this is
too important to stay quiet. The EATS Act and the Save Our Bacon Act
are deeply misguided attempts to override the will of voters and
undermine small farms like ours.
Proposition 12 wasn't just about pigs. It was about a philosophy of
food: that consumers should be able to support ethical, humane farming
practices, and that states should be able to set standards that reflect
their people's values. It's the kind of law that makes people proud to
farm with compassion.
These new Federal bills, by contrast, are written to strip states
of their power and hand it over to the biggest meat conglomerates on
the planet. If passed, they'll create a race to the bottom, where only
the cheapest, cruelest methods survive, and thoughtful farms get boxed
out.
I ask you to protect our farm and others like it by standing
against the EATS Act and Save Our Bacon Act. Support a food system that
has room for ethics and for responsible farms.
Thank you for listening,
Ted Domville,
Elodie Farms,
Rougemont, NC.
______
Submitted Statement by Hon. Alma S. Adams, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina; on Behalf of Maggie Garrett, Vice President of
Federal Affairs, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals
On behalf of our more than two million supporters, the American
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) thanks you for
the opportunity to submit written testimony to the House Agriculture
Committee for the hearing titled ``An Examination of the Implications
of Proposition 12.''
California's Proposition 12 (Prop 12) is one of many popular,
commonsense state animal protection laws that sets housing standards
for egg, pork, and veal production and for egg, pork, and veal products
sold into the state.\1\ Prop 12 and the fourteen other state laws that
ban cruel confinement in some form have improved animal welfare and
expanded market opportunities for American farmers. Companies of all
sizes have enthusiastically met the demand for more humane cage and
crate-free products, successfully increasing American consumers' access
to products that better match their compassion for farm animals.
Congress should support laws like Prop 12, not roll back decades of
progress towards a more humane and sustainable food system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In 2010, California adopted AB 1437, which set cage-free
housing standards for eggs sold into the state. The caged-egg sales ban
went into effect in 2015. In 2018, the voters of California approved
Proposition 12, which built upon the 2010 law by improving the welfare
standards for laying hens, veal calves and gestating pigs, and
implementing a sales ban on crated pork and veal, in addition to the
existing caged-egg ban.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, we urge Congress to reject any legislation that would
invalidate Prop 12 and other state animal welfare protections,
including the ``Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression'' (EATS) Act,
which was introduced as H.R. 4417/S. 2019 in the 118th Congress, and
the ``Food Security and Farm Protection Act'' (S. 1326), which is the
identical, renamed Senate bill in the 119th Congress.
The ASPCA
As North America's first animal welfare organization, the ASPCA has
been America's leading voice for vulnerable and victimized animals for
more than 150 years. In furtherance of its mission to protect animals
from cruelty, the ASPCA works to improve the lives of farm animals and
build a more humane food system and is committed to increasing the
presence and accessibility of higher-welfare products from independent
farmers. We support the transition to and growth of higher-welfare
farming systems through public policy, grant making, corporate policy
and consumer education.
American Consumers and Farmers Support State Animal Protection Laws
Compassion for animals is a bipartisan, near universal value.
Eighty percent of Americans are concerned about the negative impacts of
industrial animal agriculture on animal welfare \2\ * and 80% support
bans on the confinement of farm animals.\3\ Consumers are increasingly
seeking out higher-welfare products that align with their compassion
for animals and are urging lawmakers to support these higher-welfare
systems. That's why 15 states have passed animal protection laws that
prohibit certain cruel confinement systems and/or the sale of products
coming from those systems.\4\ Within these states, the confinement laws
are extremely popular. For example, 63% percent of California voters
approved Proposition 12 and 78% of Massachusetts voters supported a
similar measure in their state.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
(2023). 2023 industrial animal agriculture opinion survey. https://
www.aspca.org/sites/default/files/2023_industrial_ag_
survey_results_report_052523_1.pdf.
* Editor's note: references annotated with are retained in
Committee file.
