Posted on 06/19/2013 5:57:27 PM PDT by lowbridge
Should California tell farmers throughout the country how to run their farms? Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, says no.
"It's exactly what our founding fathers wanted to avoid," King said.
But the rural-state lawmaker is concerned over California's strict laws on egg producers and other farmers as a result of Proposition 2, a ballot initiative passed by voters in 2008. The law requires egg producers to increase their cage size to more than 200 square inches, more than triple the industry recommendation. As a result, farmers from other states must comply with California hen cage standards if they wish to sell their product in the Golden State.
If they don't comply, they can't do business there.
But not if King has his way. He's proposed an amendment to the pending farm bill in Congress which would allow farmers in other states to sell eggs in California without having to comply with the state's law.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
CA is entirely within its rights to regulate the egg market within its borders.
You’re the one with the nonsensical position: CA is simply regulating a market within its borders.
I get what you’re saying, but SCOTUS says otherwise. Interstate now equals intrastate. Check wickard v filburn and Gonzales v raich.
LOL, it’s not my position. It’s the position of the SCOTUS. Don’t blame the messenger.
What you’re quoting is the USSC lamentably approving any federal meddling in state commerce. Those cases do not establish that a state regulating a market within its borders is itself meddling in interstate commerce—else all state market regulations would now be unConstitutional (and there’d be no reason for King’s ill-directed bill).
I must admit that I'm not a student of intra-state regulation of commerce. I know that some states have different fuel standards than others, and to a large degree that's why gasoline in S. Carolina is lower than just about anyplace else in the USA. Apparently, it must be legal.
As Marlowe says, if CA's citizens vote OChickenCare into their state, then it's no different than the RomneyCare we loved to hate in Massachusetts.
As with RomneyCare, though, there were many losers within the state of Mass. Losers in CA would be those who most benefit from cheaper food...the poor. (I wonder if this chicken law applies to canned chicken???)
In any case, to the extent that these folks live off of food stamps, I guess I can say that it affects me in Ohio via higher taxes to pay for all the chicken bought in California with food stamps.
I would hope that the national consensus is the cheaper direction (masschicken) than the more expensive direction (rangechicken). Otherwise, all of us will pay more for our own chicken and more for the chicken of folks living on food stamps.
Proverbs 12: 10 A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel. 11 He that tilleth his land shall be satisfied with bread: but he that followeth vain persons is void of understanding.(KJV)
The scripture does indicate regard for the animal's life. That requires some pondering. America might be better off without all that fried chicken. Who knows?
I disagree with you. I believe humankind does have dominion over animals to use for our benefit, but also a responsibility to treat them humanely.
Clearly the unregulated market let dreadful treatment of chickens and pig, especially, become the norm. I am in favor of basic humane-treatment laws, and the state is a fine level for implementing them.
I see your point, but I am simply following the SCOTUS decisions to their logical conclusions. Conclusions that should scare people into understanding their evil, but which apparently do not.
I agree. They are scary logical conclusions, because they empower Congress (e.g., this proposed legislation from Steve King) to regulate local markets within individual states. Congress just keeps piling up such legislation.
CA is simply regulating the market within its state—it is saying nothing about what other states must do. And yes, out-of-state companies participating in other states’ markets do have to abide by those states’ laws.
Lurker, while I admire your concern for animals, I just don’t think the state should be concerning itself with every little thing that someone says “there oughta be a law” about. Next thing you know they’ll be telling me how big my soda pop should be.
I think there should be fewer laws.
A moral people would do what’s right without laws, but tyrants and tyrannical systems love to enact laws.
Mea Culpa!
I’m glad that somebody persisted in asking about the California egg issue versus the Commerce Clause.
Being that I’m a city boy I misread the OP.
California cannot tell any other state how to produce eggs. But neither can Congress use the Commerce Clause to tell any farmer how to produce eggs, although that’s not going to stop pro-big federal government activist justices from stopping corrupt Congress from doing so.
Sigh ... if this was a perfect world then this seems like an issue for the Supremes to decide, California animal rights activists seemingly forcing their beliefs on other people imo. But in this imperfect world farmers in other states may have to comply with California’s egg producing law if they can afford to do so until lawmakers and the courts get their acts together.
Did I say until lawmakers and the courts get their act- together? Trees don’t live that long.
On the other hand, does coop size affect quality of eggs? If so, does it affect quality to the extent that customers are willing to ultimaly pay for the bigger cages and presumably bigger chicken buildings via higher prices on eggs?
And it remains that this city boy may still not have a grip on the nuances of this issue.
I am not arguing for federal intervention. Its not needed.
What’s needed is for those states who do not wish to comply with the mandates of another state, then don’t sell to that state. Same goes for the state requiring the mandates. If another state does not want to bend to them, then don’t buy from that state.
Simple. Like I said.
texas has a bigger ecconomy than cf
I agree, fewer laws by far.
But there have been horrific abuses of both poultry and hogs. Minimum standards, unfortunately, are required in a couple of areas there.
BTW—I’ve spent decades in farming. Commercial, not organic.
Not to be off-subject, but thanks for the verse. Animals in my care are treated humanely and I regularly care for a "yard dog" (not my own) that is otherwise ignored - but I am an individual - not an industry.
Food for thought. Unless you are a vegetarian or only purchase Kosher beef, think about how cattle in the slaughter yards are treated to bring you that nice T-Bone. It is not pretty or humane. Their excuse? It would make beef unaffordable.
If California (or any State) truly cares about the treatment of animals, they need to do it with every beast, not just chickens, who, in the greater scheme of things, have it much better than cattle.
Furthermore, standing by principle means, if they must give up something because of their stated belief, then that is the course of action to take.
I do not eat veal. You know why? It's how the calves and heifers are treated. I saw it first hand. IOW, California needs to stand by their values. If enough people refuse eggs from industries that mistreat chickens, chickens will soon live in luxury.
Just my opinion.
I think the answer re: consumers is that some are, some aren’t.
I do believe the treatment of chickens and pigs got way out of control. A couple of standards will allow farms to give them a bit more room without being priced out of the market.
BTW—vegetarians would reduce our world largely to soy beans and human beings. I want plenty of animals to thrive and be eaten or produce eggs or dairy—but also not to be tortured during their often-brief lives.
As they say, hard cases make bad law.
Steve King is trying to get this legislation passed not for benefit of the consumers of Iowa eggs, but the farmers. If the farmers were smart, they'd clear out a section of their farms and dedicate it to the production of cage free or free range chickens. There will be a huge demand for those eggs at premium prices once the California law takes full effect.
The bottom line question is this: Do you think the state should be involved in telling people how to run their farms?
The state is, of course, already doing that in lots of areas, so we’re talking about MORE state control. I don’t recall if the tobacco allotment was a state or federal program, but imagine them then telling you how many chickens you could have for your size of farm. Then imagine them giving you an allotment of chickens. Then imagine them controlling the price.
I don’t think these imaginings are out of line, either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.