NPPC Weighed in on FDA Food Chemicals Assessments

What happened: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration took steps to ensure the safety of chemicals used in food production, finalizing a new post-market assessment program and commencing reassessments of two additives commonly used in a variety of food products.

NPPC achieved a critical change in one of the two guidance documents for the post-market assessment program.

Based on input from NPPC and other organizations, the FDA made modifications to its previously proposed method for ranking chemicals for assessment, including dropping a broad “other decisional criteria,” which would have allowed food chemical risk scores to be influenced by non-scientific factors. The “Post-Market Assessment Prioritization Tool” document helps identify priority food chemicals – based on certain criteria – for full scientific assessment by focusing on their potential risk to public health.

The second document – the “Enhanced Systematic Process for Post-Market Assessment of Chemicals in Food” – describes how the FDA will monitor and triage signals that provide information on hazards, use, or exposure related to food chemicals and how it will prioritize for assessment, evaluate, and manage those chemicals in the food supply.

Why it matters: The FDA’s assessment program provides consumers with confidence that the agency is ensuring chemicals in the U.S. food supply remain safe as new scientific information becomes available. The systematic, transparent approach helps protect public health and reinforces the rigorous safety standards that protect American consumers, according to the FDA.

NPPC’s take: NPPC’s input in the post market assessment ensured that it was based on science and will continue to protect food ingredients already approved and safe in pork products.

AGOA Countries Must Give U.S. Market Access, Says NPPC

What happened: NPPC is encouraging the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to work with Congress to ensure renewal of the African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA, includes “tangible gains” for U.S. agriculture, including pork producers. AGOA gives sub-Saharan African nations duty-free access for their goods exported to the United States in exchange for “reasonable and equitable” treatment of U.S. imports. The trade law is up for renewal early next year.

In comments to USTR on modernizing AGOA, NPPC pointed out there are “clear and persistent market access barriers for U.S. exports across AGOA-eligible markets.” It urged the agency to incentivize beneficiary countries to only adopt sanitary and phytosanitary measures that are science- and risk-based and to eliminate other non-tariff barriers such as import licensing and facilities registration schemes.

Several AGOA beneficiary countries maintain restrictions to their markets for U.S. goods and services, including Angola, Cote d’Ivoire, Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa, with the latter two having de facto bans on U.S. pork imports.

NPPC’s take: While NPPC strongly supports AGOA, it historically has urged USTR to withhold or limit benefits to nations that maintain barriers to U.S. goods, including pork, and/or that fail to provide “reasonable and equitable” access to their markets for U.S. agriculture. It supports withholding AGOA benefits from Nigeria and South Africa until they allow full market access for U.S. pork.

Why it matters: The objectives of AGOA are to expand U.S. trade and investment with sub-Saharan Africa, stimulate economic growth in the region, and facilitate African nations’ integration into the global economy. Pork is an important source of protein in many AGOA countries, making them potentially significant markets for U.S. pork.

Agriculture Groups Want Input on Regulating Prediction Markets

What happened: NPPC joined 20 other agricultural organizations in urging the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to consider the effects that novel product offerings and emerging innovations on prediction market platforms may have on the trading of agricultural derivatives.

Producers use futures markets to manage risks and volatility in the commodity markets. While traditional futures markets involve trading on the underlying price of a commodity, with prediction markets, participants can take positions on the outcomes of future events. For example, binary options markets now allow participants to take a position on whether certain agricultural futures prices will settle above or below a particular price on a particular day.

Prediction contracts are being used to bet on almost anything and have been subject to abuse, which has prompted the CFTC to consider regulating them.

In comments submitted to the CFTC, NPPC and the other organizations raised concerns about the impacts new market structures could have on liquidity, contract settlement, price discovery, and the ability to hedge commercial risk efficiently and effectively in derivatives markets. They pointed out that prediction markets do not have the federal price and position limits that exist in commodity futures contracts.

“Agricultural interests seek markets that track their actual price exposure to underlying physical markets,” said the groups. “[Prediction] market participants are still evaluating what role binary options – (i.e., all or nothing bets) – might play in risk management, but there is concern given the potential for these markets to create new price signals or market noise that might impact traditional risk management markets.”

Why it matters: The CFTC oversees and helps safeguard the futures and derivatives markets used by pork producers and other agricultural sectors to manage risks. Proposed changes to market structures must have input from stakeholders to ensure the continued resilience of “critical” derivatives markets, the agriculture groups said.

