CALL TO ACTION: USA: Oppose Attack on Animal-Protection Laws
HOW TO TAKE ACTION - URGE FEDERAL LAWMAKERS TO OPPOSE THE EATS ACT
Email Congress and ask your representative to reject the Eats Act as part of the 2023 Farm Bill! Find your Representative Here (just enter your address)
____________________________________________________________________________
Regulatory Implications:
The current Farm Bill expires at the end of September and Congress must pass a new bill to continue setting policies and direction for critical agriculture programs
The EATS Act aims to reduce the ability of individual states and local governments to regulate the preharvest production of agricultural products* within their borders, transferring more of that regulatory authority to the federal government.
It would also force states with strict production regulations who are importing agricultural products to accept the production regulations of the exporting states. For example, if a state has laws to improve factory farming standards, other states wouldn't have to follow those rules when selling their products there. This means products produced in potentially cruel or unsafe conditions could be sold, even if most citizens in that state disagree.
*The definition of "agricultural product" includes "agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and dairy products, livestock and poultry, bees, forest products, fish and shellfish, and any products thereof, including processed and manufactured products." It also includes "any and all products raised or produced on farms," raising questions as to its outer limits.
Examples of State Laws Potentially Affected by the EATS Act
-
Laws Banning Extreme Animal Confinement
-
Foie Gras Bans
-
Laws Designed to Prevent the Spread of Zoonotic Diseases and Infections
-
Protections for Companion Animals
-
Imported Bee Laws
-
Laws Protecting Crops from Invasive Pests and Diseases
-
Fishing Laws & Regulations
-
Horse Slaughter Laws
An Attack on Animal Welfare:
Congressional Republicans stated they introduced the EATS Act in part to invalidate Proposition 12, but the reach of the EATS Act would be much broader. Proposition 12 was enacted by California to establish more humane living conditions and treatment standards for farm animals.
By introducing the EATS Act with the aim of invalidating Proposition 12, it appears that Congressional Republicans are seeking to undermine state-level regulations aimed at improving animal welfare.
Why Undermine Prop 12?
Weakening animal welfare standards allows for more intensive and less expensive production methods. The EATS Act would benefit agricultural and commercial interests seeking to reduce production costs and maximize profits.
Although Prop 12 won't change the fact that most female pigs will still spend their entire lives in confinement - it still represents a major step forward that could force significant changes across the industry and open doors for more and better legislation in the future.
This is precisely why those who stand to profit from less humane production standards are so committed to stopping it.
Three of the bill's nine co-sponsors are members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
"California's Proposition 12 is going to hurt the economy of Iowa, which is number one in pork production. We have to solve this problem by passing legislation. Our bill makes sure Iowa pork can be sold everywhere in the nation, including in California." said Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), one of the bill's co-sponsors.
"Liberal states like California are free to regulate agricultural producers within their borders, but that ends when their overregulation harms producers thousands of miles away. This bill will prohibit individual states and localities from legislating outside their jurisdiction by imposing de-facto regulations on the states who feed them." another of the bill's sponsors, Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND.)
HOW DOES IT DO THIS?
-
It would limit the ability of states to create their own laws and regulations regarding the production of agricultural products before they are harvested (referred to as "preharvest" production).
-
It would strip away most of the legislative powers that state and local governments currently have in terms of setting standards or conditions for agricultural products entering their borders.
-
This would include regulations related to food safety, controlling diseases and pests in agriculture, and government purchasing of agricultural products.
-
It claims that states cannot impose public health and welfare standards for agricultural products, even in the absence of conflicting local, state, or federal laws and regulation
This is so dangerous because:
The EATS Act could prevent states from imposing standards or conditions on the preharvest production of imported agricultural products, even when necessary to protect local health and safety!
More than 200 federal lawmakers spanning 35 states have now publicly stated that neither the EATS Act nor anything like it should be part of the upcoming Farm Bill. In addition, 577 veterinary professionals and 78 veterinary students signed letters opposing the EATS Act, as it could unravel animal welfare and public health standards across the country.
"It's not one state that's trying to foist its standards on the rest of the country. It's the pork industry's trade association that's trying to force every state to accept the terms of any other state that chooses not to ensure standards for agricultural products related to humane treatment, food safety, environmental protection or child labor within its borders. It's a race-to-the-bottom approach…" said Sara Amundson, president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund.
REASONS FOR YOU TO OPPOSE …
-
The EATS Act would undermine state farmed animal protection laws.
-
If this dangerous bill were to become law, years' worth of legislative victories for farmed animals at the state level could be in peril
-
The bill's broad language could also jeopardize state laws that, for example, are designed to protect dogs from the cruelty of puppy mills
-
Both the King Amendment and the EATS Act prioritize economic interests over ethics
-
It gives the agricultural industry control over production standards across state lines. Forcing states with strong regulations to accept products from states with weaker rules, undermining the rights of citizens in that state who are fighting for animal protection laws and consumer rights.
-
The bill does not define terms such as Farm or Pre-harvest - leaving it open to dangerous implications
-
Due to the ambiguous wording - it could affect everything from commercial fishing regulations to the slaughter of horses,
-
The EATS Act, potentially would block state and local bans on the importation of horses intended for slaughter for human consumption
-
The EATS Act would jeopardize state tools to protect local producers from devastating diseases such as avian influenza and African swine fever,
-
The most significan impact of the EATS Act may be on state laws intended to prevent the transfer and spread of zoonotic and infectious diseases. These regulations affect everything from avian influenza to African swine fever, salmonella, tuberculosis, Newcastle disease, anthrax, brucellosis, scabies, scrapie, rabies, pseudorabies, equine infectious anemia, and others.
A Suspicious Timeline:
2008: Prop 2: Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act - imposed minimum space and confinement requirements for egg-laying hens, veal calves, and mother pigs raised in the state, outlawing certain body-gripping crates, tethering methods, and battery cages.
2010: California Egg Law - all eggs sold in the state as of 01/01/2015 had to meet Proposition 2's standards regardless of whether they were produced in California or outside of the state. Any producers wishing to continue selling their eggs in California would have to provide hens enough space to stand up, lie down, turn around, and extend their wings without touching their cage or cage mate. At that time, an overwhelming majority of producers, who used battery cage housing, did not meet these standards.
2010: Steven King was the representative of Iowa's Fourth Congressional District: the highest egg-producing district in the country
2010: King Amendment "Protect Interstate Commerce Act" - proposed by Republican Representative Steven King aimed to restrict states and local governments from establishing agricultural product standards or requirements that exceeded the ones applicable in the state where the goods were produced and sold across state lines
2014: FARM Bill - Included text from the King Amendment. The bill passed in the House twice but did not pass in the Senate.
2015: PICA - Representative Steven King repackaged his amendment as standalone legislation entitled the "Protecting Interstate Commerce Act" ("PICA"). PICA was not passed out of the Agricultural Committee
2018: FARM BILL & PICA - Representative King reintroduced PICA's and legislative text again was included in the House-passed version of the 2018 Farm Bill - but it was not included in the Senate-passed version of the 2018 FARM Bill.*
*PICA was opposed by family farmers, public health and consumer groups, farmworker advocates, animal protection and environmental organizations, and state sovereignty champions, including the National Conference of States Legislatures
2018: Proposition 12 "Farm Animal Confinement Initiative" - established new minimum requirements on farmers to provide more space for egglaying hens, breeding pigs, and calves raised for veal. It prohibited California businesses from selling eggs or uncooked pork or veal that came from animals housed in ways that did not meet these requirements.
2020: Iowa Republican Representative Steven King lost his primary election after making racist comments
2021: Legislators in both chambers reintroduced the King Amendment/PICA as the rebranded and slightly revised "Exposing Agricultural Trade Suppression Act." That legislation did not advance out of Committee
May 2023: U.S. Supreme Court affirmed existing dormant Commerce Clause jurisprudence
by upholding California's Prop 12
June 15th, 2023: Kansas Republican Senator Roger Marshall introduced the "Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act" ("EATS Act") in the Senate as S.2019 with the support of 11 Republican co-sponsoring senators. While the text has evolved from the original "King Amendment", the central aim remains the same: to federally block Prop 12 and similar state and local measures.
June 30th, 2023: Iowa Republican House Representative Ashley Hinson introduced the EATS Act in the House as H.R.4417 with the support of 15 Republican cosponsoring representatives.
August 21, 2023: 171 bipartisan members of Congress sent a letter to House Ag Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson, R-PA, and Ranking Member David Scott, D-GA., opposing the inclusion of the EATS Act in the upcoming Farm Bill. The letter was organized by Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania and Oregon Democrat Rep. Earl Blumenauer.
