Trump is attacking California’s cage-free law for high egg prices nationwide. That’s absurd.

President Donald Trump’s second time period has been superb to massive meat corporations, which elevate and slaughter some 10 billion animals annually. However his administration simply gave the trade maybe its greatest reward but — within the type of a lawsuit in opposition to California.The lawsuit, filed on July 9 by the Division of Justice, seeks to dismantle a part of California’s Proposition 12, the nation’s strongest legislation for farmed animals, which requires that pork, veal, and eggs offered in California come from animals who had been raised with minimal area necessities — basically cage-free situations.Handed by poll measure in 2018, Proposition 12 doesn’t fairly assure humane situations for farmed animals, nevertheless it does no less than ban a few of the worst manufacturing unit farming practices: confining egg-laying hens in tiny cages and feminine breeding pigs in “gestation crates,” cages so small that they stop the pregnant pigs from turning round for just about their total lives.The Trump administration’s lawsuit would nullify the a part of the legislation that covers eggs, which it partially blames for top egg costs not simply in California, however throughout the entire nation.Most feminine breeding pigs within the US are confined in gestation crates for just about their total lives. The crates prohibit them from even turning round. Jo-Anne McArthur/We AnimalsA little greater than half of US egg-laying hens are perpetually confined in battery cages, which stop them from opening their wings. Getty Photos/iStockphotoThe lawsuit, nonetheless, is complicated two completely separate points. Cage-free eggs do value greater than eggs produced with cages, although not by a lot — only a few pennies per egg. Agriculture economists overwhelmingly agree that US egg costs have skyrocketed nationwide over the previous few years not due to cage-free egg legal guidelines, however due to the fowl flu, which has led to the brutal culling of greater than 100 million egg-laying hens since 2022. That has prompted acute egg shortages and value spikes — particularly in fall and winter months when fowl flu hits the toughest.“What you noticed was this enormous quantity of birds out of the system, after which we simply have a scarcity of eggs,” stated Jada Thompson, an affiliate professor of agricultural economics on the College of Arkansas. She estimates that 90 % of the rise in nationwide egg costs might be attributed to fowl flu.So ending cage-free legal guidelines gained’t do a lot to convey down egg costs, nor do egg producers need to dismantle these legal guidelines, as a result of they’ve already invested billions of {dollars} to transform their barns to cage-free.Then what, precisely, is the purpose of the lawsuit? The Justice Division didn’t reply to an interview request for this story. However various elements counsel it’s possible a smokescreen for different political objectives.The Trump administration and Republicans prefer to beat up on California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who many speculate has presidential ambitions of his personal. The administration can also be motivated to be seen as doing one thing — something — to convey down grocery costs.And in line with Chris Inexperienced, govt director of the Animal Authorized Protection Fund, the lawsuit can also be getting used to drum up assist for a federal invoice, referred to as the Meals Safety and Farm Safety Act, which might nullify Proposition 12 and comparable legal guidelines. The invoice has passed by many names lately and has to date did not move, and has lengthy been a precedence for the pork trade.The objective of the lawsuit, Inexperienced believes, is “to connect Trump’s identify to this [issue], and to attempt to whip votes” for the Meals Safety and Farm Safety Act. US Division of Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has additionally known as for hanging down Proposition 12.There are many the reason why the Trump administration may be keen to assist the pork trade. All politicians like being seen as supportive of farmers, a problem that doesn’t at all times fall neatly throughout social gathering traces: The Biden administration, too, sided with the pork trade in opposition to Prop 12. However the trade overwhelmingly donates to Republican candidates, and Bruce Rastetter — a pork magnate, Republican megadonor, and Iowa political kingmaker — has backed Trump and served as an agricultural adviser throughout Trump’s first time period.In different phrases, though the case is facially about egg costs, it’d actually don’t have anything to do with eggs in any respect. It as a substitute represents the Trump administration’s effort to assist the pork trade protect one of many cruelest farming practices ever devised.The decades-long combat over maintaining animals in tiny cagesOver the final twenty years, animal safety teams have efficiently campaigned to influence main meals corporations, like McDonald’s and Chipotle, to remove gestation crates for pigs and cages for egg-laying hens from their provide chains. Many states, like California, have banned cages, too. (Disclosure: I labored on a 2016 poll measure in Massachusetts that’s just like California’s legislation.)Though they initially pushed again in opposition to cage-free campaigns, egg producers finally embraced cage-free manufacturing to adjust to state legal guidelines and meet demand from eating places and grocery shops. In a current letter to Agriculture Secretary Rollins, the president of the nation’s prime egg trade commerce group wrote that dismantling state legal guidelines like Proposition 12 would squander the trade’s investments in cage-free manufacturing and create an “extra burden” for egg farmers.Activists with the animal safety group The Humane League protest outdoors of a Buffalo Wild Wings, asking the corporate to section out battery cages from its provide chain. Evelyn Hockstein/For The Washington Submit by way of Getty ImagesThe pork trade, nonetheless, has been a completely completely different story.For the final six years, meat commerce teams have