Bacon may disappear in California as pig rules take effect(fox5sandiego.com)
fox5sandiego.com
Bacon may disappear in California as pig rules take effect
https://fox5sandiego.com/news/california-news/bacon-may-disappear-in-california-as-pig-rules-take-effect/
141 comments
https://archive.md/zOtyh
"At the beginning of next year, California will begin enforcing an animal welfare proposition approved overwhelmingly by voters in 2018 that requires more space for breeding pigs, egg-laying chickens and veal calves. National veal and egg producers are optimistic they can meet the new standards, but only 4% of hog operations now comply with the new rules."
This is wonderful news. We're finally putting an end to an unethical factory farming practice - forcing animals to live in inhumanely cramped conditions.
There's little chance bacon will disappear from California. Instead, the price will probably go up:
"If half the pork supply was suddenly lost in California, bacon prices would jump 60%, meaning a $6 package would rise to about $9.60, according to a study by the Hatamiya Group, a consulting firm hired by opponents of the state proposition."
I'm totally fine with paying more for bacon if it means that pigs will be treated more humanely.
This is wonderful news. We're finally putting an end to an unethical factory farming practice - forcing animals to live in inhumanely cramped conditions.
There's little chance bacon will disappear from California. Instead, the price will probably go up:
"If half the pork supply was suddenly lost in California, bacon prices would jump 60%, meaning a $6 package would rise to about $9.60, according to a study by the Hatamiya Group, a consulting firm hired by opponents of the state proposition."
I'm totally fine with paying more for bacon if it means that pigs will be treated more humanely.
> I'm totally fine with paying more for bacon if it means that pigs will be treated more humanely.
The problem is that these price increases are regressive, and disproportionately affect the poor.
The problem is that these price increases are regressive, and disproportionately affect the poor.
Yes. But it also affects all pigs at 96% of pig farms.
Humans' rights to luxury meats should not exceed animals' rights to a humane existence.
Humans' rights to luxury meats should not exceed animals' rights to a humane existence.
Pork isn’t luxury, it’s really cheap. It’s almost in chicken territory with how cheap it is (where I live).
Isn’t the reason it is cheap is because they have really horrible living conditions? Organic meat where the animals are treated properly is expensive.
I was thinking more of bacon when I wrote that, but yes, pork is more staple. It doesn't change my opinion about the balance of rights though.
As a sibling comment says, disadvantaged families could receive additional benefits to offset meat price rises.
You could subsidise welfare improvements but pushing costs up has the benefit of allowing more environmentally beneficial alternatives to break through on value for all consumers.
As a sibling comment says, disadvantaged families could receive additional benefits to offset meat price rises.
You could subsidise welfare improvements but pushing costs up has the benefit of allowing more environmentally beneficial alternatives to break through on value for all consumers.
The answer to that is not to abandon higher standards that result in higher prices: it is to help the poor directly, in a variety of other ways.
the answer you are suggesting has higher deadweight losses to the economy and will make the poor (and everybody else) worse off, full stop. In exchange for which you claim a hypothesized benefit to pigs which I don't believe and also don't believe you have a basis for believing, and which sits on a very shaky foundation, see Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene"
yes, but when you do one without the other, you're making poor people's life harder. People care about animals more I guess.
Please go to therapy and learn about healthy boundaries. You have a savior complex that hurts the people you supposedly want to help.
OP is not poor and thus is totally fine with paying more
Sounds like the pig-farming industry is trying to get some of that sweet subsidy money by waiting until the last minute to do anything. Don’t blame them from business side but totally avoidable of course
Or they intentionally want to cause a supply shock, to punish California voters for trying to improve animal welfare, and to deter other states from doing the same.
Or the cost of the changes are not compatible with their business model and it’s more profitable to not make changes and export what would have gone to california.
Could be. I think the pork industry probably believes this is a temporary anomaly that they can overcome with lobbyists and lawyers. Or that California voters will reverse themselves once bacon costs $10 a pound. If that's true, they wouldn't want to invest for that short time horizon.
If a similar rule were adopted nationwide, I'm sure they could make changes and pass the price increases along to the consumer.
If a similar rule were adopted nationwide, I'm sure they could make changes and pass the price increases along to the consumer.
Related: Norwegian pig farmers have had some really bad press lately
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https...
(also, I note Google translates "the meat-bosses" into "the butchers")
(also, I note Google translates "the meat-bosses" into "the butchers")
Seems like some farmers who do comply with the regulations will see good profits from bacon sales for a while.
This is great for consumers worldwide short term as prices will fall. Expensive for California customers. The best thing for animals and if this spreads everyone will be on an equal playing field until than Californians will lead by example.. I predict bacon falling out of popularity quickly.
I wonder at what point it makes sense for the federal government to step in when state laws end up substantially hindering interstate trade. This isn't the standard American communication method where I'm actually insinuating that it's time right now by implying that; I just recognize that there is some point between "completely unrestricted trade" and "you're not allowed to trade with anyone in another state" that the federal government should probably get involved and override state laws restricting trade.
Obviously for firearms the federal government takes a pretty heavy involvement. I wonder where the line should be for food? Animal welfare is a pretty contentious issue.
Obviously for firearms the federal government takes a pretty heavy involvement. I wonder where the line should be for food? Animal welfare is a pretty contentious issue.
Are you thinking sanctions for states who prohibit cannabis trade?
Marijuana trade is already federally illegal in all 50 states and territories while many states have majorly unrestricted it, so that would be the opposite of what I'm talking about.
In this case, California is restricting trade in pork not raised to their opinions of what constitutes humane treatment. Federal standards are obviously less restrictive.
It's within federal jurisdiction to override the California law to permit California people to buy non-CA-compliant pork from Iowa.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out if California continues on its "ban everything" trajectory.
Bacon may not be the hill to die on, but food trade in general is possibly one of the things that could trigger federal intervention if enough leaf nodes get perturbed.
In this case, California is restricting trade in pork not raised to their opinions of what constitutes humane treatment. Federal standards are obviously less restrictive.
It's within federal jurisdiction to override the California law to permit California people to buy non-CA-compliant pork from Iowa.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out if California continues on its "ban everything" trajectory.
Bacon may not be the hill to die on, but food trade in general is possibly one of the things that could trigger federal intervention if enough leaf nodes get perturbed.
> Marijuana trade is already federally illegal in all 50 states and territories…
Interesting fact, the Federal government doesn’t have the power to make marijuana illegal, so instead the federal government taxes it, you just don’t see them offer very many tax stamps for it. That said the federal government does in fact grow and distribute marijuana to select individuals they approved under a compassionate care program. Few patients under the program are still alive, but one patient I knew received 300 pre-rolled joints from the federal government every month for over 3 decades.
>It's within federal jurisdiction to override the California law to permit California people to buy non-CA-compliant pork from Iowa.
That is a big legal “maybe”. The federal government can usually set regulatory minimums and the states usually have the right to set higher standards. If the federal government can show California’s law effects interstate commerce then the federal government might have supremacy under the commerce clause, but these cases are typically always decided 5-4 by the Supreme Court (and if the learned Justices can’t agree it is unlikely we would make much progress here on HN). Not coincidentally the commerce clause is how the federal government finds its power to regulate marijuana too.
Interesting fact, the Federal government doesn’t have the power to make marijuana illegal, so instead the federal government taxes it, you just don’t see them offer very many tax stamps for it. That said the federal government does in fact grow and distribute marijuana to select individuals they approved under a compassionate care program. Few patients under the program are still alive, but one patient I knew received 300 pre-rolled joints from the federal government every month for over 3 decades.
>It's within federal jurisdiction to override the California law to permit California people to buy non-CA-compliant pork from Iowa.
That is a big legal “maybe”. The federal government can usually set regulatory minimums and the states usually have the right to set higher standards. If the federal government can show California’s law effects interstate commerce then the federal government might have supremacy under the commerce clause, but these cases are typically always decided 5-4 by the Supreme Court (and if the learned Justices can’t agree it is unlikely we would make much progress here on HN). Not coincidentally the commerce clause is how the federal government finds its power to regulate marijuana too.
> the Federal government doesn’t have the power to make marijuana illegal
It does and it has, under the Controlled Substances Act (or, at least manufacturing, distribution, moving across state lines, selling, etc., or possession for any of those purposes.)
> so instead the federal government taxes it
It used to under the Marijuana Tax Act, which the Controlled Substances Act replaced. But that was motivated more by leveraging propaganda about marijuana as an excuse to destroy the hemp industry than as a backdoor ban on marijuana (though it was also that.)
It does and it has, under the Controlled Substances Act (or, at least manufacturing, distribution, moving across state lines, selling, etc., or possession for any of those purposes.)
> so instead the federal government taxes it
It used to under the Marijuana Tax Act, which the Controlled Substances Act replaced. But that was motivated more by leveraging propaganda about marijuana as an excuse to destroy the hemp industry than as a backdoor ban on marijuana (though it was also that.)
As long as in-state farmers are required to follow the same rules as others, I don’t know what anyone could legitimately complain about?
If the people of California, through their democratically elected government, establish stricter rules to protect the air they breath or animal welfare, then it’s all working as intended.
Guns really are the counterexample here, as plenty of communities, including the US as a whole according to polling, would chose to restrict private gun ownership to varying degrees. It’s prevented from doing so by a minority that is opposed and a Supreme Court that suddenly decided a few years ago that when the constitution talks about “well-regulated militias”, it really wants to establish an individual right.
If the people of California, through their democratically elected government, establish stricter rules to protect the air they breath or animal welfare, then it’s all working as intended.
Guns really are the counterexample here, as plenty of communities, including the US as a whole according to polling, would chose to restrict private gun ownership to varying degrees. It’s prevented from doing so by a minority that is opposed and a Supreme Court that suddenly decided a few years ago that when the constitution talks about “well-regulated militias”, it really wants to establish an individual right.
I mean, the phrase "right of the people" occurs in 2A after the term "militia", so regardless of where you fall on the gun rights/control spectrum, the SCOTUS decision isn't entirely unreasonable or whole-cloth fabrication.
Additionally, the "minority that is opposed" is only a small minority. It's not clear cut. Gun rights will ultimately be a good test of US democracy in the long run.
I don't think they're a counterexample because when you trade in firearms between states, the actual interstate transfer must occur between federally licensed entities. The seller takes the gun to a federal licensee in their own state, who mails it to a federal licensee in the destination state, who transfers it to the purchaser. The federal government is expressly authorized to regulate interstate commerce.
Voters in California can't regulate animal welfare in Iowa; all they can do is ban trade in out-of-state animal products that are not compliant. The federal government can override those in-state decisions via the commerce clause, as I (not a lawyer!) understand it.
Additionally, the "minority that is opposed" is only a small minority. It's not clear cut. Gun rights will ultimately be a good test of US democracy in the long run.
I don't think they're a counterexample because when you trade in firearms between states, the actual interstate transfer must occur between federally licensed entities. The seller takes the gun to a federal licensee in their own state, who mails it to a federal licensee in the destination state, who transfers it to the purchaser. The federal government is expressly authorized to regulate interstate commerce.
Voters in California can't regulate animal welfare in Iowa; all they can do is ban trade in out-of-state animal products that are not compliant. The federal government can override those in-state decisions via the commerce clause, as I (not a lawyer!) understand it.
The farmers will either adapt or their business will fail. There’s gonna be a lot of wasted, rotten meat.
China is still recovering from nuking of their pork industry and vacuuming up all pork we can send them. Even if more states jump on bandwagon not much will change till we commit to not exporting unethical pork
[deleted]
A temporary reduction I'm sure
Yay, government is leveraging capitalism for less suffering of pigs. Now the price of pork will skyrocket and new enclosures will be built to make some of that Cali money.
Our European visitors are important to us.
This site is currently unavailable to visitors from the European Economic Area while we work to ensure your data is protected in accordance with applicable EU laws.
Perhaps at least some of the blame should be borne by your government and what some (clearly) view as onerous, economically nonviable, misinformed, and poorly executed regulations?
I am happy for them and can live fine without any sites that have blocked me like this so far.
> economically nonviable,
Please remember: Google was a massive success long before they started tracking people all over the web.
This isn't about being economically viable. This is to spite people because they are not content with not being able to squeeze the last few cents out each of us.
> economically nonviable,
Please remember: Google was a massive success long before they started tracking people all over the web.
This isn't about being economically viable. This is to spite people because they are not content with not being able to squeeze the last few cents out each of us.
At least be honest then instead of saying that.
They could check any one of thousands of websites not doing any such stunt to imitate.
I don't think I've ever seen a news website with no cookie warnings. Cookies are necessary for the functionality of the ad networks and analytics tools that news websites need to survive. Not to mention the rest of gdpr requirements.
I'm more inclined to blame the US government for a lackadaisical approach to privacy over here. I'd love GDPR-style protections for the apps and sites I use; implementing them on our apps was a pain, but made me jealous.
