House Committee on Agriculture Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (PA-15) delivered the following opening statement at today's full committee hearing, "An Examination of the Implications of Proposition 12."
Remarks as prepared:
Good morning, everyone and thank you for joining us at today’s important hearing to examine the implications of California’s Proposition 12.
To each of our witnesses, thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to share your expertise with us.
In 2018, California passed Proposition 12, a law that imposes arbitrary and unscientific housing standards on any pork, veal, or egg products that a producer may wish to sell into the state.
Backed by animal rights activists, the requirements of Prop 12 have no standing in reality, and do nothing to improve animal welfare, food safety, or food affordability.
In fact, California’s Department of Food and Agriculture noted in their rulemaking that “animal confinement space allowances prescribed in the Act are not based in specific peer-reviewed published scientific literature or accepted as standards within the scientific community to reduce human food-borne illness, promote worker safety, the environment, or other human or safety concerns.”
Similarly, the American Veterinary Medical Association opposes Prop 12, stating the arbitrary housing requirements do not objectively improve animal welfare and may unintentionally cause harm.
Such concerns, along with the compliance costs for producers and consumers alike, led Prop 12 all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States.
After years of litigation, the United States Supreme Court ultimately upheld California’s law.
Importantly, Justice Gorsuch noted several times in the majority opinion that Congress would be well within its power to act in this case.
I disagree with the Court’s decision to uphold Prop 12, but I do agree that Congress can and must act to rectify the burdens Prop 12 has imposed on interstate commerce.
I am submitting for the record a letter from Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins that outlines the economic impacts we have seen since Prop 12 went into effect on January 1, 2024.
The letter highlights many concerning economic realities that our producers and consumers are facing in a post-Prop 12 world.
The average cost of retrofitting or rebuilding facilities to meet Prop 12 standards is estimated at $3,500 to $4,500 per sow.
The same data shows that compliance costs disproportionately affect small and mid-sized producers, who face tighter margins and have less access to capital.
In fact, as of the first quarter of 2025, 12 percent of small pork operations have exited the market or shifted production away from breeding, citing regulatory uncertainty and high transition costs.
On the consumer side, retail pork prices in California have increased by 18.7 percent year-over-year, compared to a 6.3 percent increase nationwide over the same period.
A recent USDA consumer affordability study found that low-income households in California reduced pork purchases by 22 percent, indicating price increases are affecting food access and affordability for economically vulnerable populations.
The data shows that both producers and consumers are facing significant cost increases due to Prop 12.
It begs the question – if producers are paying more, and consumers are paying more, who is winning?
Thankfully, the complexity and unfairness of Prop 12 has been realized by both sides of the aisle.
Former Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack testified before this Committee about the harms of Prop 12, stating there would be “chaos in the marketplace” without a fix.
Our current Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins also thinks that we must act and offered her full support for our efforts.
She stated that “California has the right to do what California wants to do, but the minute that crosses the border and starts to compromise in such a significant way our pork producers, we need to act.”
That’s why I included Section 12007 in the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2024.
This provision is a common-sense, middle-ground approach to protect producers from arbitrary and unscientific mandates.
It does not undo thousands of state-based agricultural laws, and it does not restrict a states’ right to impose standards within their own borders.
It simply clarifies that states cannot impose, as a condition for sale or consumption, a production standard on livestock, unless that livestock is located within the states’ borders.
This means that Prop 12 will stand in California, but only for those producers within California’s borders. Similar state mandates, like Question 3 in Massachusetts, will also stand – but again, only for those producers within their borders.
Section 12007 enjoys the support of the National Pork Producers Council, American Farm Bureau Federation, and over 900 more national, state, and local farm organizations, as well as the AVMA.
Despite this support from the agriculture community, false narratives about Section 12007 continue to be told in D.C. and across the countryside.
Driven by animal rights groups who are parading as farmers and ranchers, I’ve heard every accusation possible, from China somehow gaining access to our farmland to thousands of state laws being overturned.
Neither of these carry any weight.
While false, the China argument is a convenient strawman during a time of heightened scrutiny of China’s investments in the United States.
The truth is that protein conglomerates with foreign ownership have the resources to comply with state-by-state mandates, while small family farmers and ranchers do not.
The cost of compliance for small producers could actually push them out of the market altogether, leading to further consolidation in the industry, and that would be the true gift to China.
As we hear from our witnesses today, it is my hope that we all take to heart what they are saying.
From the producers on the ground, to the economic and legal experts who have watched this unfold, to the consumer advocate who sees higher prices every day in California, it is paramount that we take their concerns seriously.
In order to protect the right of American farmers and ranchers to raise their animals how they see fit, we must provide a fix for Proposition 12.
I am proud of the work we did to get to Section 12007, which passed out of Committee last year with a bipartisan vote.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this provision in the upcoming Farm Bill reauthorization.
Thank you again to our witnesses for being here today. We look forward to hearing from you.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for any opening comments she’d like to make.
