Republish
California voters wanted stronger pork laws. The Supreme Court should respect that
We love that you want to share our stories with your readers. Hundreds of publications republish our work on a regular basis.
All of the articles at CalMatters are available to republish for free, under the following conditions:
-
- Give prominent credit to our journalists: Credit our authors at the top of the article and any other byline areas of your publication. In the byline, we prefer “By Author Name, CalMatters.” If you’re republishing guest commentary (example) from CalMatters, in the byline, use “By Author Name, Special for CalMatters.”
-
- Credit CalMatters at the top of the story: At the top of the story’s text, include this copy: “This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you are republishing commentary, include this copy instead: “This commentary was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.” If you’re republishing in print, omit the second sentence on newsletter signups.
-
- Do not edit the article, including the headline, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Alameda County” to “Alameda County, California” or “here.”
-
- If you add reporting that would help localize the article, include this copy in your story: “Additional reporting by [Your Publication]” and let us know at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- If you wish to translate the article, please contact us for approval at republish@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations by CalMatters staff or shown as “for CalMatters” may only be republished alongside the stories in which they originally appeared. For any other uses, please contact us for approval at visuals@calmatters.org.
-
- Photos and illustrations from wire services like the Associated Press, Reuters, iStock are not free to republish.
-
- Do not sell our stories, and do not sell ads specifically against our stories. Feel free, however, to publish it on a page surrounded by ads you’ve already sold.
-
- Sharing a CalMatters story on social media? Please mention @CalMatters. We’re on X, Facebook, Instagram, TikTok and BlueSky.
If you’d like to regularly republish our stories, we have some other options available. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org if you’re interested.
Have other questions or special requests? Or do you have a great story to share about the impact of one of our stories on your audience? We’d love to hear from you. Contact us at republish@calmatters.org.
California voters wanted stronger pork laws. The Supreme Court should respect that
Share this:
Guest Commentary written by
Barry Kipperman
Dr. Barry Kipperman is a veterinary specialist in internal medicine and animal welfare. He teaches veterinary ethics at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, and is co-author of “Ethics in Veterinary Practice: Balancing Conflicting Interests.”
As a veterinarian, it’s not only my duty but my passion to care about animals. When I see their mistreatment, I feel compelled to do something about it.
I was one of nearly 400 veterinarians and animal welfare scientists who signed an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of California’s farm animal protection law, which ended the practice of confining pigs in small cages known as gestation crates.
In 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12 by an overwhelming majority. The law prohibits the severe confinement of egg-laying hens, pigs and calves used for veal, along with barring the sale of certain egg, pork and veal products from animals housed this way. Rather than complying with this reasonable measure, the pork industry filed a lawsuit to have Prop. 12 struck down, and National Pork Producers Council v. Ross made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The court heard arguments for the case on Oct. 11.
Previously, pregnant pigs, or sows, were often confined in metal cages that were barely bigger than their bodies. This prevented them from lying comfortably, turning around or other natural behaviors, including socializing and making a nest before they gave birth. In addition to suffering physical ailments, pigs raised in crates also show signs of severe mental distress by biting on the bars of the cages.
Pigs are intelligent, social animals with considerable cognitive capacities. Multiple peer-reviewed studies prove what common sense tells us: pigs suffer tremendously in gestation crates.
Not only does locking pregnant pigs in gestation crates produce extremely poor animal welfare outcomes, but it also has negative public health implications for humans. In a separate amicus brief, the American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Center for Food Safety and other public health authorities asserted that gestation crates can lead to disease in people. They concluded that the severe confinement of pregnant pigs induced “high levels of stress. That stress triggers a physiological response that suppresses their immune function and that of their piglets, making the sows and their piglets more susceptible to disease.”
The brief also showed how extreme confinement could lead to a future pandemic.
Societal concerns about the harms pigs suffer in gestation crates has caused some of the largest retailers to commit to sourcing pork from supply chains that don’t use them. Unlike dogs and cats, farm animals have no federal legal protection from cruelty. For this reason, 10 states have passed laws prohibiting severe confinement practices.
At this point, it is undeniable that pigs suffer in crates. California voters took commendable action to eliminate pork produced through such suffering in the marketplace. It is unthinkable that the nation’s highest court might overturn such popular legislation.