Fact vs Fiction

Whether it’s the Food Security and Farm Protection Act (S. 1326)– nothing but a rehash of the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act and before that, the amendment that Rep. Steve King controversially and unsuccessfully tried to enact within the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills— or the Save our Bacon Act (H.R. 4673), which is a retread of the language stuffed into the 2024 House Farm Bill (Sec. 12007), some members of Congress have repeatedly tried to “fix” this issue. They’ve conspicuously failed in all such attempts, one of the surest signs that they’re seeking to address an issue that a majority of others do not view as a problem. On top of that, they’re wasting congressional resources.

While Prop 12 went into full effect Jan. 1, 2024, its space requirements went into effect July 1, 2023, and other portions of the law impacting eggs and veal have been in effect for years. The markets have been adjusting, and chaos has not resulted. In fact, a July 21, 2025 letter from Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins to the House Agriculture Committee’s chairman stated that some 27% of U.S. pork producers are making or have already made investments toward compliance, and 35% of federally inspected slaughter plants are equipped to handle Prop 12-compliant pork. This means that the nation already produces more than enough supply to meet the needs of California, Massachusetts and any other states with relevant standards in place. Given this inevitable trend, any attempt by Congress to nullify state laws through a Big Pork “fix” would produce extensive chaos. Among other outcomes, it would pull the rug out from under the many farmers and producers who have already made investments to meet humane standards, cause severe uncertainty and endless litigation over a multitude of existing state and local laws, and impede the ability of states to address disease risks and other emerging issues. Regarding the purported looming patchwork, Prop 12 mirrors what many farmers were already doing or are doing now, because the whole marketplace is moving— decisively and inevitably— toward cage- and crate- free agriculture. More than 300 of the country’s largest food companies have committed to going, or are already, 100% cage- and/or crate-free. This includes Burger King, General Mills, Aramark, Costco, and Sodexo. McDonald’s met its cage-free egg goal ahead of schedule in early 2024. Now, every McDonald’s location across the United States serves 100% cage-free eggs and the company sources 2 billion cage-free eggs each year in the U.S. When it committed to going cage-free, McDonald’s said it wouldn’t raise prices of eggs, proving that it’s possible to transition without impacting cost.

Fifteen states (red, blue, and purple) have passed laws addressing cruel intensive confinement of farm animals and the associated public health risks, and 80% of American voters—including nearly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats—support enactment in their own states of a law like Prop 12 to protect farm animals and consumers.

Prominent American-owned sector-leading companies—including Hormel Foods, Perdue, duBreton, Tyson Foods, Niman Ranch, Clemens Food Group/Hatfield and Butcher Box (which led a letter co-signed by 24 producers, retailers and food service companies)—have given assurances of their ability to meet demand for crate-free pork produced in accordance with Prop 12 standards, and some of them have declared their opposition to federal legislation to block those standards. Opponents of Prop 12 like to blame it for the industry’s woes, but the Wall Street Journal identified key problems facing the pork industry—a glut in supply due to declining demand and increased production—with no mention of Prop 12. National Hog Farmer reported in February 2024 that the “market has fully adjusted to Prop 12. Big Pork has lost its argument again and again in court, and again and again through legislative attempts dating back to 2014. Instead of shifting production to meet consumer demands and state laws, it continues to waste its resources on a battle it’s lost many times over already.” 
 

Producers in any state are free to decide not to alter their production methods to supply another state’s consumers. If they decide to do so, they can segregate animals for different markets, which the industry already does. USDA’s own analysis confirms this in a letter sent by Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins to the House Agriculture Committee on July 21, 2025, stating: “packers and processors now routinely segregate compliant and non-compliant pork through dedicated supply chains.” California and Massachusetts (the other state with a sales ban on pork produced using intensive confinement) comprise 14% of the overall national population, and there are more than enough producers already meeting these standards to supply them. The pork industry can trace cuts of pork back to a particular sow housed in a particular way. The industry has engaged in tracing and segregation to varying degrees since at least the early 1900s. Modern-day tracing and segregations are highly sophisticated and fully adopted in the industry through the use of Radio Frequency Identification ear tags and identification tattoos. USDA-developed verification programs use tracing to allow producers to make marketing claims like “antibiotic free” and “source-verified” on their products.

