Linda Dunn
While most of us have been focused on other matters being decided by our ultra-conservative, pro-business Supreme Court, my bacon-loving friends have been anxiously awaiting the Court’s decision on the National Pork Producers Council v. Ross case.
These friends know exactly what they want: cheap, high quality bacon and baby back ribs; a slap-down for California’s government overreach; and an unshackling of farmers from any government regulations that might be restricting them from producing more, better, and cheaper pork products.
They’re confident the court will rule in favor of Big Pork since the court is stacked with conservative, business-friendly justices. I think they may be in for a rude awakening because animal welfare is one item in our “cultural wars” where our usual “teams” often seem to switch jerseys and change sides.
Justice Clarence Thomas has been quoted as saying the dormant commerce clause – the legal doctrine around which Big Pork has built its case – “has no basis in the text of the Constitution, [and] makes little sense.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch called it a source of “judicial activism.”
And over on the “liberal side” where you’d expect the “bleeding hearts” to favor animal rights over human desires for pork smothered in barbecue sauce, Justice Elena Kagan wrote the decision when the Court struck down a California farm animal welfare law in 2012 and the Biden administration is on the side of Big Pork.
For some of my pork-loving friends, their outrage over this case boils down to a simple question: “Does California have the right to tell farmers in other states how to raise their pigs?” [Although they generally phrase that question in more colorful language.] Some of them my age and older are still mad about California forcing the auto industry to change how the U.S. manufactured cars for the rest of us.
Personally, I think better gas mileage and cleaner air is a good thing but I understand their annoyance about one state setting the rules for the rest of us. This is not how it’s supposed to work.
But California is not the only or even the first state to insist upon more humane treatment of animals that are living a life far different from Wilbur’s in the book “Charlotte’s Web.” California’s simply the one state that has chosen to word their legislation in such a way that it’s going to force CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations) in other states to either change their methods or not be able to sell their product in California.
Since 1990, the number of farms with hogs has declined by more than 70 percent while the size of those hog farms remaining grew significantly larger. They have become far less likely to be farrow-to finish and more likely to specialize in “producing” or “finishing” and its the “producing” ones that have seemingly gained the most attention due to their gestation crates.
Last time I checked, 10 states had voter-approved statutes that ban gestation crates on commercial farms, possibly because the images remind us far too much of our human bodies being crammed into economy seats on aircrafts.
These crates are often so narrow that the sows cannot turn around so we look past the need to increase productivity, decrease labor, and protect vulnerable sows from being injured or injuring other sows and instead focus on the cruelty of being forced to spend your life in the pig equivalent of an airline seat.
California’s law not only bans crates, it also expands the square footage required per pig.
Nationwide, today’s crate-free sows are often raised with 16 or 18 square feet of space. California’s law mandates 24 square feet.
According to Big Pork’s argument, this is a costly logistical nightmare for many of these existing CAFOs who would need to reconfigure their existing operations, reduce the number of livestock, and/or avoid markets that sell to California.
However, five of the largest pork producers (Tyson Foods, Smithfield Foods, Seaboard, Hormel, and Clemens Food Group) have reported they can comply and that has undercut Big Pork’s legal argument that California’s Proposition 12 is overly burdensome.
Not surprisingly, 20 mostly “red state” attorneys general have filed an amicus brief in support of the pork producers lawsuit while 15 attorneys general from mostly “blue states” have filed an amicus brief in support of California. This lines up with the “culture wars” with which most of us are familiar and comfortable as we expect the big business friendly conservatives on the court to outvote the minority bleeding heart animal rights activists on the left and thus we’ll be back to business as usual.
Except that animal rights is not just a tenet of the left; it’s also a value that many conservatives hold dear. Conservatives have a deep respect for tradition and responsibility for the environment (property) and while our farmers grumble and complain about government overreach, the farm family members I remember growing up alongside have a longstanding tradition of self-regulating and working things out among themselves largely because it “makes sense” and also because they’d rather “do it right” than have the government step in and “make a mess of it.”
With this case, we’re likely to find out just how messy it can get.
And how costly. My friends may be forced to pay a little more for that deep fried, breaded tenderloin sandwich so the rest of us can feel a less guilty about enjoying it.
A lifelong resident of Hancock County, Linda Dunn is an author and retired Department of Defense employee. Send comments to [email protected].
