US Republicans continue push to override California animal welfare law
Proposition 12, which also sets housing standards for veal and eggs sold in the state, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023 after a legal challenge by the pork industry.
President Donald Trump's administration sued California on July 9 over the law's provisions for chicken housing, arguing it has contributed to higher egg prices.
Committee Chair Glenn "GT" Thompson has sought to limit the law's scope to California farmers, excluding farmers from other states who sell pork into California, in the next farm bill. The bill is an omnibus funding package passed every five years, and which is two years overdue.
"The cost of compliance for small producers could actually push them out of the market altogether, leading to further consolidation in the industry," Thompson said in Wednesday's hearing.
The issue has divided the pork industry. Some hog farmers and pork companies oppose overturning the law, as they have already made investments to comply.
"There are thousands of farmers across the country who support and depend on commonsense bans against the cruel confinement of farm animals,' said Matt Bershadker, CEO of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in a statement.
The average cost of retrofitting or rebuilding barns to meet Prop 12's standards is about $3,500 to $4,500 per sow, according to a letter sent from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to Thompson on July 21 and released by the agriculture committee.
The average retail prices of pork cuts such as bacon and ham have risen about 1% since January 2024, when Prop 12 went into full effect, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's Rose Garden redesign is in. And critics aren't impressed
Pictures of Donald Trump's new redesign of the White House 's historic rose garden are in – and social media users are not impressed. Official pictures of the completed refurb project emerged Saturday. The colorful and meticulously maintained green space has now been paved over with white concrete, topped with several items of garden furniture. 'Trump turned Jackie Kennedy 's Rose Garden into a parking lot. Sad day for history and nature,' wrote one user on X, reacting to the images. 'Looks awful. Devoid of life. Just more concrete in the concrete jungle. Could have at least interlaid brick or some sort of designed pattern,' added another. Another user wrote: '[Trump] has no sense of beauty, poetry, or music, no sense of national pride, no wit, no knowledge, no humanity, only narcissism and ignorance.' 'The fact that he turned the rose garden into f***ing cement is such a perfect metaphor for everything these people do,' wrote a fourth user. Another was more blunt with their assessment. 'Looks like complete dogs***,' they wrote. Even Grok, the AI chatbot feature of the Elon Musk-owned social media platform X, was unimpressed. Responding to a user asking what it thought, Grok replied: 'It looks ugly. 'The excessive paving turns an iconic garden into a sterile plaza, stripping away the natural charm and vibrancy that defined the Rose Garden. Functionality over beauty isn't always progress.' Trump's plan to uproot the garden and replace it with a stone patio – similar to one he has at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida – was first reported by The New York Times in February. The images emerged after the White House on Thursday announced that construction on a massive, new $200 million ballroom will begin in September and be ready before Trump's term ends in early 2029. It will be the first structural change to 'The People's House' since the addition of the Truman balcony in 1948. Elsewhere, Trump has substantially redecorated the Oval Office through the addition of golden flourishes and cherubs, presidential portraits and other items, and installed massive flagpoles on the north and south lawns to fly the American flag.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
US appeals court indicates it might declare Trump's birthright citizenship order unconstitutional
Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court, as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of the US president's hardline immigration agenda. A three-judge panel of the Boston-based first US circuit court of appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the federal justice department as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking effect. Those lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the US supreme court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other policies. The San Francisco-based ninth US circuit court of appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order as unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will probably be determined by the supreme court. Eric McArthur, a justice department attorney, said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the US constitution's 14th amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the US civil war, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly freed enslaved Black people. 'It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right' to the children of people in the US without documentation, he said. But the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the supreme court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the US to non-citizen parents. 'We have an opinion by the supreme court that we aren't free to disregard,' said David Barron, the chief US circuit judge who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic president. Trump's executive order, issued on the Republican's first day back in the Oval Office on 20 January, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of US-born children who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a 'green card' holder. Every court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included Leo Sorokin, a US district judge in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court. 'The supreme court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens,' Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on Friday. The 6-3 conservative majority US supreme court on 27 June sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their orders. Sign up to This Week in Trumpland A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration after newsletter promotion But the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the ninth circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect nationally. The rulings on appeal to the first circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide. Separately, in an immigration-related ruling on Friday, US district Judge Jia Cobb in Washington DC blocked the Trump administration from fast-tracking the deportation of potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who were paroled into the country under humanitarian programs during Joe Biden's presidency. Cobb said it served the public interest to put on hold the Department of Homeland Security's expedited removals for those who entered with temporary parole rather than cause irreparable harm to immigrants by allowing them.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Food earmarked for millions of people still languishes in warehouses after Trump shuttered USAID
Food aid groups that partner with the U.S. Agency for International Development to assist in providing critical nutrition for millions around the world have had to watch cases of food go to waste as the Trump administration dismantled USAID. In Georgia, Mana Nutrition, a company that creates ready-to-use therapeutic food, is waiting for someone to pick up 400,000 cases of its nutritional supplement to be shipped worldwide. The food could help an estimated 60 million people, but chaos with USAID has disrupted coordination, the company told the Washington Post. The company is planning to destroy approximately 585 cases of its peanut paste this month because it became too dated to ship while waiting for a new government contract that never happened. The owner of Mana Nutrition told The Post that some of it could have been added to previous shipments, but wasn't. But other companies or organizations that have or had contracts with the government to supply aid have faced similar issues in recent months. In July, approximately 500 metric tons of food aid, specifically high-energy biscuits meant for children in Afghanistan and Pakistan, expired while being stored in warehouses in Dubai. While the administration assured people that the small percentage of food aid wasted would not impact future shipments, some have raised concerns about the pattern that has been highlighted due to the dismantling of USAID. Last month, the company Edesia Nutrition waited for someone to pick up more than 100,000 boxes of nutritional aid that had sat in a warehouse in Rhode Island. After sounding the alarm, the shipments were finally picked up only after a Rhode Island retailer teamed up with the company. In May, several people familiar with USAID told Reuters that more than 60,000 metric tons of food, sourced from American farmers and manufacturers, was set to expired in warehouses by July. That concerned enough people that the Office of Inspector General said it would open an investigation into food aid in warehouses. It's unclear if that aid was eventually shipped. The Trump administration has sought to axe USAID by revoking federal funding and firing most of its staff. President Donald Trump and his allies have characterized USAID as an unnecessary agency filled with 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' USAID, which was established in the 1960s, was one of the world's leading distributors of food and aid. Partnering with other companies, USAID provided humanitarian assistance, medical necessities, education, and more to people living in poverty, war-torn countries, and disaster-impacted communities. A spokesperson for the State Department told the Post that it is 'constantly assessing global humanitarian needs and expects to allocate additional resources to address those needs in line with U.S. interests.'
