Stop the EATS Act

The EATS Act would undermine states’ efforts to address the harms of factory farming. Besides nullifying animal protection laws, worker, community, and environmental protections could also be wiped off the books.

Tell your Senators and Representative to listen to voters, the courts, and compassion and reject the EATS Act today!

Form Label Field

Your Message

Subject

Dear [Your Senator/Representative],

Message Body

We write in strong opposition to the “Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act” (S.2019/H.R.4417) introduced by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) and Rep. Ashley Hinson (R-IA). This legislation overrides the will of voters and would give factory farm polluters free-reign to harm families, farmers, and communities. We urge you to oppose this dangerous, overreaching bill and do all you can to ensure that neither it nor anything like it are included in the 2023 Farm Bill.
 
The EATS Act is very similar to the controversial legislation introduced by former Representative Steve King (R-IA) that – because of bipartisan outcry – was fortunately omitted from the final 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills. The King amendment generated overwhelming opposition from a diverse set of more than 170 groups, plus hundreds of federal and state legislators, individual farmers, veterinary professionals, faith leaders, legal experts, and newspaper editorials including USA Today.
 
S.2019/H.R.4417 OVERRIDES VOTERS AND STATES’ RIGHTS

Modeled after the King amendment, the EATS Act could negate many state and local laws related to agricultural production. If any state permits a preharvest practice in the production of an agricultural product – no matter how hazardous, destructive, or inhumane to people or animals – the EATS Act would dictate that every state allow the sale of such products. The EATS Act is even more overreaching than the “King amendment” since it aims to block state and local laws when there is no substantive standard to take their place – preventing action on local concerns despite a vacuum of federal action. Agricultural products are defined broadly in the bill, pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 1626, to include “agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, and dairy products, livestock and poultry, bees, forest products, fish and shellfish, and any products thereof, including processed and manufactured products, and any and all products raised or produced on farms and any processed or manufactured product thereof.”
 
THE ACT PUTS US ALL AT RISK

Laws governing food safety, such as chemicals in baby food and arsenic in animal feed, exposure to dangerous pesticides, worker safety including child labor, animal welfare including puppy mills, wildlife protection, fire hazards, invasive pests, infectious diseases, and justice issues, such as communities disproportionately impacted by pollution, could all be under threat. 
  
THE ACT IGNORES THE SUPREME COURT

On May 11, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California’s Proposition 12, a law addressing the animal welfare and public health risks caused by the extreme confinement of pigs and other animals in small crates and cages on factory farms. The Court clearly and unanimously rejected the pork industry’s primary claim: that Proposition 12’s ban on the sale of pork from cruelly confined animals is unconstitutional merely because it may have indirect so-called “extraterritorial” effects on out-of-state pork producers. 
 
THE ACT IGNORES BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS

There are 14 states (red, blue, and purple) with laws regarding intensive confinement of farm animals and 80% of American voters – including nearly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats – support a law like Proposition 12 being enacted in their own states.

THE ACT HURTS FARMERS AND RURAL COMMUNITIES

The EATS Act would take away rights from states and localities to set farmer-friendly standards. Family farmers across the country have made significant investments to come into compliance with state laws that could be undone by the EATS Act. Proposition 12 is not a case of California imposing its standards on other states. Producers in any state can decide not to alter their production methods to supply another state’s consumers or can segregate animals for different markets as the industry currently does. Many large and small producers have indicated they already can or will be able to supply California’s market.

Signed,

[First Name] [Last Name]
[Your Address]

Your Information

Already a supporter?

If we already have your information, just enter your email address and click to send this message now.

Salutation *

Alternate Salutation

Most elected officials’ constituent email systems accept a very limited set of salutations. Please select the one you would most prefer.

First name *

Last name *

E-mail address *

Yes, I would like to receive e-mail communications from this organization.

Address *

Address Line 2

City *

State *

Zip Code *

Phone