I was taken aback by Duane Stateler’s Oct. 11 op-ed, “Pork prices are rising thanks to California — Congress can fix it.” Like Stateler, I am a multi-generation farmer. My family has raised livestock and grain on the same Missouri land for over a century. But although we share a love for farming, we part ways on what’s best for America’s independent hog producers. 

California’s Proposition 12, which set higher welfare standards for animals sold in that state, isn’t a threat to farmers like me. In fact, it’s one of the few market opportunities that’s actually helping us stay on our land and make a fair living.

It’s no surprise that Stateler would take this position; as president of the National Pork Producers Council, he represents an organization that calls itself “the global voice for the U.S. pork industry.” In practice, that means advocating for the largest corporate pork producers and processors. But there is another voice in this fight, that of the independent family farmers — the men and women who raise hogs, sheep and cattle on their own land, care for their animals, and keep rural America alive.

California’s Proposition 12 doesn’t ban pork production or impose arbitrary rules. It simply sets minimum space standards for all animals sold into California’s market — enough room to stand, lie down and turn around. California isn’t dictating how farmers operate. Voters there simply chose to support higher animal welfare standards with their dollars — something farmers like me can meet if we’re given a fair shot. That’s the free market at work, and it’s precisely what independent farmers depend on.

What’s really at stake here is control — who gets to shape the future of farming: independent producers or corporate packers? The same corporate interests that claim to defend farmers from regulation are actually consolidating our industry and blocking us from accessing the market. Their philosophy is “get in line or get out.” When they talk about “uniform standards,” they mean a system where they hold all the power — where it’s acceptable to confine a sow (a mother pig) in a two-by-seven-foot cage for most of her life.

Critics claim that Proposition 12 has driven pork prices sky-high, but the facts tell a different story. Since enforcement began in January 2024, retail pork chop prices in California have risen just 6.6 percent — a normal, short-term adjustment as supply catches up with demand. The headline-grabbing 41 percent increase happened years earlier, long before Proposition 12 took effect, during pandemic-era market corrections following record-low 2019 hog prices. Blaming Proposition 12 for inflation is like blaming the weatherman for the storm.

Some say this law undermines interstate commerce. The Supreme Court already weighed that claim and upheld the law, affirming what farmers have long understood: States have the power to decide what products can be sold within their borders. That principle isn’t government overreach — it’s federalism in action, the very balance our system was designed to protect.

Yet Congress is now considering the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and the Save Our Bacon Act — rebranded versions of the failed EATS Act — that would strip states of that authority. These bills would tell voters and consumers that their choices don’t matter when corporate lobbyists object.

Critics also insist Proposition 12 hurts small farmers. The truth is, it’s one of the few policies giving us a fighting chance. Between 1980 and 2022, the number of U.S. hog farms fell by more than 70 percent, even as total production rose — a collapse not caused by animal welfare laws, but by corporate consolidation, weak antitrust enforcement, and vertically integrated packers like China’s Smithfield and Brazil’s JBS.

Proposition 12 changes that by creating a premium market for farmers raising hogs in higher-welfare systems. About 27 percent of producers are already compliant — family operations investing in the future, who deserve a fair shot at that market and don’t need Congress to strip them of their livelihoods and investments.

The real risk is the industrial model pushed by the National Pork Producers Council — a system that concentrates production, crushes competition and leaves rural communities hollowed out. When a few multinational corporations control nearly all slaughter capacity, one plant closure can ripple through the entire supply chain. That setup doesn’t make our food system resilient; it makes it dangerously fragile.

I respect every farmer who works hard to care for their animals and feed their neighbors. But the National Pork Producers Council doesn’t speak for me — or for the thousands of independent farmers who see Proposition 12 as a lifeline — an opportunity to compete fairly and stay in business.

We don’t need Congress to “fix” Proposition 12. We need Congress to fix the broken markets that have pushed farmers like me to the brink.

Joe Maxwell is a fourth-generation Missouri hog farmer and president of Farm Action Fund.

Reverberations of the federal government shutdown, now in its second week, are starting to be felt by certain segments of Americans, hinting at problems that could deepen for the public if Congress cannot reach a funding agreement soon.

