Opinion: Farm bill provision will harm animal and human health
Opinion: Farm bill provision will harm animal and human health
04/17/26 9:26 AM By Gwendolen Reyes-Illg and Cameron Krier Massey
Ask any veterinarian about their professional oath, and they will describe a commitment to protect animal health and welfare, safeguard public health, and prevent and relieve animal suffering. That oath has drawn the profession into an intense debate over a farm bill provision that affects housing systems for pregnant pigs and raises broader questions about farm animal welfare, consumer preferences, states’ rights and federal preemption. With House consideration of the bill approaching, veterinarians are speaking out about problematic language that has alarming consequences for animal and human health.
The issue involves gestation crates used for pregnant pigs (sows) in pork production. These barren crates confine sows — who weigh about 530 pounds — to a space roughly 2 feet by 7 feet for much of their lives, preventing them from turning around, walking or performing basic behaviors.
In response to the inhumane nature of such confinement practices, California voters passed Proposition 12 in 2018, which established minimum space requirements for breeding pigs and other livestock. Voters also chose to apply these standards to certain pork products sold within California, regardless of where they were produced. Many farmers complied and transitioned their housing systems; some became strong supporters of the law. Others pursued legal challenges that ultimately reached the Supreme Court, which upheld Prop 12.
Now, some in the pork industry want Congress to intervene. The House version of the farm bill would prohibit state laws that regulate out-of-state livestock production standards. Versions of this language previously appeared in the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act and, more recently, the Save Our Bacon Act. Supporters of a legislative fix claim federal preemption is necessary to protect interstate commerce, decrease costs, and avoid a patchwork of state laws. Opponents counter that there is no mandate on out-of-state suppliers — only a choice to meet California standards if they want access to that market.
From a veterinary perspective, public opposition to intensive confinement housing such as gestation crates is justified. Research shows these housing systems cause significant physical and psychological harm. Gestation crates lead to health issues — weakened bones, bladder infections and pressure sores. Extreme confinement prevents natural behaviors like foraging and socializing and causes abnormal repetitive actions such as bar-biting and sham-chewing. Animal welfare science can assess animals’ motivation to escape unpleasant situations; a recent study found pigs newly confined to gestation crates pushed against the gate 41 to 173 times per hour, highlighting the frustration of long-term confinement.
Interested in more news on farm programs, trade and rural issues? Sign up for a four-week free trial to Agri-Pulse. You’ll receive our content – absolutely free – during the trial period.
Public health and infectious disease experts worry that intensely confined farm animals affect food safety and human health. Stress has been shown to reduce the immune function of sows and piglets and increase the growth of pathogens pigs commonly carry, such as Campylobacter, Salmonella, and Listeria, which can contaminate pork and cause severe illness or death in humans.
Veterinarians in the U.S. and abroad support efforts to phase out the use of gestation crates, including via legislation. When the Supreme Court considered Prop 12, nearly 400 veterinarians signed onto an amicus brief arguing that gestation crates are incompatible with good animal welfare and that California’s sales ban on crate-derived pork products should not be overturned. Last summer, the American Veterinary Medical Association adopted a resolution stating that it “encourages current movement within the swine industry toward group housing”—movement spurred by measures like Prop 12 — and updated its policy on sow housing to acknowledge that housing systems should allow pigs to express highly motivated behaviors.
While gestation crates are fundamentally unable to provide a minimally acceptable level of animal welfare, group housing systems can if properly designed and managed. Research identifies the factors necessary for adequate welfare in group housing. Key components of any higher-welfare housing system are adequate space, appropriate pen layouts and flooring, bedding (such as straw), and feeding systems that prevent chronic hunger and aggression between sows. A 2021 survey conducted by the USDA showed that almost 52% of small farms (fewer than 250 sows), 82% of medium farms (250-499 sows), and 38% of large farms (500+ sows) use group housing systems for gestation.
Sows are just as capable of physical and psychological suffering as any dog or cat. Veterinarians’ professional oath and expertise make them uniquely qualified to engage on this issue. On behalf of the members of the Veterinary Association for Farm Animal Welfare, we call on Congress to oppose efforts to preempt state measures like Prop 12.
Gwendolen Reyes-Illg, DVM, MA, is a practicing veterinarian with a background in animal and veterinary ethics. She currently serves as president/co-executive director of the Veterinary Association for Farm Animal Welfare.
Cameron Krier Massey, JD, MPH, MSc, is a lawyer with extensive experience in federal policy development. She holds a graduate degree in animal welfare and serves as the co-executive director of the Veterinary Association for Farm Animal Welfare.