Missouri Lawsuit Seeks to Halt Bullying California Food Rules

Missouri wants a federal court to tell California that its overbearing laws don't apply to Missouri farms. Win or lose, the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications.

EggsPublic DomainEarlier this week, Chris Koster, the attorney general of Missouri, filed an extraordinary lawsuit against the State of California.

Koster is asking the federal court to overturn a California law set to take effect in 2015 that requires farmers across the country to conform to California regulations pertaining to the dimensions of cages for housing egg-laying hens.

Koster, who alleges in the suit that California law violates the U.S. Constitution, filed suit in U.S. District Court in Fresno—a conservative agricultural region of California—on behalf of the state of Missouri.

The issue is whether California lawmakers can dictate how farmers in other states raise their animals. The case raises serious constitutional questions about the California egg law—and other laws in the state.

"Is California," asked a Wall St. Journal blogger earlier this week, "simply by regulating the type of goods that flow into the state, actually sort of legislating in Missouri? And if, so, is that ok?"

The California law stems from a 2008 animal-rights voter initiative, Proposition 2, that requires farmers within California to increase the size of the living quarters of egg-laying hens in the state. In his lawsuit, Koster notes that the exact cage dimensions required under the law are unclear, and could range anywhere from 87 to 403 square inches. That's anywhere from larger than to much larger than current cages.

The problems with a California law that restricts California farmers only were obvious to the state's farmers and economists, among others.

"Experts predict the number of eggs imported into the state in order to meet consumer demand will swell once the ban takes effect, since out-of-state eggs are not subject to the ban," I wrote in a 2010 Chapman Law Review article, The "California Effect" & the Future of American Food. "One estimate indicates that Prop 2 could result in the elimination of most of the California egg industry and the loss of thousands of jobs, which could cost the state more than $370 million in gross sales and resulting tax receipts."

And the law's vagaries have vexed California poultry farmers.

So California did the sensible thing and repealed the law. Erm, no. Instead, California decided its bad law should apply to farms in all fifty states.

As Koster notes in a press release announcing the lawsuit, in 2010 California legislators voted to expand the law's reach, "requiring egg producers in other states—including Missouri—to comply with Proposition 2 themselves in order to continue selling their eggs in California."

Groups that supported Prop 2, like the Humane Society of the United States, also support the law's expansion.

The Kansas City Star editorial board also came out this week against Koster's lawsuit.

The paper argues that the California law "is reasonable." I disagree, though I think reasonable people can argue on that point insofar as the law governs only California farms. But any argument about the law being reasonable ends at the California border.

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides that only the federal government may regulate interstate commerce. A well-known axiom of the Commerce Clause, the dormant Commerce Clause, holds that because only the federal government has such power, states may not also exercise such power.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Where is everyone?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Good morning, neoteny.

    California is so fucked up. I really need to convince the wife to move. But where?

  • ||

    Good morning to you, too.

    What are you looking for? The Pacific Northwest is pretty gorgeous, but obviously there's more rain than in California.

  • From the Tundra||

    We need more people like you in Minne, EDG, but I suspect waking up to -7 would displease the wife.

  • Snark Plissken||

    What about NH?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    And if you move to Maine, I don't care how appealing the Chamber of Commerce brochures are, don't go to Castle Rock or Jerusalem's Lot.

  • SweatingGin||

    I've read enough Steven King to know about those places.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Second the nomination of Sunny Minnesota.

    Nothing like the first sunny day in spring when it hits 40. Favorite day of the year.

    My wife is a transplant too and she has stayed with me. Of course she complains all winter long about the delusional natives she is stuck with. I tell her she should write a book "Norwegians in the Blizzard".

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    The Pacific Northwest is pretty gorgeous, but obviously there's more rain than in California.

    I've lived in a lot of places. Rain is a good thing.

  • Batgirl||

  • Pavlov's Cat||

    Huh. I had no idea I was quoting a country song!

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Portlandia, here we come!

  • Phil Ossiferz Stone||

    I'd like to make the transition to Oregon, but there is almost no work there. It's Austin, TX for me.

