TITLE 3. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE 
PROPOSED REGULATIONS – ANIMAL CONFINEMENT 
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Department of Food and Agriculture (Department) is 
proposing to take the action described in the Informative Digest. A public hearing is not 
scheduled for this proposal. A public hearing will be held if any interested person, or his or her 
duly a uthorized representative, submits a written request for a public hearing to the Department 
no later than 15 days prior to the close of the written comment period. Any person interested 
may present statements or arguments in writing relevant to the action proposed to the person 
designated in this Notice as the contact person beginning May 28, 2021 and ending on July 
12, 2021 . Following the public hearing, if one is requested, or following the written comment 
period if no public hearing is requested, the Department, upon its own motion or at the instance 
of any interested party, may thereafter adopt the proposals substantially a s described below or 
may modify such proposals if such modifications are sufficiently related to the original text. With 
the exception of technical or grammatical changes, the full text of any modified proposal will be 
available for 15 days prior to its a doption from the person designated in this Notice as contact 
person and will be mailed to those persons who submit written or oral testimony related to this 
proposal or who have requested notification of any changes to the proposal. 
Authority and Referenc e: Pursuant to the authority vest ed by section 25993 of the Health and 
Safety Code (HSC) , the Department is proposing to implement, inte rpret, or make specific the 
requirements relating to the confinement of egg -laying hens, veal calves, and breeding pigs, 
and/or selling specified whole veal meat, whole pork meat, shell eggs, and liquid eggs in 
California in accordance with sections 25990, 25991 , 25992 , 25993.1, and 25994 of the HSC, 
as described in the Informative Digest . 
INFORMATIVE DIGEST/POLICY STATEMENT OVERVIEW 
In 2018, California voters passed Proposition 12, Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, self -titled 
as the Prevention of Cruelty to Farm Animals Act, and as defined i n the proposed regulatory 
text, the Farm Animal Cruelty statute (Act), which amended the requirements of H SC sections 
25990 through 2599 3 and added section 25993.1; section 25994 remained unchanged. The 
purpose of the Act is to prevent animal cruelty by phasing out certain methods of farm animal 
confinement for covered animals raised in the State and the products harvested from those 
animals , or immediate offspring of those animal s in the case of breeding pigs, if sold within the 
State for huma n consumption. The Act mandates farm animal confinement standards and 
compliance timeframes, establishes definitions affecting the production and sale of shell eggs, 
liquid eggs, whole veal meat, and whole pork meat in the State, and directs the Departmen t and 
the Department of Public Health (DPH) to jointly promulgate regulations to implement the 
provisions of the HSC relating to the confinement of specified farm animals and the sale of 
specified products derived from them. 
In this rulemaking, the Depar tment proposes to adopt new Chapter 10 (commencing with 
section 1320) of Division 2 of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations ( CCR ) to implement, 
interpret, and make specific the laws established by the Act . Specifically, this proposal would          
         
        
          
 
                
        
 
               
           
              
               
             
             
            
           
            
 
            
              
 
 
              
       
 
             
        
        
              
         
 
                 
          
 
               
             
           
         
       
             
           
        
      
 
          
           establ ish a program of registration, certification, conveyance inspection, and labeling and 
marking requirements for the sale of shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat, and whole pork 
meat in the State which is necessary to fully effectuate the intent of the A ct. 
Existing law, section 25990(a) of the HSC specifies that a farm owner or operator within the State 
of California shall not knowingly cause any covered animal to be confined in a cruel manner. 
Existing law, section 25990(b) of the HSC specifies that a business owner or operator shall not 
knowingly engage in the sale within the State of any of the following: (1) Whole veal meat that 
the business owner or operator knows or should know is the meat of a covered animal who was 
confined in a cruel manner; (2 ) Whole pork meat that the business owner or operator knows or 
should know is the meat of a covered animal who was confined in a cruel manner, or is the 
meat of immediate offspring of a covered animal who was confined in a cruel manner; (3) Shell 
eggs that the business owner or operator knows or should know is the product of a covered 
animal who was confined in a cruel manner; (4) Liquid eggs that the business owner or operator 
knows or should know are the product of a covered animal who was confined in a c ruel manner. 
Existing law, section 25991(a) of the HSC defines “breeding pig” as meaning any female pig of 
the porcine species kept for the purpose of commercial breeding who is six (6) months or older 
or pregnant. 
Existing law, s ection 25991(b) of the HSC defines a “business owner or operator” to mean any 
person who owns or controls the operations of a business. 
Existing law, section 25991(c) of the HSC defines a “cage -free housing system” for egg-laying 
hens including types of qualifying platforms and flooring systems and describes different 
acceptable hen housing systems that must include the minimum requirements for enrichments 
such as scratch areas, perches, nest boxes, and dust bathing areas as well as the ability of an 
employee to fully stand and provide care while working in the hens’ usable floorspace. 
Existing law, section 25991(d) of the HSC defines a “calf raised for veal” to mean any calf of the 
bovine species kept for the purpose of producing the food product described as veal. 
Existi ng law, s ection 25991(e) of the HSC defines acts that mean an animal was “confined in a 
cruel manner” including, but not limited to, confining a calf raised for veal with less than 43 
square feet of usable floorspace per calf after December 31, 2019; confi ning a breeding pig with 
less than 24 square feet of usable floorspace per pig after December 31, 2021; confining an 
egg-laying hen with less than 144 square inches of usable floorspace per hen after December 
31, 2019; and confining an egg -laying hen with less than the amount of usable floorspace per 
hen required by the 2017 edition of the United Egg Producers’ Animal Husbandry Guidelines for 
U.S. Egg-Laying Flocks: Guidelines for Cage -Free Housing or in an enclosure other than a 
cage -free system after Dece mber 31, 2021. 
Existing law, section 25991(f) of the H SC defines a “covered animal” as meaning any calf 
raised for veal, breeding pig, or egg -laying hen who is kept on a farm. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 2          
  
             
            
 
 
           
     
 
             
          
            
       
         
           
 
            
        
 
          
            
 
            
           
         
         
         
         
    
 
            
       
    
 
             
              
 
             
      
        
                
          
               
            
 Existing law, s ection 25991(g) of the H SC defines an “egg-laying hen” as meaning any female 
domesticated chicken, turkey, duck, goose, or guineafowl kept for the purpose of egg 
production. 
Existing law, s ection 25991(h) of the H SC defines “enclosure” as meaning a structure used to 
confine a covered animal or animals. 
Existing law, section 25991(i) of the HSC defines “farm” as meaning the land, building, support 
facilities, and other equipment that are wholly or partially used for the commercial production of 
animals or animal products used for food or fiber; and does not inclu de live animal markets, 
establishments at which mandatory inspection is provided under the Federal Meat Inspection 
Act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.), or official plants at which mandatory inspection is maintained 
under the federal Egg Products Inspection Ac t (21 U.S.C. Sec. 1031 et seq.). 
Existing law, section 25991(j) of the H SC defines “farm owner or operator” as meaning any 
person who owns or controls the operations of a farm. 
Existing law, section 25991(k) of the H SC defines “fully extending the anima l’s limbs” as 
meaning fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure, or another animal. 
Existing law, section 25991(l) of the H SC defines “liquid eggs” as meaning eggs of an egg -
laying hen broken from the shells, intended for human food, with the yolks and whites in their 
natural proportions, or with the yolks and whites separated, mixed, or mixed and strained. 
Liquid eggs do not include combination food products, including pancake mixes, cake mixes, 
cookies, pizzas, cookie dough, ic e cream, or similar processed or prepared food products, that 
are comprised of more than liquid eggs, sugar, salt, water, seasoning, coloring, flavoring, 
preservatives, stabilizers, and similar food additives. 
Existing law, section 25991( m) of the H SC de fines a “person” as meaning any individual, firm, 
partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, 
receiver, or syndicate. 
Existing law, section 25991(n) of the H SC defines “pork meat” as meaning meat, as defined in 3 
CCR 900 as of August 2017, of a pig of the porcine species, intended for use as human food. 
Existing law, section 25991(o) of the H SC defines “sale” as mean ing a commercial sale by a 
business that sells any item covered by this chapter, but does not include any sale undertaken 
at an establishment at which mandatory inspection is provided under the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. Sec. 601 et seq.), or any sale undertaken at an official plant at which 
mandatory inspection is maintained under the federal Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1031 et seq.). For purposes of this section, a sale shall be deemed to occur at the location 
where the buyer take s physical possession of an item covered by HSC s ection 25990. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 3          
              
         
  
            
         
      
 
            
    
 
           
         
        
        
            
   
 
              
              
 
           
             
           
        
         
             
        
 
           
            
          
          
           
           
     
 
             
             
          
           
             
           
       
 Existing law, section 25991(p) of the H SC defines “shell egg” as meaning a whole egg of an 
egg-laying hen in its shell form, intended for use as human food. 
Existing law, section 25991(q) o f the H SC defines “turning around freely” as meaning turning in 
a complete circle without any impediment, including a tether, and without touching the side of 
an enclosure or another animal. 
Existing law, section 25991(r) of the H SC defines “uncooked” as meaning requiring cooking 
prior to human consumption. 
Existing law, section 25991(s) of the H SC defines “usable floorspace” as meaning the total 
square footage of floorspace provided to each covered animal, as calculated by dividing the 
total square foo tage of floorspace provided to the animals in an enclosure by the number of 
animals in that enclosure. In the case of egg -laying hens, usable floorspace shall include both 
ground space and elevated level flat platforms upon which hens can roost but shall n ot include 
perches or ramps. 
Existing law, section 25991(t) of the H SC defines “veal meat” as meaning meat, as defined in 3 
CCR 900 as of August 2017, of a calf raised for veal intended for use as human food. 
Existing law, section 25991(u) of the H SC defines “whole pork meat” as meaning any uncooked 
cut of pork, including bacon, ham, chop, ribs, riblet, loin, shank, leg, roast, brisket, steak, sirloin, 
or cutlet, that is comprised entirely of pork meat, except for seasoning, curing agents, coloring, 
flavoring, preservatives, and similar meat additives. Whole pork meat does not include 
combination food products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed 
or prepared food products, that are comprised of more than pork meat, seasoni ng, curing 
agents, coloring, flavoring, preservatives, and similar meat additives. 
Existing law, section 25991(v) of the H SC defines “whole veal meat” as meaning any uncooked 
cut of veal, including chop, ribs, riblet, loin, shank, leg, roast, brisket, steak, sirloin, or cutlet, that 
is comprised entirely of veal meat, except for seasoning, curing agents, coloring, flavoring, 
preservatives, and similar meat additiv es. Whole veal meat does not include combination food 
products, including soups, sandwiches, pizzas, hotdogs, or similar processed or prepared food 
products, that are comprised of more than veal meat, seasoning, curing agents, coloring, 
flavoring, preserv atives, and similar meat additives. 
Existing law, section 25992 of the HSC specifies the exceptions to the provisions of Chapter 
13.8 of Division 20 of the HSC, including during medical research; during examination, testing, 
individual treatment, or oper ation for veterinary purposes; during transportation; during rodeo 
exhibitions, state or county fair exhibitions, 4 -H programs, and similar exhibitions; during 
slaughter; for a breeding pig during the five (5) day period prior to her farrowing date and whi le 
she is nursing piglets; and during temporary periods of no more than six (6) hours in an 24 -hour 
period and no more than 24 hours total in any 30 -day period. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 4          
               
