Interstate Commerce, Eggs And Humane Farming

[Travis]

Issue: California passed a law mandating that chickens on factory farms must have room to spread out and turn around in their cages. It was decided that 200 square inches per egg laying hen would be sufficient. This law was passed in 2008 and is to go into effect in 2015. This law would apply to all eggs purchased in California so farmers in other states who would like to sell eggs in California would also have to comply.

Enter congressman Steve King from Iowa who has led an effort to pass a law that would disallow California from doing so.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-imposing-its-egg-laws-on-farmers-nationwide/
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/...-farm-bill-california-20130619,0,877175.story

There are already over 150 laws passed by various states that regulate imported products that could be nullified if Steve King's new law is allowed to stand. Five other states also have laws regarding humane farming practices that would be among the laws nullified.

So, should a state have the right to regulate items imported into their state or should a federal law banning such practices be allowed to stand?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

This was attempted last year as well, but this time the entire farm bill failed, though for other reasons.

Anyway, King's interpretation of the Commerce Clause is too restrictive. States can have interstate regulations, as long as they have a proper interest. This is probably why the law extending Prop 2 started out by saying the eggs are healthier and safer. Here is an anti-HSUS analysis that is fairly balanced.

Happy Eggs are just as silly as Happy Meat, and this is another explicit example of a "humane" society working with industry (they are working on a national bill) to create the most ludicrously minor of "victories".

It is also quite vague, to the extent that some people thought Proposition 2 was about free-range, but I don't know if that is a Constitutional issue. It does make analysis quite annoying.

 

[Ziggurat]

Anyway, King's interpretation of the Commerce Clause is too restrictive. States can have interstate regulations, as long as they have a proper interest.

I think you are correct that California has the power to pass this. But it seems to me that Congress also has the power to supersede California with federal legislation. California cannot over-rule federal law, so if federal law specifically prohibits such a regulation, then that's that. As far as I can tell, King's "interpretation" only regards intent of the founders, not the actual legal extent of the constitution itself. After all, if the constitution prohibited this California law, then there'd be no need to pass a law to counteract it, the courts could do that instead. So passing a law is pretty much an admission that California can do so until the Feds explicitly say they cannot. And on that score, I believe he's correct.

 

[iangoeswest]

After all, if the constitution prohibited this California law, then there'd be no need to pass a law to counteract it, the courts could do that instead. So passing a law is pretty much an admission that California can do so until the Feds explicitly say they cannot. And on that score, I believe he's correct.

Not an "admission" per se - perhaps he's just playing it safe; why wait for a court to strike down the law - or not? Also, 'to a guy with a hammer, all problems are about nails,' which is to say that that I would expect a Representative to try to pass laws to further his own legislative agenda, rather than relying on the Courts to act.

At any rate, this is an area of some vagueness in Constitutional doctrine, such that one cannot know for sure whether the law does or doesn't run afoul (a-fowl?) of the Constitution.

Folks interested in this issue can read the wiki on the "Dormant Commerce Clause," being the applicable Constitutional principle. In short, Congress' power to regulate commerce between the states implies that the States lack that same power; put another way, States cannot do things which create barriers to interstate commerce. Such trade barriers were one reason the Articles of Confederation failed - America didn't "work" as an entity when getting my wagonload of cotton from the field in Georgia meant having to pay a tax at every State border to get to the mill in New York. Congress' plenary power to regulate commerce was in part designed to address this issue.

Now, the rub is that while "facially discriminatory" burdens are generally forbidden from the jump (we can't pass a law that says "only California eggs may be sold in California), States may pass regulations that are not facially discriminatory but have only an "incidental" burden on interstate commerce. The test is a balancing one - the legitimate local interest vs. the burden on interstate commerce.

This isn't a question susceptible to one certain answer - How do we balance California's "interest" in eggs from slightly larger cages versus Iowa's "burden" in losing some portion of the California market? it's asking whether this stick is as long as that rock is heavy.