    Northern rural California will always be my homeland. But I can do a helluva lot better for working conditions. Hopefully I can watch this soft-fascist nanny state collapse and burn at a safe remove, then return with a fat bundle of cash to the free state of Jefferson. Hope springs eternal, y'know.

  • Idaho Bob||

    7 years ago I convinced the wife to leave Long Beach, CA for Sandpoint, Idaho. All it took was telling her she didn't have to work, except raisng the kids.

  • Pope Jimbo||

    Isn't that where Patrick F. McManus is from?

    I hope they have a statue of him or something there.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    This egg-straordinary law should be laid to rest. If Missouri wins, it will have been worth the Missouri taxpayers shelling out some money, because the expense of this litigation is chicken feed next to the gains from overturning the law. California has become a national yoke. It keeps hatching bizarre laws. Not to count our chickens prematurely, but there's a good chance this poultry excuse for a law will be struck down.

  • Agammamon||

    Ooooh, Satan's gonna have a whole *themepark* set aside for you.

  • Cdr Lytton||

    Misery has that one covered already.

  • mr lizard||

    A foul law indeed....

  • SForza||

    Yolk, motherfucker! Do you speak it?

  • Mickey Rat||

    I am curious about what the enforcement method is for out of state producers. It is not as if California regulators can inspect the out of state farms for compliance.

  • Agammamon||

    Oh, they don't need to. Just as the USDA doesn't actually do much physical inspection - you require them to fill out paperwork *saying* the producer is in compliance.

    Then, if there's a mistake on the paperwork you fine the producer (under penalty of not being allowed to sell in CA if they don't pay up) and then throw out a press-release about how you stopped people from being killed by a bad egg.

    GKC - now you've got me doing it.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I'm sorry I egged you on like that.

  • RishJoMo||

    Sounds like a solid plan dude.

    www.Anon-Works.tk

  • Raven Nation||

    As a Kansas grad, I'm contractually obligated to despise anything and everything that comes out of Missouri. But, in this case, I'm willing to make an exception.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The issue is whether California lawmakers can dictate how farmers in other states raise their animals.

    There was a time when I would have considered this a slam dunk. Now- who the fuck knows what will happen when this gets to court?

  • fredtyg||

    One problem is they named this the Egg Safety Act, or some such, and courts tend to be fairly sympathetic to state's "rights" in regards establishing their own food safety standards. Or so I've been led to believe.

    The problem is this isn't about food safety. It's about protectionism and the California legislature trying to protect its egg industry. The voters made a stupid decision that would likely make out of state eggs less expensive than eggs raised in state. So, they're essentially trying to seal off the border by telling out of state producers they have to raise their eggs the same way to keep them competitive with California grown eggs.

    Sadly, all too many who comment on this still consider it a matter of a state being able to establish its own safety standards when the whole issue is nothing of the sort.

    It should be about the free flow of goods between states and an individual state not being able to force its residents to only buy food grown in state.

    Even some egg producers from other states are going along with this, saying if we just had a national standard for raising eggs this wouldn't be an issue. Sure, then every body will pay more for eggs- a basic foodstuff- as Californians do.

    The court needs to overturn the egg safety law and my fellow Californians need to stew in their own juices for passing a law that makes in- state products more expensive.

  • Sevo||

    "Even some egg producers from other states are going along with this, saying if we just had a national standard for raising eggs this wouldn't be an issue. Sure, then every body will pay more for eggs- a basic foodstuff- as Californians do."

    Yep. If the government can mandate higher prices, most every rent-seeking supplier will take it.
    Your post pretty much covers the issue with one exception:
    The "egg safety" law in CA had nothing to do with "safety" to begin with within the state. It was a feel-good, 'it will only cost the other guy' proposal and it was opposed at the time since it would make CA eggs uncompetitive.
    As it did, so now, let's try on more reg to fix what the earlier reg screwed up!
    Hey, Tony! Gotcher state screw-up right here!

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Restrictions on the free flow of goods between states are exactly the sort of interstate trade barriers that the Commerce Clause was intended to prohibit.

    No, that's not what the Commerce Clause was intended for. The Commerce Clause was intended to be an enormous loophole in Article 1, Section 8 to let the federal Congress meddle in absolutely every part of our lives. Free flow of goods...as if!

    (Sorry, I was auditioning for a job on a cable news channel.)