         
 
 
          
           
              
         
              
  
 
            
            
           
             
        
 
              
             
           
         
   
 
          
       
            
       
          
         
              
            
       
       
  
 
           
           
 
           
         
          
       
   
 Existing law, section 25993(a) of the HSC specifies that the Department and DPH shall jointly 
promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of these provisions by September 1, 
2019. 
Existing law, sections 25993(b) and (c) specify that a violation of any of the provisions of 
Chapter 13.8 of Division 20 of the HSC is a misdemeanor and puni shable by a fine not to 
exceed $1,000 or by imprisonment in the county jail for a period not to exceed 180 days or by 
both, and that provisions of the chapter supersede any conflicting regulations, including those in 
Chapter 6 (commencing with section 4060 1) of Subdivision 6 of Division 2 of Title 22 of the 
CCR. 
Existing law, section 25993.1 of the HSC specifies that it shall be a defense to any action to 
enforce section 25990(b) that a business owner or operator relied in good faith upon a written 
certif ication by a supplier that the whole veal meat, whole pork meat, shell eggs, or liquid eggs 
at issue was not derived from a covered animal confined in a cruel manner, or from the 
immediate offspring of a breeding pig who was confined in a cruel manner. 
Existing law, section 25994 of the HSC specifies that the provisions of the chapter are in 
addition to, and not in lieu of, any other laws protecting animal welfare, including the California 
Penal Code, and shall not be construed to limit any state law or re gulations protecting the 
welfare of animals, nor prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own 
animal welfare laws and regulations. 
Existing regulations in 3 CCR section 1350 (Shell Egg Food Safety ) specify the minimum cage 
size requirements for egg producers and egg handlers, as defined by Food and Agricultural 
Code (FAC) section 27510, for marketing unpasteurized shell eggs in California. The Egg 
Safety and Quality Management (ESQM ) program ensures eggs have been properly hand led, 
labeled, transported, and refrigerated by inspecting eggs at production, packing, distribution, 
and retail facilities; and are wholesome and safe to eat. However, ESQM program regulations 
do not exist to implement the scope of animal confinement prov isions mandated by the Act for 
egg-laying hens. The intent of the ESQM program’s section 1350 regulations is to prevent the 
occurrence of Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis (SE) contamination of shell eggs at 
production and to prevent SE contaminate d shell eggs from being marketed to California 
consumers. 
Regulations do not exist for the confinement of veal calves and breeding pigs, or the covered 
products of whole veal meat and whole pork meat as mandated by the Act . 
Therefore, the Department is proposing to adopt new Chapter 10 (commencing with section 
1320), of Division 2, of Title 3 of the C CR to specify the requirements for persons housing egg -
laying hens, veal calves, and breeding pigs, and/or selling specified whole veal meat, whole 
pork meat, shell eggs, and liquid eggs in the State in accordance with sections 25990 , 25991 , 
and 25993 of the H SC. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 5          
          
          
       
        
             
           
       
           
            
         
          
         
           
         
           
          
        
         
    
 
        
          
        
        
 
         
      
         
       
         
        
         
        
         
            
         
            
          
          
     
   
     
 
          
  Anticipated Benefits of the Proposal : This proposal would establish a regulatory framework for 
purposes of implementation of the provisions of the Act as mandated by section 25993 of the 
HSC. Effective implementation of the provisions specified in H SC sections 25990 through 
2599 4 by adopting these regulations would benefit the objectives of the citizens of California 
that voted to approve the Proposition 12 initiative and the standards for animal confinement and 
prohibition of animal cruelty that it described. Egg, pork , and vea l producers and distributors 
would benefit from this proposal because the Department is establishing compliance 
requirements for producing and selling covered products in the State in accordance with current 
law as specified in H SC sections 25990 through 25994 to ensure the orderly sale of covered 
products from covered animals not confined in a cruel manner regardless of their state or 
country of origin within California . This proposal does not directly impact human health and 
welfare of California residents , worker safety, or the State’s environment , however the 
Department can infer that benefits accrue to Californians knowing that breeding pigs, veal 
calves, and egg -laying hens are raised with a minimum space requirement, which may be more 
space than covered animals previously were allotted . There are no quantitative studies that 
document or measure the effect of confinement covered animals according the standards 
outlined in the Act for people in California. The propose d regulations are necessary to 
implement animal confinement requirements and sale of the covered products pursuant to HSC 
sections 25990, 25991 and 25993. 
Com parable Federal Regulations /Mandated by Federal Law or Regulations : This proposal is 
not mandate d by federal law or regulations and does not duplicate or conflict with any federal 
regulations because there are no federal regulations governing farm animal confinement 
requirements if the products from specified animals are marketed to California consum ers. 
Consistency and Compatibility with Existing State Regulations : The Department has evaluated 
this proposal and believes that it is not inconsistent or incompatible with existing State 
regulations. The intent is to conform the Department’s regulations relating to marketing shell 
eggs, liquid eggs , whole veal meat, and whole pork meat in California to HSC section s 25990 
and 25991 . Existing regulations in 3 CCR section 1350 (Shell Egg Food Safety ) specify the 
minimum cage size requirements for egg producers and egg handlers , as defined as defined by 
FAC section 27510 , for marketing unpasteurized shell eggs in California. The Egg Safety and 
Quality Management ( ESQM ) program ensures shell eggs have been properly handled, labeled, 
transported, and refrigerated by inspecting eggs at production, packing, distribution, and retail 
facilities; and are wholesome and safe to eat. The intent of the ESQM program’s section 1350 
regulations is based on food safety to prevent the occu rrence of Salmonella enterica serotype 
Enteritidis (SE) contamination of shell eggs at production and to prevent SE contaminated shell 
eggs from being marketed to California consumers . Regulations do not exist for the confinement 
of veal calves and breedin g pigs, or the covered products of whole veal meat and whole pork 
meat as mandated by the Act. 
Forms Incorporated by Reference: None. 
Technical, Theoretical, and Empirical Study, Repo rt, or Similar Documents (Materials Relied 
Upon) : 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 6          
  
        
         
      
         
         
      
      
      
           
     
             
    
          
    
        
       
 
         
      
   
          
      
         
         
   
   
       
       
             
      
 
   
         
          
 
       
            
 
         
 
        
         
       • California Proposition 12, Farm Animal Confinement Initiative (2018) 
• United Egg Producers, Animal Husbandry Guidelines for U.S. Egg -Laying Flocks, 
Guideline s for Cage -Free Housing, 2017 Edition 
• Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U .S.C. 601 et seq.) 
• Egg Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 1031 et seq.) 
• Title 3, California Code of Regulations section 900 
• Title 3, C alifornia Code of Regulations section 1350 
• Food and Agricultural Code section 27510 
• CDFA Workshop to Discuss CA Proposition 12: Farm Animal Confinement Initiative 
(2018), February 22, 2019, Sacramento, CA 
• Sumner, D.A., Goldstein, R., Hart, J.D., Lee, H., Matthews, W.A., & Medellin -Asuara, J. 
(2020). Standardized regulatory impact assessment of proposed regulations t o 
implement proposition 12. University of California, Davis, UC Agricultural Issues, and 
California Department of Food and Agriculture 
• California Department of Public Health, Memo dated November 13, 2020 
• CDFA State Organic Program (FAC sections 46000 -4602 9 and 3 CCR sections 1391 -
1391.7) 
• USDA National Organic Program (7 CFR Part 205) 
• Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3)) 
• Health and Safety Code section 113758 
• USDA, Food Safety Inspection Service, Meat, Poultry and Egg Product Inspection 
Directory, Leg end for Establishment Numbers 
• Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 172 sections 172.510 and 172.515(b) ; Part 
182 sections 182.10, 182.20, 182.40, and 182.50 ; and Part 184 
• Health and Safety Code section 113789 
• Health and Safety Code section 109947 
• Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 160 
• Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 101 section 101.3 
• Title 21, United States Co de, Part 343 section 403 ; Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations 
section 590.5 ; Health and Safety Code section 109992 ; and Food and Agricultural Code 
section 27519.6 
• Health and Safety Code section 110460 
• Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 424 section 424.21(c) 
• USDA, Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications: Fresh Veal Series 300 (November 
2014) 
• 2014 Uniform Retai l Meat I dentity Standards 
• Title 9, Code of Federal Regulations Part 317 section 317.2(1) and Part 381 section 
381.125(b) 
• USDA, Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications: Fresh Pork Series 400 (November 
2014) 
• Title 21, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 530 section 530.3(i) 
• Title 3, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 2 section 2.31 
• Economic and Fiscal Impact Statement, STD 399 with Attachment 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 7          
  
  
 
      
 
       
 
       
        
         
          
           
          
     
 
         
             
     
 
          
          
       
            
       
        
        
      
 
          
             
             
       
              
           
      
  
 
        
          
               
       
            
            