\3\ Data for Progress. (2022, August 3). Voters demand farm animal
protections from both politicians and companies. https://
www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2022/8/2/voters-demand-farm-animal-
protections-from-both-politicians-and-companies.
\4\ American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Farm
animal confinement bans by state. ASPCA. https://www.aspca.org/
improving-laws-animals/public-policy/farm-animal-confinement-bans.
\5\ American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Farm
animal confinement bans by state. ASPCA. https://www.aspca.org/
improving-laws-animals/public-policy/farm-animal-confinement-bans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of our nation's farmers have also shown support for state
confinement bans. As explained by Missouri pig farmer, Hank Wurtz,
``Prop 12 is one of the best things, economically, that's happened to
us in a very long time. That's good for American farmers.'' \6\ And Dan
Honig, owner of the meat distribution company Happy Valley Meat
Company, has expressed that Prop 12 has ``create[d] market demand for
smaller, more nimble meat companies to fill.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Elkadi, N. (2024, November 1). Meet the farmers supporting Prop
12 despite pork industry pushback. Investigate Midwest. Retrieved July
22, 2025, from https://investigatemidwest.org/2024/11/01/meet-the-
farmers-supporting-prop-12-despite-pork-industry-pushback/.
\7\ Honig, D. (2025, March 3). Letters: EATS Act takes away
opportunities; Benefits in Inflation Reduction Act. Centre Daily.
https://www.centredaily.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/
article278579999.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress Should Reject All Attempts to Overturn State Animal Protection
Laws
Unfortunately, there have been several attempts in Congress to
invalidate state confinement laws like Prop 12, including the EATS Act,
which is an overly broad bill that raises serious constitutional
concerns. The bill would nullify existing state and local laws
prohibiting the use of gestation crates and battery cages and other
cruel practices, as well as more than 1,000 other state laws regulating
public health and safety. The EATS Act, and similar provisions, would
trigger a race to the bottom for animal welfare, threatening the right
of states to pass laws within their borders and prohibiting states from
passing regulations that go beyond Federal requirements, even in areas
where no Federal standards currently exist.
Congress should reject the EATS Act and all similar legislation
that would overturn state confinement bans. In addition to erasing
animal welfare protections, these proposals would hurt farmers and
consumers, would infringe on state's rights, and face vast opposition.
Overturning State Animal Protection Laws Would Hurt Farmers and
Consumers
Farmers and companies across the country have already invested in
higher-welfare and more sustainable practices that are consistent with
state confinement laws. Small- to mid-sized, independent farmers are
better equipped to quickly pivot to meet the demand for more humane,
cage/crate-free products, and many are already directly benefiting from
the growing markets for these products across the country. Overturning
state confinement laws would remove important market opportunities and
financial incentives for farmers, disadvantaging those who have already
made the investment in more humane animal housing systems. And
simultaneously, it would further entrench the industrial confinement
system that hurts animals, farmers, and consumers.
American Grassfed Association President Carrie Balkcom has
explained that ``the negative impact on our agricultural sector [from
passing the EATS Act], especially for those dedicated to grass-fed and
pasture-based production, could be devastating.'' \8\ And Maisie
Ganzler of food service company Bon Appetit wrote the EATS Act is ``bad
for my company, for consumers, and for farmers who have already
invested in better systems to improve animal welfare.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Balkom, C. (2025, July 15). Bolster American farmers, stop EATS
Act [Opinion]. Lancaster Farming. https://www.lancasterfarming.com/
farming-news/news/bolster-american-farmers-stop-eats-act-opinion/
article_ff2e4024-9882-5735-9d08-9a417571aa65.html.
