California Poultry Law Causes Interstate Push And Pull

What constitutes a “standard agriculture practice” is often in the eye of the beholder.

To a contract poultry grower in Arkansas or a pork grower in Iowa, cage sizes and living conditions may seem normal and acceptable for animals raised only for their protein, but European regulators or animal rights activists may have a different view.

Those people and groups can — and often do — impact a nation’s or a state’s or an individual’s operation, but until recently challenges to what is an acceptable agriculture practice hadn’t generally involved interstate squabbles with potentially huge costs.

That changed when California voters approved a measure in 2008 that specified the conditions under which growers had to raise pigs, calves and egg-laying hens in order to sell those products in the state. The legislation, to be put in place over an extended period to allow growers to alter their practices, mandated that the animals have enough free range to move around and fully extend their limbs.

Those requirements are not always part of the commercial agriculture system in many parts of the country and world.

While voters were considering the measure, both the American Egg Board and the U.S. Department of Agriculture weighed in against the law.

Ultimately, several state attorneys general filed a federal lawsuit to block California’s law. A judge ruled against them.

And so it was on Jan. 1 that California’s ban went into effect. One of the states impacted by the ban is Arkansas.

Arkansas lawmakers briefly considered a ban on California wine, as a retaliatory measure, quickly scuttling the idea.

Still, it is more common for foreign nations — rather than fellow states — to try to force changes in agricultural practices.

How much of an impact could such state-approved laws have?

Andrew Grobmyer, executive vice president of the Agricultural Council of Arkansas, said such matters should have a national solution.

“We are not directly impacted by the poultry laws in California, but we do sometimes see examples of how certain states may implement laws that are difficult to comply with or inconsistent with other state’s laws,” he said. “Often, but not always, it’s better to have a federal standard that supersedes state laws. One example of where this is likely the case is on food labeling. It can be highly cumbersome, costly and inefficient if the states enact laws that are not consistent with one another. I think you see this with a lot of consumer goods including foods.”

Randy Veach, president of Arkansas Farm Bureau, addressed the matter in a commentary:

“California is attempting to set standards for the rest of the United States when it comes to egg production. You may recall six years ago California’s citizens passed Proposition 2. It mandates laying hens be raised in cages of a certain size, though scientific studies showed no connection between the expanded cage size and the hens’ welfare, wellness or laying capacity. That’s one of the reasons it’s important for the men and women of agriculture to help educate consumers about farming practices. …

Should California — or any state, for that matter — get to define the production practices for the rest of the country, just by virtue of its purchasing power? If this precedent is allowed to stand, will California pass laws limiting the number of broilers we can grow per house, how many cattle we can stock per acre, or whether we can grow GMO crops? Of course not! Our farmers and ranchers shouldn’t operate at the whim of California’s voters. …

Access to foreign markets for agricultural products is tricky enough, and foreign trade is critical to the success of Arkansas agriculture. Now we have California wanting to enforce laws like it’s a stand-alone country. The overreaching of California’s Proposition 2 laws must be struck down. It’s an obvious violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Interstate Commerce Clause.”

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Market News Service noted that January egg prices in California, when Proposition 2 took effect, were up 20-66 percent compared to 2014, despite chicken feed prices falling in that same period.