         
 LOCAL MANDATE 
There will be no local mandate. 
COST OR SAVINGS TO STATE AGENCIES ( FISCAL IMPACT S) 
The Act mandates farm animal confinement standards and compliance timeframes, establishes 
definitions affecting the production and sale of shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat, and 
whole pork meat in the State, and directs the Department and the DPH to jointly promulgate 
regulations to implement the provisions of the HSC relating to the confinement of specified farm 
animals and the sale of specified products derived from them. Details of the estimated fiscal 
impacts discussed below can be found in the Department’s Standardized Regulatory Impact 
Assessment (SRIA) and appendix. 
Department. The total annual agency budget for Fiscal Year (2020 -21) equals approximately 
$3.53 million. The Department estimates the total annual fiscal costs for Fiscal Year s (2021-22) 
and (2022 -23) to each equal approximately $4.9 4 million. 
Pursuant to the Act, t he Department’s proposed regulation s describe a program to implement 
prohibitions on the sale of shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat, and whole pork meat 
derived from cruelly confined animals so Californians can have confidence that the products 
they purchase come only from sources that meet specified animal housing standards , as 
described . Specifically, t his proposal would establish a program of registration, certification, 
conveyance inspection, and labeling and marking requirements for the sale of shell eggs, liquid 
eggs, whole veal meat, and whole pork meat in the State which is necessary to fully effectuate 
the intent of the Act. 
Schools. Schools in California serve free or reduced -price meals to needy children with funding 
from the State Meal Program that includes state and federal dollars. In the 2018 -2019 school 
year a total of 288 million breakfasts and 536 million lunches were provided to school children . 
Eggs and pork are components in these meals and the costs of these covered products will 
increase after January 1, 2022 when the full standards go into effect. In total, it is expected 
State costs for school meals to incre ase by $1.84 million in the first full school year after egg -
laying hen and breeding pig confinement standards move to cage -free and twenty -four square 
feet, respectively . 
Colleges and universities. The economic impact on the operating costs of Californ ia state 
colleges and universities is accounted for in meal plan fees to participating students living on 
campus . The costs to the State of California from the increase in meal plan fees is the State 
expenditure to fund meal plans for students on state -subsidized scholarships which include 
coverage of room and board fees. The State costs for student meal plan subsidy is $1.32 
million for the first full academic year after January 1, 2022 when animal confinement minimum 
standards go into full effect due to an increase in food costs . 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 8          
           
          
        
              
           
 
         
        
 
       
 
        
 
      
           
           
              
            
             
    
 
        
        
              
        
    
 
     
 
 
 
      
 
            
         
      
           
       
        
 
       
 
    
    
    State prisons. California’s state prison population is projected to remain at about 117 thousand 
people for the next several years when animal confinement m inimum standards go into full 
effect after January 1, 2022 . (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2020) . An 
increase in the price of shell eggs , liquid eggs, and whole pork meat would increase the total 
costs of meals for the state pris ons by about $4. 68 million per year. 
COST TO ANY LOCAL AGENCY OR SCHOOL DISTRIC T WHICH MUST BE REIMBURSED 
IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 17500 THROUGH 17630 
Cost to local governments will not be reimbursed by the State. 
OTHER NON -DISCRETIONARY COST OR SAVINGS IMPOSED ON LOCAL A GENCIES 
The Department’s regulations do not require additional expenditures by local governments; 
however, local agencies may incur costs. Fiscal impact on local governments will begin when 
the second d eadline of animal confinement minimum standards go into effect January 1, 2022 
for whole pork meat, shell eggs, and liquid eggs due to the increase in the cost of these foods 
sold in California. Whole veal meat is not included in this impact to local agen cies because it is 
not purchased by the impacted local governments. This cost to local governments will not be 
reimbursed by the State. 
County jails. California county jail population totaled around 73,000 inmates in 2018 and 2019. 
(California Board of State and Community Corrections August 25, 2020 report) . Beginning in 
2022, a n annual total cost for county jails of about $2.9 2 million due to increase in costs of shell 
egg, liquid egg, and whole pork meat due to full implementation of animal confinement 
standards as outlined in statute s. 
COST OR SAVINGS IN FEDERAL FUNDING TO STATE 
None. 
DETERMINATION OF ANTICIPATED BUSINESS IMPACT 
The Department has made an initial determination that this regulatory proposal will impact egg, 
veal, and pork producers ; food processing facilities (referred to as “food manufacturing” in 
SRIA) ; distribut ion; food retailers (supermarkets/grocery/convenience stores) ; and restaurants 
(and drinking establishments) that purchas e or sell shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat, or 
whole pork meat in California, as specified. Details of the estimated business impacts as 
discussed below can be found in the Department’s SRIA and appendix . 
Businesses (and individuals) affected by this proposal : 
California egg producers: approximately 6,546 farms 
California veal producers: approximately 0 farms 
California pork producers: approximately 1,236 farms 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 9          
       
    
   
     
 
           
           
           
          
           
          
   
 
     
         
            
           
          
     
          
           
        
          
 
         
              
             
              
          
      
     
 
       
         
         
       
  
 
          
            
            
        
        
     
      California restaurant /drinking establishments: approximately 76,200 
California supermarkets /grocery /convenience stores: approximately 20,000 
California food processing facilities : approximately 450 
Total number of businesses affected: approximately 104,432 
Compete with businesses in other states. In-state farms will find it more costly to compete with 
farms outside of the State when selling shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat , and whole pork 
meat to an out -of-state buyer compared to farms located in states that do not have the same 
animal confinement standards as described in the Act. Food processing facilities based in the 
State will have to use more expensive ingredients , shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat, and 
whole pork meat, that are compliant with the Act compared to food process ing facilities located 
outside the State. 
Creation/elimination of existing businesses /expansion of businesses : The proposed regulations 
will impact whole veal meat , whole pork meat , shell eggs , and liquid eggs produced and 
marketed in California. The current businesses from farm to end -user will be affected. Some 
farms may choose to exit during implementation rather tha n make the necessary adjustments , 
others may find the implementation of the regulations attractive for entry into the market . 
Private third -party certifying businesses providing certification services to farms and “handlers” 
according the NOP standards within th e State will be able to expand services to additional farms 
and distributors for compliance with the Act and this proposal. This flux is expected to be small 
relative to the numbers already in the production, distribution , processing, and retailing 
busine sses. It is expect ed entries and exits in the range of less than 100 businesses . 
Creation/elimination of jobs: Impacts on jobs in California is minimal compared to the impact on 
consumer expenditures for the covered food items. Overall, there is a projected a loss of 31 
jobs statewide in the calendar year 2022, when final deadlines for the Act go into effect, and 
then a loss of 332 jobs in 2023, after adjustments for the a reduction in cage -free shell egg 
production are fully incorporated. A large portion of the jobs effect from the proposed 
regulations are in California’s shell egg production and associated industries due to requirement 
to a cage -free production system. 
Anticipated compliance requirements as a result of this proposal: Producers and distributors 
who sell their shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole pork meat, and whole veal meat in California would 
need to comply with the certification, registration, and l abeling requirements as proposed . 
Private third -party certifiers would need to be accredited by the Department to certify operations 
in as compliance with the Act and these regulations . 
Certification . The proposed regulations require producers and distributors to be certified as 
compliant with the Act . This may be done by a private third -party that is accredited by the 
Department , a government entity outside of the State, or directly by the Department. 
Certification compliance consists of credible regulatory documentation (audit trail) of a 
production or distribut ion operation’s good standing with certification requirements in these 
regulations and conformance with the specific minimum confinement stan dards in 
accordance with HSC section 25991. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 10          
  
         
          
       
 
 
           
         
         
            
         
        
            
     
   
 
       
      
            
          
           
           
              
         
      
       
             
 
       
            
             
           
         
           
          
        
          
       
        
  
 
           
          
          
            Registration. The proposed regulations require annual distributor registration application 
and renewal used by the Department to identify and ensure compliance of businesses 
selling shell eggs, liquid eggs, w hole pork meat, and whole veal meat within or into 
California. 
Labeling . The proposed regulation s require product container labeling for shell egg cartons , 
which is already a requirement under the Department’s ESQM program (3 CCR section 
1354) , although t his proposal would require some modifications to the existing required 
labeling on printed cartons. Consumer facing packaging l abeling of other products s uch as 
liquid eggs, whole pork meat , and whole veal meat is not a requirement of the proposed 
regulations, however, could be implemented voluntarily by associated industries. Required 
labeling of shipping manifests and bills of lading is proposed for all covered product sales 
transactions within or into the State , however these types of documents are easily 
generated and modified . 
Paperwork/Reporting: There are new paperwork and repo rting requirements under this 
proposal. The requirements include annual distributor registration application and renewal 
forms, certif ying agent accreditation application and renewal (every five years) forms that may 
be retained and otherwise required by statute or regulation, and submitted to the Department as 
part of routine business transactions in order for the sale of covered products in California. 
Accredited t hird-party certifying agents are also required to submit an annual report to the 
Department of the operation s that have been granted, renewed, or denied certification . Each 
producer and distributor operation must be certified as compliant to raise covered animals 
producing covered products sold in California, and/or businesses selling covered products 
within and into the State . This certification requires necessary records to be maintained for 
review or audit by a certifying agent or the Department , as specified . 
Recordkeeping: There are new recordkeeping requirements under this pr oposal that may 
impact egg, pork, and veal distributors and producers. The proposed regulations require that 
records must be sufficient for an audit trail and documented in a traceable manner that covered 
product originated from certified compliant operat ions with the Act and these regulations. For 
example, records of their business operations, such as, production and shipment records, 
invoices, receipts, and related paperwork. The records are not required to be sent to the 
Department, however certified p roducers and certified distributors must keep the records on -site 
or available electronically for two years. Accredited third-party certifiers are to submit annual 
reports to the Department as a part of their recordkeeping requirements as specified in thi s 
proposal. The Department conducts routine and risk -based audits and inspections of farms , 
distributors , end -users, and certifying agen ts to ensure compliance with statutes and 
regulations. 
Benefits to human health, worker safety, or the State’s environment. This proposal does not 
directly impact human health and welfare of California residents , worker safety, or the State’s 
environment , however the Department can infer that benefits accrue to Californians knowing 
that breeding pigs, veal calves, and egg -laying hens are raised with a minimum space 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 11          
       
           
             
        
            
        
          
 
            
     
           
      
        
 
 
         
   
     
     
         
 
