This is CBSI in the world. I'm John Bachelor with Professor Richard Epstein, the Hoover

Institution. He's the senior fellow writing and defining ideas. Richard teaches law at NYU

and the University of Chicago. I do not have a law education. So what I learn is from

Richard's essays and also the opportunity to ask him questions about how is this common

sensical. And that's where I'm going to start in this case that he is writing about now

that's before the courts. It is entitled National Pork Producers Council versus Ross.

It springs from a proposition in California that was successful in 2018, in other words,

four years hence, that requires all pork products sold in the state of California to be prepared

in facilities meeting California standards of animal health and safety, animal health and

safety. That's important here. That suggests that California with this referendum is going

to need to inspect the production of pork products that are sold into California. The

details here, Richard provides that California makes up 13% of pork consumers in the US,

at 99.8 of all pork produced in the US or anywhere is produced outside of California.

So the common sense of this is that California is seeking to take a regulation that it

passed with a referendum and impose it on the rest of the states, maybe the rest of the

planet. And one of the drivers for this is the health care without harm. That's a group

that is most focused on animal cruelty. Richard, that threw me because this is about health

and safety and the production of meat anywhere can be made to look extremely unacceptable.

That's the nature of the legislation that preceded the beginning of the 20th century

under the Roosevelt administration, the Macrakers. And so therefore, it seems inappropriate

to apply Macraking standards on something that is meant to protect the health of people,

not their moral opinions.

...