When it comes to public policy, good intentions are not enough
When California passed a law to require space for some farm animals in 2018, the effort was lauded as necessary.
At the beginning of next year, California will enforce a welfare proposition, which was approved by voters in 2018. The Farm Animal Confinement Proposition requires more space for breeding pigs, egg-laying chickens, and veal calves.
The idea is that all of those animals should have sufficient space to stretch out their wings, claws, and paws, as Insider’s Hilary Brueck reported. Welfare campaigners have been pushing for the change for years.
Back in 2018, Kitty Block, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, said in a statement: “California voters have sent a loud and clear message that they reject cruel cage confinement in the meat and egg industries.”
However, as the implementation of the law gets closer, it is starting to appear that Californians will pay a huge price for these changes. According to some reports, the regulations are expected to make pig farming more expensive, raising pork prices.
Between now and January, courts or the state could try and intervene. But if they don’t, California is expected to lose almost all of its pork supply and pork producers will likely face higher costs to regain the market, according to AP.
Once the amount of time needed to build new facilities and inseminate sows is factored in, it is unlikely the pork industry will be able to supply California, AP reported.
“We are very concerned about the potential supply impacts and therefore cost increases,” Matt Sutton, the public policy director for the California Restaurant Association, told AP.
Jeannie Kim, a San Francisco restaurant owner, also told AP: “Our number one seller is bacon, eggs and hash browns. It could be devastating for us.”
On top of that, there is little to no evidence showing these rules will make life better for animals.
The fallacy of good intentions
California is not the first state to learn the hard way that good intentions do not necessarily translate to beneficial results.
In 2014, for example, Minnesota passed an ordinance to increase the state’s minimum wage. This was intended to raise incomes for low-income workers. But according to an analysis by the Center for Research on the Wisconsin Economy, the minimum wage hikes in Minnesota led to job losses. These were especially concentrated among young workers and workers in the restaurant industry. Additionally, higher labor costs were passed on to consumers through higher prices.
Occupational licensing, another supposedly beneficial regulation, hurts consumers by raising prices. It also deters low-income individuals from entering certain lucrative professions. Tobacco tax hikes hurt low-income smokers who spend the majority of their incomes on consumption. And rent control policies restrict the supply of housing, hurting low-income renters.
As Milton Friedman succintly explained, to judge policy by its intentions rather than results is a big mistake, as Milton Friedman. Individuals, after all, are strongly influenced by incentives.