        
 
          
       
             
    
 
             
              
        
            
           
           
  
 
        
          
         
       
 
            
           
          
            requirement, which may be more space than covered animals previously were allotted. This 
proposal is needed to implement the Proposition 12 initiative which was passed by California 
voters in 2018. A benefit is for proper and orderly implementation of a law directly decided by 
voters for them to purchase with confidence covered products from covered animals not raised 
in a cruel manner. There are no quantitative studies that document or measure th e effect of 
purchasing shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat , and whole pork meat from farms animals 
not confined in a cruel manner for people in California. 
The Department has made an initial determination that the proposed regulatory action will ha ve 
significant , statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting California businesses including 
the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. The Department 
has considered proposed alternatives that would lessen any adverse economic impacts on 
business and invites you to submit proposals. Submissions may include the following 
considerations: 
• The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take 
into account the resources availa ble to businesses. 
• Consolidation or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements for businesses. 
• The use of performance standards rather than prescriptive standards. 
• Exemption or partial exemption from the regulatory requirements for businesses. 
COST IMPACTS ON REPRESENTATIVE PRIVATE PERSONS OR BUSINESSES 
The Department is aware of cost impacts that a representative private person or businesses 
would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action . This determination 
is based on the SRIA included in this filing. The impacts are as a result of the implementation of 
existing law, HSC sections 25990 and 25991 . 
Private persons : There are no initial costs for an individual and ongoing costs for an individual 
are estimated at $50 per year for increase in food costs after January 1, 2022 . California per 
individual annual covered egg consumption (including in processed products made in California) 
is a little over 20 dozen. Per dozen cost increase about $2 per dozen, increas ing ongoing costs 
to $40 per individual and it is estimated that increase in whole pork meat and whole veal meat 
prices will increase food costs $10 per individual giving a total of $50 per year individual ongoing 
costs. 
Businesses : Producers and distributors selling shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole pork meat, and 
whole veal meat would need to comply with the provisions for animal confinement or ensure 
covered product sold in the State originate from animals that comply with the provisi ons for 
animal confinement as specified in HSC section 25990 and 25991. 
Whole pork meat. A typical breeding pig farm has about 1,000 breeding pigs and produces 
20,000 hogs per year. Estimated initial cost for a typical breeding pig operation is $66,000 
per farm to convert barns and pens into housing compliant with minimum standards outlined 
in the Act . Estimated ongoing cost is greater than the in itial cost of conversion at $100,000 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 12          
             
        
 
         
              
           
       
 
        
 
        
       
         
         
            
         
        
          
         
           
           
           
            
           
      
         
       
   
 
 
 
      
 
        
        
          
        
            
         
             
          
           
      
 per year for a typical breeding pig farm due to smaller inventory of breeding pigs, lower 
piglet output per animal and increased breeding pig mortality. 
Shell eggs and liquid eggs. A typical egg farm is one million egg -laying hens producing a 
total of 25 million dozen eggs per year. Estimated initial cost is $68 million per typical egg 
farm to convert to cage -free requirements outlined in the Act . Estimated annual ongoing 
cost is $ 6.8 million per typical egg farm. 
Whole veal meat. There is no veal produced in California. 
Paperwork/Reporting and Recordkeeping : The recordkeeping/reporting requirement for a 
typical California business is estimated at $5,000/year and a conservative estimate of 7,900 
businesses will need to comply with proposed recording requirements for a total of $39.5 
million/year. The possible 7,900 businesses include egg producers, pork producers, and 
distributors of covered egg, pork, and veal products. Each of these operations must be certified 
as compliant to raise covered animals in California and/or sell covered products in California. 
This certification requires necessary records to be maintained for review or audit by a n 
accredited third-party certifier or the Department. This number of California businesses , 7,900, 
is potentially an overestimate based on the current number of commercial egg and pork 
producers in California being much smaller than the U nited States Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) 2017 Agricultural census reference of 6,500 covered farming operations in the State. 
The Act does not have a minimum herd or flock size requirement for compliance (ESQM 
program), or a minimum number of dollars sold to register (State Organic Program), so any farm 
raising egg -laying hens or breeding pigs will need to comply with recordkeeping requirements. 
In addition, Californi a distributors are responsible for documenting traceability of selling shell 
eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat, and whole pork meat sourced from certified farms, which 
may originate at locations outside of the State or country. 
HOUSING COSTS 
None. 
SMA LL BUSINESS IMPACT 
The Department’s proposal may affect small California businesses , as defined in Government 
Code section 11342.610, such as small retail food establishments (supermarkets, grocery 
stores, convenience stores, restaurants, and other food retailers) that have veal on their menus 
due to the increase in veal wholesale prices , however, as a whole, costs are negligible because 
total sales change little. For small California pork and egg producers , they face initial and 
annual compli ance costs that are less than a typical operation because they are likely to have 
space that is compliant or almost compliant. There are a bout 210 small pork farms selling more 
than 25 hogs annually and 823 small egg farms may need to make investments for animal 
confinement compliance in California. Estimated initial costs is $5,000 and ongoing annual cost 
$500 for small pork and egg producers. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 13          
    
 
              
         
      
          
         
           
           
             
 
      
 
              
     
 
        
 
          
             
            
        
           
         
          
 
            
 
         
          
         
           
          
           
          
      
 
       
           
      
      
  
 BUSINESS REPORTING REQUIREMENT 
It is necessary for the health, safety, or welfare of the people of the State that the regulation 
apply to businesses. There are new paperwork and reporting requirements under this proposal. 
The requirements include annual distributor registration application and renewal forms, 
certif ying agent accreditation application and r enewal (every five years) forms that may be 
retained and otherwise required by statute or regulation, and submitted to the Department as 
part of routine business transactions in order for the sale of covered products in California. 
Accredited t hird-party c ertifying agents are also required to submit an annual report to the 
Department of the operations that have been granted, renewed, or denied certification . 
RESULTS OF STANDARDIZED REGULATORY IMPACT A SSESSMENT 
The Department completed a SRIA , which is included in this filing . A summary of the results of 
the assessment is as follows: 
a. The creation or elimination of jobs within the State. 
Impacts on jobs in California is minimal compared to the impact on consumer expenditures 
for the cove red food items. Overall, the Department project s a loss of 31 jobs statewide in 
the calendar year 2022, when final deadlines for the Act go into effect and proposed 
regulations are fully implemented, and then a loss of 332 jobs in 2023, after adjustments for 
the reduction in cage -free shell egg production are fully incorporated. A large portion of the 
jobs lost are in the shell egg production and associated industries because the mandates of 
the Act require these industries to move into a cage -free produc tion system . 
b. The creation of new businesses or the elimination of existing businesses within the State. 
Creation and elimination of businesses is natural given any significant change to the 
business conditions. The regulations considered here will change the nature of veal, pork , 
and eggs produced and marketed in California. The current businesses from farm through 
end-user will be affected. Some farms may choose to exit during implementation rather 
than make adjustments others may find the implem entation of the regulations attractive for 
entry. The Department expect s this flux to be small relative to the numbers already in the 
production, distribution , and retailing businesses. The Department expect s entries and exits 
in the range of less than 100 businesses . 
California has a large shell egg industry. Egg producers in California face higher costs by 
$72 million, and egg output will decline by 51 million dozen relative to the baseline in 2022. 
Shell egg farm revenue rises by $7 million in 2022 . 
c. The competitive advantages or disadvantages for businesses currently doing business 
within the State. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 14          
        
            
            
             
         
      
         
            
        
   
 
       
 
          
            
          
           
       
          
            
        
        
      
              
 
        
             
        
           
   
 
       
 
      
           
         
      
 
             
         
      
 
        
       
        The cage -free mandate for egg-laying hens and 24 -square -foot mandate for breeding pigs 
(the portion of the proposed regulations that goes into effect starting January 1, 2022) may 
cause some egg and pork producers to exit because they find it uneconomic al to adapt their 
facilities to comply with the new mandates required by the Act . The Department expect s 
that some preexisting producers whose facilities already meet the Act’s standards will enjoy 
corresponding competitive advantages. Preexisting cage -free egg producers, whose 
potential market grows when statutes take effect, will have an advantage over t hose who 
have not engaged in cage -free production in that they will not face costs of converting 
facilities. Similar competitive farm issues apply to breeding pig operations , but there are 
very few such businesses in California. 
d. The increase or decre ase of investment in the State. 
As discussed in Section 6.2 and 6.3 of the SRIA , some new businesses and investment may 
enter the market as a result of the proposed regulations, the overall effect of the regulations 
(as summarized in Section 1.4, reported in Section 4, and detailed in Appendices 1 –4 of the 
SRIA ) is to decrease the total amount of shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole pork meat , and whole 
veal meat consumed in California. Although some one -time investments in construction, 
machinery, and labor will be made by businesses as they adapt their facilities, in the long 
run the Department expect s that the regulations promulgated to implement the Act will 
decrease average annual investment in California egg and pork producers and distributors , 
relative to the Baseline. Although investment in other businesses in California may 
correspondingly decrease as investors move resources elsewhere, the Department expect s 
the net effect to be a modest decrease in overall investment in the State. 
California consumers will be affected by higher food prices and respond with lower quantity 
consumed. In the 2022 calendar year, when the Act’s standards go into full effect, proposed 
regulations will increase consumer expenditures in California o f $1,195 million. The largest 
impacts are on consumers of shell egg s and whole pork meat due to increased cost of these 
covered products at wholesale and retail . 
e. The incentives for innovation in products, materials, or process. 
Farms may have some in centives to innovate in their business processes as they adapt 
their facilities to be compliant with the Act’s confinement standards. However, businesses 
involved in the design and manufacturing of products and materials for adaptation, such as 
animal cag es, are not typically located in California. 
f. The benefits of the regulations, including, but not limited to, benefits to the health, safety, 
and welfare of California residents, worker safety, and the State’s environment and quality of 
life, among any other benefits identified by the agency. 
The SRIA did not quantify any benefits directly impacting human health and welfare of 
California residents, worker safety, or the State’s environment . Other e conomic studies 
have shown that some government regulations of meat and egg production and processing 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 15          
          
          
           
             
           
         
       
             
         
          
           
           
           
         
    
 
            
                  
           
