Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker signed into law on Dec. 22 a compromise measure delaying the implementation of the state’s Question 3 initiative to prohibit the sale of pork that doesn’t meet new prescriptive animal production standards.
The effective date is delayed until Aug. 15, 2022.
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) worked “tirelessly to secure this much-needed solution for pork producers and the entire pork supply chain,” the organization said in a release, applauding the legislative relief.
The 2016 ballot initiative – similar to California’s Proposition 12 – will ban the sale of pork from hogs born to sows housed in pens that don’t comply with Massachusetts’ new standards. It applies to any uncooked pork sold in the state, whether it’s produced there or outside its borders. Nearly all pork currently produced in the U.S. fails to meet Massachusetts’ arbitrary standards, NPPC said in a release.
“Question 3, like Prop. 12, lacks any scientific, technical or agricultural basis and only will inflict economic harm on America’s pork producers and even jeopardize the well-being of their animals,” NPPC President Jen Sorenson said in a release. “We’re grateful the legislature listened to our concerns and delayed implementation of Question 3 so that at least producers in and outside the state can have more time to consider their options and continue to supply pork to Bay Staters.”
The compromise measure also requires the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources to write rules and regulations for the law, in consultation with the state’s attorney general – who originally was given authority – within six months.
“We appreciate the actions of Governor Charlie Baker and the Legislature to put Massachusetts consumers first and avoid further price hikes for pork,” Meat Institute President and CEO Julie Anna Potts said in a release. “We welcome the expertise of the Department of Agriculture Resources in promulgating new rules and urge the Department to consider changes to provisions that are unworkable or overly burdensome.”
NPPC has pointed out that, similar to California’s 2018 ballot initiative, Question 3’s supporters claimed it would improve animal welfare and food safety. But the measure’s requirements will have no effect on either and may negatively affect both, according to numerous studies on animal housing, NPPC said in a statement.
“Pork producers with decades of experience using various housing systems know it’s not the type of housing that affects the health and well-being of pigs but the individual care – the animal husbandry – that’s given to them day in, day out,” Sorenson said. “These ballot measures actually make it harder and more dangerous to practice good animal husbandry.”
More from Farm Journal’s PORK:
