Lawmakers in the Senate recently introduced a bill called the “Food Security and Farm Protection Act,” which sponsors say will protect family farms and reduce burdensome regulations that they argue increase costs and market consolidation. The bill particularly targets laws like California’s “Proposition 12,” which sets animal welfare standards. Not surprisingly, strong opposition to the bill is being raised by animal welfare advocates. But it’s also up against pushback from states’ rights advocates that worry the legislation opens the door to more federal meddling in local affairs.
Introduced by Senators Joni Ernst, Chuck Grassley, and Roger Marshall, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act seeks to prevent states and local jurisdictions from imposing their own standards or regulations on the production and sale of agricultural products when those standards differ from federal law or the laws of other states. California’s Proposition 12, for example, mandates minimum space requirements for breeding pigs, egg-laying hens, and veal calves. Producers that don’t meet these standards are not allowed to sell their products in California, which accounts for around 13% of U.S. consumption but only 1% of production. Other states have created similar animal welfare laws.
Critics argue that such laws essentially mandate agricultural policy in other states, resulting in what the Senators say is a patchwork of arbitrary regulations that have increased costs for farmers and consumers and fueled market consolidation. They contend the Act will bring regulatory consistency, protect farmers’ livelihoods, and lower food prices by allowing products to be sold nationwide without restriction from state-level animal welfare laws.
According to an analysis conducted by the USDA, retail prices for pork in California increased on average by +20% after Proposition 12 went into effect. While some of the added costs stem from upgrading facilities to meet California’s standards, industry experts say a bigger share of the cost and additional time burden is regulatory. That in turn makes it harder for small farmers to compete against large industry players in the important California market.
The Food Security and Farm Protection Act would essentially nullify California Prop 12, along with similar laws that have been passed in over a dozen states. The Act would also impede future state efforts to enact standards or conditions on “the preharvest production of any agricultural products sold or offered for sale in interstate commerce.”
Animal welfare activists and others are fighting to preserve these state laws for all the same reasons they fought to get them passed in the first place. They also have backing from states’ rights defenders that argue the Act seeks to preempt the authority of state and local governments to regulate agricultural production and sales within their own jurisdictions.
Opponents further argue that this federal preemption undermines the traditional role of state and local governments to address unique community needs and protect the health, safety, and welfare of their residents. The controversy is especially pronounced because the Act would nullify state laws passed by voters and legislatures, raising concerns about democratic self-determination at the state and local levels. That’s an issue for the GOP-sponsored bill as some Republicans chafe at the idea of overturning state laws, which is what the Act would essentially do.
Oddly enough, some conservative Republicans also support California’s Proposition 12 because they see it as a defense against foreign influence over American farmland. This is largely because the biggest pork producer in the U.S., Smithfield Foods, is Chinese-owned. China has scant animal welfare laws, but any meat that Smithfield’s parent company sells in California has to be Proposition 12-compliant, which, by extension, is making China bend to U.S. law. A similar bill, dubbed the “EATS Act,” was opposed by at least 10 House Republicans last year over the company’s Chinese ownership, which seems to have been prompted by Smithfield’s lobbying efforts. Many view the company’s Chinese ownership as a threat to national security.
The Food Security and Farm Protection Act is still waiting to come up for a vote in the Senate before it can move any further. The GOP’s Farm Bill proposal also includes language that would ban state laws that interfere with the interstate commerce of agricultural products, making the Food Security and Farm Protection Act unnecessary. Meaning the waiting game may simply continue…