I know people at PC Engines, a Swiss company and they had to deal with GDPR a couple of years ago. The owner just said fuck it and put this up: https://pcengines.ch/privacy.htm
I am pro-privacy, and generally agree with well designed and targetted regulations. There should be provisions for making it easy for GDPR compliance for the little guy. There are none.
I am pro-privacy, and generally agree with well designed and targetted regulations. There should be provisions for making it easy for GDPR compliance for the little guy. There are none.
"Swiss law requires us to archive business data for 10+ years. This means that we do not have the right to 'forget' you."
This is a complete misunderstanding of GDPR, which carves out common-sense limitations for exactly this sort of scenario.
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/
> Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary... for compliance with a legal obligation which requires processing by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject...
A criminal in the EU can't go issue a "right to be forgotten" request to the prison system, for example. They have a legitimate reason to decline it.
This is a complete misunderstanding of GDPR, which carves out common-sense limitations for exactly this sort of scenario.
https://gdpr-info.eu/art-17-gdpr/
> Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to the extent that processing is necessary... for compliance with a legal obligation which requires processing by Union or Member State law to which the controller is subject...
A criminal in the EU can't go issue a "right to be forgotten" request to the prison system, for example. They have a legitimate reason to decline it.
No. I managed to comply with GDPR with 2 hours work on my eCommerce site.
That’s great for you, doesn’t mean companies want or need to comply. They’ve decided that it’s more worthwhile to block the EU instead of invest in complying with the GDPR. The EU knew this would happen.
Many of us don't complain about being blocked, we just poke fun at the ridiculously dishonest way they phrase it.
Please don’t bet the farm on having done that little bit of work. GDPR compliance is not something you can finish but instead you have to continually demonstrate. It involves hiring specialists and 8–14 week consultation delays before launching features.
It definitely doesn't. Nervous corporations may do that, but that's because they are nervous corporations.
FYI this article is from a random local tv station, so that there’s national traffic is probably rare let alone international.
It was fun for the first 6 months after GDPR enforcement started, but after 3 years they should just replace this with a middle finger emoji.
https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-health-califor...
I saw this though memeorandum.com (still goin', still heavy on the right wing sources)
I saw this though memeorandum.com (still goin', still heavy on the right wing sources)
GDPR has teeth! US companies are used to just paying a token fine and continuing to do whatever they want. They are completely dumbfounded that they are being assessed billions in fines when their creative interpretations of the law get overturned.
rytcio(1)
adamnemecek(1)
vimy(1)
[deleted]
I'm seeing pictures in my head of guys in trenchcoats hawking black market bacon. Deep down I think we all knew this was where California was headed.
I’m seeing the meat departments of grocers in western Nevada and Arizona becoming very busy, and lots of small vans in their parking lots around opening time.
Yet another "feel good" policy pushed for by rich progressives in California which makes them sleep better while hurting the lower and middle class.
I'm a vegetarian, so take this with a grain of salt, but not giving "pigs enough room to turn around and to extend their limbs" seems needlessly cruel. If you can't afford pork, it's not like there aren't cheap protein alternatives.
or better ways of pig farming, at least
The sad thing is this is all for a little bit of efficiency to get all the feces easily into a trough. Before most the cages could flat pack along walls so let pigs out for 15 minutes a day pack cages and run a front end loader up and down halls and hose it down. Housing 3-4 sows in a cage most likely one will get bullied a bit and produce some runts but acceptable losses to not treat an animal smarter than a dog like a meat factory.
Seems odd to describe this as just a "feel good" policy. The new regulations significantly improve the welfare of farm animals.
I don’t think people understand the cruelty of factory farming especially when it comes to pigs. If they saw it first hand, they would almost certainly support this legislation full stop. I love bacon but what we do to these animals is sick and I won’t support it.
WARNING GRAPHIC: https://youtu.be/XPGIMCmpfxU
WARNING GRAPHIC: https://youtu.be/XPGIMCmpfxU
I've seen it first hand. I have relatives that raise hogs in the midwest. I do not support this legislation.
I do love me some bacon though.
I do love me some bacon though.
Passed by an overwhelming majority of voters
The policy had overwhelming public support, including from the "lower" class.
[deleted]
Keep in mind the new standard sets breeding sow's enclosure to be no less than 24 sqft, (think 6x4 feet). I think it's a reasonable and humane standard to be met. It's a good thing the industry is under pressure due to this, and the benefits here outweigh the consequences of pork shortage and higher prices.