\9\ Ganzler, M. (2023, November 18). Don't let Congress overturn
California's animal welfare law [Opinion]. The Mercury News. https://
www.mercurynews.com/2023/11/18/opinion-dont-let-congress-overturn-
californias-animal-welfare-law/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invalidating State Animal Protection Laws Flies in the Face of States'
Rights
The EATS Act and similar proposals threaten the right of all
states--not just California--to pass laws within their own borders and
prevent state and local governments from determining which agricultural
products can be sold in their jurisdictions. They would erase popular,
voter-approved state standards, forcing states to allow commerce in
products they chose to ban. And they would threaten more than 1,000
existing state public health and safety laws regulating agricultural
products, risking the well-being of the very citizens they were put in
place to protect.
Stakeholders Oppose Overturning State Animal Protection Laws
A broad set of stakeholders representing animal welfare,
independent farmers and ranchers, state and local governments,
environmental interests, unions, plus hundreds of bipartisan Federal
and state legislators, individual farmers, veterinary professionals,
and faith leaders oppose proposals like the EATS Act.\10\ In addition,
a bipartisan group of more than 200 Federal legislators also oppose
overturning state confinement bans. For example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ List of Farms, Nonprofits, and Governmental Bodies Opposing
the Food Security and Safety Act (aka EATS Act). https://
docs.google.com/document/d/1eQgmpVGKskImh1NlPukU
XDO76DS55CaJ/edit?tab=t.0.
More than 20 retailers and meat processors signed a 2025
letter to oppose the EATS Act because it ``counters consumer
demand for common-sense production standards,'' ``would reverse
progress and investments in animal welfare,'' and ``threatens
the balance of power in U.S. Government.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Salguero, M., et al. (2025, June 9). Letter from 30 Commercial
Enterprises Opposing the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (aka
EATS Act). https://assets.ctfassets.net/1yr7azz9gqt1/
2dIa17DNIaBlxARtAQI2kR/5ddafa9fcee933cccf536eef77d93a06/2025_Food_Secu
rity_and_Farm_Protection_Act_Opposition_Open_Letter_July.pdf.
The National Conference of State Legislatures, the National
Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities
oppose the bill because, ``EATS would erode state and local
sovereignty by prohibiting the establishment of laws and
statutes that aim to protect our nation's food production and
manufacturing.'' \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ National Conference of State Legislatures. (2023, September
6). Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act). https://
documents.ncsl.org/wwwncsl/State-Federal/
EATS_Intergovernmental_Final.pdf.
One hundred and eighty state and local elected officials
from 40 states signed a letter opposing the EATS Act, saying it
``could upend that progress and stymie the ability of local
governments, and of local residents by extension, to make
policy that protects farmers, public health, consumers, animals
and natural resources like land and water.'' \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Local Progress and State Innovation Exchange. (2024, April
16). Letter from 180+ State and Local Elected Officials Urging Congress
to Reject the EATS Act. https://localprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/
2024/04/LP-Letter-Opposing-the-EATS-Act.pdf.
In a 2023 letter, 16 House Republicans voiced opposition to
the EATS Act, explaining the bill ``is at odds with our
foundational Republican principles of states' rights, national
sovereignty, and fair competition.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Garbarino, A., et al. (2023, October 5). Letter from 16 U.S.
Representatives Opposing the EATS Act. https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1DZoM8HAxdKHCQ05ZTZxJGdX4R604IqUv/view.
A bipartisan group of more than 170 Federal legislators
opposed the EATS Act on the grounds that it ``could harm
America's small farmers, threaten numerous state laws and
infringe on the fundamental rights of states to establish laws
and regulations within their own borders.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Feinstein, D., et al. (2024, March 8). Letter from 30 U.S.
Senators Opposing the EATS Act. https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1H6wjoTd2ZolCQO6m-x_ASuHbupPdKdRy/view; Blumenauer, E., et al. (2024,
March 8). Letter from 172 U.S. Representatives Opposing the EATS Act.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/176yaFCl1kKZG3bX-YNaJfCtUsSXzMWUz/view;
Garbarino, A., et al. (2023, October 5). Letter from 16 U.S.
