Keeps EATS Act out of new Farm Bill
“No good deed goes unpunished,” Oscar Wilde When the Irish playwright and poet said those words, it was with a large measure of cynicism that even well-meaning actions can and often will bring negative consequences.
Sen. Roger Marshall, R-KS, and Rep. Ashley Hinson, R-IA, sponsored the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act, set to be part of the $1.5 trillion Farm Bill when Congress reauthorizes the 5-year package of broad-reaching legislation later this fall. The bill seeks to override actions taken by voters in Massachusetts and California to restrict, in those states, the sale of many pork products where gestation crates are used in pork livestock production due to animal cruelty concerns.
The idea behind the bill is that one state’s laws shouldn’t tell another state’s farmers how they can farm. As an idea, it has a lot of appeal. Having east and west coasters saying how Midwest farmers should raise their livestock has about as much validity as someone from a one-stop-sign town trying to dictate solutions to the problems of urban communities or a childless couple offering parenting advice. Without the context and understanding of issues and practices, it is easy to cast judgement and say how things “should” happen even though the reality may be far different.
No matter how well-intentioned the idea behind the EATS act, the bill itself is fundamentally flawed and is a congressional overreach that would undermine state legislatures across the country by overturning thousands of state laws.
On Monday, 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.
The letter states: “the EATS Act could harm America’s small farmers, threaten numerous state laws, and infringe on the fundamental rights of states to establish laws and regulations within their borders.” The letter goes on to note, “Producers in any state can choose not to supply another state’s consumers or to segregate animals for different markets” and that the overall impact of the California and Massachusetts laws are negligible on the pork industry.
The larger concern is that the EATS Act could be a proverbial poison pill to the overall Farm Bill and delay passage of this broad-reaching legislation which includes everything from food benefits for families living in poverty to supports for farmers and ranchers.
The EATS Act is an example of a bad law, built off of an otherwise good idea. The limits of how far one state’s laws can or should restrict activity in another state need to be discussed and debated, but it must be balanced with the right of each state’s voters to decide on their own local laws and regulations in response to local conditions and the will of the people.
