Pork Trade Group Mounts Frontal Attack on Animal Welfare, States’ Rights, and Fair Markets
New report from top agricultural scientists uncovers deception, false claims, and a plan to benefit foreign-owned factory farms
- Wayne Pacelle
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) has long campaigned to block even the most basic humane treatment standards for animals raised for food — especially since 2002, when Florida voters passed the nation’s first ballot measure banning gestation crates.
The NPPC has a vested interest in blockading any legal protections for animals used in production agriculture — at either the state or federal level. Remarkably, the Iowa-based trade group even spearheaded an effort more than a decade ago to prevent Congress from approving efforts to address extreme confinement of laying hens, sabotaging an agreement between the affected commodity group (the egg industry) and animal welfare advocates. That deal would have given egg producers the market predictability and level playing field they desperately wanted.
The trade group’s motivation doesn’t seem to be grounded in practical considerations about animal production but more about an extreme ideology: no new laws for animals. So, when there is a plan to restrict housing sows in two-foot by seven-foot cages that press against the sides of a 450-pound sow, the NPPC gets into a particular lather.
It was no surprise, then, to see the NPPC battle against the Florida ballot measure and four subsequent ballot initiatives to restrict gestation crates. Voters approved each one of them by double digits. But it was Question 3 in Massachusetts in 2016 and Proposition 12 in California in 2018 that particularly stirred their ire. Those measures required any whole-cut pork sold in-state to come from operations that give sows at least enough space to stand up, turn around, and freely extend their limbs.
They were undeterred after voters sent the message that the industry’s use of gestation crates was no longer acceptable. They decided not to accept the election results and began looking for a way to overturn the will of the people.
NPPC Stymied in Federal Courts and in Congress
Even as they mounted ineffective opposition to pro-animal ballot measures in progress, the pork industry’s plan was to go to Congress to unwind these state laws and to prevent them from going into effect. They pushed federal preemption legislation — saying that any state farm animal welfare law would be nullified with the exercise of federal authority — on the 2014 and 2018 Farm bills. But key lawmakers from both parties balked at the notion of nullifying the will of their constituents and tossing out bedrock principles of state sovereignty. It was a power grab masquerading as agricultural policy.
Simultaneously, the NPPC began looking for a judge who would strike down these new voter-approved laws. They tried a variety of different legal theories in their efforts to convince a court to invalidate California’s Prop 2 and Prop 12 and Question 3 in Massachusetts — all unsuccessfully. In total, the NPPC and its surrogates lost 19 straight cases, including in NPPC v. Ross, where the U.S. Supreme Court held that Prop 12 (and by implication other similar laws) was a proper exercise of state authority under the U.S. Constitution.
That Supreme Court ruling should have settled the matter. Prop 12 was constitutional. And soon thereafter, it was plain that Prop 12 and Question 3 were in effect and working well.
But the NPPC doesn’t readily accept the decisions made through democratic processes or even judicial review — whether it’s voters, state governments, the federal courts, or the Congress who are weighing in. It’s decided to redouble efforts to subvert the will of voters with yet one more try.
Our Report Exposes Deceptions and Attempts by the NPPC to Rig Pork Production
Formerly called the EATS Act and now dubbed the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, S.1326, and the Save Our Bacon Act, H.R. 4673, the big pork lobby’s federal legislation has been rebranded but it has the same nefarious purpose: to erase state laws that the pork industry couldn’t block at the ballot box or defeat in court.
Just this week, the leadership of the House Agriculture Committee staged a hearing on the effects of Prop 12. But they didn’t want a real debate, denying a seat at the table to all serious-minded opponents of their legislation. Not a single witness who supports Prop 12 — or even supports state authority to regulate agriculture within its borders — was allowed to testify. There were no scientists, no constitutional scholars, no independent farmers who upgraded their operations to meet Prop 12 standards. And no advocates for the millions of Americans who voted for reform.
The deck was stacked. Why? Because the facts are not on their side — and they know it. They couldn’t bear to participate in an honest debate.
Our Report Documents that Prop 12 and Question 3 Are Working
We released a 40-page science-based report this week to set the record straight. Authored by veterinarians, agricultural scientists, and policy experts — including a former USDA scientist, a U.S. Army veterinary commander, and an international animal agriculture researcher — the report documents seven core facts that dismantle the case for S.1326.