Representatives Opposing the EATS Act; https://drive.google.com/file/d/
1DZoM8HAxdKHCQ05ZTZxJGdX4R604IqUv/view; Luna, A., et al. (2024, March
8). Letter From Ten U.S. Representatives Opposing the EATS Act.
https://animalwellnessaction.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/3-8-24-
Letter-to-Ag-Committee-EATS-Act.pdf; Schiff, A., et al. (2025, July
14). Letter from 32 Senators Opposing the Food Security and Farm
Protection Act (aka EATS Act). https://www.schiff.senate.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2025/07/July-2025-Prop-12-Q3-Letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
State confinement bans like Proposition 12 are popular, effective,
commonsense laws that protect animals, independent farmers, and
consumers. Legislative proposals to invalidate these laws are a
solution in search of a problem. Accordingly, Congress should support
Proposition 12 and reject any efforts that strip states of the ability
to adopt humane housing standards for animals.
______
Submitted Article by Hon. Donald G. Davis, a Representative in Congress
from North Carolina
[https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/768181-most-pulled-
pork-sandwiches-sold-in-8-hours]
Most pulled pork sandwiches sold in 8 hours
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who What
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BBQ Fest on the Neuse 4,775 total number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where When
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States (Kinston) 03 May 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Age Restriction: Applications for this record title will only be
accepted if the applicant is 16 years of age or over.
The most pulled pork sandwiches sold in 8 hours is 4,775, and was
achieved by BBQ Fest on the Neuse (USA) in Kinston, North Carolina,
USA, on 3 May 2025.
Whole-hog BBQ is the traditional form of BBQ in eastern North
Carolina, where the pork is served chopped on a bun with a vinegar-
based sauce. Sales of the sandwiches raised over $40,000 for the
Kinston Foundation.
______
Submitted Questions
Questions Submitted by Hon. John W. Rose, a Representative in Congress
from Tennessee
Response from Patrick Hord, Vice President, National Pork Producers
Council; Chief Executive Officer, Hord Family Farms
Question 1. Tennessee is home to nearly 280,000 hogs and
approximately 2.5 million laying hens. It is important to understand
the repercussions of not only Prop 12 but additional measures that
could arise, threatening the two industries.
Mr. Hord, if disastrous initiatives like Prop 12 are not headed off
by Congressional action, what will pork and poultry industries
experience in states like Tennessee, and how will this impact
consumers?
Answer. If other states are able to adopt regulations similar to or
conflicting with Proposition 12, more producers will need to adopt more
costly production practices to supply those markets. If this occurs,
the retail price impacts that we've seen in California could become a
reality in other states. Pork prices for covered products in California
are still 20% higher due to Prop 12, even 2 years after implementation,
and one study found that Prop 12 has led to lasting, structural changes
in the California pork market.
Study: https://www.arpc-ndsu.com/post/california-pork-market-
responds-to-proposition-12-with-higher-prices-and-lower-
consumption
Question 2. Mr. Hord, with concerns of losing small and family
farms, consolidation, and international trade if Prop 12 becomes the
expansive norm, is there a possibility that the U.S. will see a
significant downturn in the pork industry that could devastate
producers and consumer access to pork products?
Answer. Many studies have shown that Proposition 12 is associated
with higher cost production practices at the farm level and at various
other steps in the supply chain. While producers today may be able to
secure the premium needed to offset the added costs of supplying Prop
12-compliant hogs, if Prop 12 becomes the norm, producers across the
country may be required to undertake costly changes without a premium.