In this respect, Rep. King is representing his slightly-more-than-us factory farmer constituents in seeking this law, as he should. Other States will oppose such laws, as they should, and the democratic process will do its thing. Independent of that, there will be a Court challenge to California's scheme, and who knows how that shakes out? California's auto emission standards were found constitutional. Iowa's law forbidding triple-tandem trucks was not. Perhaps Rep. King will get luckier on the second try.

 

[Brainster]

California should be allowed to pass its own laws regarding farms inside the state. However, it is ludicrous for them to pass laws regarding farms outside California. And the 200 SF per chicken is hilarious.

 

[WildCat]

California should be allowed to pass its own laws regarding farms inside the state. However, it is ludicrous for them to pass laws regarding farms outside California. And the 200 SF per chicken is hilarious.

It's square inches, not square feet.

 

[Mitchell314]

California should be allowed to pass its own laws regarding farms inside the state. However, it is ludicrous for them to pass laws regarding farms outside California. And the 200 SF per chicken is hilarious.

Uh, no. According to the fine article, it's roughly 1.4 square feet (200 square inches). That's a 14"*14" box, or a circle of a diameter of 16".

 

[Loss Leader]

Are there federal regulations regarding the raising of egg-laying chickens? If so, the California law might be DOA. Or it might not. States generally can get more restrictive than the feds but not less. Except when case law says otherwise.

In any case, a federal law directly on point would nullify the state law instantly.

Since the purpose of CA's statute isn't clearly to exclude out of state eggs, it at least has a chance of surviving. If the purpose were to interfere with interstate commerce for no reason other than to favor the home state's products, it would be unconstitutional. Thus, levies on out-of-state milk in NY were unconstitutional.

It's not a simple issue.

 

[Travis]

California should be allowed to pass its own laws regarding farms inside the state. However, it is ludicrous for them to pass laws regarding farms outside California. And the 200 SF per chicken is hilarious.

Well California isn't attempting to tell other states how to raise chickens. It is merely saying if you want to sell them in California then they have to abide by their laws. They can always choose to not sell eggs in California and never adhere to the new provisions.

Imagine if Kentucky passed a law requiring air bag seat belts in smaller cars. Well those small cars are likely built in other states. So is Kentucky allowed to make a law regarding a car produced in other states?

 

[marplots]

Well California isn't attempting to tell other states how to raise chickens. It is merely saying if you want to sell them in California then they have to abide by their laws. They can always choose to not sell eggs in California and never adhere to the new provisions.

Imagine if Kentucky passed a law requiring air bag seat belts in smaller cars. Well those small cars are likely built in other states. So is Kentucky allowed to make a law regarding a car produced in other states?

Sure. Kentucky could say that no cars without that feature could be sold in the state. But California isn't regulating anything about the eggs themselves, but about the chickens that lay those eggs.

Unless, maybe they can compare two eggs in a blind test and say, "This one here is from a 200 square inch chicken and that one isn't." Otherwise, they are somehow regulating the history of the egg, which seems very odd.

 

[Travis]

Sure. Kentucky could say that no cars without that feature could be sold in the state. But California isn't regulating anything about the eggs themselves, but about the chickens that lay those eggs.

Unless, maybe they can compare two eggs in a blind test and say, "This one here is from a 200 square inch chicken and that one isn't." Otherwise, they are somehow regulating the history of the egg, which seems very odd.

Okay, so Kentucky passes a law that says cars sold in the state cannot be made by workers who don't wear adequate breathing protection. Then they set up a board to certify car producers (wherever they are located) that wish to sell their product in Kentucky are in compliance and give them a license to sell their products in the state should they meet such regulations.

 

[marplots]

Okay, so Kentucky passes a law that says cars sold in the state cannot be made by workers who don't wear adequate breathing protection. Then they set up a board to certify car producers (wherever they are located) that wish to sell their product in Kentucky are in compliance and give them a license to sell their products in the state should they meet such regulations.

I'd agree that you now have a more accurate parallel. Which means I don't think Kentucky should be able to do this version for the same reason I don't think California should be able to regulate egg sales based on the history of the egg instead of some material difference in the egg itself.