            
             
             
                
             
              
              
               
             
             
         
             
 
    
  
  
        
          
            
  
           
       
           
           
            
         increase consumer willingness to pay more in food markets. About 20% of California’s shell 
egg consumption prior to 2022 already met California cage -free egg standards. This means 
cage-free shell egg consumers were already willing to pay more than twice as much, on 
average, for cage -free shell eggs than for conventional shell eggs. Other consumers who 
are not willing to pay double for cage -free eggs may be willing to pay a smaller increased 
amount for cage -free shell eggs. Both of these types of consumers would therefore receive 
some corresponding benefits (even if they are hard -to-quantify benefits such as moral 
satisfaction, peace of mind, social appro val, etc.) from knowing all eggs raised and sold in 
California are cage -free after January 1, 2022 . In addition, non -consumers of the covered 
products may benefit from assurance that shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat, and 
whole pork meat sold in Ca lifornia meet the specified housing standards even if they do not 
plan to consume these foods . The Department notes that a large majority of voters in 2018 
approved , 63%, the Prop osition 12 initiative to eliminate egg -laying hens, veal calves, and 
breedin g pigs from being cruelly confined in the State or if products from those animals are 
sold in the State . 
Animal confinement space allowances prescribed in the Act (cage -free for egg-laying hens, 
43 square feet for veal calves and 24 square feet for breeding pigs) are not based in specific 
peer-reviewed published scientific literature or accepted as standards within the scientific 
community to reduce human food-borne illness, promote worker safety, the environment, or 
other human or safety concerns. Health and Safety Code confinement standards are 
described as a minimum standard for space allowance to prevent cruel confinement of 
covered animals and the law was not primarily written with the concern or benefit of human 
food-borne illness, worker safet y, environment, etc. The standard of cage -free in HSC 
references the United Egg Producers 2017 guidelines and is the cage -free standard set by 
the egg industry to provide uniform guidance of cage -free egg operations. Minimum space 
requirements for veal calves and breeding pigs outlined in HSC are not drawn from specific 
industry standards or published scientific research prescribing 43 square feet for veal calves 
and 24 square feet for breeding pigs. The Department has no regulatory discretion over the 
Act’s animal confinement mandates, so any such effects would stem not from the way 
regulations were written or implemented, but from the mandates directly imposed by the Act . 
SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE COMMENTS AND DEPARTMENT’S 
RESPONSE 
The Depa rtment of Finance (Finance) provided comments to the Department ’s SRIA .A 
summary of the five comment categories and the Department’s responses are below . 
Reference citations noted in the below responses can be found in the Department’s SRIA. 
Finance comment #1: The SRIA must estimate the costs to producers to comply with the new 
housing, certification, labeling, and reporting requirements and for individuals to maintain their 
consumption or to substitute. Furthermore, disparate impacts must be discussed. For instance, 
some small farmers might not be able to switch to cage -free eggs right away and might reduce 
or stop production altogether. Larger farms, who typically can adapt more quickly, will increase 
their market share to compensate for lower production from smaller farms. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 16          
  
       
 
            
           
     
           
       
          
           
          
          
           
         
          
          
          
         
    
 
              
             
           
           
            
        
           
         
         
          
 
         
           
           
         
  
        
             
      
        
           
           
      
 a. Cost to producers for certification, labeling, and reporting requirements 
Certification costs . Proposed regulations require farms to be certified as compliant with the Act . 
This may be done by a private third -party that is accredited by the Department or directly by the 
Department . Producers would incur costs for certification services from accredited third -party 
certifiers by payment of fees charged by these private entities. For existing private businesses 
that conduct certification services similar to those proposed in these regulations (e.g., American 
Certified Humane, Certified Humane, Validus, Global Humane Animal Partnership, etc.), the fee 
structures are most commonly based on a sliding scal e depending on the size of the production 
operation. Small producers may pay $100 -$200 per year for certification while large producers 
may pay $2,000 -4,000 each year for certification ( subsection b. below for more information on 
smaller -and larger -sized operations). If a production operation is already inspected by a third -
party company for welfare standards who is accredited by the Department , then the producer 
may not have to incur additional costs for certification. For example, American Certified 
Humane, Certified Humane , and Global Animal Partnership all have standards that meet the 
minimum confinement requirements for egg -laying hens. Similar costs might be expected for 
producers receiving certification services directly from the Department , depe nding upon the 
extent of public funds available to support this activity. 
Labeling costs . Product container labeling is only required for shell egg cartons under this 
proposal. Currently, all cartons of unpasteurized eggs still in the shell that are sol d in California 
have required labeling of “CA SEFS COMPLIANT” as part of the Department ’s Shell Egg Food 
Safety program. The addition of “CA CAGE FREE” labeling as part of the proposed regulations 
starting in July of 2022 is not expected to result in sign ificant additional costs to shell egg 
producers that already must print cartons with California specific statements. Additionally, the 
use of “Cage Free ” statements on cartons to identify this type of production system for 
consumers purchasing eggs is alr eady common in the marketplace, and the proposed addition 
of “CA” to existing statements to designate conformance with the Act and this proposal’s 
specific standards is not expected to be a significant added cost. 
Labeling of other covered products (e.g ., liquid eggs, whole pork meat , and whole veal meat) on 
consumer facing packaging is not a requirement of the proposed regulations, but could be done 
voluntarily by the industry at the discretion of the producer, packer , or co -packer to 
communicate compli ance with the Act and these regulations for marketing purposes. 
Proper labeling of shipping manifests and bills of lading is required by the proposed regulations 
and again is estimated to be a nominal cost to the producer or distributor because these ty pes 
of documents are already being generated and printed for covered products distributed and sold 
in California. For example, beginning in January of 202 2 shipments of whole pork meat under 
this proposal will need to have “CA 24+” printed on the shipping documents and be available for 
review during the certification process, upon entry at a California Border Protection Station , or 
during an inspection or investigation. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 17          
           
     
           
          
             
           
          
 
   
 
         
          
    
 
          
             
        
         
            
         
            
           
             
               
           
         
             
          
 
       
       
         
            
         
        
            
               
       
 
        
            
       
          
            Reporting costs . The additional cost of reporting requirements as outlined in the proposed 
regulations is estimated to be $5,000 annually for a typical California business (producer, 
distributor or accredited third -party certifier) . This r ecord keeping cost will vary depending on 
the extent of time required to maintain documents required to demonstrate compliance and 
traceability with the Act and these regulations . Additionally, annual reporting to the Department 
is required of accredited third-party certifiers and annual renewal distributor registration under 
this proposal will contribute to overall recordkeeping costs for a typical California business. 
b. Consideration of disparate impacts 
California Veal Operations: small and large farm potential differential impacts . There is no data 
to indicate that there are veal producers in California. Therefore, there are no differential 
impacts across veal producers. 
California Pork Operations: small and large farm potential differential impacts . According to the 
2017 U nited States (U S) Census of Agriculture , there were 1,389 swine farms that had a total of 
96,456 hogs and pigs in California. The census data does not distinguish between breeding 
pig, weaned pig, finishing, or fully integrated operations. Of the total swine operations in 
California, 1,236 of the farms sold hogs and pigs at a total of 207,768 animals in 2017. Most of 
the farms that sold hogs and pigs (USDA reported term for number of head slaughtered) , 1,009 
farms, sold fewer than 25 hogs and pigs each annually. To qu alify as a “farm” operation under 
the USDA definition , the business only needs to have products that might have sold for more 
than $1,000 in a year. Of these 1,009 very small operations, a total of 5,950 animals were sold, 
giving an average of about 6 hog s and pigs from each farm. A breeding pig will produce about 
25 piglets per year, therefore few of these small operations would have any breeding pigs that 
would be affected by the Act’s confinement square footage minimums. There were six farms in 
2017 t hat sold more than 5,000 hogs and pigs each for a total of 161,409 animals, giving an 
average of about 26,900 hogs and pigs sold by each of these larger swine operations. 
Of the six large farms that sold more than 5,000 pigs each, three were farrow -to-finish, meaning 
they housed breeding sows and would need to comply with minimum confinement standards 
requirements in 2022. Calculations assume that these farms sold about 25 ,000 hogs and pigs 
each, that would imply about 1,000 breeding pigs at each of these three larger swine farms. 
Nationwide, breeding pigs represent about 4% of hogs and pig inventory, which of the 96,456 
hogs and pigs in California indicates there are less than 4,000 breeding pigs in California. 
According to the 2017 Agricultural Census, the total inventory of hogs and pigs in the United 
States (US) was 72 million animals. Since breeding pigs represent 4% of the total hog and pig 
population, California has about 0.133% of the national breeding pig herd. 
California pork producers produce specialty pork, such as organic, pasture -raised , and show 
animals for 4 -H and FFA projects. Farrowing operations with a small number of breeding pigs 
will likely find it e asier to meet California -specific housing regulations than would commercial -
sized operations. Generally, very small livestock farms have higher measured, imputed , or 
implied accounting costs per animal sold, but continue to operate the farm because either their 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 18          
          
  
 
       
           
        
         
          
  
 
        
    
 
          
         
         
            
             
             
               
        
    
 
         
   
           
            
       
              
             
            
            
           
              
        
   
           
       
           
        
              