  • Slammer||

  • Sevo||

    How about some early weekend O-care aamusement?

    1) CA can't figure out what doc is available under what plan, but leaves bogus info on the web until people really get pissed:
    "Covered California pulls troubled online physician directory"
    http://www.sfgate.com/health/a.....215524.php

    2) O-care's a flop, but one more PR stunt will make it all good:
    "Millions still without health insurance as deadline looms"
    http://www.sfgate.com/health/a.....209014.php

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I might be missing something, but it strikes me that Linnekin's reasoning would mean the states can't regulate any commerce. Doing so would mean that out-of-state producers would have the particular state's standards imposed on them. Now, I'd be happy with such a finding. But, I don't think that's going to pass muster.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    It would be an easier case if they discriminated against interstate commerce. Now they can argue they're applying the same standards to everyone. But sometimes even in such cases the state loses, if the court finds the regulation too burdensome. I am not up on the latest permutations of these principles.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Can California make the case that they don't mandate Missouri farmers comply with the law, only that the eggs that they sell in California must comply with these standards?

  • fredtyg||

    They did the same thing with milk decades ago. In order to protect the dairy industry, California decided to require non- fat milk solids and some other stuff be added to milk sold in California. It wasn't worth it for milk producers in other states to add the extra stuff to their milk to comply. Thus, California dairies ended up with essentially a monopoly.

    There were efforts to repeal that but they failed as the dairy industry is just too strong here. I'm not sure if they still have that advantage, though, as I read some stuff online about the federal government quibbling over what things should be added or taken out of milk. Maybe that's a national thing now?

    I don't think this egg thing is quite the same since it simply has to do with living conditions of chickens, not actual safety (although they're trying to make the safety argument).

    I was arguing with some commentators at the Sacramento Bee over this issue a while back. They were trying to make it a state's rights issue- that states have the right to set their own laws regarding food. I had to ask them how they'd feel if voters in California passed a law requiring only meat raised "organically" be sold in the state (I don't think that's too far fetched)? Should the state be able to limit meat brought into the state to organic, with its resulting high prices? Not even North Korea does that sort of thing.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Egg-zactly!

  • SForza||

    Wow. California requires that milk be adulterated. That's crazy. I know a lot of stupid California laws, but that's a new one to me.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    This isn't like a ban on fireworks or "assault weapons". California isn't banning eggs, it's attempting to regulate how the eggs are produced.

    The foie gras ban is likely constitutional since foie gras actually is an identifiable product.

  • Kyfho Myoba||

    Are you implying that eggs aren't an identifiable product? Why would somethings status as "an identifiable product" have an impact on its subjectivity to regulation? Do you read your posts after you type them?

  • Peter||

    Perhaps Missouri can pass a law requiring all households have a Modern Sporting Rifle in the house, to provide "for the common defense".
    The law would, of course, extend to all fifty states.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The federal Militia Act required all able bodied males of military age to have a functioning musket and powder, so there is precedent for that. Unlike forced health insurance and broccoli purchases.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The issue is whether California lawmakers can dictate how farmers in other states raise their animals."

    California does this on lots of things. I'm particularly familiar with this in terms of motorcycles. There are motorcycles you can't buy in California just because it isn't worth it to the manufactures to go through the expense of testing their bikes to meet California's strict emission standards.

    Some bikes are designed differently just because of California. Since the California market represents a huge chunk of all motorcycle sales in the USA, they're basically dictating how motorcycle manufacturers--in other countries--make some of their bikes or which of their models are offered in the USA.

    There's a bumper sticker you'll see occasionally that says "Think Globally, Act Locally", and, in California, they really aren't kidding about that. It doesn't surprise me that they would try to dictate to farmers living outside of the state; California goes after people in other countries when it suits them.

    The California Air Resources Board is doing the same sort of thing to aftermarket exhaust manufacturers--except they're going after the exhaust manufacturers for the behavior of their customers, which is like going after Smith and Wesson because some guy shot his wife.

    http://www.cycleworld.com/2013.....parts-use/

  • prolefeed||

    California does this on lots of things. I'm particularly familiar with this in terms of motorcycles. There are motorcycles you can't buy in California just because it isn't worth it to the manufactures to go through the expense of testing their bikes to meet California's strict emission standards.

