Animal activists use China boogeyman to oppose California pork restrictions.
Animal Rights Activists Target California’s Pork Production Restrictions
Animal rights activists are using the specter of China to target legislation aimed at combating California’s pork production restrictions. In May, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California’s Proposition 12, which blocks all sales of pork, eggs, and veal in the state from farms that do not meet high-cost requirements for raising animals.
Legislation to Stop Enforcement of Proposition 12 Introduced
In response to the decision, Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) introduced a bill aimed at stopping the enforcement of Proposition 12 on producers outside California.
California’s measure, which was approved by 63% of voters in 2018 and pushed heavily by animal rights groups, requires all pork producers who want to sell into the Golden State market to provide 24 square feet per sow, which former National Pork Producers Council president Terry Wolters said could cost producers an additional $3,500 per sow for compliance.
California represents 13% of the domestic pork market, the largest market in the country. Hinson and Marshall introduced the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act, which would block any state from enforcing its own agricultural production regulations on another state: California cannot threaten access to its market if a Kansas hog producer does not comply with Proposition 12.
“Prop 12 allows liberal lawmakers and radical activists in California, who don’t know the first thing about farming or raising animals, to regulate how Iowa farmers do their job, devastating small family farms and making food more expensive,” Hinson told the Washington Examiner. “To any liberal California interest group that wants to claim they know the first thing about agricultural production, you have an open invite to come to Iowa and learn how our farmers take the best care of their animals and ensure you have high-quality food on your plates.”
The EATS Act has been met with criticism from groups such as the Organization for Competitive Markets, which says it is aimed at “fighting for economic justice for America’s family farmers and ranchers.”
OCM has leaned into Beijing as the boogeyman, saying it is a ”Pork Perk for China,” while also arguing that it tramples on states’ rights. Recent op-eds in Townhall and the Hill, which OCM pushed on social media, detail their position that the bill would benefit China because, for example, the world’s largest pork producer and packager Smithfield has been majority-owned by China since 2013, and the EATS Act would allow Smithfield noncompliance with California’s measure.
While Smithfield is majority-owned by China, the EATS Act only pertains to American producers.
“That might be the most ignorant piece I’ve ever seen written. It completely ignored what the bill does,” Aaron Propelka, Kansas Livestock Association vice president of legal and government affairs, said of the Townhall op-ed.
Propelka told the Washington Examiner that while Smithfield does represent 20% of the pork production and packaging market, 80% is still not connected to China, so that connection “doesn’t even compute.” The EATS Act does not pertain to livestock production in other countries.
He also said “the groups that really don’t want to see this happen” are the same animal rights groups that backed Proposition 12 in the first place, pointing to connections between OCM and groups like the Humane Society of the United States, which was heavily involved in defending the measure in the Supreme Court case.
“This is a hollow argument fabricated and pushed by radical special interests who want to impose burdensome regulations on Iowa farmers in the name of animal welfare when they don’t know the first thing about raising animals,” a spokesperson for Hinson, commenting on the purported benefit to China, told the Washington Examiner.
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association also supports the EATS Act and told the Washington Examiner they are concerned about the agriculture industry-wide implications of regulations like Proposition 12.
“This is the bigger strategy of animal activists looking at every little component they can find in order to squeeze us to the point where they ultimately get their goal, which is to reduce consumption of red meat or all meats among Americans and globally,” NCBA CEO Colin Woodall said in a radio interview.
According to NCBA, animal rights activists have “infiltrated” the agriculture industry.
Some groups, according to NCBA President Todd Wilkinson, “turned their backs on our industry by hiring animal rights activists like former Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) staffers Joe Maxwell and Angela Huffman.”
OCM has deep ties to HSUS and other animal rights organizations.
OCM board member Marty Irby previously served as the “head of equine protection and rural affairs at the Humane Society of the United States and senior adviser at the Humane Society Legislative Fund from 2016-2018.”
Former OCM leader Joe Maxwell was HSUS’s vice president of outreach and engagement and went on to start another activist group called Farm Action.
Angela Huffman, former HSUS market development coordinator for rural development and outreach, was OCM’s communications and research director before leaving to co-found Farm Action with Maxwell.
HSUS, OCM, and others have also joined forces in court filings unfriendly to the meat production industry.
OCM did not respond to a request for comment from the Washington Examiner.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...