Introducing the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, U.S. Representatives Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) and Ashley Hinson (R-Iowa) aim to prohibit state and local governments from interfering with the production or manufacture of agricultural products in other states, following the Supreme Court’s decision in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross to uphold California’s Proposition 12.
California’s Proposition 12 is “burdensome regulation” that would submit farmers and ranchers to California’s laws, allowing California to dictate production standards nationwide, says a release by Rep. Nunn.
“Prop 12 is big government red tape at its absolute worst and is a direct threat to the economy in our number one pork producing state,” Rep. Nunn says in the release. “Iowa’s pork producers need the freedom to operate without worrying about excessive government regulation tripping them up, and that’s exactly what this bill will do. Our bill will prevent states like California from dictating how business is done in Iowa so that Iowa’s pork producers can continue to provide their essential service that helps feed our country.”
The EATS Act reiterates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which establishes the federal government’s duty to regulate interstate commerce, prohibit state and local governments from interfering with the production or manufacture of agricultural products in other states, and creates a federal cause of action to challenge the interference of agricultural products in interstate commerce in the jurisdiction of the producer’s state, the release notes.
As Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch says, “Congress has yet to adopt any statute that might displace Proposition 12 or laws regulating pork producing in other states.” The EATS Act, also introduced in the Senate by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), with support from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), aims to ensure pork producers across the country can continue producing high quality food while protecting free market interstate commerce, explains the release.
“Prop 12 allows radical activists in California – who don’t know the first thing about farming or raising animals – to regulate how farmers do their job, devastating small family farms, and undermining food security,” Rep. Hinson adds in the release. “Our farmers take great care of their animals and ensure families have safe, affordable, and high-quality food on the table. I am proud to lead the EATS Act to stand against this “bacon ban,” to ensure farmers can continue to feed the nation and protect interstate commerce.”
Senator Grassley also points out that Prop 12 will mean higher costs at the meat counter, both in California and across the nations—which is “bad for our economy and your grocery bill.”
From a producer’s perspective, Trish Cook, president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association, adds in the release, “Anti-agriculture activists are trying to take over longstanding animal care practices. The EATS Act is a good first step toward preventing a state from forcing arbitrary guidelines on farmers in every state.”
Read More:
Is the EATS Act the Answer to Prop 12 Concerns?
Unmet Needs: Will California Struggle to Meet Pork Demand with Prop 12?
The ‘Unfunded Mandate’ and Three Perplexing Realities Of Prop 12