    The egg thing SEEMS at first glance to be the same thing, but it isn't.

    The motorcycle reg doesn't tell other people how they can choose to manufacture motorcycles, it tells them what is the maximum level of pollutants any motorcycle can emit, regardless of where it is made. It is focuses on physical results of the product, and does so regarding something that directly affects the health of CA residents.

    The egg reg, however, would prohibit selling eggs that are physically identical to ones that would comply with the law.

    The law still might prevail in courts, given the ridiculous decisions that courts make, but it appears blatantly unconstitutional in ways that the motorcycle law doesn't.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "The motorcycle reg doesn't tell other people how they can choose to manufacture motorcycles, it tells them what is the maximum level of pollutants any motorcycle can emit, regardless of where it is made."

    Not sure I'm getting the distinction, here.

    This is a Suzuki TU250x.

    http://www.suzukicycles.com/Product Lines/Cycles/Products/TU250X/2013/TU250X.aspx

    Do you see where it says, "*Unfortunately, this model is not available in California"?

    If I went to Nevada to buy one for my girlfriend, and brought it back to California? The DMV would refuse to register it. In fact, it's worse than that! The DMV would take you all the way through the process of registering it, and then you would get a notice in the mail stating that you must prove (typically with a bill of sale) that the motorcycle is no longer within the State of California within so many days--or you will get a severe fine.

    They will keep fining you until you can prove that the motorcycle is no longer within California.

    So, how do they handle people who move to California with the bike? They'll register it once you get over about 10,000 miles on the bike. If it's less than that, they will chase the bike out of the state.

  • prolefeed||

    "The motorcycle reg doesn't tell other people how they can choose to manufacture motorcycles, it tells them what is the maximum level of pollutants any motorcycle can emit, regardless of where it is made."

    Not sure I'm getting the distinction, here.

    This is a Suzuki TU250x.

    The problem with the CA motorcycle law is that it puts the burden of proof upon a manufacturer to prove that their products meet the minimum emissions standards, even when common sense should tell you that a 250cc engine in anything is wildly unlikely to produce much pollution.

    I wouldn't have a problem with having the law thrown out and declared unconstitutional on the grounds that it makes a presumption of guilt, and requires manufacturers to prove their innocence. The law is a backdoor protectionist law.

    That being said, that regulatory scheme is less blatantly unconstitutional than a scheme outlawing products that are physically identical in all respects.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Honestly, my reaction is a little emotional. Obviously, I don't like any restrictions on my freedom, but there are a couple that are near and dear to my heart.

    I don't want Barack Obama making choices for me about my healthcare, but I REALLY don't want Jerry Brown making choices for me about my motorcycles.

    The only thing that could be worse than the State of California making choices about which motorcycles I can and can't buy would be if they were making choices about what my girlfriend can wear. Maybe Victoria's Secret has to start submitting their catalog to some state agency to make sure what my girlfriend orders isn't too awesome?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Do you know how much motorcycle manufacturers want to piss off their customers with abuse like that? Do you know how much motorcycle manufacturers hate to tell Californians that they can buy the bike anywhere else but in California?

    That's one of the reasons why there are so many bikes that are available everywhere else except California.

    In the case of the TU250x, by the way? We're talking about a 250 engine. It gets a legitimate 65 mpg on the highway. It's just that Suzuki sells so few of them here in the U.S., that it isn't worth it for them to pay for all the tests. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it can pass the stupid tests!

    If Victory and Harley are passing their mondo bikes...