While, large companies can adjust by differentiating their products, many small farmers have chosen to focus on more sustainable, humane production and made the corresponding investments to meet consumer demand. Thousands of farmers with various size operations oppose Congress interfering with state humane laws. Those clamoring for the Prop 12 “fix” and claiming the sky will fall in without it are tied to Big Pork. As China Weekly reported in July 2023, large Chinese companies support federal legislation to nullify state standards they see as an impediment to their interests in the U.S. marketplace. The China Weekly report touted the benefits of the EATS Act (the precursor to the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and Prop 12 “fix”) for large multinational corporations and how it could "greatly increase China's share of the U.S. pork market," enhancing their country's ability to out-compete smaller American farms. The report notes that the state laws that would be nullified “tend to favor smaller farms in the United States and disadvantage multinational foreign-funded enterprises, weakening the ability of Chinese pork enterprises to operate efficiently.” Nullifying state laws addressing humane and public health concerns “provides opportunities for Chinese investors and pork producers to flourish.” At a July 8, 2025 event touting the “Make Agriculture Great Again initiative: USDA’s National Farm Security Action Plan”, to address foreign adversaries’ threats to our nation’s food and agricultural systems, Administration officials name-checked Smithfield for its continued purchase of U.S. farmland (even suggesting an Executive Order might emerge). The Ernst and Hinson bills promise to give this same company and others like it a big handout by knocking down laws supported by millions of U.S. citizens.

Potential price impacts were explained on the ballot measure (and opponents highlighted this risk during the campaign), but almost two-thirds of California voters approved Prop 12 anyway. Just now, consumers face higher prices overall at the grocery store for a variety of products, including eggs which are in short supply not because of Prop 12 but because the avian flu outbreak had led to the killing of tens of millions of egg-laying hens nationwide. The government nixed plans to develop a bird flu vaccine and ended its emergency avian flu response in July 2025. In 2025 to date, based on the latest data from APHIS, the spread Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza in commercial table egg layer flocks has resulted in the depopulation of 36.3 million birds. Moreover, Big Pork interests have repeatedly been sued and entered into settlements involving hundreds of millions of dollars for conspiring to fix prices to gouge consumers. The price spikes seen throughout the country are related to avian flu, industry price manipulation, global grain costs, supply chain strains, labor shortages, and other nonregulatory factors. In fact, price increases may even be mitigated in states other than California as consumers benefit from a more abundant supply diverted to their states when some producers opt out of supplying to California and other states with similar animal welfare laws. Secretary Rollins’ letter to the House Agriculture committee further supports these points—while USDA suggests California pork prices may have increased (without analyzing the cause), USDA did not present any data to the committee supporting evidence of spikes elsewhere due to Prop 12. Blaming animal welfare standards for causing an increase in cost for consumer goods conveniently ignores other factors, like inflation and corporate consolidation that drive potential rising costs.

The Prop 12 “fix” aims to inject a lowest-common-denominator approach on all states: If any one state permits a particular agricultural product, no matter how hazardous the product, or dangerous or unacceptable the production process, every other state could be forced to sell such products. It’s a federal power grab intended to override the legislative choices states have made and give a handout to the cruel segment of the pork industry to protect it from competition, so it can further monopolize its control of the market, harm small and more humane producers, and stifle innovation.

Allowing animals a modest amount of room to be able to move, turn around and lie down as Prop 12 requires is not arbitrary or unscientific, and the associated risks to animal health and public health from intensive confinement, including the potential for sparking a new pandemic, have been well documented. States have broad regulatory authority to protect the health and safety of citizens and the integrity of natural resources (see, e.g., Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 151 (1986).) The American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Center for Food Safety, Consumer Federation of America and others submitted an amicus brief in support of Prop 12, stating that the extreme confinement of mother pigs “poses a profound danger to food safety and public health in California.” Confining mother pigs in crates so small that they can’t even turn around “severely suppresses” their immune systems, making it so both they and their piglets are “more susceptible to disease.” These diseases can spread to humans, since pigs are “ideal mixing vessels for various strains of influenza virus, including human influenza.” Voters and legislators who enact cage-free and crate-free laws have a right to reduce such health risks of food sold within their state’s borders.

