"At the beginning of next year, California will begin enforcing an animal welfare proposition approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2018 that requires more space for breeding pigs, egg-laying chickens and veal calves. National veal and egg producers are optimistic they can meet the new standards, but only 4% of hog operations now comply with the new rules."<p>This is wonderful news. We're finally putting an end to an unethical factory farming practice - forcing animals to live in inhumanely cramped conditions.<p>There's little chance bacon will disappear from California. Instead, the price will probably go up:<p>"If half the pork supply was suddenly lost in California, bacon prices would jump 60%, meaning a $6 package would rise to about $9.60, according to a study by the Hatamiya Group, a consulting firm hired by opponents of the state proposition."<p>I'm totally fine with paying more for bacon if it means that pigs will be treated more humanely.
Sounds like the pig-farming industry is trying to get some of that sweet subsidy money by waiting until the last minute to do anything. Don’t blame them from business side but totally avoidable of course
Related: Norwegian pig farmers have had some really bad press lately
<a href="https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.nrk.no/dokumentar/xl/griseindustriens-brutte-lofter-1.15472297" rel="nofollow">https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...</a><p>(also, I note Google translates "the meat-bosses" into "the butchers")
This is great for consumers worldwide short term as prices will fall. Expensive for California customers. The best thing for animals and if this spreads everyone will be on an equal playing field until than Californians will lead by example.. I predict bacon falling out of popularity quickly.
I wonder at what point it makes sense for the federal government to step in when state laws end up substantially hindering interstate trade. This isn't the standard American communication method where I'm actually insinuating that it's time right now by implying that; I just recognize that there is some point between "completely unrestricted trade" and "you're not allowed to trade with anyone in another state" that the federal government should probably get involved and override state laws restricting trade.<p>Obviously for firearms the federal government takes a pretty heavy involvement. I wonder where the line should be for food? Animal welfare is a pretty contentious issue.
Yay, government is leveraging capitalism for less suffering of pigs. Now the price of pork will skyrocket and new enclosures will be built to make some of that Cali money.
<p><pre><code> Our European visitors are important to us.
This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws.
</code></pre>
Really makes you feel important.
I'm seeing pictures in my head of guys in trenchcoats hawking black market bacon. Deep down I think we all knew this was where California was headed.
Yet another "feel good" policy pushed for by rich progressives in California which makes them sleep better while hurting the lower and middle class.
Keep in mind the new standard sets breeding sow's enclosure to be no less than 24 sqft, (think 6x4 feet). I think it's a reasonable and humane standard to be met. It's a good thing the industry is under pressure due to this, and the benefits here outweigh the consequences of pork shortage and higher prices.
I wish there was some way to require meat eaters to at least visit a slaughterhouse every year to witness the animals that they eat getting slaughtered.<p>Even better would be if they had to slaughter some animals themselves rather than simply paying people to do it for them.<p>Farmers and slaughterhouse workers get desensitized to the slaughter of animals, but I suspect that if people didn't do it all the time but just, say, once or twice a year and saw what actually goes on in slaughterhouses most people would be horrified and many of them would turn vegetarian.<p>Even a single field trip to a slaughterhouse as a kid would probably make lifetime vegetarians out of a lot of people.<p>Most people don't want to think about what they're doing to animals (and certainly not witness, much less directly participate in it), though, so it would probably never happen.
This is great! Pricing in externalities is exactly what regulation is supposed to accomplish in a functioning market. The meat production industry is full of unpriced externalities[0], and decades of propaganda[1] convincing us that everything is fine and dandy[2].<p>Not to mention the current (now-historical) market solution isn't an efficient allocation of resources by any means[3]. Livestock account for only 18% of global calories and only 37% of protein! It's a myth that eating meat is the way we get protein. To boot, 45% of <i>crop yields</i> go towards feeding that livestock[4].<p>I have nothing against eating meat as such, and I'm all for using grazing land for grazing. But the fact that we waste good crop land on highly inefficient food/nutrient/protein production is not good.<p>We have to use regulation to price in these inefficiencies and allow the market to deal with realistic pricing levels for meat.<p>[0] (graphic, but short and info-dense) <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI</a><p>[1] <a href="https://www.vox.com/2015/4/19/8447883/milk-health-benefit" rel="nofollow">https://www.vox.com/2015/4/19/8447883/milk-health-benefit</a><p>[2] <this is fine>.jpg<p>[3] <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture" rel="nofollow">https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture</a><p>[4] <a href="https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel-animal-feed" rel="nofollow">https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel...</a><p>(not thrilled about posting Vox links but they're just the tip of the iceberg if you start reading about this stuff properly)
> <i>Barry Goodwin, an economist at North Carolina State University, estimated the extra costs at 15% more per animal for a farm with 1,000 breeding pigs.</i><p>> <i>If half the pork supply was suddenly lost in California, bacon prices would jump 60%, meaning a $6 package would rise to about $9.60, according to a study by the Hatamiya Group, a consulting firm hired by opponents of the state proposition.</i><p>So let supply and demand work it out? If, as this pork industry PR firm claims, half the pork supply just decides to not participate in the California market, it's financially sensible on the margin for any individual pork farmer to sell meat for anywhere from 15% to 49% more. Note in particular 15% <i>per animal</i> means you're not counting fixed costs like labor, so probably the final price increase will be less than 15%.<p>(This does show the weakness of the California proposition system, though: it's impossible for the normal functioning of government to clarify this law etc. because it's the unchangeable will of the people.)