  • Ken Shultz||

    And pay special attention to this section from my link above:

    Tom Trobaugh, the regulatory affairs coordinator at Vance & Hines, tries to take the big-picture view. The crackdown isn’t all that new, he says; it’s been building since CARB’s Tier 2 standard went into effect in 2008, when many more motorcycles began having catalytic converters as standard equipment. CARB is concerned strictly with emissions, not noise (ironic given that everyone seems to think loud Harleys are what led to the crackdown), and wants to ensure that catalysts remain in place. To that end, every aftermarket emissions-related part sold in California now needs an EO (Executive Order) exemption from CARB to be legal for highway use, which is expensive and time-consuming to obtain."

    http://www.cycleworld.com/2013.....parts-use/

    Test question: Why did so many motorcycles begin to come equipped with catalytic converters as standard equipment?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here's another quick reference to California effectively regulating the entire industry that I googled:

    "Large-volume manufacturers (LVM) were not caught off-guard by these regulations and have already responded to the new requirements. While the EPA rules have remained static since the original 1980 requirement, California's regulations have seen periodic upgrades. Most manufacturers were already making the majority of U.S. models compliant with the stricter California regulations, as they were unwilling to neglect the nation's biggest market."

    http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/.....mined.aspx

    That was an article from 2007--I think we're on Tier 4 standards now?!

    There was an article the other day here at Hit & Run about how Smith & Wesson was pulling out of California. It's the same kind of thing. Look at the link I had:

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/01.....nt_4262830

    They were making models specific for California and Massachusetts, too.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    They do the exact same thing with handguns. To the point where if a manufacturer changes the color scheme, they have to resubmit and pay another large fee to have it re-listed on the list of "safe" handguns.

    A lot of gun manufacturers refuse to deal with it, especially now that they're adding microstamping to their list of requirements.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Yeah!

    See my post about S&W being chased out of California above!

    http://reason.com/blog/2014/01.....ifornia-ha

  • Cyto||

    Having dealt with regulators in various states on similar issues I can attest that the actual implementation of these sorts of regulations is left to petty bureaucrats who have wide leeway to make your life a living hell. They can quibble over the placement of commas and font sizes, require revision after revision, sometimes even objecting to changes that they personally authored. This all costs boatloads of money, not just in lawyer fees and time wasted, but in months or even years of lost opportunities accessing the market.

    We had a "regulator" in Texas who was appointed because she was related to the author of the bill in the legislature. And "related to" is a euphemism. Her prior job was as a secretary making about 25% of her new executive position. So here she is editing legal documents and making legal pronouncements when her training and qualifications were in taking dictation and scheduling meetings. It took two years to get a simple contract approved through her office. Most of the edits and changes she insisted on were a waste of time and made no difference, but some had to be fought vigorously because they were sufficiently ignorant to invalidate the entire contract - unintentionally I might add. She just thought her wording "sounded better".

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Sadly, all too many who comment on this still consider it a matter of a state being able to establish its own safety standards when the whole issue is nothing of the sort.

    Having imposed a raft of new additional costs on however many large scale egg producers remain in California, they now have to make the world safer for them.

  • Response||

    I would expect California to win this battle. I'm not sure how different it is than the gasoline companies that have to change their formula to California's decree as the seasons switch from summer blend to winter blend and back.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-VA)||

    The difference is that that's mere regulation of a product that's sold in CA based on its physical nature. The egg law is regulating products based on what happened near them in other states.

    It would be like banning auto parts that were produced in factories where smoking was allowed.

  • fredtyg||

    It would be like banning auto parts that were produced in factories where smoking was allowed.

    Exactly. Except, the animal rights folks and other supporters of the law are saying it's a health issue. They claim that eggs from chickens in smaller cages are more likely to harbor disease. Completely untrue, imo, but some are buying it.

    The reality is, Californians made a mistake (although it only got something like 51% of the vote, if memory serves). Most of the country eats eggs from chickens in smaller cages. If there's any reason for those eggs to have a larger number of people getting sick- which rarely happens, anyway- it's because the vast majority of people eat eggs from smaller cages.

    I've actually agreed to a compromise on this issue with local pundits. Not too difficult since that's the way it already is: If you don't want eggs from chickens in small cages, buy them from a producer that has free range hens or larger cages. Those already exist, although they're more expensive. Go ahead and tell California producers they have to raise them that way, but don't tell me I can't go elsewhere for a lesser expensive basic foodstuff.

  • Major Johnson||

    I agree. If the people of California don't want to eat eggs let them eat something else, though obviously not cake since you need an egg to bake a cake.

