A new white paper from the Agricultural Risk Policy Center (ARPC) at North Dakota State University provides updated evidence on how California’s Proposition 12 has affected pork markets following full implementation.

The report, Updated Evidence on the Impact of Proposition 12 on Pork Prices, Wholesale Segmentation, and Consumption (ARPC White Paper 2026–06), authored by Wuit Yi Lwin, Andrew Keller, Shawn Arita, Joseph Cooper, and Sandro Steinbach, evaluates both retail and wholesale market outcomes using post-implementation data through January 2026.

The findings show that Proposition 12 has led to sustained increases in retail pork prices. The retail price gap between compliant markets and the rest of the United States remains elevated at approximately 71 cents per pound relative to pre-policy levels. At the wholesale level, compliant pork continues to represent a small but distinct market segment, accounting for about 5.3% of reported volume while maintaining a measurable price premium.

A key result of the analysis is the presence of strong supply chain amplification. Retail price increases are nearly three times larger than the wholesale compliance premium, indicating that costs intensify as products move from packing plants to retail markets.

The study also highlights significant consumer impacts. Additional consumer spending is estimated at approximately $403 million at the retail level, while wholesale compliance costs total about $185 million. The distribution of these costs shows that the largest share of the consumer burden arises after the wholesale stage, between the packing plant and the retail shelf.

In addition, the analysis finds that higher prices are associated with reduced consumption. California’s share of U.S. pork purchases declined from 8.5% to 7.1% following policy implementation, reflecting adjustments in consumer demand.

“Two years after full enforcement, Proposition 12 continues to sustain higher pork prices in compliant states, and the costs consumers face at retail are nearly three times larger than the compliance premium observed at wholesale,” said Steinbach.

The findings provide important insights into how regulatory compliance costs are transmitted through agricultural markets and supply chains.

The ARPC White Paper is available through the Agricultural Risk Policy Center at North Dakota State University: https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.396440

Media Contact:
Agricultural Risk Policy Center (ARPC)
North Dakota State University
arpc@ndsu.edu
https://www.ndsu.edu/agriculture/arpc