In some Native American communities, key medical services, such as diabetes monitoring and telehealth sessions, have been curtailed or canceled. Veterans no longer have access to career counseling or regional benefits offices. Taxpayers rushing to meet a Wednesday deadline for extended filing are going to have to wait on hold because fewer Internal Revenue Service customer service agents are working to answer questions.

In addition, many of the country’s fruit and vegetable farmers face hurdles in planning for next year’s crops because there is so much uncertainty about what federal assistance they can expect. Large segments of the federal work force on Friday received what will be their last paycheck until the government reopens.

And the Trump administration said on Friday that more than 4,000 federal employees will be laid off in a new round of mass firings, a maneuver that is already facing a legal challenge.

As the strains deepen, the fallout has so far done little to tip the scales in Washington, where Republicans and Democrats are locked in a standoff over how to extend funding to keep the government open.

President Trump has sought to ramp up the pressure on Democrats by cutting or pausing billions in funding for Democratic jurisdictions and intensifying his threats to overhaul the federal bureaucracy. This week, he publicly mulled denying legally mandated back pay to some federal workers, inserting more anxiety into a work force that has faced stress and uncertainty since he returned to the Oval Office.

“Most of them are going to get back pay, and we’re going to try and make sure of that,” Mr. Trump said on Wednesday. “But some of them are being hurt very badly by the Democrats and they therefore won’t qualify.”

The White House did not respond directly to a question seeking to clarify what the president meant, instead issuing a statement blaming Democrats for the shutdown.

About 600,000 federal workers are furloughed because of the shutdown. Others are working without pay because they hold jobs the administration considers critical to protecting property and keeping people safe.

Employees at the General Services Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services were among those who received their last paychecks on Friday, which were smaller than usual because the pay period included four days of the shutdown.

Others, including employees at the National Park Service, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Drug Enforcement Administration, are expected to see a similarly partial, final paycheck next week. Federal workers are required by law to be paid back once the government reopens.

Yolanda Jacobs, a single mother of three, said getting furloughed from her job as a health specialist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention meant she had to immediately cut back on spending. She said her family liked to go to the movies once a week. “That stops until the shutdown ends,” she said. “Eating out — that’s out of the question.”

Ms. Jacobs, the president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 2883, has worked at the agency since 2004 and weathered several shutdowns over the years. This one, however is different, she said.

“We’ve never had a shutdown before where federal employees have been used as bargaining chips,” she said, adding that it was taking an especially hard toll on C.D.C. workers who were already under stress. A gunman attacked the agency’s Atlanta headquarters in August.

Among the furloughed workers are those who administer grants and oversee programs relied upon by states and communities.

The Indian Health Service is one of the federal agencies that continue to operate during a lapse in funding, but some federal employees who support its programs are not working. In California, that has interfered with the ability of caregivers to submit reports and get approval for reimbursements, said Nanette Star, the director of policy and planning for the California Consortium for Urban Indian Health. This has already had an impact on diabetic American Indians and Alaska Natives in California who rely on the program for health monitoring, she said.

“Indian Country is the canary in the coal mine,” said Larry Wright Jr., the executive director of the National Congress of American Indians. Federal funds often make up a greater share of revenue for Native American tribes than for state governments, because of a longstanding federal trust role for Native lands, he noted, adding, “When the government shuts down, tribes feel it first.”

The shutdown has also scrambled planning for American farmers, many of whom were beginning to make decisions about next year’s crops. Those plans depend on information only the federal government can provide, such as what loans, farm and conservation payments will be available and specific market data to help make decisions about what to plant.

Stu Swanson, who grows corn and soybeans in north-central Iowa, said that because the federal employees who work at the local Agriculture Department office are furloughed, he was not able to get a low-interest loan he counts on when planning for the coming year. As a result, he said he recently had to go to a bank and borrow money at a higher rate.

“As we end one season, we have to already be planning the next one,” said Joe Maxwell, a Missouri-based farmer who raises sheep and grows grains. “We’re under a heck of a lot of financial stress, and now we don’t have information or the tools or programs we need to even know if there’s going to be a next year on our farm.”

It has been a particularly difficult year for farmers already because of the president’s trade war, said Mr. Maxwell, who serves as the president of the Farm Action Fund, a group that fights agriculture monopolies. In addition, about 25 percent of the nation’s farmers rely on the Affordable Care Act for insurance, he said, and they cannot afford for their health care costs to triple at the end of the year if Congress does not extend the tax breaks that help pay for the coverage.

