Capital Update – For the Week Ending Oct. 24, 2025

NPPC’s Stateler: Prop. 12 Has Negative Impacts; Congress Can Fix It

What happened: NPPC President Duane Stateler, a pork producer from McComb, Ohio, recently penned an opinion article on the negative effects of California’s Proposition 12 for The Hill, a congressional news publication.

Proposition 12 bans the sale in California of pork that does not comply with the state’s prescriptive and arbitrary production standards. The law, Stateler pointed out, has had negative impacts nationwide, fueling market volatility, imposing costly mandates on pork producers, and paving the way for a patchwork of inconsistent state regulations.

NPPC’s take: NPPC, which has led the fight against Prop. 12, supports congressional efforts to address the threats Prop. 12 imposes on the U.S. pork industry, including the web of state regulations it invites. Learn more about NPPC’s advocacy here.

Why it matters: Pork producers across the country must comply with Prop. 12 or forgo selling into the California market of 40 million people, who consume about 13% of all pork sold domestically. Most producers, particularly smaller ones, cannot afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would cost to retrofit existing or build new sow housing that complies with California Prop. 12.

Now, other states are proposing laws similar to Prop. 12. If those are adopted, said Stateler, “pork producers will be forced to navigate a fragmented, conflicting patchwork of regulations across 50 states.”

Concerns Raised About Classifying Foods as ‘Ultra-Processed’

What happened: NPPC has formally raised concerns with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about its efforts to define “ultra-processed foods,” which could have broad implications for pork products.

In comments submitted, NPPC said FDA should, in formulating a definition of ultra-processed foods:

• Not classify food as ultra-processed simply because it does not fit into one of three categories (out of four) of the NOVA classification system. Such a sorting focuses on the processing of foods rather than the nutritional benefits.
• Not categorize food as ultra-processed that contains ingredients that enhance food safety, shelf stability, and nutrient availability. Such ingredients protect public health and allow nutrient dense foods to reach consumers.
• Ensure an ultra-processed foods definition does not conflict with FDA’s Standards of Identity regulations, which detail what certain specific foods must contain, the amount or proportion of ingredients or components, and, sometimes, the method of production or formulation.

NPPC pointed out that there is no consensus on what constitutes ultra-processed foods and that coming up with a definition that incorporates “the nuances of food processing and nutrition – while also keeping in mind the goal of improving public health” would be difficult. “A good starting point,” NPPC said, “is to elevate the importance of nutritional composition, while protecting processing and ingredients that promote nutrient bioavailability, food safety, and shelf-stability.”

Rather than “ultra-processed foods,” NPPC suggested FDA use a term such as “discretionary foods” for products that are not nutrient dense. That would put the conversation back on nutrition as the basis for addressing diet-related chronic disease in America, NPPC said.

Why it’s important: Consumer health and safety are priorities of U.S. pork producers, and ensuring American’s have access to pork, a nutrient-dense protein, will help improve the nation’s nutrition and positively impact health.

Using the term ultra-processed food could unintentionally misclassify nutrient-dense foods simply because they are processed and prompt consumers not to eat them.

NPPC Weighs in on Proposed Swine Inspections Rule

What happened: NPPC filed comments on a proposed rule from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service on Visual Post-Mortem Inspection in Swine Slaughter Establishments, which, among other things, would remove the requirements for mandibular lymph node incision and hand checking viscera of hogs during harvesting.

The organization supports the changes, noting that “the [disease] conditions that are presently detected through lymph node incision and viscera palpation can be identified through non-intrusive visual inspection that will not pose a risk of introducing contamination.”

Additionally, while it recognized that the regulation would allow FSIS inspectors to perform off-line food safety duties, NPPC raised concerns about the availability of inspectors to perform “critical” activities in slaughter establishments.

An FSIS cost-benefit analysis of the rule found it would result in a reduction of one or two inspectors at both the head station and the viscera station at 14 large swine slaughter establishments operating under traditional inspection models (Establishments operating under the 2019 New Swine Inspection System use plant employees for some inspection activities and should be less affected).

Why it matters: In its comments, NPPC urged FSIS to maintain full inspection staffing at plants, which it said, “is necessary for NPPC’s members to efficiently operate and ensure the production of safe and wholesome pork products.”

It also asked the agency to ensure agreements with U.S. trading partners are not affected by the new rule’s change to visual inspections, noting that some trading partners may require removal of mandibular lymph nodes and the use of physical inspections of viscera.

Resolve Trade Dispute with China, NPPC Urges White House

What happened: NPPC is continuing to press the Trump administration to resolve its trade dispute with China, which recently imposed restrictions on exports to the United States of rare earth minerals, a move the president threatened to counter with tariffs of 100% on Chinese goods.

China has had retaliatory tariffs on U.S. products, including pork, in response to the administration’s Sections 232 and 301 duties placed on Chinese products in 2018 (Section 232 covers imports – in this case steel and aluminum – that could threaten U.S. national security, while 301 is used to address violations of fair trade practices).

As of 2024, U.S. pork exports to the Asian nation faced a 25% retaliatory tariff, in addition to China’s most-favored-nation tariff rate of 12%. During the height of the trade tensions between the United States and China, retaliatory duties were more than 60%.

Those tariffs have resulted in U.S. competitor countries having better market access for their products. Brazil, for example, has increased its exports to China by more than 200% over the past few years.

NPPC’s take: U.S. pork producers are concerned not only about additional retaliatory duties being put on U.S. pork exports to China but also about the effects 301 tariffs could have on key imported ingredients and inputs used in agricultural production.

Additionally, NPPC is monitoring a Chinese anti-dumping investigation on pork from the European Union. It does not expect that investigation to have a positive impact on U.S. pork exports to China since the United States continues to face pressure because of its retaliatory duties on Chinese goods.

What it means for producers: China was the No. 3 value market for U.S. pork in 2024, with the pork industry shipping more than $1.1 billion of product, or about 13% of its total exports, to the Asian country.

UN Shipping Organization Delays Vote on Carbon Tax on Ships

What happened: The United Nation’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) recently decided to postpone adoption of a so-called Net-Zero Framework related to greenhouse gas emissions. At a mid-October meeting, the IMO’s environment committee delayed a vote until 2026 on the plan for implementing its 2023 Strategy for Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships, which includes a global fuel standard and a tax on emissions from certain vessels.

In April, the IMO developed draft emissions rules for ocean-going ships over 5,000 gross tons, which the organization claims are responsible for about 85% of international shipping’s CO2 emissions. Commercial ships would pay for emissions over a limit set by the IMO, while vessels that meet more stringent standards could trade or accrue “surplus” carbon units. The organization wants the shipping industry to be carbon neutral by 2050, with intervening reductions of 20% by 2030 and 70% by 2040.

The Trump administration opposes the proposal, which it says will raise worldwide shipping costs by as much as 10% or more, according to some estimates.

“The U.N. is attempting to pass the first global carbon tax, which will increase energy, food, and fuel costs across the world,” said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. “We will not allow the U.N. to tax American citizens and companies.”

NPPC’s take: NPPC has concerns over the GHG emissions tax on shipping as it would raise the cost of getting pork exports to foreign markets, thus hurting U.S. pork producers.

Why it matters: About 60% of U.S. pork exports are transported by ocean freight. The pork industry depends on exports, which annually account for about a quarter of all sales and contribute significantly to every producer’s bottom line. Last year, it exported more than $8.6 billion of pork to more than 100 foreign destinations.