I did a double-take when I read a recent opinion article from anti-meat extremist Wayne Pacelle claiming that the pork industry is exaggerating the harms of California Proposition 12 and Massachusetts Question 3. These laws ban the sale of pork raised using common animal husbandry methods — specifically, individual sow maternity pens.
Pacelle’s piece is like someone arguing the Earth is flat or the sky is green: It’s simply a denial of reality. These laws cause both short-term and long-term harm to farmers. Here’s why:
In the short term, these laws create compliance costs estimated to be up to $4,000 per sow and 9% higher operating costs. Pacelle doesn’t challenge this fact, but instead argues that these state laws provide “a major market for thousands of pig farmers who’ve already moved away from gestation crates” or never used them in the first place.
But that’s the point. The reason some farmers “already moved away” from sow maternity pens — at considerable expense — was because California imposed Prop 12 and the law was set to go into effect before legal challenges had run their course. It was a decision driven by politics, not by the market.
Consumers have long had the option to buy pork from niche production systems. Consumers voted with their wallets and bought conventional pork from farms using sow maternity pens. The fact that Pacelle’s old organization, the Humane Society of the United States, was able to pass laws in heavily urbanized and left-wing states, against minimal opposition, does not change the reality of a lack of consumer demand to change farm practices.
Cut through the clutter! We deliver the news you need to stay informed about farm, food and rural issues. Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse. Simply click here.
In the long term, these two ballot measures contribute to an untenable patchwork of state laws that harm producers and consumers.
Today, California and Massachusetts ban most pork from being sold at supermarkets in their states. Tomorrow, animal rights extremists could run a measure in Oregon or Washington that’s slightly different. It could require sows to be given a certain square footage of space that is different from other state requirements. The measure could also ban pork from farms that use farrowing crates to keep piglets alive, or from farms that use antibiotics to keep their animals healthy.
Next thing you know, farmers will have to segregate pork into 50 different state baskets.
Additionally, these laws harm agriculture by taking important decisions out of the hands of farmers — the experts — and putting them in the hands of urban voters who have never been on a farm. Producers should have considerable latitude to make decisions about what they think is best for animals, in conjunction with their veterinarians.
Pacelle’s piece is littered with deception. Consider this statement: “Conventional farmers also have plenty of certainty in the marketplace for their confinement pork, with the other 48 states … imposing no humane treatment sales standards.”
What Pacelle doesn’t mention is that he is lobbying for a federal ban on sow maternity pens. That “48 state” option won’t be around if he gets his way. And animal liberation activists continue to push sales bans of agricultural products in state legislatures.
Pacelle’s whole strategy is to create chaos and uncertainty for animal agriculture.
Pacelle is a vegan. He opposes farms raising pigs, chickens, cows, or other animals for food. His mission in life is animal liberation. At one point, when an interviewer asked Pacelle if he would “envision a future with no pets in the world,” Pacelle responded, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another cat or dog born.”
Pacelle desperately opposes passage of the federal legislation — currently in the House version of the farm bill — that would override Prop 12 and Question 3. This override would put power back in the hands of farmers and consumers. The threat of this legislation is why Pacelle is laughably trying to claim that these laws don’t hurt farmers.
But these laws do in fact create problems, and not just for farmers. For consumers, these laws raise the cost of food and reduce choices. The pain is only going to get worse if radical animal liberation activists can continue to use the state ballot box to pass bans on meat sales.