A contentious farm bill debate is happening over the balance between state sovereignty and the need for a unified national policy. While Sid Miller champions the cause of state autonomy in a recent op-ed ("Washington, don’t tread on states’ Ag rights"), allowing individual states like California to dictate the terms of agricultural trade across the nation is harmful to farmers and consumers.
The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act and the Protecting Interstate Commerce for Livestock Producers Act are two proposals that would return sanity to food policy. They would nullify Proposition 12, a ballot measure passed in 2018 by California voters. Proposition 12 creates new mandates for pork farmers and prohibits the sale of pork within California not adhering to these requirements—even if that pork was produced in other states.
With approximately 99 percent of pig farmers operating outside California, the measure has far-reaching implications, transforming state-level regulations into a de facto national mandate—a mandate about which these farmers had no vote.
The financial impact of complying with Proposition 12 is staggering. The Washington Policy Center reports that the average pork farm would need to invest approximately $3.5 million to make their operations California-compliant.
This financial burden translates into increased costs for consumers nationwide, not just in California, as farmers have to change their entire operations to comply. Furthermore, this law disproportionately affects smaller farms, which do not have the resources to overhaul their operations to meet these arbitrary standards, and will lead to increased market consolidation.
Here’s the important part: A patchwork of state-specific laws is a recipe for chaos.
If each of the 50 states enacted their own arbitrary regulations, the ability to produce and distribute food efficiently and affordably across the nation would be severely compromised. Imagine growing food and having to segregate it into 50 different piles, depending on which state you were selling to. It’s a mess, and an unnecessary one.
What next? Can Texas ban veggie burgers? If states can arbitrarily interfere with interstate commerce, the madness won’t stop with food. A blue state like California could pass a law banning the sale of goods unless they were made with union labor. Conversely, a state like Texas could pass a law banning the sale of goods unless they were made from a “right to work” state where union membership is voluntary. The next thing you know, the culture wars become an economic war enveloping every business in the country.
Such fragmentation is not necessary. We have a robust federal program to manage food safety. Besides that, food choices have largely been left to consumers. Want free-range, organic, local? Go for it. Want the conventional stuff? Go for that.
The system wasn’t broken until California tried to fix it.
Allowing voters in urban centers like Los Angeles and San Francisco to dictate agricultural practices in states hundreds or thousands of miles away disrupts the balance of interstate commerce and infringes upon the rights of states to govern their own farmers and ranchers. California’s meat restrictions benefit no one except radical animal rights activists. (They spent $13 million funding Prop 12.)
The EATS Act and the Protecting Interstate Commerce for Livestock Producers Act, contrary to being an overreach, serve as necessary countermeasures to ensure that the agriculture policies of one state do not unduly impede or distort interstate commerce across the country.
While states should have the right to set their own policies within their borders, these rights should not extend to actions that disrupt the flow of agricultural goods across state lines. This is not just a matter of economic efficiency but also of national security. Ensuring that agricultural products can move freely across the country is crucial for maintaining stable food supplies and prices.
Supporting the EATS Act and the Protecting Interstate Commerce for Livestock Producers Act is not an endorsement of federal overreach but a recognition of the need for coherent national standards that protect interstate commerce and, by extension, the health and well-being of the nation's food supply.
Will Coggin is managing director at the Center for Consumer Freedom.
Congress must stop interstate commerce chaos
2
0
01.03.2024
A contentious farm bill debate is happening over the balance between state sovereignty and the need for a unified national policy. While Sid Miller champions the cause of state autonomy in a recent op-ed ("Washington, don’t tread on states’ Ag rights"), allowing individual states like California to dictate the terms of agricultural trade across the nation is harmful to farmers and consumers.
The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act and the Protecting Interstate Commerce for Livestock Producers Act are two proposals that would return sanity to food policy. They would nullify Proposition 12, a ballot measure passed in 2018 by California voters. Proposition 12 creates new mandates for pork farmers and prohibits the sale of pork within California not adhering to these requirements—even if that pork was produced in other states.
With approximately 99 percent of pig farmers operating outside California, the measure has far-reaching implications, transforming state-level regulations into a de facto national mandate—a mandate about which these........
© The Hill
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
