In the News Again: Prop. 12, and Mass. Question 3

The Battle Over Animal Agriculture

The campaign against modern animal agriculture is back in the news, not because of animal mistreatment, but due to misinformation, ballot box activism, and regulatory overreach pushed by groups that ultimately aim to eliminate meat, dairy, and eggs from the American food supply. Two of the most prominent tools in this campaign are California’s Proposition 12 and Massachusetts’ Question 3. These laws, which were heavily funded and promoted by animal rights groups, Humane World for Animals (formerly HSUS) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), are not about animal welfare. They serve as a Trojan horse for a broader animal rights agenda aimed at reshaping American food production through regulation, not science.

The Truth About Proposition 12 and Question 3

Prop. 12 and Mass. Question 3 were marketed to the public as animal welfare laws. However, there is no peer-reviewed consensus showing that the arbitrary mandates the public voted to implement improve animal health and welfare:

• California’s Prop. 12 prohibits the sale of pork, veal, and eggs from animals not raised under specific space and housing conditions, even if those products come from out of state. California Prop. 12 requires that out-of-state producers comply with regulations determined by animal rights groups and misinformed voters.
• Massachusetts’ Question 3 is a nearly identical law to Prop. 12, with the same mandate that producers wishing to sell their products in the state comply with regulations formulated by animal rights groups and the decisions of misled voters.

Update on Legal Challenges and Fallout

• SCOTUS: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Prop. 12 in 2023, and lower courts have similarly ruled in favor of Massachusetts Question 3.

• US DOJ vs. California: The U.S. Department of Justice under the Trump administration filed a new lawsuit against California in 2025, arguing Prop. 12 violates the Egg Products Inspection Act (EPIA) by regulating egg production rather than inspection and labeling. On Monday, October 7th, the State of California filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the DOJ’s lawsuit, claiming that the EPIA doesn’t apply to their law. The DOJ maintains that California’s mandates go beyond their authority and harm national food markets. According to an article in Meatingplace, the DOJ stated in legal documents that Prop. 12, “effectively prevents farmers across the country from using common production methods and contributes to higher food prices.”

• First Circuit Ruling Regarding Mass. Question 3: Recently, the First Circuit upheld a lower court's rejection of a challenge to Massachusetts Question 3. The challenge was made by a group of Midwest pork producers. The producer plaintiffs in the lawsuit included Triumph Foods, Christensen Farms Midwest, the Hanor Company of Wisconsin, New Fashion Pork, Eichelberger Farms, and Allied Producers Cooperative. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against the following claims by the plaintiffs: that Mass. Question 3 intentionally discriminates against interstate commerce, it places a substantial burden on out of state producers, that it is preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Packers and Stockyards Act, that it violates the Import-Export Clause, the Due Process Clause, and that it conflicts with federal law. The court rejected these arguments, citing the SCOTUS 2023 Prop. 12 precedent.

• Save Our Bacon Act: The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) continues to push for federal legislation to preempt conflicting state mandates. The “Save Our Bacon Act,” introduced in Congress in July 2025, would restore regulatory consistency and protect small producers from being priced out of the market.

• Farm Bill Watch: Producers and advocates are also eyeing the Farm Bill as a possible vehicle for reform. USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins has publicly criticized Prop. 12, warning that a patchwork of laws “puts small farmers out of business” and that federal deregulation efforts have already begun.

Modern Farms Prioritize Welfare

Contrary to the animal rights narrative, today’s large modern farms are designed to promote animal health, comfort, and safety. Innovations like climate-controlled barns, state-of-the-art ventilation systems, automated manure management and cleaning, biosecurity protocols, precision feeding, and supervised care are the result of generations of animal husbandry expertise and decades of research and development.

As an example, housing systems such as gestation and farrowing stalls, targeted by Prop. 12 and Question 3, were adopted to reduce injuries, death of piglets, disease transmission, and stress among sows. These decisions were made in consultation with veterinarians, university researchers, and experts in animal science and welfare. Large modern farms don’t fear transparency. However, they do reject mandates pressed by the public who have never set foot on a farm and who are basing their votes on emotion rather than science and practical experience.

Animal Rights Groups: Welfare is the Ruse, Control is the Goal

Groups like Humane World for Animals and ASPCA are not animal welfare organizations. They promote an animal rights ideology, which rejects all human use of animals, including for food, clothing, and even companionship.

These groups:

• Fund and campaign for ballot initiatives like Prop. 12 and Mass. Question 3.
• Push bans on large modern farms, even in cities far removed from agriculture, to set national precedent.
• Align with other activist coalitions that aim to stop animal agriculture altogether, calling for a “slaughter-free, plant-based food system.”

The outcome of their agenda is clear: make animal products unaffordable, force producers out of business, and condition consumers to reject meat, dairy, and eggs as immoral, no matter how responsibly or humanely produced.

A Divided Marketplace

While these mandates have had an impact on producers, some producers and food companies have benefited from them. They are using the methods mandated by Prop. 12 and Question 3 as marketing tools to command a premium from consumers. We support food marketing with merit-based messaging: nutritious, safe, affordable food raised with animal health, consumer safety, and environmental stewardship at the forefront. However, we do not support producers who disparage others and use disinformation to criticize modern farming practices wrongly.

Stand With Science, Stand With All Farmers

We support all forms of agriculture and believe that there is no “one way” to provide quality products to consumers. The animal agriculture community relies on providing the highest standards of animal welfare. Modern farms have invested in science-backed systems that balance animal well-being, food safety, and economic sustainability. Farmers should not have to “comply or die” under ideologically driven laws masquerading as progress.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that the animal rights ideological agenda seeks to eliminate all of animal agriculture. We cannot allow them to divide us. We must support each other.

At AGPROfessionals, we proudly stand with all producers who feed the nation.

Links:

Article in DTN about Mass Question 3 HERE

JustiaLaw link to Mass Question 3 Court of Appeals Filing HERE

Meatingplace article about California suing the Department of Justice HERE

Meatingplace article about Prop 12 supporters HERE

Iowa State University Center for Agriculture Law and Taxation article about Prop 12 SCOTUS ruling HERE

Iowa Capital Dispatch article HERE

Article by RFDtv HERE

Press Release by Congresswoman Ashley Hinson regarding the Save Our Bacon Act HERE