____________________________________________________________________________
HARVARD ALPP EATS ACT REPORT
https://animal.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/Harvard-ALPP-EATS-Act-Report.pdf
EATS Act brings delay and risk to new $1.5 trillion Farm Bill
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2023/08/eats-act-brings-delay-and-risk-to-new-1-5-trillion-farm-bill/
Oppose: The EATS Act Would Undermine State-Farmed Animal Protection Laws
https://aldf.org/project/oppose-the-eats-act-would-undermine-state-farmed-animal-protection-laws/
The EATS Act explained: The latest threat to farmed animals
https://animalequality.org/blog/2023/07/28/eats-act-explained/
Blumenauer, Fitzpatrick, 160+ House Members Urge Ag Committee to Reject EATS Act
https://blumenauer.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/blumenauer-fitzpatrick-160-house-members-urge-ag-committee-to-reject-eats-act
USA: Oppose Attack on Animal-Protection Laws
https://secure.aspca.org/action/usa-eats-act
More than 200 Congressional lawmakers oppose EATS Act in Farm Bill
https://hslf.org/press-release/2023/08/more-200-congressional-lawmakers-oppose-eats-act-farm-bill
EATS Act could devour animal welfare laws and must be stopped
https://blog.humanesociety.org/2023/08/eats-act-could-devour-animal-welfare-laws-and-must-be-stopped.html
8 Key Laws Under Threat From the EATS Act
https://sentientmedia.org/8-key-laws-threatened-by-eats-act/
What the EATS Act Is, and Why It Matters for Animals
https://sentientmedia.org/eats-act-farm-bill/
EATS Act Introduced in House, Threatening SCOTUS Prop 12 Ruling
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2023/07/10/eats-act-introduced-in-house-threatening-scotus-prop-12-ruling/
'Unintended consequences' Harvard Law School says EATS Act could backfire on Iowa farmers
https://www.kcrg.com/2023/07/26/unintended-consequences-harvard-law-school-says-eats-act-could-backfire-iowa-farmers/
Why the Eats Act Spells Disaster
Why the EATS Act Spells Disaster for Your State's Autonomy
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
NEW BILL - Proposed November 30th, 2023
The Protecting Interstate Commerce for Livestock Producers Act, introduced by Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, aims to "safeguard" farmers from regulations imposed by other states, like California's Proposition 12, that could affect their businesses and increase consumer costs.
Bill Overview:
-
Proposed by Senator Josh Hawley, this bill aims to protect farmers from out-of-state regulations affecting their business, specifically targeting California's Proposition 12.
-
It preempts states and local governments from regulating the raising, production, and importation of livestock or livestock-derived goods from another state or local government, with exceptions for animal disease control.
Contrast with Proposition 12:
-
Proposition 12, passed in California, sets high standards for farm animal confinement, like requiring at least 24 square feet of space per pig and banning gestation crates for mother pigs.
-
Prop 12 applies to any company selling meat in California, regardless of where they are based, influencing not just California but potentially other states as well.
Implications for Animal Welfare:
-
The new Act could undermine the advancements in animal welfare standards set by Proposition 12.
-
It could lead to a regression in the humane treatment of farm animals by allowing less stringent practices to prevail.
Economic and Consumer Impact:
-
While aimed at reducing costs for farmers and consumers, the Act may overlook the growing consumer demand for ethically raised meat.
-
The balance between economic efficiency and ethical treatment of animals is a significant consideration.
Public Health Concerns:
-
Improved animal welfare standards often correlate with better overall health outcomes for animals, which can impact food safety and public health.
-
Lower welfare standards could lead to increased risks of disease and other health issues in livestock.
Legal and Interstate Commerce Aspects:
-
The Act raises questions about the balance between federal and state rights, particularly in setting and enforcing animal welfare standards.
-
It challenges the concept of states setting their own standards and having those standards impact out-of-state businesses.
Social and Ethical Considerations:
-
This legislation reflects a broader societal debate about the value and treatment of farm animals.
-
Ethical considerations about animal treatment are increasingly becoming a part of consumer choices and legislative discussions.
https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2023-11/Hawley-Protecing-Interstate-Commerce-for-Livestock-Producers-Act.pdf
#LawsandPublicPolicy
------------------------------
Amber Moore
Development Manager
Catskill Animal Sanctuary
NY
------------------------------