United States Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack recently offered an implicit rebuke to state-level agricultural regulations, suggesting laws like California’s Proposition (Prop) 12 could create “chaos in the marketplace.” It’s another arrow in the quiver for industrial, increasingly international farming interests, who would love nothing more than to strike down state laws impacting their profit margins.
Their current vehicle for doing so is called the Ending Agriculture Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, led by Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA) and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS). EATS would create a federal right of action against states that “impose a standard or condition on the preharvest production” of agricultural goods produced in another state. It’s the classic interstate commerce argument, though EATS’ overbreadth implicates a lot more than Prop 12’s animal welfare regulations.
Prop 12 prohibits the sale of products derived from the extreme confinement of pigs, chickens, and calves. Soon after its passage in 2018, the National Pork Producers Council brought suit against California – with the fight eventually culminating in a 2023 Supreme Court ruling. Writing in support of the Golden State, Justice Gorsuch said: “While the Constitution addresses many weighty issues, the type of pork chops California merchants may sell is not on that list.”
Now, a small number of big farming interests are fighting back with EATS, an overreaching fix that – according to Harvard Law School – could have the effect of nullifying more than 1,000 state-level agriculture laws that boost our economies, support our jobs, and feed our people. It’s an outright assault on states’ rights, unprecedented in the agriculture and farming communities.
Prop 12 might be the headliner here, but the fact is that every single state in the union has laws regulating their agricultural industries in accordance with the specific needs, values, and safety requirements of their people. Accordingly, the ludicrous overreach of this measure has countless state and national groups up in arms.
The National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties, and the National League of Cities separately urged Congress to reject the EATS Act. The National Governors Association, likewise, included the EATS Act among its Farm Bill priority concerns. Altogether, a diverse set of more than 2,000 entities, including organizations, individuals, and more than 1,200 farms across the country have publicly stated opposition to the bill.
That number grows every day. Last month, a group that includes ButcherBox, Niman Ranch, Perdue Foods, and Whole Foods Market sent a letter to Senate and House agriculture committees expressing their concern, asserting that, “If passed, the EATS Act would eliminate virtually all state and local legislative powers to impose standards or conditions on the ‘pre-harvest’ production of agricultural products entering their own borders.” Clemens, the third or fourth largest pork producer in the United States, came out swinging against the EATS Act in October.
So far, EATS boasts a few Republican cosponsors and no Democrats. Yet, this is not a partisan issue (see Vilsack, above). The Texas Commissioner of Agriculture said it would be “bad business” to put the EATS Act in the Farm Bill, calling it an “overreach of government powers.” Last year, 16 House Republicans urged House agriculture leaders to abandon the legislation. Since then, groups like FreedomWorks, R-CALF, Moms for America, and former House Agriculture Committee Chairman Mike Conaway (R-TX) have joined the fight as well.
Among the most prominent concerns expressed by those on the right is the influence of Smithfield, which is wholly owned by Chinese interests and controls 26% of the domestic pork market. As the Republican coalition notes in their letter, “If this … provision is incorporated into the Farm Bill, it would provide [China-owned Smithfield] with a mechanism to bypass state-level laws and rapidly acquire even more American land and pork industry assets with no restraints at all.”
The fact is, EATS Act would permanently prop open the door to Chinese control of American agriculture and land acquisition. Even China Weekly published an article in support of EATS, espousing how it would further solidify China’s hold on American food production. The writing is on the wall – almost literally, in this case.
So, as we’re considering the “chaos” of requiring pig confinements to be large enough to allow the animals to turn around (as Prop 12 mandates), let’s not forget the broader implications at play here. EATS and its ilk – like the similarly motivated Protecting Interstate Commerce for Livestock Producers Act – have the alarming potential to undermine our safety, our state sovereignty, and our national security. They have no place in our body of law.