Who’s in charge of animal welfare?
A fascinating debate over standard-setting for animal agriculture plays out in D.C. as a farm bill amendment asserting federal control over production could negate California’s infamous Prop 2.
The House Agriculture Committee has just passed an amendment to the farm bill that would block states from imposing their own standards for agriculture products on producers from other states.
If the final bill passes as structured, it could negatea landmark California law—Prop 2—passed by a wide margin in November 2008by Golden State voters. The ballot measure was promoted and positioned by animal-rights groups as a measure that, among other regulations on livestock, forced the state’s egg producers to increase cage sizes so that laying hens could stand and spread their wings.
Opponents of the amendment, including the Humane Society of the United States, which lobbied heavily for Prop 2, warned that the amendment could jeopardize California’s recent ban on the production of foie gras, which took effect this month.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who represents the nation’s No. 1 egg-producing state, said he introduced the amendment because the California law “scrambles and creates a patchwork quilt of state regulations.”
“If California wants to regulate eggs that come into the state, fine,” King said. “But don’t be telling the states that are producing a product that’s already approved by the USDA or FDA how to produce that product.”
King said California requirement violates theCommerce Clause of the Constitution, which gives the federal government jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
That’s where the dynamics of this debate get interesting.
Republicans such as King, of course, are the first in line to demand the primacy of state’s rights when it comes to causes they espouse, such as the repeal of Obamacare. On that issue, the party was united in insisting that the federal mandate in that law, which requires purchase of health insurance, was not only unconstitutional (on the basis of enumerated powers), but precluded a prerogative that should belong to that states. During the political whirlwind leading up the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the Affordable Care Act, the party’s leadership was united is calling the law an egregious overreach.
When it comes to measures the Republicans don’t like, however—such as California’s egg industry regulationsor its earlier imposition of tougher automobile emissions standards (signed into law by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar, by the way)—they embrace the argument that states have no business “scrambling” manufacturing regulations or production standards that might impact companies in other states.
Another interesting twist: King’s amendment was approved last week as the committee held a marathon session on the farm bill. The farm bill cleared the agriculture committee in the wee hours last Thursday morning.
In fact, the measure was debated for about 20 minutes, the Los Angeles Times reported, with Reps. Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.) and Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.) the only committee members who argued against King’s amendment.
Cardoza, who is not running for re-election, said that voters “made an awful mistake” when they passed Prop 2. Schrader also questioned the wisdom of the California measure, and both lawmakers urged the committee to reject the amendment, according to the Times, on the basis of California voters’ right to pass laws governing activity in their state.
Their pleas didn’t have any effect, as members representing the Midwest farm belt states expressed frustration with California’s activism on agricultural and environmental issues.
“It is driving us crazy, because these things come to our states,” Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) told reporters, “and then they’re trying to pass them in our states, and we don’t want them.”
Peterson is the ranking member on the House Agriculture Committee.
“California can’t make your state do something,” Cardoza stated. But wiping out California’s regulations would hurt that state’s economy, he said. “If you can put small cages in Nevada,” Cardoza told the Times,“right across the border, and our state can’t prohibit it, then that’s a problem for us.”
As the issue evolves
The backdrop of the egg cage regulatory controversy is the evolution of industry attitudes—and standards—imposed not by government but crafted by the industry as a means to reach a compromise with HSUS and other activist groups that have adopted a state-by-state strategy of introducing restrictive ballot measures imposing such standards as larger layer cages or prohibiting gestation stalls.
The King amendment sparked outcries from animal rights advocates, and warnings that it could have far-reaching consequences beyond the treatment of birds.
“It is exactly the sort of thing that’s done at midnight on a Wednesday night,” said Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. “We’ve never seen anything that would so profoundly threaten the ability of states to protect consumers, farmers and the environment.”
For example: Wayne Pacelle, HSUS president and CEO, said the House farm bill amendment could prevent states from tougher animal welfare laws (read: Pass more ballot measures supported by clueless consumers who are insulated from the economics of the issue). Pacelle also warned that federal law might preempt other state laws, such asCalifornia’s recent foie gras ban (that took effect this month), which makes it illegal to produce, sell or serve product that’s the result offorce-feeding the birds.
“The scope of this amendment is so absurdly far-reaching that it’s even difficult to talk about,” news stories quoted Pacelle saying in the aftermath of farm bill vote.
Interesting, because Pacelle earlier joined forces with the United Egg Producers in calling for national standards for egg laying hens. One year ago this month, the two groups held a news conference to announce an alliance of sorts, with leadership representing both producers and activists saying their mutual goal was to have a bill passed in 2012 that would set uniform federal standard mandating cage sizes.
That agreement scuttled a couple HSUS-funded planned state referenda set for 2012, including a ballot referendum in Washington state that would have paralleled California’s Prop 2.
So which is it? Do the states have the right to set their own rules, as exemplified by the massive lawsuit filed by more than two dozen state attorneys general that demanded the repeal of Obamacare? Or does the Commerce Clause allow the federal government to enjoin states from regulating commercial activity affecting more than a single state?
Even for animal rights activists, this amendment is creating a dilemma. Are they in favor of the federal government enforcing uniform animal welfare standards, which would theoretically prohibit states from allowing substandard livestock conditions on farms and ranches in certain states? Or would federal control wipe “model” laws, like Prop 2, off the books in favor of watered down standards crafted in Washington, D.C.?
The eventual outcome will be interesting.
The evolving debate is even juicier.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Dan Murphy, a veteran food-industry journalist and commentator.
Comments (5) Leave a comment