The cost of health care is at the center of the congressional impasse that led to the shutdown. As of Friday, there was still no sign of a path to a compromise.

Officials are keeping a close eye on flight delays to see if more air traffic controllers are calling out sick than usual and causing lags. The controllers are forced to work during a shutdown without pay.

While there have been some scattered reports of staffing problems at air traffic control towers, the cause and severity are unclear. Union officials have said that there is no organized effort among the country’s nearly 11,000 certified controllers to protest the shutdown by not showing up to work and noted that there was already a national shortage of controllers.

In some cases, federal offices that continued to operate during the first week of the shutdown have started to furlough employees as carry-over funds from the last fiscal year dried up.

Some employees at the Environmental Protection Agency’s air and water offices, who oversee the safety of drinking water, were told late Wednesday that they could not work until the government reopened, according to an email to staff members shared with The New York Times.

After operating during the first week of the shutdown by tapping into a separate pot of funding, the I.R.S. laid off about half of its staff on Wednesday. Nearly 40,000 employees will continue to work to prepare for next year’s tax season, but they will not be paid.

Federal workers who issue permits for a range of projects, such as building a bridge or other construction that affects natural resources like wetlands, are also furloughed. If the shutdown lasts weeks or months, that will cause considerable delays in projects across the country.

“The longer the government is shut, the more likely construction employment around the country could be impacted negatively,” Jeffrey D. Shoaf, the chief executive of the Associated General Contractors of America, said in a recent statement.

Money for grocery vouchers for millions of low-income mothers and children also hangs in the balance, and the Trump administration is considering novel solutions to fill that funding gap until the government reopens.

Renee Willis, the president and chief executive of the National Low Income Housing Coalition, said the shutdown was a spectacle “at the expense of the most vulnerable people in our nation.”

The war over California’s Proposition 12, which requires that pork sold in the state come from animals raised under certain conditions, was in bold relief this week in Washington.

The National Pork Producers Council brought more than 100 pork producers from 20 states to urge Congress to pass a measure to stop Prop 12, which went into effect in January 2024. NPPC says Prop 12 “is driving up costs for consumers, threatening small family farms, and disrupting interstate commerce.”

In addition to meeting with members of Congress and White House officials, NPPC on Wednesday sponsored a food truck on Capitol Hill, serving breakfast to lawmakers, staff, and media. The food truck was branded with the message “Breakfast is Essential. So is Fixing Prop 12.”

Meanwhile, Farm Action and Farm Action Fund bought ads across Union Station and Reagan Airport, hired a mobile billboard to circle the Capitol and sent postcards in every legislator’s mailbox saying, “Thank you for supporting Prop 12.”

While NPPC says Prop 12 is putting family farmers out of business, Farm Action says “compliant farmers have adapted and are now benefiting from a more stable, premium market.”

“At a recent House Agriculture Committee hearing on Prop 12, farmers were shut out while corporate lobbyists dominated, underscoring why we are taking our message straight to Washington,” Farm Action said in a news release.

Congress continues to contemplate federal legislation that would address California’s Proposition 12.

Joe Maxwell, president of the political action group Farm Action Fund, says eliminating the measure would be detrimental to the nation’s independent hog farmers because it has created a vital market opportunity.

“We’re raising our hogs without crates. That’s what Californians want.”  He says, “We’ve changed our practices. It’s paying us a premium and keeping our farms going, and we want Congress to not pick winners and losers.”

Duane Statler, president of the National Pork Producers Council, says the livestock confinement law could open the door to a patchwork of state regulations.

“We knew there would be producers that would want to fill that niche, but to mandate it upon everybody, that’s where we feel as though it’s an infringement,” he says.

Maxwell tells Brownfield that states have the right to govern their food systems.

“For over a year now, heading into two years, Proposition 12 has been in effect, and none of that chaos they talked about happened.”  He says, “Rather, farmers changed their practices and are shipping hogs to meet that demand.”

Stateler says research shows Prop 12 has also raised prices for consumers across California.

“Prices are up 20% on average, and some of the costs are up 30 to 40% on particular cuts, especially pork loins,” he says.