Opponents of Prop 12 claim it endangers piglets, arguing that baby pigs could possibly be crushed if their mothers were allowed more space to move. This is false, as Prop 12 explicitly does not apply to mother pigs who are nursing piglets nor during the five-day period prior to their expected date of giving birth. Extreme confinement of farm animals is both cruel and dangerous. Mother pigs are often kept in metal “gestation crates” so small they cannot turn around, walk, forage or interact with other pigs. This deprivation causes extreme stress, physical pain and even self-injury as pigs bite at the bars in futile attempts to escape. These conditions also pose public health risks. Overcrowded, stressed animals have weakened immune systems, making them more susceptible to disease. Pigs are known “mixing vessels” for viruses like swine flu, and research shows confinement increases the risks of Salmonella and antibiotic-resistant disease. Studies of the egg industry demonstrate that cage-free farms experience lower rates of bird flu outbreaks compared to conventional battery cage systems, illustrating how improved welfare can reduce disease risk. Humane housing isn’t just good for animals—it’s a safeguard for food safety and public health.

H.R. 4673 and Sec. 12007 are designed prevent states from requiring standards of production that apply equally to products produced within their state and products brought into their states. This would prevent those states from effectively governing not only on animal welfare issues but also public health concerns, i.e. via rules to addressing disease risks from brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis. States would be stripped of their ability to ensure that the covered livestock coming into their jurisdictions and markets have been bred and raised in conditions the state deems necessary to prevent the subsequent spread of diseases, including heightened risks of future pandemics spurred by intensive confinement conditions. Given Congress's own difficulty in carrying out its work in a timely fashion these days, it would be terrible policy to prevent states and localities from developing and adopting prompt and effective responses to emerging disease threats and related developments that could spark or exacerbate the next pandemic. The broad language of the measures pushed by Big Pork will jeopardize a range of important state and local measures, such as laws prohibiting the sale of meat from animals fed arsenic or other toxins, and meat produced using forced labor, as well as procurement regulations for public schools, prisons, hospitals and government offices. Just two clear examples of the threat: Iowa’s law that prioritizes purchases from targeted small businesses, including those owned by service-disabled veterans, and Louisiana’s law which requires purchase of in-state agricultural products unless imported products are better and cheaper.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the National Pork Producers’ claim that Prop 12 regulates “extraterritorially.” A majority of the Court also ruled against the pork producers on their claim that Prop 12 imposes a substantial burden on interstate commerce. The Court pointed out that, “Companies that choose to sell products in various states must normally comply with the laws of those various states.” The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized the broad latitude the 10th Amendment provides allowing states to enact laws that protect public health, safety, morals, and welfare by regulating the sale of goods and services within state borders (see Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 151 (1986); Southern Pac. Co. v. Arizona ex rel. Sullivan, 325 U.S. 761, 767 (1945)). The Prop 12 “fix” runs contrary to principles of federalism and the 10th Amendment that have guided our nation since its founding, not least by allowing states to create specific guidelines and regulations for the sale of goods within their borders.

More than 6,600 entities have publicly stated opposition to this kind of legislation, including a bipartisan set of 30 Senators and 193 Representatives; more than 5,300 farmers and producers across the country; 81 farm and food groups, including the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and the National Family Farm Coalition; 119 other organizations representing animal protection, consumer, food safety, public health, environmental, labor, legal and local government/preemption concerns; and hundreds of veterinarians. In Chairman Thompson’s own state, many Pennsylvania farmers have spoken out against Congress blocking state laws on intensive confinement, including 107 Pennsylvania farms that signed a joint letter and prominent Pennsylvania-based producers such as the president of Clemens Food Group (fifth-largest fresh pork producer in the U.S.); pork producer Brent Hershey; Sauder’s Eggs CEO; Giving Nature Foods president; and a PennAg Industries Executive Vice President.