The potential demise of the soon-to-expire Farm Bill hangs in the balance, caught in the crossfire of an intense agricultural dispute surrounding the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act. Amid Congress’ summer recess, the ongoing battle over the EATS Act continues to unfold, marked by rapidly evolving developments.
The impending EATS Act, however, may find a potential roadblock in the absence of the 2023 Farm Bill, which is yet to take shape even in draft form, despite the current Farm Bill’s imminent expiration on September 30.
As the September deadline approaches, farm state congressional representatives acknowledge that passing the 2023 Farm Bill within this timeframe is unlikely. Optimism is now directed toward achieving passage of the $1.5 trillion bill, aimed at supporting farmers, ranchers, and providing essential nutritional assistance to low-income individuals, by the close of 2023.
Meanwhile, the fierce controversy surrounding the EATS Act rages on.
In a recent development, a bipartisan coalition comprising 171 members of Congress has conveyed a resolute message opposing the integration of the EATS Act into the forthcoming Farm Bill. The letter, organized by Republican Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Oregon Democrat Representative Earl Blumenauer, was addressed to House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-PA) and Ranking Member David Scott (D-GA).
The Congressional letter underscores concerns that the EATS Act, modeled after former Representative Steve King’s amendment, which had been the subject of intense controversy and ultimately excluded from the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, could potentially undermine the interests of small-scale American farmers, jeopardize state-level legislation, and infringe on states’ sovereign rights to establish laws and regulations within their jurisdictions.
The document highlights the argument against the EATS Act, stating, “Producers in any state can choose not to supply another state’s consumers or to segregate animals for different markets. Pork industry economists noted this in an amicus brief, writing, ‘Only those producers for which compliance with Proposition 12 is economically beneficial will choose to do so, while all others will continue to supply the vast majority of the North American pork market beyond California’s border and face little or no economic impact.'”
The EATS Act has garnered opposition from animal rights activists who fear potential setbacks. These activists have previously achieved victories through voter support in 2018, with these triumphs subsequently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year. The emergence of the EATS Act follows a ruling by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court, which upheld California’s right to restrict market access on nondiscriminatory grounds.
Opponents of the EATS Act are cautioning congressional leaders against its inclusion in the Farm Bill, branding it a potential “Poison Pill.”
Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA) sponsor the EATS Act. Sen. Marshall has voiced concerns that the EATS Act could embolden radical animal rights activists to dictate agricultural practices to farmers across states. Moreover, critics argue that the EATS Act might inadvertently undermine a slew of state laws, consequently creating a regulatory void.
The heart of the EATS Act conflict lies in its ability to nullify state laws with extraterritorial implications for agricultural operations in other states.
