Ag Groups Argue Against Prop 12 in Supreme Court

Agriculture groups argued against California’s Proposition 12 to the Supreme Court Tuesday. The American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council challenged the ability of one state to set agricultural production standards for the entire country. California’s Proposition 12 law bans the sale of pork from hogs that don’t meet the state’s arbitrary production standards, even if the hogs were raised outside of California. AFBF President Zippy Duvall says, “Proposition 12’s misguided approach will ultimately cost every family through higher food prices.”

AFBF Deputy General Counsel Travis Cushman says the law is unconstitutional. Cushman; “We wanted to help the justices understand that this law has far reaching consequences way beyond agriculture, but in relation to our agriculture, this will fundamentally change the way that farmers can conduct their operation in a way that is not the way the founders saw the Constitution.”

Cushman says small hog farmers won’t be able to comply with the California law. Cushman; “Small farmers and ranchers aren’t in a position to be able to afford the types of requirements that Prop 12 requires. Prop 12 is a law that tells farmers in other states how they need to conduct their operation, and in doing so, it’s creating requirements the average small farmer won’t be able to comply with. What’s more, what happens the next year when another state, such as Massachusetts, increases this requirement. It puts a small farmer in an untenable position that they’ll never be able to comply with.”

Now, the Supreme Court justices will consider their opinion on the case.

Cushman; “The next step, the justices will need to figure out how they want to vote. Fortunately, you know, I think the justices did understand this case does have very far application, and that there are serious threats with California attempting to regulate conduct in other states.”

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association also supports AFBF and NPPC. NCBA Vice President of Government Affairs Ethan Lane says, “While this case is not focused on cattle producers, the precedent set by the court will determine all producers’ ability to engage in interstate commerce.” Earlier this year, NCBA filed an amicus brief before the court arguing that California’s mandates on livestock production methods violated the dormant commerce clause of the Constitution.

Related articles

Friday, December 2nd, 2022 Video and Audio Program

A busy week of trade and a volatile Friday session calls for a jam packed program to wrap up the week! First up, we are joined by DuWayne Bosse of Bolt Marketing to discuss the...

EPA Proposes RFS Volumes for 2023-2025 With Modest Boost for Conventional Ethanol; Not Everyone is Happy

The EPA is finally out with proposed Renewable Fuel Standard volumes for 2023 through 2025, and the ethanol industry is mostly pleased. “A clear pathway for sustainable growth” and an “upward trajectory” for clean...

NCBA Applauds Protect Farmers from the SEC ACT in Senate

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association supports the Senate version of the Protect Farmers from the SEC Act, a companion bill to legislation introduced into the House of Representatives by Oklahoma Republican Frank Lucas. “The Securities...

USDA Expands Revenue Protection for Oat and Rye Producers

The country’s oat and rye producers can now benefit from revenue protection, a new crop insurance option available through the USDA. After listening to growers, the Risk Management Agency expanded the Small Grains Crop...

2022 Has Been a Challenge for Cattle Producers

Acknowledging every year has its ups and its down, Cameron Mulrony says 2022 was a challenging year for local cattle producers to say the least. Mulrony, the Executive Vice President of the Idaho Cattle Association...

Latest articles

%d bloggers like this: