Those who are determined to defend the cruelties of factory farming are never at a loss when it comes to sowing chaos and distortion on the subject, especially in the U.S. Congress.
Now they’re at it again, offering their blustering support for a new Senate bill, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act, introduced by Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA). Her bill is a warmed-over successor to the EATS Act, and it too seeks to nullify all state laws concerning animal welfare and public health standards relating to the production and sale of animal products within a state’s own borders.
Please act now to help stop this dangerous overreach in the Senate by contacting your elected officials and asking them to oppose it.
Throughout the course of our campaigns to secure passage of higher animal welfare and public health standards in the states, we have consistently made the point that the merciful treatment of animals and its implications for public health should not be a matter for partisan politics or bickering.
Nor are we alone in this. A survey by Kellyanne Conway’s firm, KAConsulting LLC, showed that states’ rights received strong “tri-partisan” support (i.e., a majority of self-identified Republicans, Independents and Democrats) from respondents. This included higher majorities of Republicans, who wanted states to retain their constitutional power to set state standards for goods and agriculture.
A diverse set of more than 6,000 entities, including over 5,000 farmers and producers, have also gone on the record opposing this kind of attack on state and local laws that uphold higher animal welfare and public health standards. In their ranks, as with the public, there is widespread agreement that animals raised for food should not be kept in cages or crates so tight they cannot move around.
The fingerprints of Big Pork are all over this special favors legislation. In the last session, when it was the EATS Act, we fought it off in Congress and in the arena of public opinion. There’s no catchy acronym this time around, but we may as well call it what it is: the same old race to the bottom of the pork barrel.
Whatever else happens, Big Pork itself will be primarily responsible for the chaos that will ensue should this measure ever pass. It is Big Pork that seeks to make the fundamental principle of humane treatment of animals contentious. Having lost their legal challenges to California’s Proposition 12 and similar laws at every level of our judicial system, including the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023, the National Pork Producers Council and allied organizations are again seeking to bend the Congress to their will and have it overturn duly enacted laws in 15 states (red, blue and purple) across the country.
Never mind the interests of American farmers and producers, the preferences of consumers, and the political autonomy of state legislatures, and never mind the billions of animals whose suffering lies in the balance. Whenever Big Pork and its allies invoke the common good, it’s a sure bet that they’re getting ready to ram something indigestible down our throats.
Whatever form this legislation takes, the pork lobby will persist in peddling the claim that the passage of state laws on animal welfare and public health will lead to an impossible patchwork of laws across the country and a general confusion in the market. They’re so wrong about this. No chaos has resulted from Proposition 12 and similar laws going into effect, nor has any state proposed or announced a plan to propose a farm animal confinement standard higher than California’s. The markets have been steadily and successfully adjusting, and countless producers have embraced higher standards, with a keen appreciation for where the market is going and a respect for the voters and consumers whose preferences drive such changes.
To the contrary, it is Ernst’s bill that would be the driver of chaos, punishing and pulling the rug out from under the many farmers and producers who have embraced higher animal welfare standards and made substantial investments to meet consumer demand. It is her bill that will cause severe uncertainty and endless litigation over a multitude of state and local laws on the books. It would also tie states’ hands when they seek to address emerging issues such as disease risks at a time when Congress has difficulty completing action on any legislation.
Ultimately, the senator’s proposal seeks to reward the laggards of Big Pork who are unwilling to spend money or take steps to mitigate the massive animal cruelty (and public health risks) for which they hold all the blame. In their smugness, they would prefer to force the rest of us—whoever we are, however we vote, and wherever we live—to accept their bottom-scraping standards or, as some of them admit in candor and Ernst’s bill itself specifies, no standards at all.
Year after year, we’ve stood at the heart of the fight for improved standards of treatment for animals in agriculture. We spearheaded passage of California’s Proposition 12, and our litigators successfully defended its implementation in the courts. We have also worked closely with congressional allies and mobilized a broad coalition to stop every previous federal legislative threat to hollow out states’ rights and good laws on animal welfare and public health, from the King Amendment to the EATS Act. Now we’ll have to do so again, and we will.
Sara Amundson is president of Humane World Action Fund.
The Food Security and Farm Protection Act could wipe out many state laws aimed at promoting animal welfare and food safety, as well as state laws on a wide range of other issues including environmental and labor standards. Please urge your rep to say NO.