     
 
       
            actual individual costs are lower than those imputed or implied in the studies or for non -
pecuniary reasons (Whitt, McDonald and Todd). 
The economic impact of proposed regulations on swine producers in California is likely 
concentrated on the large r operations that are more likely to have already made the capital 
investment in housing that based on pens and square footage allowance from traditional 
commercial breeding pig operations. Very small pork producers are more likely to already be 
compliant with confinement standards outlined in the Act or would have nominal cost 
adjustments to become compliant. 
Data and economic analysis indicate no significant change in the size distribution of pork 
producers in California from the proposed regulations. 
California Egg Operations: small and large farm potential differential impacts . Three data 
sources provide useful information on the distribution of egg farms in the U S; WattAgNet, 
USDA, and the Department . WattAgNet publishe s information on the largest table egg farms in 
the U S. and t he top two egg farms are located outside of California and each have about 45 
million and 26.6 million egg -laying hens. According to WattAgNet t he top 20 egg farms in the 
US represent 254.6 million egg -laying hens or 77% of the egg -laying hens producing eggs for 
shell and liquid egg purposes. The first California farm on the top 20 list is number 19 with 5 
million egg -laying hens. Other relatively large egg farms in California have egg production 
operations with millions o f egg -laying hens. 
The 2017 U SDA Census of Agriculture reports that about 94% of the egg -laying hens in 
California are on farms with more than 100,000 hens. This census data provides a breakdown 
of many different sized operations ranging from an average of 15 egg -laying hens per farm to 
almost 500,000 egg -laying hens per farm. Again, to qualify as a “farm” operation under the 
USDA definition, the operation only needs to have products that might have sold for more than 
$1,000 in a year . According to the 2017 UDSA Census data there are a total of 6,546 egg -
laying farms, with a total of 14,194,957 egg -laying hens, giving an average of 2,168 egg -laying 
hens per farm. The category of farm with the smallest number of egg -laying hens is less than 
50 hens and the 2017 USDA Census reported 5,717 of these small farms in California with an 
average of 15 hens per farm. The largest category of farms are operations with greater than 
100,000 egg-laying hens and there are 28 farms that fall into that category housing a total of 
13,344,294 hens with an average of 476,562 hens per farm. 
The Department reported in 2019, based on its inspections of farms selling shell eggs in 
California, there were 728 farms with less than 3,000 egg -laying hens each. The total egg-
laying hens on these small farms was 172,574 animals for an average of 237 hens per small 
egg-laying operation. The Department reported that in 2019 there were 95 farms with more 
than 3,000 hens each in the State. These large farms had about 15.35 million hens total for an 
average of about 161,600 hens per operation. 
This data indicates that most egg -laying hens raised in California are housed on relatively large 
farms. In addition, there are many small boutique farms with only a few hens each. A typical 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 19          
             
           
          
        
             
        
 
            
          
            
         
 
          
           
         
        
        
 
         
    
 
          
             
  
 
     
 
        
           
       
          
      
        
         
         
        
         
          
    
 
       
           
          
      hen will lay between 20 and 25 dozen eggs per year. California compliant cage -free shell eggs 
will wholesale between $1.50 and $5 per dozen, therefore a hen may produce a gross revenue 
of between $30 and $100 ea ch year. A large farm with one million egg-laying hens, which 
would likely be at the low end of the wholesale price spectrum, would then have a gross 
revenue of $30 million. Margins are very tight for large commercial egg farms with most costs 
devoted to recurring costs for labor, feed, and pullets. 
At the other end of the size spectrum, a small farm with 300 egg-laying hens marketing organic 
or pasture -raised eggs may generate a gross farm revenue of about $30,000, and potential to 
increase their net income per hen if the small farm also had a distinct business structure to retail 
shell eggs directly to consumers like at a farmer’s market or egg delivery service. 
Small egg farms are less likely to face the cage -free facility investment cost because the hens 
are more likely to be already cage -free, free -range, or pasture based. Small egg operations are 
also less likely to produce eggs to be sold as liquid eggs or a similar processed egg product. 
Therefore , the average compliance cost to covert to California cage -free is expected to be 
progressively lower per hen for the smaller sized egg farms. 
Data and economic analysis indicate no significant change in the size distribution of egg farms 
in California from the proposed regulations. 
Finance comment #2: Small businesses that rely on regulated products such as small 
restaurants, who tend to have a thin profit margin, might increase prices or close if cost 
increase s cannot be absorbed. 
a. Effects on restaurants that are small businesses 
The National Restaurant Association estimates that there were about 76,200 eating and 
drinking establishments in California in 2018, with $97 billion in retail sales, and employing 1.83 
million food service workers. Of course, these statistics are pre -pandemic and the long -term 
effects of COVID on restaurant businesses in California is not known. The Small Business 
Association (SBA) has specific definitions to include these food services as a small business; 
full-service restaurants, mobile food services, “drinking places,” caterers, and Snack and 
Nonalcoholic Beverage Bars if they have less than $8 million in annual revenues . Limited -
service restaurants are small businesses if they have less than $12 million in annual revenues . 
Cafeterias and buffets ar e small businesses if they have less than $30 million in annual 
revenues . And food service contractors are small businesses if they have less than $41.5 
million in annual revenues. Under these definitions established by the SBA, most restaurants in 
California are considered small businesses. 
By National Restaurant Association estimates, average annual revenues of an “eating and 
drinking establishment” in California in 2018 were $1.27 million, less than one-sixth of the 
maximum revenue for an (SBA -define d) “small business.” A restaurant in California with 
average revenue for its industry is thus considered a small business as defined by the SBA. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 20          
        
 
 
        
        
         
          
         
         
             
           
            
       
 
       
         
             
          
           
        
          
           
           
          
          
           
 
       
 
         
         
 
         
     
       
       
 
         
           
            
           
             
         
      
     Thus, most impacts on restaurants identified in the SRIA are primarily impacts on small 
businesses. 
Within th e restaurant category, sit -down family restaurants or “fine dining” restaurants tend to be 
smaller businesses than fast -casual or fast -food restaurants. Veal is unusual among most 
restaurant categories in that it is primarily consumed at high -end restaura nts. Popular 
restaurant veal dishes include veal chop, veal parmigiana, and veal marsala and will cost more 
for restaurant patrons to enjoy after full implementation of the Act and proposed regulations 
because it is assumed the increase in veal meat whole sale prices will be passed along to the 
customer. Californians may not be willing to bear an increase in veal meal prices on the menu; 
alternatively, many restaurants may simply stop including veal on their menu or serve fewer 
portions of veal. Thus, the Act and this proposal will have a significant impact on those small 
businesses in California that have historically had veal dishes on their menus. 
Restaurants or other food service places that purchase covered pork and egg products that are 
cage -free, crate -free, or otherwise already meet or almost meet the confinement standards in 
the Act would face lower costs of adjusting to the new standards. The impact for those 
restaurants serving pork is less severe beca use the price impact is small on menu prices, given 
the high share of whole pork meat in food service food prices. The other category of 
restaurants likely to be significantly affected are those with menu items that have significant 
covered egg product content. Certain large quick -serve chains, like McDonald’s, declared plans 
to shift to cage -free eggs independent of the Proposition 12 initiative , but few had completed 
that adjustment before the Act was passed into law . There is no data to indicate that their costs 
of shifting or maintaining confinement standards to meet the requirements outlined in the Act 
would be different per unit of sales than other independent food service places. There is no 
data to suggest that the Act’s standards ha ve a particul ar impact by size of establishment. 
b. Grocery stores and retail that are small businesses 
A substantial portion of grocery stores and convenience stores in California sell covered pork 
and egg products and are also classified as “small businesses” under the SBA definition. 
IBISWorld (2019) reports that there are about 8,000 supermarkets and g rocery stores in 
California employing about 300,000 people. The California Grocers Association (2020) reports 
having about 6,000 member -businesses. The National Association of Convenience Stores 
(2020) reports that there are about 12,000 convenience stor es in California. 
Meat markets, fish and seafood markets, fruit and vegetable markets, baked goods stores, 
confectionery and nut stores, and other specialty food stores are classified by the SBA as small 
businesses if they have less than $8 million in ann ual revenues. Convenience stores are small 
businesses if they have less than $32 million in annual revenues. Supermarkets and other 
grocery stores are small businesses if they have less than $35 million in annual revenues. 
Thus, a substantial portion of grocery stores and convenience stores are small businesses, 
although large chains have a greater presence in the grocery and convenience store category 
than in the restaurant category. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 21          
  
           
          
            
             
           
          
          
      
 
          
 
            
  
          
         
      
       
 
      
           
         
       
           
          
     
        
             
           
         
           
            
             
            
         
     
           
         
                
         
  
       
         
         Consumers shopping at small or large grocery stores, or convenience stores, are likely to 
respond to higher shell egg, liquid egg , whole veal me at, and whole pork meat prices by buying 
less of the covered pork, veal and egg products, and are also likely to substitute some or all of 
their covered product spending for spending on other food products, including non -covered pork 
such as ready -to-eat or ground pork products. The covered egg , veal and pork products 
repre sent a small share of total consumer food spending at grocery stores and even less at 
convenience stores. Therefore, no disproportionate impact of the Act’s standards on small 
grocery or other retail companies is expected . 
Finance comment #3: Effects on individual SNAP and food subsidy program benefits 
a. SNAP: Low income Californians pay a higher share of their total income on food 
Covered pork , and especially covered egg product s will become more expensive to consumers 
starting in January 2022 because of the animal confinement standards mandated in statute s. 
Eggs are purchased by low -income consumers as a higher share of their food budgets 
compared to middle -and high -income consumers. 
Many low -income consumers in California are enrolled in USDA food and nutrition service 
programs such as school meals, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, 
Infants, and Children (WIC), and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which in 
California is administered as the Cal Fresh program. These programs enroll millions of 
Californians, many of whom participate in several programs. For example, there were almost 4 
million SNAP recipients (about 10% of the population in Californi a in 2019). Supplemental 
Nutrition Assistance Program benefits averaged about $1,700 annually per household member 
in 2019. However, not all low -income consumers are enrolled in programs and many face 
higher food costs with little assistance. It is not yet clear the extent, if any, to which federal 
program benefits will be adjusted to fully cover the added food costs of consumers beginning in 
2022. For example, the typical consumer (across all ages and other characteristics) consumes 
about 21 dozen eggs and 40 pounds of pork meat annually, and estimated increase in food 
costs are approximately $2 per dozen shell eggs and $0.20 per pound of whole pork meat . This 
means covered egg and pork costs go up by $42 and $8 per year respectively for a total of $50 
per person per year starting in 2022. This increase in food costs does not include veal because 
it is assumed lower -income households are not purchasing veal. These calculations are based 
on economic results which repeatedly find that the quantity purch ased by low -income 
households of broad food items like shell eggs or whole pork meat do not fall proportionately to 
when the price increase (demand is price inelastic). Meaning, when price rises, the expenditure 
on that item also rises. The increased cos t of $50 per person will need to be included in federal 
benefits for California recipients otherwise their real food purchasing power will fall. 
Therefore , the Act will disproportionately reduce food purchasing power of low -income 
consumers. However, since some of the food budget of low -income consumers is covered by 
federal programs, they may not be differentially affected, as a group, relative to consumers with 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 22          
              