May 29 Designated ‘Mental Health Awareness in Agriculture Day’

What happened: As they did in 2025, Sens. Deb Fischer (R-NE) and Michael Bennett (D-CO) have introduced a resolution designating May 29 as “Mental Health Awareness in Agriculture Day.” The occasion is meant to raise awareness about mental health in the agricultural industry and reduce the stigma associated with mental illness. The U.S. Senate unanimously approved the measure in 2025.

Fischer and Bennett want to highlight the challenges agricultural producers and workers face, including weather unpredictability, labor shortages, farm succession, and fluctuating commodity and market prices. Many agricultural states are experiencing a mental health crisis, with producers dealing with those stresses.

According to the National Rural Health Association, the rate of suicide among farmers is 3.5 times higher than the general population. The rate among farmworkers is 1.4 times higher than rates in all other occupations, according to the Mortality-Linked National Health Interview Survey.

NPPC’s take: NPPC, which thanked Sens. Fischer and Bennet for their leadership on the issue, said it is important to shine a light on the mental health challenges faced by farmers and ranchers and pledged to continue working with other agricultural organizations to break the stigma around mental health.

Resources: The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm and Ranch Stress Assistance Network connects agricultural producers and workers to stress assistance programs. For a list of other mental health resources, click here and here.

World Pork Expo Set for June 3-4

What is happening: NPPC’s 2026 World Pork Expo is set for June 3-4 at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines. More than 20,000 visitors are expected to attend the event, which showcases innovations and new products and offers training and educational programs, as well as a lot of pork.

Among the features of the annual Expo:

• More than 700 booths featuring the latest equipment, technology, services, and solutions across 300,000 square feet of exhibit space.
• Young Pork Advocates Issues Meet, a one-of-a-kind event with emerging and future industry leaders sharing their perspectives on key pork production topics.
• Learning experiences and discussions designed to bring a practical perspective on the issues and innovations affecting pork production today.
• Networking opportunities and hospitality events, live entertainment, and complimentary pork lunches at The Big Grill.

Click here for more information, tickets, and media registration for the world’s largest pork industry trade show and exhibition.

House Passes Farm Bill with Prop. 12 Fix with Bipartisan Support

What happened: With an impressive, bipartisan 224-200 vote in the U.S. House of Representatives, the 2026 Farm Bill included 100% of the National Pork Producers Council’s policy requests—including much-needed relief from the misguided California Proposition 12.

In addition to a Prop. 12 fix, the farm bill also accomplished all additional NPPC priorities, including:

• Funding and converting the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program into a full program.
• Increasing funding for critical agricultural trade promotion programs, including the Market Access Program, Foreign Market Development Program, E. Kika de la Garza Emerging Markets Program, Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops, and Priority Trade Fund.
• Requiring USDA to report how changes to or expiration of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement will affect agriculture.
• Establishing the Agricultural Trade Enforcement Task Force to better identify and overcome trade barriers.
• Expanding the Animal Health Protection Act to include improving animal disease traceability.
• Allowing the establishment of additional training centers and programs under the Beagle Brigade Act.
• Requiring thorough documentation on USDA’s ability to protect producers from significant economic losses due to a foreign animal disease outbreak.
• Capping administrative expenses for the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program and the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, allowing a higher percentage of funds to be used for research.
• Requiring USDA to conduct research and development on a policy to insure pork producers against financial losses from a catastrophic disease.

NPPC and its members have long – and loudly! – advocated for a Prop. 12 fix, including recent grassroots and concerted coalition efforts to get a fix in the House Farm Bill.

NPPC, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and nearly 400 other agricultural organizations representing millions of members, urged lawmakers to fix Prop. 12 in the farm bill. In the letter to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), the farm coalition detailed the Prop. 12 problems, including its potential to prompt a patchwork of differing state laws, failure to improve animal well-being, detrimental effect on food prices, and the costs of complying with the initiative.

The farm groups also pointed out that there has been bipartisan support for fixing Prop. 12, with Trump administration Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Biden Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack calling on Congress to take action.

NPPC also joined the Farm Credit Council and 330+ national and state groups in urging Congress to pass the farm bill.

NPPC’s take: “Today’s House farm bill passage is a testament to the power of rural America when we stand up for our farms and future generations with a unified voice,” said Rob Brenneman, NPPC president and pork producer from Washington County, Iowa. “We wholeheartedly thank our champions—House Agriculture Committee Chairman GT Thompson, Rep. Ashley Hinson, and others—for not backing down from the fight for what is right for rural America. He and congressional supporters on both sides of the aisle heard our plea to help America’s pork producers. Now, we look to the Senate to follow suit and pass this farm bill for us and others in agriculture without delay.”

Why it matters: The Prop. 12 provision in the 2026 House Farm Bill protects producers’ freedom to farm while allowing states to approve laws that regulate agricultural practices and impact commerce within their borders.

Without Prop. 12 relief in the final farm bill, pork producers face a patchwork of state animal housing laws that hurts small farmers the hardest, takes away veterinarians’ choices, increases the cost of food, and undermines states’ rights.

Appropriations Bill Would Fund Swine Health Improvement Plan

What happened: The House Committee on Appropriations approved fiscal year 2027 funding for programs related to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, and related agencies. Included was the NPPC-backed, cooperative state-federal-industry program, the U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan, which helps improve the health and marketability of U.S. swine and pork products.

US SHIP sets consistent biosecurity, traceability and surveillance standards for foreign animal diseases and endemic diseases. Participants work to obtain certification that they are free from FADs, outside control areas, and in the case of endemic diseases, a certification declaring a specific health status.

NPPC’s take: NPPC applauds the House Committee on Appropriation’s passage of the agriculture spending bill, which also increases funds for agricultural research and USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service and maintains funds for agricultural trade programs.

NPPC continues to urge USDA to establish the federal advisory committee so that producers can be involved in setting the program’s standards and carry that message forward to USDA.

Why it matters: US SHIP is an important tool for demonstrating that pork operations are free of disease, which can expedite the resumption of trade following an FAD outbreak. An FAD outbreak in the United States could stop pork exports for more than 10 years at a cost of $50 billion, according to estimates from Iowa State University economists. For more information on US SHIP, click here.

NPPC Supports Approval of Technology to Combat NWS

What happened: In comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NPPC asked to give “full and timely consideration” for approval of new technology to help prevent New World screwworm.

NWS is a flesh-eating parasite from female flies that lay eggs in wounds on warm-blooded animals. Animals that recently have given birth, suffered an injury, or had a surgical procedure, such as tail docking or branding, are most vulnerable.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service recently applied to register NovoFly – a technology incorporating a genetically engineered female-lethal trait that results in male-only sterile flies – for use in combatting NWS.

NPPC in its comments noted that many chemical treatments to manage screwworm infestations no longer are widely available or practical for large-scale prevention. NovoFly, it said, provides a targeted, species-specific, and environmentally responsible alternative that aligns with modern integrated pest management principles.

Approving ARS’s application for NovoFly, NPPC said, “will help ensure that the United States remains prepared to prevent the reintroduction and spread of New World screwworm, protecting animal health, agricultural producers, and the broader economy.”

Why it matters: The introduction of a pest such as NWS into the United States, if not addressed quickly, would result in immediate animal and human health risks and implications that would affect significant portions of the U.S. economy and food supply security.

Bill to Improve Coordination on Animal Disease Outbreaks Introduced

What happened: Sen. Tammy Baldwin introduced the “Wildlife Health Coordination and Zoonotic Disease Prevention Act of 2026,” a bill to increase interagency coordination during wildlife, livestock, and domestic animal disease outbreaks.

The bill will create a program administered jointly by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The bill would establish a national wildlife health coordinator, a tribal coordinator, and four regional coordinators to help increase communication among agencies on the frontlines of animal and human health. They would share information on existing and emerging wildlife and zoonotic disease outbreaks with states, the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, USDA, FWS, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

NPPC’s take: NPPC and the Wisconsin Pork Producers Association support the Baldwin’s bill as a step toward stronger coordination among animal health, wildlife, and public health agencies. By enhancing communication and resources across federal, state, and tribal partners, the legislation will help protect livestock, safeguard producers, and reduce the risk of zoonotic disease outbreaks affecting the food system. NPPC and Wisconsin Pork supported similar legislation in 2024.

Why it matters: Preventing and responding to animal disease outbreaks is essential to the viability of animal agriculture, and improving coordination of efforts among federal and state entities responsible for animal and human health will help ensure outbreaks are addressed efficiently and quickly, minimizing their effects on producers, animals, and consumers.

NPPC’s Marotz, Johnson Attend NAFB’s Washington Watch

What happened: NPPC Vice President Todd Marotz, who is chief production officer for Wakefield Pork in Sleepy Eye, Minnesota, and NPPC Director of Food Policy Dr. Ashley Johnson participated in the National Association of Farm Broadcasting’s annual Washington Watch issues forum in Washington, DC, conducting 15 radio interviews, reaching nearly 1,000 network affiliates.

Among the topics they discussed were:

• A legislative fix to California’s Proposition 12, which bans in that state the sale of pork from hogs born to sows raised in housing that fails to meet California’s standards.
• The new farm bill, which includes a Prop. 12 fix as well as reauthorization of programs to prevent and prepare for foreign animal diseases and to promote agricultural exports.
• Animal health issues such as preventing and preparing for an outbreak of New World screwworm and funding for the U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan, a cooperative state-federal-industry program designed to improve the health and marketability of U.S. swine and pork products.
• The farm labor shortage and reform of H-2A visas to make them more useful to animal agriculture. Currently, H-2A visas only allow temporary, seasonal farm workers into the country; producers need year-round employees.
• Additional trade agreements to open markets to more U.S. farm goods, including pork, and the need to extend the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which the three signatory countries will begin reviewing starting in July.

Why it matters: NAFB’s Washington Watch connects agriculture broadcasters and agricultural industry leaders to discuss key issues affecting U.S. farmers. Farm broadcasters are a trusted source, provide an invaluable service, and are a vital tool for communicating with the agricultural community, telling the story of the who, what, when, where, and how of America’s food, feed, fiber, and fuel system.

• Funding and converting the Feral Swine Eradication and Control Pilot Program into a full program.
• Increasing funding for critical agricultural trade promotion programs, including the Market Access Program, Foreign Market Development Program, E. Kika de la Garza Emerging Markets Program, Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops, and Priority Trade Fund.
• Requiring USDA to report how changes to or expiration of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement will affect agriculture.
• Establishing the Agricultural Trade Enforcement Task Force to better identify and overcome trade barriers.
• Expanding the Animal Health Protection Act to include improving animal disease traceability.
• Allowing the establishment of additional training centers and programs under the Beagle Brigade Act.
• Requiring thorough documentation on USDA’s ability to protect producers from significant economic losses due to a foreign animal disease outbreak.
• Capping administrative expenses for the National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program and the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, allowing a higher percentage of funds to be used for research.
• Requiring USDA to conduct research and development on a policy to insure pork producers against financial losses from a catastrophic disease.

• The massive problems caused by Prop. 12 cannot be solved via regulation or executive order—it is solely Congress’ authority and responsibility to provide a solution, as noted in the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision.
• Prop. 12 has created uncertainty across rural America, especially on small and medium-sized farms, as they have less financial ability to retrofit barns to comply with the restrictive law.
• There is significant bipartisan willingness to fix Prop. 12.
  o    Trump administration Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said, “[Proposition 12] is not just affecting California. It’s affecting multitudes of other states, multitudes of other parts of the ag community, including our hog family farms.”
  o    Biden administration Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said, “California’s Proposition 12 is not a narrow issue, nor is it a regional one. It goes to the heart of whether farmers across the country can operate under consistent, responsible, science-based standards—or be subject to a shifting patchwork of mandates they cannot control and cannot afford. When I served as Secretary of Agriculture the Supreme Court of the United States made clear, resolving these interstate challenges is the responsibility of Congress. I encouraged Congress to act then, and I am again encouraging Congress to act now. The farm bill presents a clear and immediate opportunity to provide that certainty and uphold the principles that have long sustained American agriculture and the affordability of our food supply.”
• Laws like Prop. 12 do not improve animal welfare and lack scientific evidence.
  o    The American Veterinary Medical Association said, “the arbitrary housing requirements in Prop 12 do not objectively improve animal welfare and may unintentionally cause harm.”
• Prop. 12 sets the stage for an unworkable 50-state patchwork of laws.
  o    A proposal in Oklahoma would increase housing requirements beyond Prop. 12. This means that pork producers nationwide, regardless of whether they have converted to be Prop. 12-compliant, would yet again be out of compliance to access another state market.
• Farmers’ costs to house their animals are increasing.
  o    Multiple university studies show that constructing new, Prop. 12-compliant barns can cost 25-40% more per sow than other housing styles, not including the estimated 15% higher operating costs per pig caused by reduced productivity.
• Prop. 12 is responsible for declining food affordability as grocery story pork prices are skyrocketing.
  o    North Dakota State University economists found that since Prop. 12 was implemented, prices for covered products in California have increased nearly 20% on average.
• Prop. 12 leads to pork industry consolidation, as smaller farms close their doors because of the regulatory burdens and high costs of complying with Prop. 12.

