Bill Overview
Title: PIGS Act of 2022
Description: This bill prohibits certain methods of confining breeding pigs that restrict their movement and establishes a program to assist pig producers to comply with the prohibitions.
Sponsors: Rep. Escobar, Veronica [D-TX-16]
Target Audience
Population: individuals in the pork production and consumption chain
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The PIGS Act of 2022 directly targets the agricultural industry, specifically those involved in pig farming and production.
- According to FAO, there are more than 700 million pigs in commercial farming worldwide, but the law will only affect the breeding sows, typically around 15% of the total population, which calculates to about 105 million breeding pigs globally.
- Each breeding pig typically produces around 20-30 piglets per year, underscoring their significance in the industry.
- The bill concerns animal welfare organizations and their stakeholders advocating for ethical treatment of animals.
- Consumers who are increasingly concerned about animal welfare and ethical farming practices will also be impacted.
- Globally, consumers may be indirectly affected if similar legislation is adopted internationally or influences export/import markets.
- The pig farming industry, being a part of the agricultural sector, affects around 1 billion people globally who depend on agriculture for their livelihood.
Reasoning
- The primary target population includes pig farmers and hatchery managers directly affected by the policy. The policy aims to improve animal welfare by prohibiting certain confinement methods, which may require infrastructure changes in farms and affect cost and productivity.
- Consumers concerned about ethical farming practices form secondary target groups, as the policy might influence buying behaviors towards farms engaging in higher welfare practices.
- Budget constraints mean that not all farmers will have significant infrastructure changes or improvements immediately, and the assistance program will prioritize high-impact areas or larger farms first.
- Consumers may observe incremental but limited changes in pig-related product pricing due to potential increased costs of production being passed down. Thus, well-being impacts are more nuanced and distributed.
- Animal rights activists likely support the bill but will still watch and push for more accountability and advancements in implementation.
- A portion of pig farmers, particularly smaller farms, might remain unaffected initially due to compliance support rollover across years.
- In general, farmers who comply will see animal welfare and potentially longer-term economic benefits, but short-term costs and change adaptations will affect their immediate well-being.
Simulated Interviews
Pig Farmer (Iowa)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's a necessary move towards better animal welfare. However, the upfront cost can be burdensome.
- The assistance program is helpful, but it will take time to see the benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Animal Rights Activist (California)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a crucial step in the right direction for animal rights.
- I hope it will pave the way for more comprehensive legislation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Slaughterhouse Manager (North Carolina)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The changes may mean less efficient supply flows initially, which could be a concern.
- With the right adaptations, I think we can maintain stability over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Consumer (Florida)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to hear this policy being implemented, it aligns with my values.
- I hope it doesn't significantly affect the cost of pork.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired Agriculture Professor (Texas)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From an academic perspective, this policy is long overdue to push ethical farming.
- Practical implementation, however, is complex and needs tailored approaches.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Public Relations Manager in Food Industry (Illinois)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy's potential to impact consumer buying habits is significant.
- It's both a challenge and an opportunity for brands to leverage this move.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Student (New York)
Age: 25 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with sustainable practices that are critical for the future.
- I'm curious to see its real-world impacts on farming and economy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Small Pig Farm Owner (Kansas)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the idea, but cost and resource management are huge concerns.
- The assistance should also focus on smaller farms who may lack resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Tech Worker (Oregon)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems progressive and is a conversation starter about agricultural ethics.
- Its long-term benefits could polish the US' image in sustainable practices globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Agricultural Economist (Ohio)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The economic shifts require precise monitoring as direct impacts on market and cost will take a while to settle.
- Policy implements well-being, but needs to match with economic viability over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $36000000, High: $75000000)
Year 3: $53000000 (Low: $37000000, High: $77000000)
Year 5: $54000000 (Low: $38000000, High: $78000000)
Year 10: $55000000 (Low: $39000000, High: $80000000)
Year 100: $60000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $90000000)
Key Considerations
- The feasibility and speed of infrastructure upgrades for pig farmers to comply with the act.
- The role of federal support in facilitating compliance and minimizing financial burden on smaller-scale farmers.
- The potential price shift in pork products as a result of increased production costs and its effects on consumer behavior.
- Industry response to changes, including possible innovation in farming practices to align with animal welfare goals while managing costs.
- The potential for international policy influence, prompting similar regulations abroad that might impact global trade.