California has some of the highest housing prices in the country, and this is one of the major reasons why so many people and businesses are leaving the state. But it is not just people and businesses who are leaving. The next wave of California expats will be . . . pigs.
Yes, pigs. A California law that takes effect January 1, 2022, specifies that egg-laying chickens, veal calves, and breeding pigs will need more space than nearly all these animals currently have. The chicken farmers and veal ranchers believe they will be able to comply with the new regulations, though at a higher cost, but the compliance for the pig industry will be much more difficult, as it will turn their operations upside down. Glenn Stolt, CEO of the major pork producer Christensen Farms, estimates that California pork prices could rise as much as 50 percent.
Stolt also notes that these costs would fall disproportionately on Hispanic, African American, and Asian families, in which pork tends to be a larger share of their diets. Such is the fate of progressive politics, in which it is virtually guaranteed that there will be many people who are harmed by its policies, and where those who are harmed are almost always those whom progressives claim to support. If you have any doubt: Which groups are most hurt by California’s education policies that have led to substandard learning outcomes? Which groups are hurt most by California’s recent regulation that outlaws being an independent contractor? Which groups are hurt most by extremely expensive carbon-reduction policies that drive up housing costs?
The regulation requires that no chicken, veal, or pork products can be sold in the state from producers who are not in compliance with the new law, whether those producers are in California or not. Much of California’s pork supply comes from Iowa, and the new law is sending ripples through the entire industry.
The law was passed by California voters overwhelmingly in 2018. Stolt criticized the new law as “an agenda of veganism and anti-meat . . . This ballot initiative was led by animal activists, and it certainly seems to me and others that the animal activists misled hardworking Californians really on the backs of animal welfare and kind of this naivete that continues to grow in today’s consumer as it related to where their food actually comes from.”
Whether this was an under-the-radar pitch for veganism or not, Stolt is correct in that voters did not process the fact that increasing space for livestock drives up costs. And higher costs raise prices.
Now, the fact that voters didn’t understand this is an entirely different and problematic issue, but the ballot measure did not warn voters of higher prices. Instead, the ballot only stated that the impact of the proposition would be a few million dollars in lost tax revenue and about $10 million in compliance costs. Nothing about the broader economic impact of the regulation. So, voters see a feel-good proposal and they vote for it. Understandable, but unfortunate.
Now you are probably thinking, why are livestock habitation living space regulations decided by voters instead of being handled by those who know something about the industry? Because since 1911, California allows initiatives with enough signatures (presently just over 600,000) to get on the ballot and be voted on.
How do you get enough signatures? It is easy if you have enough money. Just hire a horde of people with a petition in hand and some cute photos of farm animals and have them canvass neighborhoods (though not neighborhoods in farm country), and voilà, it is done. And there was a lot of big money supporting this initiative, ranging from the Sierra Club to the United Farm Workers. Interestingly, one of the most forceful animal rights activist groups, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), came out against the proposition.
Pork producers filed a lawsuit against the new regulation, arguing that it violates the Interstate Commerce Clause, which requires that state-level regulations that “excessively burden” interstate commerce are illegal. Now, I would think that a 50 percent increase in the price of pork products qualifies as an excessive burden, yes?
But US district court upheld the proposition, arguing that such a price increase was not an excessive burden. Hmm . . . If a 50 percent increase is not an excessive burden, then what is? How about 75 percent? Or 100 percent? The court also argued that the proposition did not violate the Commerce Clause because it did not call for uniform practices throughout the United States. But nowhere does the Commerce Clause indicate that interstate commerce must apply so broadly. The slippery slope here is obvious. Every pork-producing state, and every state that may potentially produce pork, along with California, is affected by this regulation to the tune of about a quarter billion dollars per year. Not enough? Then how much is enough?
The pork industry, and the livestock industry more broadly, has made enormous improvements in the humane treatment of animals, and this has been going on over decades. Sadly, the higher costs arising from California’s new pig housing crisis will most likely put an end to this legacy of voluntary changes within the industry that were in everyone’s best interests. But such is the way of progressivism, where the agendas of political elites count, and where everyone else pays the price.
