This week marks our fundraising drive at Naked Capitalism. With 1,375 supporters already contributing, we are committed to fighting corruption and predatory behavior—especially in the financial sector. We invite you to join our cause by visiting our donation page, which provides options for donating via check, credit or debit card, PayPal, Clover, or Wise. Learn more about the motivation behind our fundraiser, our achievements over the past year, and our current aim, which includes original reporting.
Yves here. While many readers may have more experience with animal husbandry than I do, it’s widely acknowledged that the treatment of egg-laying chickens and veal calves on factory farms is inhumane. However, there’s limited information regarding the costs associated with more humane practices. These costs likely differ based on the type of animal and its intended use. It seems reasonable to assume that intermediaries take advantage of consumer demand, marking up prices for low-abuse or abuse-free care far beyond the actual increase in production costs. For instance, I’ve read that organic produce typically incurs a 5% to 10% higher growing cost compared to conventional agriculture, yet its retail price is often more than 25% higher.
Another point of interest is the extent of land and financial investment required for farmers to transition to more humane methods.
Shifting focus, the pressing concern at hand involves states’ rights—a principle often hailed by Republicans, although this seems to apply more selectively when it comes to reproductive rights. Specifically, California is seeking to elevate animal welfare standards for certain categories, like breeding pigs and egg production. This push has prompted federal intervention on behalf of large agricultural states, which assert that such regulations constitute an unacceptable hindrance to interstate commerce and will lead to increased consumer costs. So far, the federal government has not succeeded in this argument, leading to calls for legislation. If you’re not from a Corn Belt state, your voice could be crucial—contact your Congress representative!
By Shannon Kelleher, a staff reporter at The New Lede. Originally published at The New Lede
This week, a coalition of family farmers and meat producers convened in Washington, D.C., to resist federal efforts that aim to block state laws promoting humane, crate-free treatment of livestock.
Using an artificial pig in a small cage as a visual aid, these farmers engaged with members of Congress and spoke at the National Press Club about their quest to support animal welfare practices that have been adopted across various states in the U.S.
“Consumers want their bacon to be both delicious and ethically raised,” asserted Kelly Hilovsky, senior manager of social and environmental responsibility at ButcherBox, as the farming coalition gathered at the National Press Club.
In opposition to these humane animal welfare initiatives, large industrial farming organizations argue that they complicate interstate trade and increase expenses for both producers and consumers. These powerful organizations have secured the backing of Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration.
A pivotal battleground in this debate is California’s Proposition 12, a measure that mandates cage-free housing for veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens, specifying minimum space requirements that allow animals to lie down, stand up, and turn around. This regulation also bans the use of gestation crates, which severely limit these animals’ mobility.
The law prohibits the sale of pork, eggs, and veal from animals that do not meet these minimum size specifications.
Although California voters approved Prop 12 in 2018, its enforcement was delayed until January 2024 due to legal challenges from the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation.
A similar law in Massachusetts was enacted in 2016 and faced unsuccessful legal challenges from large agricultural interests.
Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened, contesting the California measure by claiming that it hinders farmers nationwide from utilizing common agricultural practices and would lead to increased food prices.
In July, House Republicans introduced the Save Our Bacon Act, aimed at restricting states from setting their own standards for the treatment of out-of-state animals raised for meat or eggs. A similar proposal, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, was introduced in the Senate in April. Advocates claim these laws are essential for protecting interstate commerce and preventing a confusing array of state regulations.
In a statement regarding the legislation, Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa labeled California’s statute as “dangerous,” arguing that it threatens the country’s food security.
Brent Swart, a farmer and president of the Iowa Soybean Association, echoed these concerns, asserting that the costs associated with compliance could threaten the viability of pork farmers and result in higher prices for consumers.
Critics of Prop 12 cite recent data from the USDA suggesting that the California law has resulted in a nearly 19% increase in retail pork prices in June 2025 compared to the same month in the previous year.
However, small farmers and meat producers backing these animal welfare regulations argue that they enhance their businesses and build consumer trust.
Brent Hershey, a sixth-generation farmer raising pigs in Pennsylvania for a multi-state meat distributor, claims that his operations provide “living proof” that compliance with Proposition 12 is feasible without detriment to farmers. He has phased out gestation crates, a requirement of the Californian law, asserting that such practices are already being widely abandoned in the pork industry.
“We want Congress to recognize the multitude of family farmers who support Prop 12; it has been a positive step for them,” he emphasized. “We do not wish for Congress to repeal it and undermine that market.”
If the proposed federal legislation is enacted, it could invalidate hundreds of state and local laws. Current estimates from the USDA indicate that approximately 27% of U.S. pork producers are now compliant with Prop 12.
The federal push against state measures follows multiple failed attempts to preempt state standards concerning farm animals and meat products, including the 2023 “Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act” (EATS Act) and the 2018 King Amendment, both of which were left out of the Farm Bill.
“We stand at a crucial juncture,” Hilovsky remarked. “One path favors the cheapest production methods, ignoring the implications for our health, animal welfare, farmer livelihoods, and rural economies. The other path leads to a more resilient, humane, and nutritious agricultural system.”
