Court upholds standards for animal cages
A federal appeals court has rejected a challenge by the pork industry to California’s voterapproved law that set minimum standards for cages used to hold breeding pigs, egglaying hens and veal calves.
Proposition 12, endorsed by more than 62% of the state’s voters in 2018, banned sale in California of meat products from animals that had been caged in violation of the state standards. The National Pork Producers Council and the National Farm Bureau Federation, with support from 20 states, sued to overturn the ban, arguing that it was an unconstitutional attempt to regulate interstate commerce and would effectively impose California’s rules on producers in other states.
But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said California does not interfere with interstate commerce when it requires outofstate businesses to comply with its health and safety standards in order to sell their products in the state.
Prop. 12’s requirements “merely impose a higher cost on production,” Judge Sandra Ikuta said in a 30 ruling Wednesday that upheld a federal judge’s dismissal of the lawsuit.
She cited the court’s 2013 ruling upholding California’s ban on foie gras, a gourmet food that is produced by forcefeeding ducks.
As in this case, Ikuta said, the court found that the law applied equally to producers in California and other states and that it only prohibited “a more profitable method of operation — forcefeeding birds for the purpose of enlarging its liver — rather than affecting the interstate flow of goods.”
Prop. 12 required producers to provide at least 24 square feet of floor space for each breeding pig, 1 square foot for each egglaying hen, and 43 square feet of floor space for calves raised for veal.
A similar legal challenge by the North American Meat Institute was rejected by another Ninth Circuit panel last year, and the Supreme Court denied review of that case on June 28. Other lawsuits are pending.
The Humane Society of the United States and other animalprotection groups joined the state’s legal defense of the ballot measure. Bruce Wagman, a lawyer for the Humane Society, said the ruling shows that “states get to make decisions about the products sold in their state and whether or not they’re products of cruelty.” He said animals confined in close quarters are also more likely to breed diseases.
Jim Monroe, spokesman for the National Pork Producers Council, said, “We are disappointed in the court’s decision and maintain our position on Prop 12: It is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause. We are evaluating the decision and our next steps.”