Imposing higher costs on the entire industry will likely result in some
producers exiting the business or producing less, and higher pork
prices would become a reality for consumers.
attachment
[https://www.arpc-ndsu.com/post/california-pork-market-responds-to-
proposition-12-with-higher-prices-and-lower-consumption]
California Pork Market Responds to Proposition 12 with Higher Prices
and Lower Consumption
July 23, 2025
By Wuit Yi Lwin, Joseph Cooper, Seth Meyer, and Sandro Steinbach, ARPC
NDSU
Introduction
In July 2023, California began enforcing Proposition 12, a voter-
approved law that sets minimum space requirements for breeding sows and
prohibits the sale of non-compliant pork within the state. The policy
created new regulatory barriers for pork entering the California
market, resulting in constrained supply and added compliance costs for
producers. Drawing on high-frequency scanner-level data from July 2022
to June 2025, this analysis finds that Proposition 12 has led to
lasting changes in California's pork market. Retail prices for key pork
cuts have increased sharply relative to national trends, while the
state's share of national pork consumption has declined. The results
point to a structural shift in consumer behavior and pricing dynamics,
with effects that have persisted over a 2 year period.
Background on Proposition 12
Proposition 12 was approved by California voters in 2018 but faced
several delays and legal challenges before full enforcement began in
January 2024. The law sets minimum confinement standards for breeding
sows, and extends those standards to any pork sold in the state,
regardless of its origin. This retail-level enforcement mechanism
effectively restricts California's pork supply to producers that meet
the state's animal welfare standards. Given California's size as a
consumption market, these restrictions carry implications for both in-
state prices and national supply chains. The enforcement of Proposition
12 thus provides a unique opportunity to study how retail regulations
influence food markets through price and volume channels.
Retail Price Effects
Scanner data show that California retail pork prices increased
significantly following the implementation of Proposition 12. The most
pronounced changes were observed for loins and ribs, which shifted from
below-average prices to substantial premiums relative to national
benchmarks. For example, the average retail price for loins in
California rose from a four percent discount before implementation to a
26 percent premium afterward; a 30 percentage point swing. Similar
changes occurred for ribs, bacon, and shoulders. These price effects
persisted across the full 2 year post-policy period, with no evidence
of attenuation.
Table 1. Average Changes in California Retail Pork Price Premiums Due to
Proposition 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre vs. Post
Pre-Policy Post-Policy Policy Change
Cut Premium Premium (percentage
(percent) (percent) points)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loins ^4 +26 +30
Bacon +6 +20 +14
Ribs ^7 +14 +21
Shoulders +1 +15 +14
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.
Weekly price premium data also show sustained increases beginning
in mid-2023. Loins and ribs, in particular, display sharp upward shifts
in relative pricing immediately following policy enforcement. The lack
of price convergence over time suggests that supply adjustments have
not been sufficient to reverse the initial impact of Proposition 12.
Figure 1. California Retail Price Premiums Before and After Proposition
12
(a) Loins (b) Bacon
(c) Ribs (d) Loins
Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.
Changes in Pork Consumption
Higher prices and constrained supply led to a measurable reduction
in California's pork consumption. The state's share of national fresh
pork volume declined from 8.8 percent before Proposition 12 to 7.5
percent afterward. The largest declines occurred in ribs and loins--the
same products that experienced the steepest price increases. These
shifts were not temporary. Consumption volumes remained lower
throughout the entire 2 year post-enforcement period, even during
seasonal spikes such as holidays. The evidence suggests a durable shift
in purchasing behavior rather than a transitory market response.
Table 2. Changes in California Market Shares Due to Proposition 12
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre vs. Post
Pre-Policy Post-Policy Policy Change
Product Market Share Market Share (percentage
(percent) (percent) points)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aggregate 8.8 7.5 ^1.3
Loins 6.8 5.0 ^1.8
Bacon 8.0 7.1 ^0.9
Ribs 11.8 9.2 ^2.6
Shoulders 9.2 7.9 ^1.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.
Detailed product-level data confirm these trends. California's
share of national rib consumption fell by 2.6 percentage points, while
loin volume declined by 1.8 percentage points. Although the percentage
declines for bacon and shoulders were smaller, they followed the same
general pattern.
Figure 2. California's Share of U.S. Pork Consumption for the Top Four
Pork Products
(a) Loins (b) Bacon
(c) Ribs (d) Shoulders
Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.