NPPC Continues to Apply Pressure as House is set to Vote on Farm Bill 2.0

What happened: As the House prepares to vote on a new farm bill, producers are continuing to press lawmakers to keep a provision in the legislation that addresses the problems caused by California’s Proposition 12.

NPPC joined the Farm Credit Council and 330+ national and state groups in urging Congress to pass the farm bill.

An NPPC-backed provision in the farm bill would prohibit states from setting meat and poultry product standards as a condition of sale for animals produced outside their borders.

Why it matters: Without a fix to Prop. 12, pork producers across the country will need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to retrofit existing or build new housing that complies with California’s arbitrary standards or otherwise not be able to sell into that market of 40 million people. Californians consume about 13% of all pork sold domestically.

Adding to concerns, if the livestock production law stands, other states are in line to approve differing statutes, creating a nationwide patchwork of restrictive mandates on producers.

Veterinary Groups Renew Support of Prop. 12 Fix in House Farm Bill

What happened: Two of NPPC’s biggest allies on the issue of animal well-being offered their support for a farm bill provision that would fix the complications triggered by California’s Proposition 12.

The House farm bill provision would prohibit states from implementing laws and regulations that dictate animal production practices outside their borders.

The American Association of Swine Veterinarians and the American Veterinary Medical Association, in separate letters to Congress, urged lawmakers to support the Prop. 12 provision of the “Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026.”

AASV told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Majority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) that the Prop. 12 requirements putting limits on veterinarians’ ability to work with farmers … “may not be in the best interest of the animals under our care.” Prop. 12, said AASV, “does not objectively improve animal welfare” and, in some cases, “may compromise animal welfare.”

In its letter to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA) and Ranking Member Angie Craig (D-MN), the AVMA noted that “no one husbandry style is appropriate for all circumstances” and that efforts to improve animal well-being should be based on science and veterinarians’ experience. “The requirements in Prop. 12 are not scientifically based and have not been objectively demonstrated to reliably and consistently improve animal welfare,” the organization wrote.

Why it matters: As AASV and AVMA pointed out, the best solution for animal well-being is for farmers and veterinarians to have flexibility to determine the housing arrangements that are best for their animals. Prop. 12 takes away that flexibility and places the well-being of animals at risk.

Allowing Prop. 12 to stand, the organizations said, could create a patchwork of regulations that would impact biosecurity and be cost-prohibitive and cumbersome for veterinarians and producers to navigate.

NPPC Asks Administration to Use Caution in Imposing 301 Tariffs

What happened: NPPC urged the Trump administration to be cautious when imposing tariffs on countries in response to their unfair trade practices because of the negative consequences that often follow such duties – namely, retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods, including pork.

In comments submitted to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, NPPC acknowledged the challenges caused by nations using forced labor and fostering overcapacity of products and subsequently subsidizing exports. And it recognized the administration’s use of Section 301 tariffs as a way to protect domestic manufacturers of, for example, steel, aluminum, and semiconductors.

But, said NPPC, the U.S. pork industry historically has been the primary target in trade disputes involving manufacturing. Pork is a high-value commodity on which trading partners often impose retaliatory duties “to exert maximum political pressure on the U.S. government” to back off its tariffs, the organization wrote.

NPPC also pointed out that using Section 301 tariffs as a permanent trade architecture creates uncertainty, which stifles long-term business planning and investment. “Section 301 was designed to enforce U.S. rights under trade agreements and encourage negotiations, not to serve as a permanent tax on imports.”

NPPC’s take: NPPC is asking USTR to “carefully” target trade remedies only at products where foreign government intervention has created excess capacity that is immune to market correction. NPPC also wants USTR to exclude agricultural equipment and components and inputs from tariffs to avoid inflating domestic production costs.

