REGULATORY TRENDS

Smithfield Foods Inc. has just announced that in early 2023—less than a year from now—it will close its processing plant in Vernon, California (near Los Angeles).  It operates 45  plants throughout the U.S., owned by umbrella company WHGroup Ltd. out of Hong Kong but really a Chinese company.

             Of course, the factory farmers in California supplying this plant, which employs 1,800 people, will also probably fold.  The stated reasons for the closure are corporate taxes, labor costs, utility costs (3.5 times higher than anywhere else).  Buried in the Wall Street Journal story is probably the straw that broke the camel’s back:  Proposition 12 passed in 2018 that outlaws the use of gestation crates for sows on factory farms.

             Championed by the Humane Society of the U.S., Proposition 12 requires that breeding sows be “able to lie down and turn around in spaces in which they are housed.”  The industrial pork industry, of course, says the stalls provide piggie safety by reducing the chances that the sow will accidently trample or lie down on her babies.  Their other argument is that the crates reduce the price of pork and retrofitting old factory houses would be too costly.

             This announcement creates conflicting emotions about winning and losing.  Wouldn’t it be interesting if California weren’t as anti-business, forcing Smithfield to acknowledge that the real reason it’s closing is due to the animal welfare requirements?  As it is, though, the anti-business climate in the state blunts the animal welfare argument.

             The animal welfare issue comes way later in the story than all the anti-business reasons.  If I were trying to make animal welfare a front and center issue, I’d be pretty bummed that my state created such an anti-business environment that when the object of my animal welfare campaign cries Uncle, it can be construed as NOT an animal welfare issue.  It’s too bad that the business climate dominated the discussion rather than the animal welfare issue.

             While I’m not a fan of the animal welfare regulation—better to let the marketplace decide—I do think it’s sad that the impact got watered down by the overall anti-business climate in California.  To me, this illustrates the general social/political climate that cheapens animal welfare issues.

             Too often animal welfare issues develop from the same folks who think business is inherently easy or evil or both and should be taxed accordingly; the same folks who think employees should be on par with business owners when it comes to running the outfit; the same folks who think they can have prosperity without leveraging local resources (Not In My Backyard).

             This package lumps animal welfare into the same foolish mindset as these other issues, blunting the impact it would otherwise have if reasonable people actually promoted it.  It’s similar to why conservatives lump all environmental issues into a package of liberal idiocy.  Why does an animal welfare proponent need to be in favor of higher taxes, employee extortion, and energy stupidity?  If the animal welfare crowd could see how the overall package blunts the tip of their spear it might help their awareness campaigns.

             The issues-by-the-handful mentality makes those of us who care deeply about animal welfare disassociate ourselves from the animal welfare movement.  It’s why years ago I created the “Christian libertarian environmentalist capitalist lunatic farmer” handle, because I got tired of people assuming that since I didn’t embrace chemical farming I must also be in favor of higher taxes, bigger government, abortion, teachers’ unions and government grants.

             Do you have one issue you routinely find yourself on the “outs” with folks with whom you generally agree?  If so, what’s the maverick issue?