- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
25 Oct 14
2 edits
6 states appeal California egg law ruling
By Bob Egelko
Updated 3:02 pm, Friday, October 24, 2014
Six states filed an appeal Friday of a federal judge’s ruling upholding California’s ban on sales of eggs laid by hens that are kept in cramped cages.
The law, scheduled to take effect in January, requires out-of-state egg sellers to comply with the in-state standards California voters set for confinement of hens and other farm animals in 2008. It mandates that the animals have enough room to lie down, stand up, extend their limbs and turn freely, and prohibits confining hens in the small quarters known as battery cages.
The states of Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Alabama, Kentucky and Iowa challenged the law in court as a protectionist measure that interferes with interstate commerce. They said compliance would cost their egg farmers hundreds of millions of dollars.
In a ruling Oct. 2, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller of Sacramento said the states lacked legal standing — the right to sue on behalf of their residents — because they were representing only the economic interests of egg farmers rather than “a substantial segment of their populations.” She said the only foreseeable impact on the states’ residents is a fluctuation in egg prices, which may actually decline.
Lawyers for the states are asking the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to overturn Mueller’s ruling.
Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer.
Back story:
The California law came from a 2008 ballot initiative that required animals, not just chickens, to be treated humanely. Proposition 2, which passed with 63 percent of the vote, mandated healthier treatment for calves, hens and pigs.
[Ballot initiatives are placed on the ballot by getting signatures. They are not referenda.]
California egg producers worried that the law meant they would be at a disadvantage when competing with out-of-state producers that weren’t subject to the same rules. The state legislature passed a companion bill in 2010, signed into law by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), that required those out-of-state producers to uphold the same standards.
[This is inartfully stated. It requires eggs brought in from out of state to be compliant. The producers do not have to produce all their eggs that way.]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/10/07/chickens-come-before-eggs-in-california-case/
Another good site for true wonks:
http://civileats.com/2014/09/03/what-a-difference-a-cage-makes-the-battle-over-humane-egg-production-in-california-heats-up/
29 Oct 14
Originally posted by whodeyHow mad would it be if in one country the busybody control freak bureaurats made regulations banning unwashed eggs, but then in another country they made regulations banning washed eggs.
So which came first, the cage or the chicken?
How would that be, right, completely nutso, thank god the bureaurats are looking after us.
29 Oct 14
Originally posted by WajomaIf the first country is in the desert and the second has plentiful water it might work.
How mad would it be if in one country the busybody control freak bureaurats made regulations banning unwashed eggs, but then in another country they made regulations banning washed eggs.
How would that be, right, completely nutso, thank god the bureaurats are looking after us.
29 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaWhy would that be mad? There is nothing wrong with countries having their own standards.
How mad would it be if in one country the busybody control freak bureaurats made regulations banning unwashed eggs, but then in another country they made regulations banning washed eggs.
Cross boarder trade of many products is difficult or impossible due to them not meeting particular standards.
In the case of power plugs, the US and South Africa have different standards and in some cases it is illegal to import products from one to the other because of this.
Cars are another example of differing standards. I don't know it is illegal to drive an American left hand drive vehicle in South Africa, but it probably should be illegal.
29 Oct 14
Originally posted by WajomaTo be fair, life spans were much shorter 200 years ago. I'm thinking it had to do with dirty eggs.
How mad would it be if in one country the busybody control freak bureaurats made regulations banning unwashed eggs, but then in another country they made regulations banning washed eggs.
How would that be, right, completely nutso, thank god the bureaurats are looking after us.
29 Oct 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think it's good. It proves how puerile the little hitlers are, they're not interested in 'public safety' they're only interested in expanding their realm of unearned control, they only want to push, shove, prod and shape their fellow man while buzzing on their control buzz.
Why would that be mad? There is nothing wrong with countries having their own standards.
Cross boarder trade of many products is difficult or impossible due to them not meeting particular standards.
In the case of power plugs, the US and South Africa have different standards and in some cases it is illegal to import products from one to the other becaus ...[text shortened]... to drive an American left hand drive vehicle in South Africa, but it probably should be illegal.
29 Oct 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, I see your point, in NZ and Australia we drive on the left and those old guys that like to get their big old left hand drive yank tanks out for a Sunday cruise, well, let's just stamp it out, everyone get in line like good little soldiers, don't dare to be different.
Cars are another example of differing standards. I don't know it is illegal to drive an American left hand drive vehicle in South Africa, but it probably should be illegal.
29 Oct 14
[This is inartfully stated. It requires eggs brought in from out of state to be compliant. The producers do not have to produce all their eggs that way.]What I found interesting is California farmers thought the law would cause them harm, and it probably does, save for giving them a monopoly situation.
Hardly any major industry does production in different ways fo a particular market. Autos are a unique matter, and regional blending of gasoline is mandated by government and is generally acknowledged to harm both consumer and the industry.
If eggs producing farms did have separate facilities for Cali and non Cali eggs, how would Cali consumers know they actually were getting eggs from uncrowded chickens?
Another example of the faults of the commerce clause identified before the ratification of the Constitution. Laws passed by the individual States become subject to the whims of a Federal court. In this case the very liberal 9th circuit is unlikely to reverse Cali law.
