Iowa’s Republican U.S. senators are continuing their campaign against a California farm animal welfare law, introducing a bill that would prohibit states from regulating agricultural products that come from outside the state.
The bill, dubbed the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, is aimed at California’s Proposition 12, a law regulating the conditions of livestock whose products are sold in California, including those raised in other states.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a challenge to Proposition 12 earlier this year. Farm groups who challenged the law argued it violated constitutional provisions banning states from regulating interstate commerce.
Republican U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst is a co-lead on the bill with Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., according to a news release from Ernst’s office. The bill would prohibit states from imposing regulations on the production of agricultural products if those products originated outside the state.
“Proposition 12 puts the regulatory burdens on the backs of farmers and racks up the price for consumers at the grocery store, and the EATS Act will prevent such actions from crushing our Iowa producers,” Ernst said in a statement. “I will continue to fight against reckless policies from activists who attempt to ban Iowa’s agricultural products.”
Republican U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley is co-sponsoring the bill. He said the bill will “make sure Iowa pork can be sold everywhere in the nation.”
California’s law allows Iowa pork to be sold in the state if it meets the housing requirements.
“Because we farm differently than the eggheads of California think we ought to run our animal agriculture, we can’t sell our product there,” Grassley said in a video statement. “We have to solve this problem by passing legislation.”
Pork restrictions
Opponents have taken particular aim at the pork provision in California’s law.
It requires that sows that give birth to pigs sold for pork in California be given at least 24 square feet of space, more than most Iowa farmers now use. Birthing sows are generally held in small gestation crates without enough room to turn around.
Animal rights groups have called the practice cruel and argued it could harm public health.
“We won’t stop fighting until the pork industry ends its cruel, reckless practice of confining mother pigs in cages so small they can’t even turn around,” the Humane Society of the United States stated after the Supreme Court upheld the California law last month.
“It’s astonishing that pork industry leaders would waste so much time and money on fighting this common-sense step to prevent products of relentless, unbearable animal suffering from being sold in California.”
Farm groups argue farmers across the country — even if their meat is not destined for California — will have to upgrade their facilities to comply with the new law, a cost that they say will be passed onto consumers. The National Pork Producers Council estimated that producers would need to spend up to $347 million to reconstruct housing to accommodate the requirements of Proposition 12.
“States should not be able to regulate industries outside of their borders,” Iowa Pork Producers Association President Trish Cook said in a statement. “This bill is a good first step in protecting producers’ livelihoods so they can raise safe and healthy pigs for generations to come.”
Prospects for bill
With Democrats in control of the Senate, the bill’s chances of becoming law are unclear.
Grassley last month floated the idea that the proposal could be worked into the upcoming farm bill, a sprawling, bipartisan agriculture bill that is set to be reauthorized this fall.
A similar campaign is underway in the U.S. House, as U.S. Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-Iowa, said last month she plans to re-introduce the measure there.
Hinson was the lead sponsor of the EATS Act in 2021, and it was co-sponsored by Iowa’s two other Republicans in Congress at the time, Reps. Mariannette Miller-Meeks and Randy Feenstra.
“States like California are beginning to impose non-tariff barriers to interstate commerce” that will raise the price of food, Hinson told reporters in May.
“I see it as a bacon ban. It threatens every aspect of our food supply. It increases production costs for our farmers. It’ll drive up the cost of food at a time when we’re already seeing huge inflation in the food space.”
Tom Barton of The Gazette-Lee Des Moines Bureau contributed.
Comments: cmccullough@qctimes.com
