Direct Democracy and Import Regulations as Drivers for Policy Change: Lessons from U.S. State Legislation
Over the past two decades, numerous U.S. states have implemented far-reaching animal welfare legislation, banning the caging of laying hens, sows, and veal calves. Jasmin Zöllmer, a researcher at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (HU), has analyzed the key factors behind this “race to the top” in animal welfare standards across the United States. In a qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of 79 legislative initiatives since 2000, she identified two central drivers of higher standards: public referendums and the extension of domestic regulations to imported products.
In the U.S., all referendums on improving animal welfare in recent decades have passed successfully, enabling stricter laws to be enacted directly—regardless of the political majority at the time. The second key factor are import regulations. These ensure that higher standards also apply to products from other U.S. states, thereby creating a level-playing field whenever standards are raised. Jasmin Zöllmer explains:
“The ability to apply stricter standards to imports within the U.S. internal market is a crucial lever. Domestic producers can meet higher demands without being undercut by cheaper, lower-standard imports. That levels the competition, reduces resistance, and makes ambitious laws politically viable in the first place.”
For example, in 2018, California banned the use of gestation crates for sows—not only for in-state producers but also for imported meat. As a result, states like Iowa, the largest pork producer in the U.S., now must comply with California's standards in order to retain access to its lucrative market of 40 million consumers. In a recent landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in surprisingly clear terms that a State of course may prohibit the sale of any article which it considers harmful to the interests of its citizens.
Internal Market Rules Shape Policy Options in Member States
Within the European Union, such import regulations would be virtually unthinkable. The free movement of goods is interpreted much more strictly in the EU, making it significantly more difficult for individual member states to enact ambitious animal welfare laws. This had already been shown by Jasmin Zöllmer and Professor Harald Grethe from the Albrecht Daniel Thaer Institute at HU in an earlier publication.
Zöllmer summarizes the differences between the two largest internal markets:
“The U.S. offers its states far greater policy-making autonomy than the EU does to its member states – and that has a positive impact on standards. While in the EU, strict interpretations of free trade often lead to a kind of policy stagnation—or even races to the bottom due to fears of competitiveness loss—what we observe in the U.S. is the opposite: The ability to apply standards equally to imports is a major reason why higher standards can be adopted in the first place and can even trigger a race to the top of standards”.
About the Author
Jasmin Zöllmer is a doctoral researcher in the International Agricultural Trade and Development group at the Albrecht Daniel Thaer Institute at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Her research focuses on policymaking in integrated markets, particularly European integration, the free movement of goods, and its implications for the policy space of member states. She conducts comparative research on the U.S. internal market as well.
Jasmin Zöllmer applies a range of methods in her work, including comparative policy analysis, elite interviews, discourse analysis, and Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). From 2020 to 2024, she was a member of the Animal Welfare Commission of the German Federal Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
Further Information
- Zöllmer, J. (2025). Race to the top of farm animal welfare policies in US states: What can explain the new development? A qualitative comparative analysis. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13876988.2025.2493820
Zöllmer, J., Grethe, H. (2024). Enabling free movement but restricting domestic policy space? The price of mutual recognition. European Policy Analysis, 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/epa2.1208