ISSAQUAH – Congresswoman Kim Schrier, M.D. (WA-08) and 99 of her House colleagues sent a letter Wednesday to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar requesting their support of California’s Proposition 12 ahead of the Supreme Court hearing National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, the pork industry’s challenge to this law.
In the letter Rep. Schrier and her colleagues said, “This law is intended to prevent animal cruelty, protect the health and safety of consumers, and decrease the risk of foodborne illness by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal confinement…Efforts to overturn this popular law are fundamentally inconsistent with long-standing judicial precedent. The Commerce Clause should not be weaponized to shield particular industries from in-state sales regulation, like California’s Proposition 12. Nor should states have to create one set of rules for in-state products and a different set of rules for ones from out of state.”
A harmful outcome in this case would have serious impacts on States’ authority to protect the health and well-being of their citizens.
“Americans want humane, safe food on their dinner plates and no amount of finagling by factory farm interests in the courts should get in the way of it.” Sara Amundson, President, Humane Society Legislative Fund
Wilcox Farms, a family-owned egg farm in Roy, WA that’s a leader in sustainability said, “As farmers, we recognize that hens being in a cage-free and free-range environments is the right way to farm. Caged chicken houses are not a humane way to raise animals. Prop 12 was a big achievement to start moving our industry to more humane farming. To have this overturned would be a major step back for our industry and farming.”
The full letter that the Representatives sent is below.
###
Dear President Biden, Solicitor General Prelogar, and Secretary Vilsack:
As you know, on March 28th, the Supreme Court decided to hear National Pork Producers
Council v. Ross, the pork industry's challenge to California’s Proposition 12. This law is
intended to prevent animal cruelty, protect the health and safety of California consumers, and
decrease the risk of foodborne illness by phasing out extreme methods of farm animal
confinement. California’s Proposition 12 regulates only in-state sales of certain pork products at
issue in this case (as well as in-state sales of certain egg and veal products) and does not directly
control any activity outside the state.
Proposition 12 shares many substantive similarities with cage-free sales laws and regulations in
Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Colorado, Nevada, Arizona, and Massachusetts, which were
supported by broad, diverse coalitions of stakeholders. A harmful ruling on this case would
undermine all of these state laws and others like them, as well as the significant investments
companies have made towards protecting consumer preferences and the health, safety, and
welfare of animals and the environment.
Efforts to overturn this popular law are fundamentally inconsistent with long-standing judicial
precedent. The Commerce Clause should not be weaponized to shield particular industries from
in-state sales regulation, like California’s Proposition 12. Nor should states have to create one set
of rules for in-state products and a different set of rules for ones from out of state.
We request that you support California’s regulatory autonomy vis-a-vis Proposition 12 in this
case before the Supreme Court to ensure that States are not stripped of their authority to protect
the well-being of their citizens. Thank you for your consideration.