But, it's not like there isn't precedence for doing it. Blood diamonds are an example, as would products disallowed because they were made in sweat shops. I don't know if there is an example of this happening between states, but I assume it would come up with any product needed specific licenses or certification. So, for example, in Michigan I was told I couldn't sell eggs without doing Salmonella testing on them (I never did, so don't know the details). If California had such a requirement, then they could disallow out-of-state eggs that didn't have the certification.

Where I become troubled is the step that says there's some measurable difference between egg A and egg B, based on the amount of room a chicken has to maneuver. Seems like a necessary step to me.

 

[ravdin]

Seems to me that California has the power to regulate chicken cages in California, as long as there's no contradiction with federal law. But it is ludicrous for California to attempt to regulate interstate commerce. I can see the reasoning- obviously the law will be disastrous for California chicken farmers who must compete with producers from other states. The best solution for California that I can see is to admit that the law is ill conceived and repeal it.

 

[Travis]

I'd agree that you now have a more accurate parallel. Which means I don't think Kentucky should be able to do this version for the same reason I don't think California should be able to regulate egg sales based on the history of the egg instead of some material difference in the egg itself.

But, it's not like there isn't precedence for doing it. Blood diamonds are an example, as would products disallowed because they were made in sweat shops. I don't know if there is an example of this happening between states, but I assume it would come up with any product needed specific licenses or certification. So, for example, in Michigan I was told I couldn't sell eggs without doing Salmonella testing on them (I never did, so don't know the details). If California had such a requirement, then they could disallow out-of-state eggs that didn't have the certification.

Where I become troubled is the step that says there's some measurable difference between egg A and egg B, based on the amount of room a chicken has to maneuver. Seems like a necessary step to me.

Nobody claims there is a difference between the eggs that I know of.

Seems to me that California has the power to regulate chicken cages in California, as long as there's no contradiction with federal law. But it is ludicrous for California to attempt to regulate interstate commerce. I can see the reasoning- obviously the law will be disastrous for California chicken farmers who must compete with producers from other states. The best solution for California that I can see is to admit that the law is ill conceived and repeal it.

Well repealing it would be the best move if California is not allowed to apply the same standards to all such products sold in the state. I wish Feinstein luck in getting a national standard set that can remove at least a bit of cruelty from the egg laying business.

 

[Brainster]

It's square inches, not square feet.

Certainly less ridiculous; that's what comes from spending a life in a field where square is always followed by feet.

 

[Brainster]

Nobody claims there is a difference between the eggs that I know of.

Well repealing it would be the best move if California is not allowed to apply the same standards to all such products sold in the state. I wish Feinstein luck in getting a national standard set that can remove at least a bit of cruelty from the egg laying business.

How about removing the affordability of chickens/eggs from the means of everyday Americans? Are you in favor of that?

Chickens are incredibly stupid and in many ways cruel animals. It is fortunate for them that they taste great and are easy to raise, because otherwise people would have killed them off long ago.

If you really want to save the chickens from their awful cruel masters, buy free range eggs. I suspect, however, you will not want to pay the price-- about 50% higher.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

How about removing the affordability of chickens/eggs from the means of everyday Americans? Are you in favor of that?

My god, the dystopian Hellscape!

Chickens are incredibly stupid and in many ways cruel animals. It is fortunate for them that they taste great and are easy to raise, because otherwise people would have killed them off long ago.

Chickens are quite intelligent and in many ways empathic animals. The term "mother hen" was not born ex nihilo. Obviously we probably need a baseline of comparison, but here is a linky nevertheless. And normally we don't consider relative intelligence in ethic decision making anyway.

If you really want to save the chickens from their awful cruel masters, buy free range eggs. I suspect, however, you will not want to pay the price-- about 50% higher.

Or you could not eat them at all, instead of going for "less cruel".

 

[casebro]

Californis used to tax cars imported from other states. It was in addition to a 'use tax', which was basically a sales tax on incoming cars. The 'smog tax' was $300 per car. The courts held it to be an un-lawful restriction on interstate commerce. (but CA was allowed to keep the money).

FSM, I hate the politics in this state.