repeatedly sued in opposition to Prop 12. Two years in the past, the US Supreme Court docket voted to uphold California’s legislation. Having failed within the courts, the pork trade, led by the commerce group Nationwide Pork Producers Council (NPPC), is now hoping that Congress will make it unlawful for states to develop animal welfare requirements for animal merchandise offered inside their borders, as California and Massachusetts have carried out.The trade has argued that Prop 12 would result in mass pork shortages in California — which didn’t transpire — and skyrocketing costs for pork nationwide. The legislation did reasonably elevate costs in California, nevertheless it didn’t have an effect on nationwide costs. And I might argue that California’s modest value hike is a small value to pay to stop what an affordable individual would solely name torture. Temple Grandin, the famend animal scientist, has likened gestation crates to forcing a human to stay their total life in an airline seat.The pork trade’s brewing civil struggle over cage-free baconNPPC has additionally claimed that Prop 12 would put many small pork producers out of enterprise. However smaller producers are much less possible to make use of crates, so the legislation really provides them an edge by rising demand for crate-free pork. In accordance with the nonprofit Individuals for Household Farmers, round 500 pig farmers have signed a letter opposing legislative makes an attempt to dismantle cage-free legal guidelines, and a few smaller and midsized meat corporations — like Niman Ranch, True Story Meals, and ButcherBox — have taken the identical place.Some greater farmers need to hold crate-free legal guidelines intact, too. Certainly one of them is Brent Hershey, a pork trade veteran based mostly in Pennsylvania with 3,000 feminine breeding pigs, or sows, who give delivery to just about 80,000 piglets a 12 months. Hershey had begun utilizing gestation crates within the Nineteen Eighties, and for some time, he dismissed criticism of the crates, each from individuals he took on excursions of his farm and animal rights activists working to ban them in numerous states.“Over and over I might take individuals to see the farm, and I at all times received a response out of girls. They might see that gestation crate, and they’d simply be like — instantly — ‘You imply they’re in that on a regular basis? When do you allow them to out of there?’” he stated. “There was at all times a damaging response.”Sows in gestation crates. Jo-Anne McArthur/We Animals MediaOver time, he started to query the welfare of pigs confined in gestation crates, and so did his daughter. “In the future, my daughter simply checked out me and he or she stated, ‘Dad, we aren’t going to just accept that,’” Hershey stated. “‘We’re going to demand that you just do it a greater approach.’”Over time, he began to experiment with crate-free programs. Then every week after the Supreme Court docket upheld Proposition 12, he tore out his farm’s gestation crates. Now, he says, his 3,000 sows have extra space than the minimal 24 sq. ft per pig that California requires.Whereas the additional sq. footage prices him more cash, he’s seen a couple of advantages: Fewer pigs die prematurely, and he’s in a position to cost a small premium for his pork. However he argues that it doesn’t make sense to match the upper value of crate-free pork to that of typical pork, as if gestation crates are an affordable baseline. “Why are we utilizing it as a measurement?” he stated. “You’re measuring your self in opposition to a mistake.”Pennsylvania-based Clemens Meals Group, the nation’s fifth largest recent pork processor, which buys pigs from Hershey, needs to maintain crate-free legal guidelines in place, too.“Many within the trade, together with Clemens, have invested important capital (and human capital) to fulfill the laws set by the individuals of California and Massachusetts,” a spokesperson advised Vox in an e-mail. “Accordingly, Clemens stays vehemently against any legislative or regulatory motion that may overrule” these legal guidelines.Have questions or feedback on this article? Electronic mail us at futureperfect@vox.com!Different prime pork corporations, together with Tyson Meals, JBS, and Seaboard Meals are all listed as Prop 12-compliant distributors by the California Division of Meals and Agriculture, although none of them responded to an interview request for this story.But the Nationwide Pork Producers Council remains to be working to kill Prop 12. Hershey, who served on the board of the group’s Pennsylvania chapter for 20 years, stated the commerce group is out of contact with many customers and is preventing for relevance throughout the trade. NPPC is actually “struggling to justify their existence,” Hershey stated. NPPC declined an interview request for this story and directed me to its weblog submit in regards to the Justice Division’s lawsuit.At a US Home Agriculture Committee listening to on Prop 12 this week, meat trade representatives had been invited to testify, whereas animal welfare scientists, animal advocates, and small farmers weren’t. All of it quantities to political theater to set the stage for upcoming Farm Invoice negotiations, the place lawmakers are anticipated to attempt to fold in laws to nullify state cage-free legal guidelines.Even when it passes, although, I think Hershey will nonetheless be glad he tore the gestation crates out of his farm: “This isn’t rocket science,” he advised me. “A ten-year-old can take a look at a gestation crate and let you know that’s not okay.”You’ve learn 1 article within the final monthHere at Vox, we’re unwavering in our dedication to masking the problems that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the atmosphere, and the rising polarization throughout this nation.Our mission is to supply clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to remain knowledgeable and engaged in shaping our world. By changing into a Vox Member, you immediately strengthen our potential to ship in-depth, impartial reporting that drives significant change.We depend on readers such as you — be a part of us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-Chief