Why it matters: Imposing of U.S. tariffs can prompt retaliatory duties on American goods. Trade disputes with China in 2018-2019, for example, saw that country respond to U.S. 301 tariffs (and Section 232 duties) with tariffs on U.S. pork of 62 to 70%, leading to an estimated annualized loss of nearly $646 million in exports. Additionally, it is difficult and costly to regain market share in a country once a trading partner responds to U.S. tariffs by sourcing pork from U.S. competitors such as Brazil or the European Union, even after the tariffs have been lifted.

Fund Ag Export Promotion Programs, Says Coalition

What happened: The Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports, which includes NPPC and more than 130 other agriculture organizations, is urging the House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to include “full, mandatory” funding for two export promotion programs in the fiscal 2027 agriculture appropriations bill.

In a letter to Reps. Andy Harris (R-MD) and Sanford Bishop (D-GA), the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, the coalition asked that funding continue for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Market Access Program and Foreign Market Development Program, “an investment which is making a difference.”

The coalition pointed out that private-sector investment through MAP is $2.50 for each $1 in federal funding, while FMD spending is $3.25 for each federal dollar appropriated. “Full funding for these programs is abundantly necessary,” said the coalition.

Why it matters: Exports add significantly to the bottom line of every U.S. agricultural producer. In countries around the world, MAP and FMD have helped promote U.S. farm products, which generated economic output of more than $362 billion in 2023, according to USDA. That means for every $1 of U.S. agricultural goods exported, $2.06 of domestic economic activity was generated.

One Hundred-plus Pork Producers Lobby Lawmakers in Washington

What happened: NPPC held its spring Legislative Action Conference, with more than 100 pork producers from 23 states in Washington, D.C., to lobby their congressional members on issues of importance to the U.S. pork industry, primarily California Proposition 12.

Before meeting with their lawmakers, producers heard a panel discussion on the 119th Congress, policy priorities, and the upcoming midterm elections from Kirsten Chadwick, a partner with Fierce Government Relations, and Anne MacMillan, chief strategy officer with public affairs firm Invariant. The talk was moderated by NPPC Vice President of Government Affairs Maria C. Zieba.

During their Capitol Hill visits, producers urged lawmakers to take action on the following issues:

• Farm Bill 2.0 – Quickly approve a new farm bill that includes a provision that fixes the problems caused by Prop. 12.
• United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement – Urge the Trump administration to maintain market access for U.S. pork during the mandatory USMCA review in July.
• U.S. Swine Health Improvement Plan – Support funding and establish a federal advisory committee for the US SHIP, which helps enhance biosecurity, advance animal traceability, and improve disease surveillance.
• Farm workforce – Expand the H-2A visa program to allow year-round agricultural workers as a way to address a farm labor shortage.

Why it matters: NPPC’s biannual legislative fly-in is an important opportunity for its pork producer members to help advance various issues of importance to the U.S. pork industry and for policymakers to learn about the many benefits the industry provides in their districts, states, and throughout the country.

Updated Data Confirm California Prop. 12 Raised Prices, Reduced Consumption

What happened: Updated data from researchers at North Dakota State University showed the continuing negative economic impacts of California Proposition 12, which banned the sale in California of pork from hogs born to sows raised anywhere in housing that doesn’t meet the state’s standards.

The follow-up to a July 2025 NDSU Agricultural Risk Policy Center white paper found data gathered since that earlier study shows “substantial and persistent price increases” in California for pork cuts covered by Prop. 12, with an average price 20% higher than the pre-Prop. 12 period. Prices for pork loins increased 32%, ribs 22%, shoulders 16%, and bacon 16%.

The data also showed California’s pork consumption down approximately 16%, “with no signs of recovery during the post-policy period.” Despite that drop, the state’s consumers have paid $350 million more for pork purchased since Prop. 12 was implemented on January 1, 2024.

The white paper’s authors concluded that the combination of higher prices and limited availability of pork has produced lasting structural changes in consumption in California rather than a short-term adjustment.

NPPC’s take: “We’re all singing from the same songbook – real pork producers of all sizes. We need relief from a patchwork of state animal housing laws, which will surely be the nail in the coffin for a number of farms across the country,” said NPPC President Rob Brenneman, a pork producer from Washington, Iowa.

Why it matters: Pork producers who traveled to Washington, D.C., to lobby Congress on important pork industry issues referenced the latest data in urging their congressional lawmakers to support a provision that fixes the problems caused by Prop. 12 included in the next farm bill. The House farm bill consideration may take place as soon as the week of April 27.

