Ever since the Supreme Court of the United States upheld a commonsense farm animal protection law—California's Proposition 12—lobbyists representing only a segment of the pork industry have pushed for a so-called “fix”—a “fix” that is not at all necessary. In the 118th Congress, they tried it though legislation like the Ending Agriculture Trade Suppression (EATS) Act and Section 12007 of the Farm, Food, and National Security Act. For the current 119th Congress, it’s now the Food Security and Farm Protection Act which while a different name is identical in bill language to the EATS Act.
Whether it's the Food Security and Farm Protection Act or another federal legislative "fix," the underlying premise flies in the face of the established principles of federalism on which our nation was founded. It would deny Americans the power to enact change on the state and local level regarding goods sold within their borders, and it could wipe out duly enacted animal cruelty and public health measures across the country. A report published by Harvard Law School highlights many of the potential adverse impacts of this language.
This reckless power grab impacts not only the crucial farm animal welfare protections we’ve helped to enact in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington, but also thousands of other laws across the country that the Food Security and Farm Protection Act puts at risk. These laws ban the products of the cruelest methods of confinement, including gestation crates—metal bar cages that prevent mother pigs from turning around—and battery cages used in the egg industry, which prohibit hens from fully spreading their wings.
By usurping state and local lawmaking authority, the Food Security and Farm Protection Act targets state laws concerning the extreme confinement of egg-laying hens, veal calves, and breeding pigs, while threatening other animal welfare laws dealing with cruel puppy mills, the slaughter of horses, and wildlife trafficking. It also jeopardizes thousands of other state and local agricultural laws, including those covering food safety, disease prevention, environmental protection and labor standards.
American legislatures have been passing laws to protect animals for more than two centuries, and Americans have been demonstrating their concern for animals for a lot longer. In our state and local governments, as in our individual capacities, we are entitled to pursue our goals of addressing animal cruelty, suffering, and neglect.
In our great nation, we should see compassionate lawmaking to protect animals happen more easily, and more often. But there are always well-funded special interests—threatened by the most minimal safeguards for animals, even when they benefit human health and safety—ready to stand in the way. It’s especially true for some in the pork industry, who have opposed us time and again on the most basic of reform initiatives.
We’re well accustomed to squaring off against billion-dollar industries in battles over animal welfare. Please join us and give it all you’ve got. The stakes could not be higher, and to win, we need you.
For more information, see Nix the Prop 12 "Fix" factsheet.