First, Prop 12 is constitutional. The highest court in the land made that plain in its May 2023 ruling. The high court just turned down a second attempt by an NPPC surrogate to relitigate that case.
Second, pig producers (and egg producers) have adapted. Thousands of producers now operate crate-free systems, supplying not only California and Massachusetts, but also food retailers like McDonald’s, Costco, and many other major brands. Dozens of other food retailers have condemned the crates as inhumane, and if they are serious about their stance, they’ll start pork-sourcing practices to squeeze out gestation-crate confinement.
Third, there’s no pork shortage in California or Massachusetts. Economic data show no supply crisis and no significant price spikes linked to Prop 12. The pork is flowing, and the markets are stable.
Fourth, no producers in Iowa, North Carolina, or other major producing states are coerced to comply. Producers who want to sell into California are doing so. Those that don’t wish to adopt more humane housing for sows have plenty of other markets for their conventional pork. That’s how commerce and competition work in a free market.
Fifth, gestation crates are widely rejected. More than 60 major food companies have declared them inhumane, and 11 states ban their use. Every public attitude survey, in every state in the nation, shows overwhelming opposition to sows immobilized in small cages for years on end.
Sixth, the pork lobby’s bill would undercut small farmers. By invalidating laws like Prop 12, Congress would be pulling the rug out from under farmers who made costly but forward-thinking long-term investments to comply — and handing an unearned market advantage to their competitors who refuse to change.
Seventh, other animal-agriculture sectors aren’t pushing the pork industry’s bill. Despite being affected by Prop 12’s standards on veal and eggs, neither the veal nor the egg industries are pushing S.1326. This is the NPPC’s crusade alone. And let’s remember that thousands of rank-and-file pork producers, and even major companies like the Clemons Food Group, strongly oppose the EATS Act and its derivative measures.
The Stakes Are Bigger Than a Single Industry
What’s at stake here is far more than the fate of animals and California’s pork supply. This is a national battle over democratic decision-making and over the ability of states to act on the moral imperatives and food-safety wishes of citizens, especially when the federal government has completely failed to set up any national animal welfare standards for farm animals.
No sector of agriculture has the degree of foreign control seen in the pork industry. Two foreign conglomerates — China’s Smithfield Foods and Brazil’s JBS — control 40% of U.S.-based pig production. And their market share is on the rise. Smithfield, which is wholly owned by a Chinese firm and now controls a quarter of U.S. pig production, operates under the authority of the Chinese Communist Party that is now favoring high-rise pig factories that reach 30 stories into the sky. Pigs imprisoned in these dystopian towers will never feel a blade of grass beneath their feet, breathe a whiff of fresh air, or feel a cool breeze against their bodies. They are treated as products by a nation with virtually no animal welfare laws and no philanthropic sector that would otherwise campaign to relieve them of their endless miseries.
With these foreign conglomerates influencing them, the NPPC seems to have lost track of American values. Ideals of democratic decision-making. Legal standards of care for animals. Competition in the marketplace, with the states and the federal government all maintaining the authority to examine and act on agricultural policies.
S.1326 and H.R. 4673 will have the effect of further accelerating consolidation in the pig sector, empowering foreign-owned factory farms, and trampling the democratic rights of voters. All to preserve an outdated animal-housing set-up that most Americans, including farmers who appreciate the animals under their care, regard as demonstrably inhumane.
Congress should not reward producers who refused to adapt while punishing those who do the right thing. It should not favor the practices of the Chinese government over the will of American citizens. And it should not usurp state sovereignty just because one special interest group doesn’t like the outcomes delivered by voters in U.S. elections.
Congress should respect innovation and humane practices, not entrench cruelty. And it should stand for American values, not subordinate them to foreign corporations that have gone a long way toward hijacking a major sector of American agriculture.
The new EATS Act has one thing in common with the pigs it seeks to keep in cages: they both deserve to be put out to pasture.
Wayne Pacelle is president of Animal Wellness Action and the Center for a Humane Economy and a two-time New York Times best-selling author.
Dear reader: If you support substantive policy work to protect animals, please consider donating to the Center for a Humane Economy today. You can give any amount one time, or make it a monthly gift, as many of our supporters do. Thank you for helping us fight for all animals. Please go here to make your contribution.