MarlaCollins'Husband wrote:The law actually restricts the sale of meat in California that doesn't meet the minimum animal welfare requirements, regardless of where the meat is produced.

Producers can just stop offering meat to California, if they do not wish to meet their requirements.

Regards,
Cathy2

Yes, they can; their argument is that they shouldn't have to. California is a huge market that they would naturally want access to. I don't have an opinion either way, but I think this is an interesting case with respect to the Constitution's interstate commerce clause, with implications beyond food. Thanks, MarlaCollinsHusband, for the link.

The Supreme Court upheld the California law that requires pig "farmers" provide enough space for each pig that it can "lie down and turn around in spaces in which they are housed." Mainstream news coverage here, more in-depth analysis is here, and the actual court opinion, concurrences and dissents can be found here.

Short summary is that California gets to put constraints on animal welfare for animals sold to California consumers. What remains to be seen is whether pork producers will walk away from the CA market, have separate systems for pigs they're going to sell to CA consumers and the rest of the country, or just ensure that all of their pigs meet the CA standards. What also remains to be seen, though of less direct concern to this board, is what else California can do to leverage the state's outsized purchasing power on producers and suppliers of other goods and services.

Certainly none of the Wisconsin pig farmers I know are shipping to California!!!

MarlaCollins'Husband wrote: The Supreme Court upheld the California law that requires pig "farmers" provide enough space for each pig that it can "lie down and turn around in spaces in which they are housed."
[edit] What remains to be seen is whether pork producers will walk away from the CA market, have separate systems for pigs they're going to sell to CA consumers and the rest of the country, or just ensure that all of their pigs meet the CA standards.

I have to believe that if pork producers withdraw from California, that will be a “scarlet letter” on their corporate chest which could attract more awareness to their breeding procedure in the other forty-nine states. (E.G.: More supermarket chains could be lobbied to cease offering their products.)

Here's an interesting article on the implications of the Supreme Court California pig ruling and other efforts by states to impact national policies.

It’s a landmark case that offered the court its first opportunity to address a new type of political polarization, as ambitious governors from states like California and Florida increasingly seek to use the clout of their large, virtually single-party states to win plaudits from their partisan constituencies — with major consequences for the rest of us. The court’s decision means politics is only going to further infect our economic lives; it could even help unravel the delicate balance of federalism that’s central to American governance. Yet it’s hard to fault the court or even the governors. The justices are interpreting the law as they see it; the governors are responding to the natural political incentives. The real blame lies with an idle Congress that is supposed to referee these types of fights between states.

Any good deals at supermarkets lately? Last week Butera had country style ribs for 99¢ (sold out anyway) but butts were $1.99.

Freezer is running short on homemade Italian sausage...

Best I've seen on my normal circuit of searches is $1.69 this week. My Tony's has "fresh ham" for 99c. I know that's not shoulder, but if a leg is something you could use, it's there. My guess would be that the Labor Day sales week should be a good week for the bbq cuts.