What will likely result? Cali consumers will pay 50 to 100% more for eggs. Big producers will not be harmed because they may already produce in other States, but small farmers will now sell at smaller marjins to only a local market.
The out of State producers have little to worry about. They can forget about the Cali market, or locate facilities in Cali to produce eggs as required by Cali law.
The real problem is that the Cali legislature and voters have to navigate law suits brought in Federal court pursuant to the commerce clause of the Constitution. What it's people want by virtue of democracy and its courts is rendered irrelavent.
29 Oct 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadA coupe of years ago Ford was selling a diesel Fiesta in Germany which delivered over 60mpg. It couldn't be sold in the US due to EPA testing of one particulate emmission which didn't meet US standards. In the meantime the US model got 30mpg less, and actually polluted more in all than the German model.
Why would that be mad? There is nothing wrong with countries having their own standards.
Cross boarder trade of many products is difficult or impossible due to them not meeting particular standards.
In the case of power plugs, the US and South Africa have different standards and in some cases it is illegal to import products from one to the other becaus ...[text shortened]... to drive an American left hand drive vehicle in South Africa, but it probably should be illegal.
Rules produced by legislators and bureaucrats often end up being harmful or counter productive.
29 Oct 14
Originally posted by normbenignAnother urban legend. In fact:
A coupe of years ago Ford was selling a diesel Fiesta in Germany which delivered over 60mpg. It couldn't be sold in the US due to EPA testing of one particulate emmission which didn't meet US standards. In the meantime the US model got 30mpg less, and actually polluted more in all than the German model.
Rules produced by legislators and bureaucrats often end up being harmful or counter productive.
But the Big Three – which make and sell diesels in Europe – have shown little interest in offering them here because they don’t think it’s economically viable. They don’t see people buying them, so they can’t see making money on them.
"We don’t have a full scale energy policy in place in the U.S. that promotes the usage of diesel fuel," Ford spokesman Said Deep told Wired.com. "So, we will bring the Fiesta to America in the most affordable manner."
The US-bound Fiesta will arrive in 2010 with a 1.6-liter four-cylinder gas-burning engine with fuel economy in the high 30s. Nice, but less than half what the diesel gets.
http://www.wired.com/2009/02/ford-will-give/
29 Oct 14
Originally posted by no1marauderI guess since its on the internet it must be true. My story came from a direct interview with a Ford executive on the radio. Of course ultimately it was a choice of Ford to not go further to reengineer the car to meet EPA standards. Apaparently this car was assembled in Germany and would initially at least have been imported to the US market.
Another urban legend. In fact:
But the Big Three – which make and sell diesels in Europe – have shown little interest in offering them here because they don’t think it’s economically viable. They don’t see people buying them, so they can’t see making money on them.
"We don’t have a full scale energy policy in place in the U.S. that promotes the us ...[text shortened]... . Nice, but less than half what the diesel gets.
http://www.wired.com/2009/02/ford-will-give/
That diesel cars won't sell in the US is poppycock, since Mercedes has done so for decades and VW is making a big splash about their Jetta clean diesel getting 800+ miles on a tank of fuel.
This is getting far afield of the Cali egg situation, but to try to bring it back into focus, I believe that individual States and even smaller jurisdictions regulating their own producers is better than national or multinational regulation. The closer to home the better, as those people are in a better position to vote the crooks out if they so desire, or keep them if they are satisfied.
29 Oct 14
Originally posted by normbenignLMAO! The article quotes a Ford spokesman. Sorry I don't believe your claim absent some actual evidence.
I guess since its on the internet it must be true. My story came from a direct interview with a Ford executive on the radio. Of course ultimately it was a choice of Ford to not go further to reengineer the car to meet EPA standards. Apaparently this car was assembled in Germany and would initially at least have been imported to the US market.
That di ...[text shortened]... a better position to vote the crooks out if they so desire, or keep them if they are satisfied.
US car companies have made many misjudgments regarding the US market over the years, so that they might make another one is hardly news. That you knee jerk assumed that it was all the "Guvamint's" fault is typically inaccurate and careless.
29 Oct 14
Originally posted by no1marauderAs I said, and you chose to ignore, the decision was ultimately Ford's to not import the German Fiesta, but that decision was most likely influenced by the EPAs ruling. That company had to estimate not only the demand for the car but the costs of reengineering it for the American market, and the fact that the majority of the N.Am. market's profits at the time were from bigger cars, SUVs, and Pickups. None of that rules out that an EPA ruling was at the heart of the problem.
LMAO! The article quotes a Ford spokesman. Sorry I don't believe your claim absent some actual evidence.
US car companies have made many misjudgments regarding the US market over the years, so that they might make another one is hardly news. That you knee jerk assumed that it was all the "Guvamint's" fault is typically inaccurate and careless.
Go on LYAO but most everyone knows that government regulation of the car industry over the years has cost consumers and the industry as well. And yes there are benefits as well, but what we can never be certain of is whether the improvements may have come without interference, and would they have been slower or faster based on consumer demand rather than government coersion.
Government has added another layer of management to an industry already top heavy.