    The ICA is one of the most abused and misused acts of the constitution. It's intent is to prevent one state from disrupting commerce through the state, not to force the state to purchase product. For instance, it's illegal for South Carolina to prohibit or excessively tax cotton from North Carolina headed to Georgia in order to make NC cotton cost more than SC cotton or even just out of some moralistic rational (like NC uses slaves to pick it and we in SC find that reprehensible), but that doesn't mean the people of SC can't prohibit the sale of NC cotton in SC.

    California has every right to determine what may be sold within its borders, and suffer the consequences of that decision.

  • fredtyg||

    A state shouldn't be able to shut the borders to a basic foodstuff. I'd say if they want to have animal rights legislation to the effect animals need to be raised under certain conditions in state, that's fine. They shouldn't be able to restrict the sale of less expensive eggs into the state.

    The state will certainly take a hit as its egg farms lose market share. I say Californian's deserve to stew in their own juices for making that bad decision. They shouldn't be able cause a hardship on everyone else that didn't vote for the law.

    Truth be told, you can bet many- if not most- that voted for the law will buy less expensive out of state eggs if given the choice.

  • SWB||

    EXCELLENT POST! I can't begin to fathom the stupidity of lawmakers who regulate businesses without possessing even the first microbit of knowledge about that industry, let alone how an economy works, in which 'that industry' is supposed to operate! Just image the irate chefs, and cooks 'in' or 'out' of a restaurant/commercial environment, who are going to have to pay through the nose, or do without eggs, and 'all the things which are made from eggs'. That little caveat of a phrase covers a multitude of products, and will ricochet throughout the CA economy doing unimaginable damage! I dare say that at least 50% of all food products will increase in price, either directly, or because the substitute products will be in such high demand, that they will suffer shortages.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I see how the State of California has an interest in protecting its environment. When I visited LA as a kid, the smog was so bad, I sometimes couldn't see the other side of the street. You could see the smog coming through the air conditioner in a window--like tendrils. It would conform to the air flow and sit there like a physical thing. You would walk around the smog tendrils to avoid them.

    Not sure I understand what California's interest in protecting people from chickens in small cages is all about. I suspect it's about protecting the state's chicken and egg farmers from competition from out of state.

    In other words, protecting the environment in terms of gas regulation may have some basis--even if I disagree with that policy. What's California's legitimate interest in protecting us from chickens in small cages?

    I don't see any.

  • prolefeed||

    Not sure I understand what California's interest in protecting people from chickens in small cages is all about. I suspect it's about protecting the state's chicken and egg farmers from competition from out of state.

    It's really about the economic protectionism you noted, plus about catering to the feelings of animal rights do-gooders to garner their votes. But, since both of those are losing arguments in court, CA will have to pretend it is about something else entirely.

  • Sevo||

    ..."But, since both of those are losing arguments in court, CA will have to pretend it is about something else entirely."

    It would be interesting to see if the attorneys can make the argument without breaking out in chuckles.

  • prolefeed||

    Part of what you pay an attorney for goes toward them having the skill set of keeping a poker face while spouting ridiculous crap.

  • PH2050||

    So California did the sensible thing and repealed the law.

    Haha, for a minute there I thought I woke up in the Twilight Zone.

  • Wasteland Wanderer||

    This is a madhouse, feels like being cloned.

  • Almanian!||

    The issue is whether California lawmakers can dictate how farmers in other states raise their animals.

    Reading that 100-year-old document, I'd say - without hesitation - no.

    But it's, like, 100 years old - plus - white slave owners. So...

    Fuck California.

  • TerminusEst||

    Most of me wants to think that California just seems to be implementing their own standards for eggs sold in their state. If you want to sell eggs there, then you have to abide by their standards. That is in no way requiring egg suppliers in Missouri to follow California law, unless they want to sell there.

    In my opinion I'd suggest that egg suppliers call their bluff and refuse to abide by their standards and refuse to sell to California. I'd imagine that would teach the California voters a lesson very quickly.

    Of course, the loss of that much business to egg suppliers would be painful at best, and disastrous at worst. Although, continuing to sell to California and making the changes they want would be painful as well.

    I may not know enough about economics to make a good call on this, but again I'd suggest they call the bluff and refuse to sell.

  • ibcbet||

    California has become a national yoke. It keeps hatching bizarre laws. Not to count our chickens prematurely, but there's a good chance this poultry excuse for a law will be struck down.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement