California livestock welfare rules test consumers

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 13/01/2024 (640 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

When we think of California, images of movie actors, sun, sand and surf may come to mind. But how about the land of high-priced pork chops?

At a time when pork is one of the cheapest proteins on the menu, so much so that producers across North America are struggling to make ends meet, pork prices in the Golden State are rising out of sync.

Jan. 1 saw the full effect of new rules designed to improve livestock welfare come into play under Proposition 12, a ballot resolution approved by a wide margin of California voters in 2018 state elections.

Prop 12 stipulates pork sold in the state must come from production systems that provide a minimum of 24 square feet of space to pregnant sows, banning the industry practice of housing them in narrow crates too small for them to turn around. It also increases space requirements for egg-laying hens and veal calves.

The pork sector, including Canadian producers, feared its passage would result in lower returns by imposing costly renovations to barns or alternatively, expensive segregation in the supply chain.

The industry fought it all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States — and lost. The court upheld the state’s right to regulate how animals producing meat sold to its consumers are treated, regardless of where they are raised. Now the industry wants Washington politicians to intervene.

Canada exports about four million feeder hogs to the U.S. annually, about three million of which originate in Manitoba. Although 60 per cent of this province’s sow herd is already kept in group housing, those pen sizes may not meet the California standard, so the number of hogs in each pen might have to be reduced if compliance becomes necessary.

But have the industry’s fears materialized? Not really.

Dan Sumner, an agricultural economist with the University of California Davis, noted during an outlook sponsored by North American Agricultural Journalists this week that the new regulation applies to only certain whole-pork products such as chops and roasts.

“California consumers like me are going to pay… five or 10 per cent more for pork that’s covered by the policy, which means a pork chop, but not a cooked ham or lunch meat or sausages,” he said.

“This covers about eight per cent of the sows in North America. The baby pigs that come from those sows that comply are going to cost more. And then I, as a California consumer, will pay.”

As well, he noted the California regulations don’t apply to pork exported or sold into other domestic markets. “The other 92 per cent of the sows (or) the farms that raise those sows really won’t notice much.”

He likened the market implications to the organic market. Farmers producing for that sector carry the burden of compliance and consumers pay more as a result.

What’s different is that buying organic is a consumer choice. Prop 12 is a law, and that stings.

“I understand why the pork industry, the political part of the pork industry, was concerned about Prop 12,” Sumner said. “It was just frankly, insulting… a bunch of people who had no connection to the pork industry, telling other people how to raise pigs and insulting them to say, ‘you are cruel people’.”

As well, other states are looking at their own laws, which could result in a hodgepodge of regulations. “It becomes a real mess and then it starts to really have national implications or North American implications,” he said.

Animal welfare campaigners everywhere hailed Prop 12 as a victory. Some of these activists want the meat industry to disappear altogether. Others, however, are meat eaters who want livestock treated ethically.

It’s an important distinction that the industry often overlooks. One subset is an enemy. The other is a customer.

Nearly two-thirds of California voters supported Prop 12. Now they have it, will consumption fall or will voters back up their decision at the meat counter?

How consumers respond to a different value proposition is certainly something to watch at a time when the sector’s profitability remains an ongoing concern.

Laura Rance is executive editor, production content lead for Glacier FarmMedia. She can be reached at lrance@farmmedia.com