On Feb. 13, 2026, the House Agriculture Committee released the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (Farm Bill 2.0), featuring a federal solution to ensure the free movement of livestock-derived products in interstate commerce. The bill aims to avoid the emerging patchwork of state laws triggered by California Proposition 12.

“America’s pork producers thank Chairman Thompson for continuing to take bold steps once again to protect our livelihoods from an unsustainable patchwork of state laws,” said National Pork Producers Council President Duane Stateler, a pork producer from McComb, Ohio. “We implore the full House Agriculture Committee to stand up for the American farmer, preserve states’ rights, and help keep pork affordable for the American consumers.”

Problems spurred by Prop. 12

According to the National Pork Producers Council, Prop. 12 sets a precedent that undermines the foundation of interstate commerce, allowing a single state to dictate how food is produced across the country — even when that food is produced outside its borders. Fixing Prop. 12 protects the rights of states by allowing each the exclusive right to regulate how livestock are produced within their borders.

In passing Prop. 12, California violated Congress’ exclusive constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. Congressional action to fix the issues caused by Prop. 12 is rooted in Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution: “The Congress shall have the power … To regulate commerce … among the several states” (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3).

Prop. 12 sets the stage for a patchwork of 50 state laws, dictating different versions of animal housing laws, which all producers — no matter the state they farm in — must comply with if they want to sell their pork to all consumers.

NPPC Vice President and Ohio pork producer Pat Hord, who has retrofitted his barns to be Prop. 12-compliant, has told Congress that compliance does not future-proof farmers from more financial burdens if patchwork laws are not addressed. “Whatever I do today could need to be changed when a new state decides they want a different housing standard,” Hord said. “These are expensive changes, and some farmers may exit the business amid this uncertainty, which increases consolidation.”

While even large farms cannot sustain ongoing changes to sow housing laws, they are more likely to be able to afford the initial changes mandated by Prop. 12. Smaller and independent producers often cannot. This means fewer family farms and reduced competition across the industry.

In the first quarter of 2025, 12% of small pork operations (<500 sows) exited the market or shifted production away from breeding due to compliance costs and uncertainty, according to USDA.

The American Veterinary Medical Association says Prop. 12 does “not objectively improve animal welfare and may unintentionally cause harm.” The housing requirement established by Prop. 12 is arbitrary, lacks a scientific or animal welfare foundation, and disregards the expertise of producers and veterinarians whose professional responsibility is to safeguard animal health.

The latest data shows increased retail prices in California are still more than 20% higher than before Prop. 12 took effect.

Prop. 12 is also causing issues with trading partners. Under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, for example, states are not permitted to create non-tariff barriers to trade.

A fix for Prop. 12 is backed by nearly 1,000 agriculture groups across more than 40 states, including the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Source: National Pork Producers Council