PROP-12 GETS ITS DAY IN COURT: Supreme Court Justices today will hear arguments from the pork industry and from defenders of California's Proposition 12, a livestock welfare law that aims to ban gestation cages for sows and battery cages for egg-laying hens, Marcia reports. The law would also ban the sale of meat in California from non-compliant farms, even from those outside of the state. The two sides: California and animal advocates argue that the new law would secure freedom of movement for livestock, which are often restrained in gestation and battery cages. But the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation contend that the measure would unconstitutionally interfere in interstate commerce, potentially sending California regulators to inspect farms in other midwestern states — where most of the meat Californians eat is raised. Ripple effect: Legal experts say the case could have implications that go beyond how farmers raise their hogs. Some told Marcia that if the Supreme Court rules against the law, it could open the door for challenges to other state-level laws — like California's electric vehicle mandate that aims to eliminate the sale of gas-powered cars by 2035. Local leadership groups like the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors warned that upholding the NPPC's position "would jeopardize countless types of local laws," including affordable housing policies, hazardous waste regulations and child labor. States themselves are divided, with 20 siding with the pork industry and 14 with the state of California. Where's Biden? In what some say is a striking contrast to the Biden administration's outspoken commitment to fair competition and particular animus toward the meatpacking industry, the administration has argued in an amicus brief to the Court that California voters don't have the authority to govern animal welfare in other states. But Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) has taken the opposite stance, arguing that courts are "ill-equipped … to weigh the costs and benefits of local, state, and national commerce policy." THRIFTY FOOD PLAN OUTPACED BY INFLATION: Even with a significant boost this year, the Thrifty Food Plan, a program used to determine the cost of a healthy, budget-conscious diet for SNAP recipients, may not be providing people with all the relief they need due to inflation, according to Hoa Hoang , a professor at the University of Missouri's Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute. Context: The TFP was updated in 2021, raising base-level SNAP benefits for recipients. That change was lauded by Democrats in Congress and hunger advocates who applauded SNAP recipients getting more grocery money. But the move invoked the ire of the GOP, who requested a pending Government Accountability Office review of the update. In October, SNAP benefits automatically rose to account for inflation — increasing 12.5 percent for a family of four. This change reflected the rise in grocery costs from June 2021 and June 2022. By the numbers: In her study, Hoang examines the market baskets of SNAP recipients, non-SNAP families and the TFP's recommended purchases for the month of August 2022. She found that, if following the TFP's guidelines, grocery costs would be 14.1 percent higher than in June 2021 for recipients and 15.4 percent more compared to the average SNAP basket between 2011 and 2019. Finally, the cost of groceries in the average non-SNAP U.S. consumer basket would be 15.1 percent higher than June 2021. But, why?: Hoang told MA that SNAP recipients are much more likely to purchase a normal basket rather than the TFP recommended basket, based on the data from 2011-2019. This means much heavier purchasing of "miscellaneous foods," things like cooking oils, soft drinks and snacks. Those goods have far outpaced the price increases in fruits and vegetables, which are weighted to account for much more of a TFP cart.
| 
Comments
Post a Comment