Coalition Comments on Revised Conservation Practice Standards

What happened: The NPPC-founded Agricultural Nutrient Policy Council, a coalition of more than 50 state and national agribusinesses and agricultural associations, submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service on redlined revisions to 60 of the agencies conservation practice standards. The standards are technical guidelines used to plan, implement, and evaluate conservation practices that protect soil, water, air, plants, animals, and energy resources. NRCS intends to update and revise each of its conservation practice standards over the next two years.

NPPC has previously pressed NRCS to allow more—and earlier—stakeholder engagement after former NRCS staff led draft proposals to impose hundreds of thousands of dollars of capital costs on individual pig farming families. Those proposed revisions have now been withdrawn, and with the agencies, other practice standards are being released for stakeholder review and public comment. The recent revisions seek to ensure USDA conservation standards remain practical and achievable for farms and agribusinesses.

The coalition commented on 35 specific practices – there are 169 – including ones related to composting, irrigation water management, energy efficiency, pest management, and lagoons. On waste treatment lagoons, for example, the coalition wants the definition and explanatory language revised to clearly distinguish treatment lagoons from waste storage facilities. The previously proposed standard, to require impermeable covers over all lagoons and waste storage facilities has been removed after U.S. pig farmers raised objections last year.

The comments also urged NRCS to evaluate ways to increase flexibility of the standards while ensuring natural resource benefits. More flexibility, the coalition said, “will allow for site-specific conservation planning, additional farmer and rancher innovation, and economic feasibility at the farm gate.”

Although it welcomed improvements clarifying the intent and function of conservation practices and preserving professional engineering and technical judgment in design criteria for conservation projects, ANPC cautioned NRCS to “avoid expanding unnecessarily prescriptive design requirements.” It also encouraged the agency to differentiate between mandatory practice criteria and programmatic, regulatory, or guidance-level provisions.

Why it matters: The NRCS conservation practice standards provide science-based guidance for managing natural resources on agricultural, forest, and other lands. The agency makes periodic revisions to the standards to reflect new research, technology, and environmental priorities.

USDA Releases Updated Playbook on New World Screwworm

What happened: The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service released an updated New World Screwworm response playbook, a guide for supporting coordinated, science-based action should an NWS infestation be detected in the United States.

NWS is a flesh-eating parasite from female flies that lay eggs in wounds on warm-blooded animals. According to USDA, animals that recently have given birth, suffered an injury, or had a surgical procedure, such as tail docking or branding, are most vulnerable. However, wounds as small as ones caused by tick bites can attract NWS flies.

The disease has moved from South America, through Central America, and into Mexico over the past few years, with a case recently identified in cattle 90 miles south of the U.S.-Mexican border. It is endemic in Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, and some South American countries.

The updated playbook outlines science-based strategies for responders, including for coordinating response operations, preventing and reducing the spread of NWS, managing flies in infested animals, implementing surveillance and control measures, maintaining continuity of business, and supporting efficient information flow. APHIS said it will continue revising the playbook as preparedness activities advance and evolve, along with seeking input from stakeholders to refine response tools and strengthen coordination.

NPPC submitted comments in January on USDA’s draft plan to address NWS.

NPPC’s take: NPPC has been working with USDA, the American Association of Swine Veterinarians, the Swine Health Information Center, and the National Pork Board to educate producers about NWS. NPPC has also been instrumental in including recommendations from the pork industry in the updated playbook.

Why it matters: An outbreak of NWS in the United States likely would result in movement controls, inspection/surveillance requirements, and treatments requirements for select animals. It is estimated to cost the industry billions of dollars for control and eradication. Click here for more information on NWS.

NPPC Asks Treasury to Extend Comments on 45Z Clean Fuels Tax Credit Rule

What happened: NPPC is asking the U.S. Treasury Department’s Internal Revenue Service to hold off on a proposed rule to implement the 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit until two analytical tools to determine the program’s efficacy have been finalized—and stakeholders can review and comment. The 45Z program provides a tax incentive for the production of low- and zero-emissions transportation fuels, including ethanol, Sustainable Aviation Fuel, and renewable natural gas.

In comments submitted, NPPC pointed out that pork producers can see “enormous potential” in the 45Z program, which can provide them significant new revenue streams and recognition of the economic and ecological value of livestock manure, but that it also could have a negative impact on grain markets because it requires feedstocks for fuel to be produced from crops grown in North America.

