DES MOINES, Iowa — Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird announced this week that Iowa is part of a 22-state appeal asking a court to strike down a pork ban restriction out of Massachusetts.
The long-debated "Question 3" restrictions would ban the sale of pork from hogs born and raised in housing that does not comply with Massachusetts state standards.
The ban would also prevent other states, including Iowa, from transporting pork through Massachusetts if they don't meet the new requirements.
The other 21 states included in the appeal are: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Monday, Bird said in part,
"Iowa is the leading pork-producing state in the nation and is home to countless farms that Iowans have passed down through families for generations," Bird said in a statement. "Massachusetts does not get to tell Iowans how to raise their pork."
EDITOR NOTE'S: All links included below are taken directly from the AG Bird's Appeal
What is in the appeal?
The appeal to the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals from Iowa and the other 21 states begins with a comparison of Massachusetts's proposed ban to if other states tried to restrict fishing in their states in a similar manner.
"While that law equally affects Atlantic fishermen across the country, it likely would impose greater compliance costs on States that have a more meaningfully sized shell-fishing industry than Iowa," the introduction states.
Imposing restrictions in this manner would be no different from banning states and their hogs, when the banning state does not produce pork, the amicus brief continues.
"Because that is what Massachusetts is doing here—imposing a detrimental and overly burdensome regulatory scheme on the almost entirely out of Massachusetts pig farmers and pork processors in their respective States."
The potentially harmful impact on agricultural states is explicitly cited, along with the statistic that 147,000 Iowans are employed in the pork industry.
Iowa after all is the top producer and exporter of pork in the U.S., though the data provided is from 2020.
California's Proposition 12
The brief also compares "Question 3" to California's "Proposition 12" to show the increase in costs to meet compliance measures.
According to a 2021 MEAT+POULTRY study, on average it would cost pork producers an average of $3,400 per sow, up from the typical $1,600-$2,500, to meet the California's guidelines, which it calls conservative in comparison to Massachusetts's.
Bird said this would substantially burden the market and raise prices for all Americans.
Potential effects on small farmers
Smaller farming operations are said to be the most affected by the ban, with about 90% of hog farms having fewer than 100 pigs in inventory, according to the appeal.
This number, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture said has shrank by 9% from 2017 to 2022, would take a greater hit due to the Massachusetts ban.
Because of a majority of the producers having smaller farms, Bird's appeal points to a lower return on investment for most farmers which would presumably continue to shrink the number of smaller producers.
Does Question 3 cause a 'race to the bottom'?
The appeal also cites the possibility of another state adding their own expanded policies on the issue of pork, causing Massachusetts's ban to become obselete. Bird and the states alongside her make a case questioning when the topic would be fully and finally addressed.
"For example, farmers in Iowa could invest millions of dollars to remodel their hog farms to comply with Massachusetts’s requirements only to find New York enacting a law imposing larger housing requirements per pig," the brief reads.
"Question 3" would affect far more than just sales for Massachusetts however, as the appeal says Massachusetts acts as a sort of distribution hub for the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine.
The brief notes that California's Proposition 12 which contriibuted to pork prices in California rising around 20% since July 2023.
"Massachusetts’s out-of-touch regulations will only continue to inflate prices," the appeal states.
Bird and the accompanying states question what would come next, such as allowing one state to regulate another.
"... upholding Question 3 could drag other States into a regulatory 'race to the bottom' that extends beyond just pork."
Other arguments included in the brief
- Import-Export Clause: The appeal states that Question 3 may implicate the constitutional provision of the Import-Export Clause which in part states, "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws.”
- The clause, it states, was designed to reduce the exploitation of inland states by seaboard states.
- Full Faith and Credit Clause: This was designed to prevent adopting hostile policies against another state, the appeal says.
- Bird and the accompanying states said this clause is specifically implicated when one state's agricultural restrictions conflict with another state's laws.