Key Takeaways
- Fourteen House Republicans oppose including California’s Proposition 12 in the upcoming farm bill.
- The Save the Bacon Act aims to protect farmers’ rights against state regulations affecting livestock production.
- Concerns about foreign control over U.S. agriculture, particularly by Smithfield Foods, are central to their argument.
House Republicans Challenge Proposition 12 in Farm Bill
Fourteen House Republicans have publicly opposed the incorporation of language addressing California’s Proposition 12 into the forthcoming farm bill, complicating efforts by agricultural groups to overturn the controversial 2018 law. In a letter addressed to House Ag Committee leaders, the lawmakers expressed their belief that the Save the Bacon Act would “erode states’ rights, undermine family farmers, and expand foreign influence over U.S. food production.”
Proposition 12, passed by California voters in 2018, mandates that pork sold in California must come from sows not raised in gestation crates. The law was narrowly upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023 and requires compliance from all swine farms in California and those supplying the California market by January 2024.
The Save the Bacon Act, introduced by Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) in July, seeks to prohibit state or local governments from imposing restrictions on livestock production in other states. The letter was spearheaded by Reps. David Valadao (R-California), Anna Paulina Luna (R-Florida), and Andrew Garbarino (R-New York), with support from additional Republican representatives across the country.
Key concerns were raised about the influence of Smithfield Foods, a major pork producer owned by a Chinese company and controlling approximately 25% of the U.S. market. The signers of the letter emphasized the necessity of ensuring that American farmers maintain control over domestic food production to protect national interests. They argued that enacting the EATS Act, which is part of the Save the Bacon Act, might allow foreign entities greater control over the agricultural sector and restrict individual states’ ability to regulate their food production.
Industry groups, including the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation, have warned that Proposition 12 could lead to inconsistent regulations across states, further complicating agricultural practices. They pointed to the historical importance of balancing federal and state responsibilities in agriculture as critical for success.
House Ag Committee Chair Glenn “GT” Thompson commented on the Supreme Court’s determination that the responsibility to address such regulations lies with Congress rather than the courts. He stressed the need for the Save the Bacon Act to respect states’ rights while addressing national agricultural challenges.
Other contentious issues, such as regulations concerning industrial hemp and lawsuits against pesticide manufacturers, are also on the agenda for the “farm bill 2.0.” With the upcoming votes being crucial, bipartisan support is essential for the legislation to pass.
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) acknowledged the complexities of having 50 different state laws on this matter and highlighted the need for a bipartisan approach. She expressed a commitment to finding a resolution that does not penalize those who have already invested in compliance with Proposition 12.
A full House Ag Committee hearing was conducted in July where both Republicans and one Democrat, Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.), indicated the necessity of legislation allowing pork producers more flexibility in raising their livestock without impediments from Proposition 12, underscoring the contentious yet vital nature of this ongoing agricultural debate.
The content above is a summary. For more details, see the source article.