Robustness: Sausage as a Comparison Product
To isolate the effects of Proposition 12 from broader market
dynamics, the analysis also examines pork sausage, which is exempt from
the policy. Sausage prices and consumption in California remained
stable over the study period. The price premium rose only slightly, and
volume shares remained nearly flat. This finding provides further
evidence that the observed changes for regulated cuts were indeed
driven by Proposition 12 and not by unrelated market forces.
Figure 3. Price Premiums and Consumption Volumes for Pork Sausages in
California
(a) Price Premium (b) Purchase Volume
Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.
Econometric Estimates
A difference-in-differences econometric model confirms the
descriptive results. Controlling for national trends, retail pork
prices in California rose by an average of 16.5 percent across all pork
products following policy implementation. For the four regulated cuts,
the average increase was even higher, at approximately 23.7 percent. At
the same time, purchase volumes declined by 20.9 percent for these
products, with the largest drop observed in loin consumption.
These estimates remain consistent across the full post-enforcement
period and support the conclusion that Proposition 12 produced
statistically significant and policy-specific effects on both prices
and volumes.
Figure 4. Econometric Effects of Proposition 12 on Retail Pork Prices
and Purchase Volumes in California
(a) Price Premium (b) Purchase Volume
Source: NDSU-ARPC & USDA-OCE using data from Circana.
Conclusion
Two years after Proposition 12 enforcement began, the California
pork market has undergone a clear structural transformation. Retail
prices for regulated pork products remain well above national levels,
and the state's share of national pork consumption has contracted
across all major product categories. These effects are persistent,
suggesting that consumers and supply chains have adjusted to a new
market equilibrium shaped by regulatory constraints. While California's
goals focused on animal welfare standards, the economic impacts
underscore the broader trade-offs that can arise when retail-level
supply restrictions are imposed in large markets.
Lwin, W.Y., Cooper, J., Meyer, S., & Steinbach, S. (2025).
California retail pork prices and consumption two years into
the Proposition 12 implementation. ARPC White Paper 2025-03,
Agricultural Risk Policy Center, North Dakota State University.
https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.362671.
Note: The analysis, findings, and conclusions represent the
interpretation of the authors and do not necessarily reflect
the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Circana, or
any affiliated institution.
Response from Matthew Schuiteman, District 3 Member, Board of
Directors, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation; Co-Owner, AJS Farms
Question. Mr. Schuiteman, in your written testimony, you mentioned
the great strides the pork industry has made over time in developing
the current standard for environmentally friendly, safe, and humane
housing. Will you elaborate on the changes the industry has adopted
over the last 20 years and the vigilant practices that are incorporated
in operations today?
Answer. I'll touch on three different areas in my answers below.
a. Manure Management
i. The advent of site specific technology and fertilization has
helped our in-
dustry make some really big strides in learning how
best to manage the
fertilizer that our pigs generate. Testing our manure
helps us understand
what nutrients are available for our crop, and then
soil tests help us de-
termine where best to place that manure. The end result
is much less
waste and fertilizer runoff, and increased crop
production. Swine manure
is proven time and again to be one of the best sources
of nutrition to a
growing crop.
b. Building Environment
i. Computer thermostat technology ensures that every day in a
pig barn is
almost identical. Pigs have a consistent and
comfortable environment to
grow and thrive. Slatted floors allow the manure to
fall into a deep pit
below the pigs, giving the pigs a clean, comfortable
place to lay and rest.
c. Feed Management
i. Feed management ensures little feed wasted in total, but also
ensures effi-
cient use of nutrients. Research has led us to develop
rations that target
nutrients to what the pigs actually need. Phosphorous
used to be fed in
excess to growing pigs resulting in too much
phosphorous being applied
to our land as manure. Now phosphorous is much more
targeted in feed
rations, resulting in a phosphorous load in manure that
is better for the
environment overall. In addition, feeder technology
helps us keep feed
waste to a minimum.
[all]