The biggest concern, however, is the current version of one analytic tool – the Feedstock Carbon Intensity Calculator, which quantifies greenhouse gas emissions per bushel for field corn, soybeans, and sorghum. The calculator does not include the use of manure nutrients as a conservation practice input, which can lower a farm’s carbon intensity score. The calculator score determines 45Z program eligibility and the amount of the tax credit.

In a separate letter to Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, NPPC joined 20 agriculture and energy organizations in requesting timely completion and release of updates to the other analytic tool – the GREET model life-cycle analysis tool, which evaluates energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and environmental impacts of fuels. The tool is necessary to implement the 45Z program and to allow calculation of the credit values.

Why it matters: NPPC noted in its comments that the interaction between 45Z, the sustainable aviation fuel markets, and the use of carbon intensity scores will “reshape feedstock economics,” including feed grain markets, oilseed demand, and the value of crop and livestock byproducts. Livestock producers need to know how those dynamics will affect input costs, how manure will be scored relative to crops, and whether the environmental contributions of diverse livestock production systems will be valued fairly.

Without finalized analytical tools to determine the impact of the 45Z program, NPPC said, “it is impossible for the U.S. pork industry to provide meaningful, well-informed comments on how the program will operate in practice.” It urged the IRS to withhold issuing a final rule until the tools are final.

NPPC Details Importance of USDA Data Products to Producers

What happened: Noting that pork producers rely on a variety of federal government data products, research, and reports to conduct daily business, assess supply and demand conditions, and make long-term business decisions, NPPC applauded the U.S. Department of Agriculture for ensuring that timely, accurate, and credible information is available to meet the needs of U.S. agriculture.

As requested by USDA, NPPC submitted comments detailing how and why producers use and rely on various data from the agency, particularly through products produced by its National Agricultural Statistics Service, Economic Research Service, and the Office of the Chief Economist-World Agricultural Outlook Board.

Among the reports cited were NASS’s Quarterly Hogs and Pigs Report and Census of Agriculture; the ERS Meat Price Spreads and its Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook; and the OCE-WOAB World Supply and Demand Estimates. Producers also get important information from USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Food Safety Inspection Service, and Foreign Agricultural Service.

NPPC urged USDA, in putting together reports, to prioritize representative samples, survey response rates, and other methods to maintain their credibility and relevance and producer confidence in the data.

Why it matters: USDA reports and research are widely used by pork producers and industry stakeholders. There are virtually no substitutes for the hog- and pork-related data and reports produced by the department, NPPC pointed out in its comments, making their continued publication critically important.

USTR Issues 2026 Report on Foreign Barriers to Trade

What happened: The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative recently released its 2026 National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers, which details significant barriers to U.S. exports of goods and services, U.S. foreign direct investment, and U.S. electronic commerce in important export markets. NPPC in late October 2025 submitted comments to USTR on countries that maintain obstacles to U.S. pork exports.

Published annually since 1986, the NTE report looks at agricultural trade barriers such as tariffs, burdensome facility registration requirements, sanitary-phytosanitary regulations, import licensing requirements that are not science-based, and the lack of adherence to international science- and risk-based standards. The report is due to the president and Congress by March 31 of each year.

The 2026 report includes 60 countries and three economic blocs: the Arab League, which consists of 22 nations; the 27-member European Union; and the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes six Middle Eastern countries.

NPPC’s take: The NTE Report is important for helping U.S. negotiators in their efforts to reduce or eliminate foreign trade barriers and is a valuable tool for enforcing U.S. trade laws and agreements. All the countries cited by NPPC in its comments to USTR were in the final report, including:

• Brazil – De facto ban on U.S. pork imports, with no scientific justification. It requires U.S. pork to be frozen or tested for trichinae.
• China – Ban on the feed additive ractopamine despite an international standard allowing its use. China also has an onerous facility registration system.
• India – Proposed additional export certificate with additional attestations that are not relevant to food safety or based on science. • South Africa – Ban on pork offal and requirement of trichinae-related freezing of pork.
• Thailand – De facto ban on U.S. pork and a ban on ractopamine use.

Why is this important: Trade barriers limit U.S. agricultural exports, which are vital to America’s farmers, ranchers, and the overall U.S. economy, supporting about 1.25 million U.S. jobs. For pork producers, exports contribute significantly to their bottom line. Last year, producers shipped $8.4 billion of product to over 100 foreign countries.