I wish there was some way to require meat eaters to at least visit a slaughterhouse every year to witness the animals that they eat getting slaughtered.
Even better would be if they had to slaughter some animals themselves rather than simply paying people to do it for them.
Farmers and slaughterhouse workers get desensitized to the slaughter of animals, but I suspect that if people didn't do it all the time but just, say, once or twice a year and saw what actually goes on in slaughterhouses most people would be horrified and many of them would turn vegetarian.
Even a single field trip to a slaughterhouse as a kid would probably make lifetime vegetarians out of a lot of people.
Most people don't want to think about what they're doing to animals (and certainly not witness, much less directly participate in it), though, so it would probably never happen.
Even better would be if they had to slaughter some animals themselves rather than simply paying people to do it for them.
Farmers and slaughterhouse workers get desensitized to the slaughter of animals, but I suspect that if people didn't do it all the time but just, say, once or twice a year and saw what actually goes on in slaughterhouses most people would be horrified and many of them would turn vegetarian.
Even a single field trip to a slaughterhouse as a kid would probably make lifetime vegetarians out of a lot of people.
Most people don't want to think about what they're doing to animals (and certainly not witness, much less directly participate in it), though, so it would probably never happen.
I've often argued this. I'm a meat eater, but have in the past slaughtered pigs and chickens myself. I've told people this, and they often express disgust, while happily munching on a hamburger or chicken wing.
As far as I'm concerned, if you're not willing to face up to the fact that you're killing a sentient animal to feed yourself, then you shouldn't be eating meat.
As far as I'm concerned, if you're not willing to face up to the fact that you're killing a sentient animal to feed yourself, then you shouldn't be eating meat.
i would soften this a bit. If you’re not willing to delegate the killing (fully understanding what it is) you should not eat meat.
I got where you’re coming from but meat is one of the most nutrients packed food you can eat. Also, evolutionary people did not become the top of the food chain by eating plants.
Yes, it’s terrible how animals are being treated and yes mass consumption of meat has some terrible side effects.
With that being said: do you think that in the wild a predator will think twice about killing and eating their pray? do you think that every person on Earth could turn vegetarian and be able to get a healthy diet tomorrow?
Yes, it’s terrible how animals are being treated and yes mass consumption of meat has some terrible side effects.
With that being said: do you think that in the wild a predator will think twice about killing and eating their pray? do you think that every person on Earth could turn vegetarian and be able to get a healthy diet tomorrow?
> do you think that every person on Earth could turn vegetarian and be able to get a healthy diet tomorrow?
That’s an unrealistically high bar to set. Almost anyone can turn vegetarian and have a healthy diet today. Our agricultural sector regularly adjusts for changing tastes of the population, and while this adjustment doesn’t happen overnight it happens regularly.
That’s an unrealistically high bar to set. Almost anyone can turn vegetarian and have a healthy diet today. Our agricultural sector regularly adjusts for changing tastes of the population, and while this adjustment doesn’t happen overnight it happens regularly.
I strongly disagree. I would also like you to point me to resources that show you how to build such a diet.
Don’t get me wrong. Eating a mostly-plant based diet is okay and doable but I’m talking the last 5-10% territory.
Don’t get me wrong. Eating a mostly-plant based diet is okay and doable but I’m talking the last 5-10% territory.
I support this, and I suspect a more practical thing is that humane slaughterhouses will gain in popularity. A lot of the problem in our current era is how thoroughly you can outsource the job - but humanity has a large history of farmers/ranchers/hunters and their community being entirely willing to eat meat.
Also, this is what kosher/halal rules about slaughtering are trying to do. (There is some debate about how effective those specific rules are.)
Also, this is what kosher/halal rules about slaughtering are trying to do. (There is some debate about how effective those specific rules are.)
I’ve had the same thought about capital punishment: it should be televised so that people can see what they are supporting. It might not turn out the way you or I wish, though.
On that one, I argue for giving the convicted person a choice - death or life in prison. It's a simple change.
Now most people ask "who would choose death?". We'd be surprised.
Now most people ask "who would choose death?". We'd be surprised.
Yeah, it would be a good idea for school trips.
I've watched and slaughtered animals since I was little and still eat meat, but others could change.
I've watched and slaughtered animals since I was little and still eat meat, but others could change.
That would be a strong, compelling argument, but it would be emotional only.
Logically we gain nothing from improving animal rights, except insofar as the meat may be healthier/tastier or that we don't feel so bad. The first may be worth it, the second can be achieved by hiding factory farming more efficiently.
