In the News

On Monday, 171 members of Congress signed a letter opposing the inclusion of the EATS Act in the 2023 farm bill. Four members of Colorado’s Congressional delegation — U.S. Reps. Joe Neguse, Diana DeGette, Brittany Pettersen and Jason Crow — all signed the letter sent Monday to Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson, R-Pa., chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, and Rep. David Scott, D-Ga., ranking member of the same.

The members of Congress oppose the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS) or any similar legislation, that would prevent legislation like California’s Prop 12. Challenged before the SCOTUS, Prop 12 was upheld in a 5-4 vote and allows California to prohibit the sale of pork in their state from hogs not raised in the production standards adopted by California.

In the letter, the members of Congress said Prop 12 is not a case of California imposing its standards on other states. “Producers in any state can choose not to supply another state’s consumers or to segregate animals for different markets. Pork industry economists noted this in an amicus brief, writing, “Only those producers for which compliance with Proposition 12 is economically beneficial will choose to do so, while all others will continue to supply the vast majority of the North American pork market beyond California’s border and face little or no economic impact.”

Members of Congress liken the EATS Act to former U.S. Rep. Steve King’s, R-Iowa, failed amendment to the 2014 and 2018 farm bills. King’s addition would have prevented states from blocking agricultural products from outside their state if those products have been approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Agency. According to reporting for DTN, King wrote his interstate commerce provision in part due to California’s chicken cage initiative and an accompanying state law that would require eggs sold in California to meet the same requirements as California egg producers.

During farm bill negotiations in 2013, former Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad and then state Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey, both Republicans, sent the letter in 2013 seeking to keep King’s language in the final conference language.

“There are already federal, state and local food safety laws to protect consumers and opposition to the King amendment in all practicality would mean California and a few other big states could dictate how family farmers and agricultural producers all across the country have to produce their products. The amendment would not prevent states from imposing future food safety requirements and merely clarifies that a state cannot prohibit the import of a product from another state based solely on that product’s means of production. If a state so chose, it could enact labeling requirements for various modes of production,” Branstad and Northey wrote.

The letter added, “If the King amendment is not included in the farm bill, we are very concerned the conversation will quickly move beyond how chickens are produced in Iowa or Arkansas to how milk is produced in Wisconsin or Vermont or to how corn and soybeans are grown in the Midwest. 

The letter also said many large pork producers, including Hormel, Perdue, Tyson and Smithfield, have indicated that they already can or will be able to comply with Proposition 12’s standards to supply the California market.

A joint amicus brief submitted by small and independent farming businesses, farm advocacy organizations including the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and state farmers unions for Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Oregon and Washington stated, “Independent farmers are willing to meet this demand, and in doing so, can access some of the wealth and power that has accumulated only for pork integrators, and redistribute it back to local communities, businesses and families.”