     
 
         
         
         
 
    
 
          
           
       
            
         
       
          
             
          
           
  
 
             
          
      
 
          
            
            
      
         
      
       
      
        
       
     
        
 
      
 
             
      
 
     
  higher incomes that are not eligible for food assistance. Food consumers most affected wi ll be 
those low -income consumers that are not enrolled in assistance programs. 
Consumers least affected are those who already consume cage -free shell and liquid eggs and 
whole pork meat from hogs for whom the mother pig experienced additional space during 
gestation. These tend to be higher income consumers. 
b. Other food subsidy benefit programs 
In addition, as noted above , there are federal meal subsidy programs serving other populations 
such as daycare for younger children and eldercare facilities. A brief summary of the Federal 
Child and Adult Care Food Program is provided by the USDA Economic Research Service 
(USDA, ERS 2019). The program is designed to improve nutrition with meals and snacks for 
infants, children, and adults. Providers are reimbursed for meals and snacks. In 2018 -19 
Federal reimbursement for the California program was $485 million and state reimburse ment 
was about $2.1 million. Almost all the outlays were for childcare centers and in -home daycares. 
(CDE, 2020). In addition, the state cost of the Federal Child and Adult Care Food Program is 
$2.1 million. The best estimate of added cost of these prog rams is about 0.5% times 
$2.1million, equaling an added cost due to the Act’s confinement standards of about $11,000 
per year. 
Finance comment #4: Fiscal cost calculations must be disclosed and include all costs to state 
and local governments. Costs should be broken down by category including but not limited to 
certification, registration, enforcement, and other administrative costs. 
The Department’s proposed program for implementation of Proposition 12 initiative is titled the 
Animal Care Program and total fiscal cost for 22/23 fiscal year for this program is $4,936,485. 
This is the first full fiscal year after the Act’s timelines are all in effect for covered animals and 
costs have been broken down into administration, complianc e audits, investigat ions, and 
registration/certification/accreditation. Within each of these categories the expenses are further 
divided into personal services and operating expenses and equipment. More specifically, total 
administration costs are $1,047 ,157 ($557,661 for personal services and $489,496 for operating 
expenses and equipment), total compliance audits costs are $3,024,377 ($1,858,393 from 
personal services and $1,165,984 from operating expenses and equipment), total investigations 
costs are $ 456,058 ($349,186 from personal services and $106,872 from operating expenses 
and equipment), and total registration/certification/accreditation costs are $408,893 ($350,021 
from personal services and $58,872 from operating expenses and equipment). 
No fis cal costs to local governments. 
Finance comment #5: The SRIA must evaluate impacts on other government agencies that are 
consumers of the covered products, such as schools and prisons. 
a. Fiscal impact on California schools 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 23          
      
            
            
             
          
             
          
      
              
          
 
 
           
           
          
        
          
         
           
             
             
             
          
 
         
           
           
          
         
            
         
         
       
 
           
            
        
         
           
     
 
     
 
         
            Schools in California served 288 million breakfasts and 536 million lunches in the 2018 -2019 
academic year. Of those meals, 233 million breakfasts and 405 million lunches were served 
free of charge to needy children . The total funds expended for school meal programs were 
$2.27 billion with the State contributing $161 million or about 7% of this budget in 2018 -2019 . 
Of these state funds, $103 million were expended for lunches, and $58 million were expended 
for breakfast meals. In addition, s ummer meal programs in the 2018 -2019 school year served 
14.8 million meals, including 3.2 million breakfast meals and 9.5 million lunch meals. Total 
funds expended for the summer meal programs were $46.1 million with State funds contributing 
$1.7 million or about 3.7% of the total budget. Of these state funds for the summer meal 
program , $1.2 million were expended for lunches and $495 thousand for breakfast meals 
(CDEa). 
To estimate the increase in covered egg and pork costs beginning in 2022, the same average 
annual increase in food costs is used as in the SNAP explanation above of $50 per person or 
$50/ (3X365) = $0.0457 per meal increase in food costs. This estimate was then rounded down 
to $0.04 per meal because these meals are mostly lunch and breakfast, the average 
consumption of chil dren from 6 to 18 is less than the average person, and schools have access 
to bulk buying and economies in covered egg and pork purchases. Applying this $0.04/meal to 
the free school -year meals of 638 million meals gives an increased cost of about $25. 5 million. 
The California budget pays about 7% of the total or about $1.8 0 million ($25.5 million X 0.07) . 
For summer meals the added total cost is $0.6 million, and the California cost is $0.0 42 million 
($0.6 million X 0.07) . In total, California state gov ernment costs for these school meals are 
about $1.8 4 ($1.80 million plus $0.042 million) million in the 2022 -23 school year . 
Besides federal cash contribution to school meals programs USDA has provided direct food 
purchasing of egg products to some school districts at a discounted rate . Two frozen liquid egg 
products and an egg patty product have been available (USDA Foods) for schools to purchase. 
California egg producer housing standards have been distinct from those in the rest of the US 
for retail sales since 2015, but the California egg production is mainly for shell eggs which are 
not often used in school meal programs. Under the proposed regulations, liquid eggs and egg 
products included in the Egg Products Inspection Act are also included as covered product 
needing to come from cage -free hens and therefore California schools may not be able to 
purchase low -cost covered egg products from USDA Foods. 
It is not known whether USDA will provide USDA egg products to California schools that meet 
California cage -free standards. If not provided, this source of benefit may be lost to school meal 
programs in California. If USDA is unwilling to use egg products that meet California standards 
this will reduce the benefit of school meal programs in California, unless menu planners avo id 
the use of covered egg products. Alternatively, USDA may use cage -free eggs to produce 
compliant USDA egg products for use in California schools . 
b. Fiscal impact on California colleges and universities 
The impact of the Act and this proposal on food c osts for California state colleges and 
universities is small and accounted for in meal plan fees to students. The University of 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 24          
        
      
            
           
         
          
              
           
              
                
               
            
              
    
 
           
           
           
           
             
                  
           
          
             
               
          
        
     
   
      
             
               
            
      
 
     
  
          
         
             
          
        
 
            
           California system and the California State University system together enroll about 700 thousand 
undergraduates (The Regents of the University of California 2020, The California State 
University 2020, USDE/NCES 2020). About 110 thousand UC and CSU students live on 
campus and most of those are enrolled in campus meal plans. The number of students living 
on campus is calculated usi ng the average percentage of undergraduates living on campus for 
each UC and major CSU campus from Carnegie Dartlett (2020). On most campuses, basic 
meal plans are included in room and board fees and vary from about $100 to over $200 per 
week. Cost of me al plans for each campus was obtained from the corresponding campus 
website. On average, meal plans cost about $175 per student, per week, for an equivalent of 
three meals per day, seven days a week. A typical school year not including summer school 
cons ists of about 32 weeks. Using 32 weeks as the length of an average school year, the total 
cost of meals per student amounts to $5,600 per year. For the total student population living in 
campus housing on the UC and CSU campuses, student meal plans amount to $ 616 million per 
year ($5,600 X 110,000) . 
Estimates of increased covered egg and pork costs (veal is not served on college campuses) for 
meals served beginning in 2022 take into account the nine -month academic year and a slight 
increase in tota l eggs consumed based on the demographic and ability to purchase in bulk. The 
total increase is $40 per person annually for purchasing covered eggs and pork. This total uses 
college student consumption of 23 dozen eggs per year (shell and liquid) , but av erage 3/4 of the 
year (9 months) on the meal plan so egg cost increase is (0.75) X 46 = $34.50 due to the price 
of cage -free eggs and rounded up to $35 per year. Increase in costs due to increase in the 
price of whole pork meat is $5 ($8 X 0.75=$6, rounde d down to $5) because of slightly lower 
prices due to bulk purchases. The increase in food costs totals $40 per person or a total of $4.4 
million per year for students living on campus taking part in a meal program ($40 X 110,000) . 
The cost to the State of California due to this increase in cost of covered eggs and pork 
depends on the expenditure to cover meal plans for students on state -subsidized scholarships 
that include coverage of room and board fees. 
About 30% of California public college and uni versity students receive financial benefits that will 
be affected by meal plan costs and 70% of added meal plan costs are paid by the students or 
their families. Therefore, the estimated cost of the Act and this proposal on State costs for meal 
plan stude nt subsidy is about 30% times $4.4 million or $1.32 million during the first academic 
year after full implementation in 2022 ($4.4 million X 0.30) . 
c. California and local jurisdictions operate prisons and jails that provide meals 
California’s state prison population is projected to remain at about 117 thousand people for the 
next several years (California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 2020). About 117 
thousand inmates is a five -year rolling average projection for 202 1 and 2022 based on prison 
population for 2015 –2019. This gives a total of 42.7 million prison -days per year, or just over 
128 million meals (assuming three meals per person per day). 
California county jail population is totaled at about 73 thousand in 2018 and 2019 (Board of 
State and Community Corrections Jail Profile Survey August 25, 2020 report). Using the same 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 25          
         
 
  
          
            
            
               
         
            
            
            
                 
       
 
    
 
          
           
      
       
       
 
 
           
          
   
 
          
               
        
         
       
   
 
         
       
 
       
          
       
        
