UC Irvine Law Review Volume 7 Article 7 Issue 2 Food Equity 6-2017 Food, Animals, and the Constitution: California Bans on Pork, Foie Gras, Shark Fins, and Eggs Ernesto A. Hernández-López Chapman Univ. School of Law,
[email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr Recommended Citation Ernesto A. Hernández-López, Food, Animals, and the Constitution: California Bans on Pork, Foie Gras, Shark Fins, and Eggs, 7 U.C. Irvine L. Rev. 347 (2017). Available at: https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr/vol7/iss2/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UCI Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in UC Irvine Law Review by an authorized editor of UCI Law Scholarly Commons. Final to Printer_Hernandez-Lopez (Do Not Delete) 12/13/2017 3:08 PM Food, Animals, and the Constitution: California Bans on Pork, Foie Gras, Shark Fins, and Eggs Ernesto Hernández-López* Animal welfare policies focused on food production cook up significant constitutional controversies. Since 2008, California has tried to ban the sale of certain edible items made from animals. Eaters and farmers challenge these policies, citing economic discrimination and preemption by federal statutes, in violation of the Constitution’s Dormant Commerce and Supremacy Clauses, respectively. This food- and-animal jurisprudence includes pork products in National Meat Association v. Harris (2012); foie gras in Association des Éleveurs de Canards et D’Oies du Québec v. Harris (2013) and Association des Éleveurs de Canards et D’Oies du Québec v. Becerra (2017); shark fins in Chinatown Neighborhood Association v.