Lawmakers in Congress are considering the Food Security and Farm Protection Act and the Save Our Bacon Act, which would both prevent states from creating different standards for livestock production if those products are sold in interstate commerce, as part of the ongoing farm bill discussions.

Tension filled the room at the U.S. House Agriculture Committee hearing Wednesday morning as representatives debated the ramifications of California’s Proposition 12 on farmers and consumers nationwide. 

The committee discussed the proposition’s national effects on the cost of pork, veal and eggs and agricultural production. The hearing comes after the Trump administration sued California for its regulations of eggs, claiming three state laws — Prop. 12 included — are contributing to the increase in prices.

Under Prop. 12, farmers nationwide face requirements for raising pigs, calves and chickens if they want to sell their products in California. The initiative was approved by voters in 2018 and went into full effect in 2024.

During the hearing, various Agriculture Committee members voiced opposition and support for Proposition 12. 

Opponents on the panel claimed the law is raising prices nationwide because farmers in other states are spending money to rebuild their facilities to meet Prop. 12 standards. They also argue the state law has not achieved its main purpose: protecting animals’ health. 

“When I visited family farms in my district, they noted that the system has caused increased stress, injury for the animal, mortality, while limiting individualized animal care,” U.S. Rep. Randy Feenstra, R-Indiana, said during the hearing. 

Matt Schuiteman, a farmer and a board member at the Iowa Farm Bureau, told the House committee that Prop. 12 forces farmers to care for their animals in a way that leaves them worse off. He noted farmers have first-hand knowledge that the politicians who crafted the initiative lacked.

“What Proposition 12 does is it takes away our ability to act on what we know is for the best interest of the animal,” Schuiteman said. “Maybe it has been settled in other places, but it has not been settled in Iowa, and we would prefer to have the freedom to manage our animals the best way we can see fit, for the best possible outcome.”

The Center for Environment and Welfare, a private think tank involved with animal welfare and environmental issues, told The Center Square Wednesday it agreed with claims accusing Prop. 12 of harming animals.

“The animal activists say Proposition 12 would be better for the animals, but that’s not necessarily true in all cases,” William Coggin, the center’s research director, said. “It has taken tools away from farmers and veterinarians.” 

U.S. Rep. Jim Costa, D-California, who supports Proposition 12, blamed tariffs and other elements for raising prices.

“Tariffs are a tax on American consumers, American producers, American agricultural producers, and that leads to higher food costs,” Costa said during the hearing. 

Supporters of Proposition 12 noted the initiative was passed by California voters. Therefore, they said, if Congress tried to overrule the law by passing its own bill, that would interfere with the will of the people.

The Center for Environment and Welfare, however, released a poll that showed 44% of California voters, a plurality, said they would not vote for Proposition 12 if it were on the ballot tomorrow. A majority of the poll’s respondents — 60%  — said they supportied the state Legislature modifying Prop. 12 to reduce prices. The survey polled 458 registered voters.

Farm Action Fund, a nonpartisan organization, supports Proposition 12 and sent a letter to the House Agriculture Committee Wednesday, thanking members who support the initiative and urging the panel to reject efforts to overturn it. The letter was signed by independent hog farmers from a Farm Action Fund network. 

Farmers made a choice to comply with Prop. 12, Joe Maxwell, the president of Farm Action Fund, told The Center Square Wednesday 

“Proposition 12 did not mandate a Missouri farmer, or an Illinois farmer, or an Iowa farmer, to comply,” Maxwell said. “It just said if your pork is going to be sold in California, it must comply. Farmers that voluntarily wanted to comply, spent the money to do so.”

The Center for Environment and Welfare, on the other hand, said it believes California has the right to pass regulations only affecting farmers in California, not those in other states.

Patrick Hord, vice president of the National Pork Producers Council, testified at the hearing that it was not a viable or wise decision for states to not supply pork to California. The state produces only 0.1% of the nation’s pork, but consumes 13%.

Therefore, producers in other states must sell pork in California to meet the demand, Hord said.

“It would be really detrimental to us as pork producers and the pork chain to not supply that,” Hord said during the hearing. “In reality, it’s forcing the rest of the states to comply in order to raise that product for California.”