{"id":27207,"date":"2022-11-30t15:40:33","date_gmt":"2022-11-30t15:40:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/dev.planetforward.com\/2022\/11\/30\/animal-welfare-a-missing-topic-in-supreme-court-arguments-about-californias-proposition-12\/"},"modified":"2023-02-28t16:18:31","modified_gmt":"2023-02-28t16:18:31","slug":"animal-welfare-proposition-12","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/\/www.getitdoneaz.com\/story\/animal-welfare-proposition-12\/","title":{"rendered":"animal welfare a missing topic in supreme court arguments about california\u2019s proposition 12"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
washington – earlier this fall, the state of california and the national pork producers council presented arguments to the u.s. supreme court, debating california\u2019s move to ban the supply of pork from producers who fail to meet strict animal welfare requirements. however, the wide-ranging debate of constitutional and economic issues ignored a key topic – the pigs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
on oct. 11, the pork industry trade group argued that california\u2019s incoming regulations would unfairly burden pork producers across the country by requiring them to meet california\u2019s animal welfare standards, which would impose an undue limitation on interstate commerce. california, on the other hand, defended its regulation as a legitimate, in-state issue. because farm animals in the u.s. do not have a universal right to welfare, these arguments turn on whether a state\u2019s individual morals can justify a restriction on interstate commerce, rather than the wellbeing of the pigs. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
proposition 12 was enacted in 2018 after 62% of californians voted in favor of banning the sale of pork from breeding pigs, or a breeding pig\u2019s offspring, where the sow is confined to less than 24 square feet of usable floor space.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201ccalifornia voters chose to pay higher prices to serve their local interest in refusing to provide a market to products they viewed as morally objectionable and potentially unsafe,\u201d said michael mongan, california\u2019s solicitor-general.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
according to the trade group, this regulation constitutes a breach of the dormant commerce clause – a legal doctrine inferred from article i of the constitution. under the doctrine, states may only enact restrictions that discriminate against, or unduly burden, interstate commerce if that effect is incidental and proportional to a legitimate local interest. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
in other words, the purported benefit of the law must outweigh the burden placed on interstate commerce. as consumers of 13% of the nation\u2019s pork market, california\u2019s regulation will significantly impact pork producers across the country. according to the pork industry trade group, animal welfare concerns do not constitute a legitimate local interest to outweigh this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cproposition 12 violates the commerce clause almost per se because it’s an extraterritorial regulation that conditions pork sales on out-of-state farmers adopting california’s preferred farming methods, for no valid safety reason,\u201d argued timothy bishop, counsel for the trade group. \u201cit burdens interstate commerce for no local benefit.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
his argument that the pigs\u2019 welfare is not a legitimate public interest reflects the fact that animal welfare is not widely protected in the u.s. this sets the u.s. apart from a number of countries – the united kingdom and new zealand are just two examples of countries with national legislation that requires any person responsible for animals to ensure their protection. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
animal sentience is also becoming increasingly accepted around the world. at least 39 countries expressly recognize it in legislation. although often ill-defined, the sentience institute<\/a> describes it as \u201cthe capacity to have positive and negative experiences, usually thought of as happiness and suffering.\u201d france<\/a>, which recognized animal sentience as early as 1975, paired this with a requirement that animals be kept in conditions that are appropriate to the \u201cbiological \u2026 requirements of their species.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n in accordance with increasing awareness, numerous countries are moving toward the prohibition of restrictive gestation crates for sows. new zealand, which expressly recognized animal sentience in 2015, is working to phase them out following a 2020 high court decision<\/a>, which found that they are unlawful under the country\u2019s animal welfare act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n