The provisions of the 2018 U.S. Farm Bill have been extended again after another government shutdown — the longest in history. For the third year in a row, Congress has failed to pass a new comprehensive bill shaping America’s agricultural economy. One immediate consequence of this legislative paralysis is a temporary reprieve from measures like the so‑called “Save Our Bacon” Act, which would curtail states’ ability to set their own agricultural rules and undermine competitive advantages held by small producers.
“Save Our Bacon” (H.R. 4673) and its Senate counterpart, S.1326, the “Food Security and Farm Protection Act,” would allow any business or individual who claims to be harmed by a state’s agricultural laws to sue to have them invalidated in federal court. These bills are aimed at overturning California’s Proposition 12 and similar state laws that ban the in‑state sale of pork, veal and egg products sourced from animals raised in extreme confinement. While compliance with some state standards has created short‑term costs for producers forced to retrofit operations, federal efforts to erase these laws increasingly look driven by political pressure and corporate interest rather than the welfare of all farmers.
Many producers have already adapted to state standards. Major retailers and buyers have adopted similar requirements, and killing long‑standing state laws by federal fiat would threaten those investments just as independent producers struggle to stay afloat. It would also eliminate market niches for small and traditional farms that benefit from higher welfare or quality standards.
These bills do not primarily protect “American farmers.” Instead, they empower large corporate actors — including companies with significant foreign ownership, such as Smithfield Foods — to challenge state rules that they find inconvenient. A legislative analysis affiliated with Harvard’s Animal Law & Policy Program found that hundreds of state laws, including those dealing with food quality and safety, could be at risk if “Save Our Bacon” becomes law, and concluded that its passage could “put small and local farmers who benefit from state standards at a disadvantage.”
That conclusion is spot on. Federal overrides like “Save Our Bacon” effectively enable the biggest operators to use litigation and federal lawmakers to shield their business models from state democracy and local innovation. These large firms can absorb compliance costs or restructure at scale; small, independent farms cannot easily do so. For many smaller producers, state standards provide differentiation and market access that sustain their businesses.
The Supreme Court has considered — and rejected — multiple legal challenges to Proposition 12, and earlier federal legislative attempts such as the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act failed to advance. Yet variations of the same idea persist in Congress. If trade groups and policymakers invested as much energy in policies that benefit the whole agricultural sector — especially small and mid‑size farms — as they do in protecting the largest operators’ cost structures, lawmakers might find it easier to build consensus on a new Farm Bill rather than repeatedly extending the 2018 law.
Beyond economics, this is a question of democratic governance and regional diversity. State farm animal‑welfare laws were passed through the democratic processes of individual states and reflect local voters’ values. In a nation of wide regional differences, a one‑size‑fits‑all federal mandate rarely fits. States need the freedom to experiment, protect citizens’ preferences, and test new models for food safety, animal welfare and sustainability.
If Congress eventually passes a Farm Bill — whether a “skinny” stopgap or a full package — there are sensible federal policy options under discussion that might deserve inclusion. But stripping states of their authority to regulate agriculture is not one of them. Federalizing agriculture via broad preemption would concentrate power in Washington and in the hands of the largest agribusinesses, while shrinking the space for local innovation and for small farmers to compete on different terms.
[Kaitlyn Diana edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
