top of page

California Retail Pork Prices and Consumption Two Years into the Proposition 12 Implementation

Wuit Yi Lwin , Joseph Cooper, Seth Meyer, and Sandro Steinbach

Key Insights

Proposition 12’s effects have persisted well beyond the initial implementation period. Updated data through June 2025 show that higher retail prices and reduced pork consumption have continued for two years, with no clear evidence of market recovery.


Retail pork prices increased substantially across the major regulated product categories. Price premiums increased by approximately 30 percentage points for loins, 21 percentage points for ribs, and about 14 percentage points for both shoulders and bacon.


California’s share of national pork consumption fell after Proposition 12 took effect. The state’s overall share declined from 8.8 percent before enforcement to 7.5 percent afterward, with some of the largest reductions occurring for ribs and loins.


Econometric estimates attribute significant price increases directly to Proposition 12. Prices for regulated products were approximately 20 percent higher overall, including increases of about 32 percent for loins, 22 percent for ribs, 18.5 percent for shoulders, and 12.9 percent for bacon.


Pork consumption also declined substantially. Overall consumption volumes fell approximately 15.4 percent, with loin purchases down about 31 percent, ribs down 21 percent, and shoulders and bacon each down roughly 12 percent.


The results point to a lasting structural change in California’s pork market. Higher prices and lower consumption remained consistent throughout the post-enforcement period, illustrating how supply-side regulations can produce persistent changes in retail markets.


Recommended Citation: Lwin, Wuit Yi, Joseph Cooper, Seth Meyer, and Sandro Steinbach. “California Retail Pork Prices and Consumption Two Years into the Proposition 12 Implementation.” ARPC White Paper 2025-03, Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University, July 23, 2025. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.362671

bottom of page