California’s Proposition 12 and the similar laws passed in Massachusetts and New Jersey are one of the most significant domestic challenges our industry has faced in recent history. With 17% of the U.S. population in these states, the pork market has effectively been partitioned. While there has been some hope that this new market will provide additional premiums to producers, it is prudent that any potential short-term gains do not distract from the long-term dilemma these laws present.
The political writer David Horowitz once said that the issue is never the issue, the issue is revolution. This means that the face value of a given matter is not important, it is how it can be used by activists to enact radical change. This observation applies to animal welfare laws, where livestock wellbeing is primarily just marketing material for the well-meaning, but naïve, voter.
The real objective of these laws is to fundamentally transform agriculture. While there is much evidence to support this claim, the most significant comes directly from the backers and supporters of this legislation.
A sample can be found from the Animal Welfare Institute on the Farm System Reform Act of 2023. It says, “The current model of industrial animal agriculture that dominates our food system is unsustainable. Increased awareness of the adverse impacts factory farming has on animals, communities, and the environment continues to strengthen opposition to these operations.”
This quote begins with the claim that current production methods are unsustainable, an indictment found attached to many animal welfare laws. Naturally this begs the question, when they say modern production systems are unsustainable, what exactly do they mean?
Traditionally, sustainability was the ability of a business or industry to operate well into the future through careful and efficient use of resources. However, the definition has evolved dramatically over time, and one cannot help but wonder if that is to better enable activist lawmakers.
A modern definition is provided by UCLA that is more suited for this context. It says, “[Sustainability is] the integration of environmental health, social equity and economic vitality in order to create thriving, healthy, diverse and resilient communities for this generation and generations to come.”
This definition reveals that when an industry is deemed unsustainable, policymakers view it as an existential threat to their idyllic communities. Since the industry is economically viable, the problem must lie in environmental health and social equity. Animal welfare is simply the vehicle by which the industry is transformed to achieve these goals.
By legislating inefficiency, our industry loses economic stability and becomes more vulnerable to shocks. It will be in a moment of weakness following a shock that dramatic and transformative legislation will appear, likely under the guise of a bailout or aid package.
Until then, we can expect to see more animal welfare legislation arising in the coming years all of which will come with greater inefficiency. If we as an industry are going to protect ourselves from harmful legislation, it is important that we acknowledge these laws for what they really are.