Of course if you think animal suffering is bad, that is a different pov, but why should you?
Logically we gain nothing from improving animal rights, except insofar as the meat may be healthier/tastier or that we don't feel so bad. The first may be worth it, the second can be achieved by hiding factory farming more efficiently.
Of course if you think animal suffering is bad, that is a different pov, but why should you?
This is great! Pricing in externalities is exactly what regulation is supposed to accomplish in a functioning market. The meat production industry is full of unpriced externalities[0], and decades of propaganda[1] convincing us that everything is fine and dandy[2].
Not to mention the current (now-historical) market solution isn't an efficient allocation of resources by any means[3]. Livestock account for only 18% of global calories and only 37% of protein! It's a myth that eating meat is the way we get protein. To boot, 45% of crop yields go towards feeding that livestock[4].
I have nothing against eating meat as such, and I'm all for using grazing land for grazing. But the fact that we waste good crop land on highly inefficient food/nutrient/protein production is not good.
We have to use regulation to price in these inefficiencies and allow the market to deal with realistic pricing levels for meat.
[0] (graphic, but short and info-dense) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/4/19/8447883/milk-health-benefit
[2] <this is fine>.jpg
[3] https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture
[4] https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel...
(not thrilled about posting Vox links but they're just the tip of the iceberg if you start reading about this stuff properly)
Not to mention the current (now-historical) market solution isn't an efficient allocation of resources by any means[3]. Livestock account for only 18% of global calories and only 37% of protein! It's a myth that eating meat is the way we get protein. To boot, 45% of crop yields go towards feeding that livestock[4].
I have nothing against eating meat as such, and I'm all for using grazing land for grazing. But the fact that we waste good crop land on highly inefficient food/nutrient/protein production is not good.
We have to use regulation to price in these inefficiencies and allow the market to deal with realistic pricing levels for meat.
[0] (graphic, but short and info-dense) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcN7SGGoCNI
[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/4/19/8447883/milk-health-benefit
[2] <this is fine>.jpg
[3] https://ourworldindata.org/global-land-for-agriculture
[4] https://www.vox.com/2014/8/21/6053187/cropland-map-food-fuel...
(not thrilled about posting Vox links but they're just the tip of the iceberg if you start reading about this stuff properly)
Listing Vox as a source instantly kills the credibility.
> Barry Goodwin, an economist at North Carolina State University, estimated the extra costs at 15% more per animal for a farm with 1,000 breeding pigs.
> If half the pork supply was suddenly lost in California, bacon prices would jump 60%, meaning a $6 package would rise to about $9.60, according to a study by the Hatamiya Group, a consulting firm hired by opponents of the state proposition.
So let supply and demand work it out? If, as this pork industry PR firm claims, half the pork supply just decides to not participate in the California market, it's financially sensible on the margin for any individual pork farmer to sell meat for anywhere from 15% to 49% more. Note in particular 15% per animal means you're not counting fixed costs like labor, so probably the final price increase will be less than 15%.
(This does show the weakness of the California proposition system, though: it's impossible for the normal functioning of government to clarify this law etc. because it's the unchangeable will of the people.)
> If half the pork supply was suddenly lost in California, bacon prices would jump 60%, meaning a $6 package would rise to about $9.60, according to a study by the Hatamiya Group, a consulting firm hired by opponents of the state proposition.
So let supply and demand work it out? If, as this pork industry PR firm claims, half the pork supply just decides to not participate in the California market, it's financially sensible on the margin for any individual pork farmer to sell meat for anywhere from 15% to 49% more. Note in particular 15% per animal means you're not counting fixed costs like labor, so probably the final price increase will be less than 15%.
(This does show the weakness of the California proposition system, though: it's impossible for the normal functioning of government to clarify this law etc. because it's the unchangeable will of the people.)
> This does show the weakness of the California proposition system, though: it's impossible for the normal functioning of government to clarify this law etc. because it's the unchangeable will of the people.
That's... misleading. Its true that there is more friction with, say, legislative revision. But its not immutable, the legislature would just have to refer proposed changes to the people. This is very much not an insurmountable barrier, such submissions are not uncommon.
That's... misleading. Its true that there is more friction with, say, legislative revision. But its not immutable, the legislature would just have to refer proposed changes to the people. This is very much not an insurmountable barrier, such submissions are not uncommon.