           
           
           calculation for county jail inmates as state inmates yields about 80 million meals served each 
year. 
An increase in the price of covered eggs and pork as a result of the mandated statute and 
proposed regulation s will increase the annual costs of meals per prisoner by about $40 per year 
starting in 2022, which is mostly the higher costs of cage -free shell eggs and liquid eggs , but 
with a sma ll amount for cost of whole pork meat and no added cost for whole veal meat . This 
was calculated by estimating that the increase in meal costs provided to prisoners will be lower 
than for the average Californian by about 20%, so additional costs of covere d eggs and pork 
would be $40 per year ($50 X 0.8). At the current and projected incarceration population 
numbers, this would increase the total costs of meals for the state prisons by about $4. 68 million 
per year ($40 X 117,000). For county jails , this will be an added cost of about $2.92 million per 
year ($40 X 73,000) for meals served to its 73,000 inmates. 
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVES 
The Department must determine that no reasonable alternative it considered or that has 
otherwise been identified and brought to its attention would be more effective in carrying out the 
purpose for which the action is proposed, would be as effective and less burdensome to 
affected pri vate persons than the proposed action, or would be more cost -effective to affected 
private persons and equally effective in implementing the statutory policy or other provision of 
law. 
Any interested person may present statements or arguments orally or in writing relevant to the 
above determinations at the hearing (if a hearing is requested) or during the written public 
comment period. 
The two alternatives considered do not vary the basic requirements of the Act itself, for 
example, the alternatives did not consider whether eggs must be cage -free, or by when. The 
two alternatives considered the economic impacts of the Department’s discretionary choices, 
namely through definitions and procedures, used to implement the Act . The two alternative 
regulations considered and ultimately rejected include (1) lower -cost regulations and (2) higher -
cost regulations: 
Alternative 1: Under the lower -cost alternative, annual farm cost and consumer expenditure 
increases by $982 million; = $19.5 billion in present valu e at a 5% discount rate. 
The lower -cost regulations apply a narrower interpretation of which food products are covered 
and which businesses are subject to annual registration and certification requirements. Intent of 
the Act is not fully applied across s ales of covered products and therefore California residents 
would not be able to confidently purchase and consume covered products knowing they were 
sourced from covered animals raised according to the confinement standards of the Act, 
regardless of origin of product. The lower -cost alternative would be confusing for the California 
consumer because there would be a mix of compliant and non -compliant covered product for 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 26          
           
        
 
             
         
 
          
         
        
            
       
 
        
             
 
          
           
       
 
       
            
         
              
          
          
          
          
         
            
        
          
             
             
        
 
     
          
          
            
         
          
           
         
         sale in California. The lower -cost regulations are defined in detail in SRIA 4.2.1 , however some 
key variations in the lower -cost regulations, versus the proposed regulations, are as follows: 
• “Shell eggs” include only raw or pasteurized eggs with the shell still intact , therefore, 
exclud ing all forms of hard -cooked eggs such as peeled, slic ed, or chopped. 
• “Liquid eggs” include only eggs broken from the shell with the yolks and whites in their 
natural proportions, or with the yolks and whites separated, mixed or mixed and strained as 
defined by the C ode of Federal Regulations , therefore exclud ing other forms of liquid eggs 
such as frozen, dried, cooked, and prepared egg products (e.g. egg patties or egg “pucks” 
consisting of mostly eggs except for added seasoning and flavoring). 
• The Act’s confinement requirements are limited to sales of shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole 
veal meat, or whole pork meat at the retail level to a consumer. 
• Restaurants, prepared food vendors, and food process ing facilities are not required to 
source shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat, or whole pork meat compliant with the Act 
for their business of further processing those ingredients. 
The Department rejected this option because the narrow definitions of shell eggs and liquid 
eggs did not coincide with the intent of the Act that was overwhelmingly passed by voters to 
ensure eggs purchased and consumed by Californians were not from egg -laying hens confined 
in a cruel manner. Whether the shell egg consumed is purchased raw or hardboiled, peeled , 
and included in a snack pack, the Department determine d that hardboiled eggs need from be 
from egg -laying hens confined according to the Act’s sta ndards to meet the expectations of 
Californians. California ns that voted to ensure liquid eggs purchased in California were from 
egg-laying hens not confined in a cruel manner are most likely not aware of all food 
manufacturing processes or the extensive list of egg products defined in the Egg Products 
Inspection Act. Due to the versatile use of liquid eggs in food process ing, and food service, the 
Department adopted the definitions of liquid egg to include all products in the federal Egg 
Products Inspection Act. The Department feels confident this was the expectation of voters 
when they voted for the Proposition 12 initiative in 2018. Whether the liquid eggs are frozen, 
dried , or cooked into a patty, if the covered egg product is sold in Californ ia, then it must have 
originated from egg -laying hens not confined in a cruel manner. 
The Department also rejected this lower -cost alternative option because the re would be a mix of 
compliant and noncompliant covered products sold in California and it wo uld be difficult for the 
consumer to know if they were purchasing shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat , and whole 
pork meat from animals not confined in a cruel manner. Also, the lower -cost alternative would 
be more difficult to regulate because whole sale and retail costs of covered products coming 
from covered animals not confined in a cruel manner are significantly higher than the prices of 
covered products from animals housed in a cruel manner. With a narrower scope of products 
included in the lowe r-cost alternative option and compliant and noncompliant covered products 
in the California marketplace, there would more opportunities for cheating, greater challenges 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 27          
            
             
  
         
       
  
       
        
        
            
          
       
 
 
             
           
           
 
       
     
 
         
               
           
       
 
         
            
        
            
        
       
           
 
 
         
           
            
           
           
         
         
          
           
      for enforcement , and unfair cost burden put on California small businesses, most ly restaurants 
who purchase shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat , and whole pork meat from a retailer. 
Alternative 2: Under the higher -cost alternative, annual farm and consumer expenditure 
increases by $1.263 billion; = $25.26 billion in present value at a 5% discount rate. 
Higher -cost regulations impose more stringent restrictions on some covered products moving 
through California and expand the definition of covered products; they imply larger negative 
economic consequences, including reduced Californi a port activity. Benefits may be larger 
under the higher -cost alternative if more covered animals are not raised in a cruel manner . The 
higher -cost regulations are defined in detail in SRIA section 4.2.2. Specifically, the higher -cost 
regulations include all the requirements of the proposed regulations plus the following additional 
requirements: 
• Raw ground veal, raw ground pork, and their products (meaning foods composed of raw 
ground veal or pork plus seasonings, coloring, curing agents, etc.) ar e considered cuts of 
“whole veal meat” and cuts of “whole pork meat,” and thus subject to the Act’s requirements. 
• The Act’s requirements apply to covered food products moving through California for sale 
and end -use in another state or country. 
• Consumer -facing labeling is required for all covered products or prepared foods containing a 
covered product. Labels would allow the buyer to scan a QR code at retail or when 
consuming a prepared food made with covered product and see record of the Act’s animal 
confinement certification and traceability of product back to farm of origin. 
The Department rejected this option because in the Act definitions of whole veal meat and 
whole pork meat exclude processed or prepared foods such as hot dogs. Raw ground and 
comm inuted products made from veal or pork are specifically identified in these regulations as 
not needing to be included under the definition s of covered products. This decision was made 
based on informal feedback from pork stakeholders and due to the defini tions in statute. 
Analysis for the SRIA include calculations with and without ground pork because there has been 
mixed informal feedback from stakeholders regarding the exclusion of ground and comminuted 
products. 
The higher -cost alternative option to ap ply the Act’s confinement standards of covered products 
only moving through California and destined for export, use on cruise ships, or sale in other 
states was rejected because the Department did not think including these products under the 
Act’s animal c onfinement standards was the intention of the law. California has busy ports for 
export and import and if all shell eggs, liquid eggs, whole veal meat , and whole pork meat 
moving through these ports had to be compliant with the Act and these regulations, then 
import/export business in California would be devastated and move d to other states. The 
Department specifically excluded covered products moving through the State for a destination 
outside of the State or country i n these regulations for stakeholders to understand the 
processes and expectations for these types of products. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 28          
  
      
        
         
           
           
            
         
         
       
   
 
           
 
 
   
 
          
  
 
    
     
  
      
   
  
 
      
 
  
     
  
       
   
   
 
       
 
 
          
           
               
           
         
           The final suggestion in the higher -cost alternative option was rejected by the Department 
because the requirement for a consumer facing labeling with a unique QR code was determine d 
to be overly burdensome for stakeholders includ ing restaurants which are often independently 
owned and classified as small businesses. Instead of putting the burden of proof to defend and 
communicate that a food is or contains covered product from cover ed animals not confined in a 
cruel manner to the Department on these small businesses , the Department decided to move 
this compliance one level up in the supply chain to a distributor. In addition, many of the final 
consumer facing packaging of liquid egg s, whole veal meat , and whole pork meat are under 
inspection of USDA, FSIS and any labeling of those products would need to be approved by 
FSIS. 
This proposal is necessary for compliance with section 25990, 25991, 25992, and 25993 of the 
HSC. 
CONTACT PERSONS 
Inquiries and any written comments concerning this proposal are to be addressed to the 
following: 
Dr. Elizabeth Cox , Program Manager 
Department of Food and Agriculture 
Animal Care Program 
1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 
Telephone (916) 900 -5000 
E-mail: animalcare@cdfa.ca.gov 
The back -up contact person is as follows: 
Thami Rodgers , Associate Analyst 
Department of Food and Agriculture 
Animal Care Program 
1220 N Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 
Telephone (916) 204 -9688 
E-mail: thamarah.rodgers@cdfa.ca.gov 
AVAILABILITY OF INITIAL STATEMENT OF REASONS AND INFORMATION , AND TEXT 
OF REGULATIONS 
The Department has prepared an d has available for public review an Initial Statement of 
Reasons for the proposed action , all the information upon which the proposal is based , and the 
express terms of the proposed regulations. A copy of the Initial Statement of Reasons and the 
proposed regulations in underline may be obtained upon request. The location of the 
information on which t he proposal is based may also be obtained upon request. Requests 
should be directed to Dr. Elizabeth Cox at the mailing or email address specified above. 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 29          
  
     
 
         
       
           
           
           
             
     
 
       
 
         
         
 
  
 
         
    AVAILABILITY OF CHANGED OR MODIFIED TEXT 
After considering all timely and relevant comments recei ved, the Department may adopt the 
proposed regulations substantially as described in this notice. If the Department makes 
modifications which are sufficiently related to the originally proposed text, it will make the 
modified text (with the changes clearl y indicated) available to the public for at least 15 days 
before the Department adopts the revised regulations. Any person interested may obtain a 
copy of any modified regulations prior to the date of adoption by contacting Dr . Elizabeth Cox at 
the mailin g or email address specified above. 
AVAILABILITY AND LOCATION OF THE FINAL STATEMENT OF REASONS 
Upon its completion, copies of the Final Statement of Reasons may be obtained by contacting 
Dr. Elizabeth Cox at the mailing or email address specified above . 
INTERNET ACCESS 
The Department has posted the information regarding this proposed regulatory action on its 
Internet Web site http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/regulations.html 
Animal Confinement -NOPA 30