The meat industry has historically enjoyed a nationwide system of regulation that created clear and consistent rules for all participants in the industry. With federal inspection of meat harvest (we used to say slaughter) and fabrication facilities, all Americans could have confidence in the quality and safety of their meals.

More recently, however, California attempted to upend the uniform set of national rules, and pass its own standards regarding the permissible sale of meat products in California. In particular, with California’s passage of Proposition 12, the state attempted to regulate how livestock intended for food could be raised prior to harvest. Most notably, the new set of California rules extended to the raising of livestock outside of the state of California, if the food products derived from the livestock would be sold in California.

Following the passage of the new rules, lawsuits and appeals followed, and the U.S. Supreme Court surprisingly upheld California’s attempt to single handedly regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court reasoned, in its decision, that food “[c]ompanies that choose to sell products in various states must normally comply with the laws of those various states.” I disagree entirely.

And, so too did U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). In a move to address concerns over state autonomy, Marshall introduced the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act (EATS Act). The legislation aims to give states more control over their agricultural regulations while ensuring a balanced approach to food production and animal welfare — and, in essence, telling California that it is not permitted to regulate the agricultural practices being implemented and followed in other states.

In the event of a alleged violation of the EATS Act, an individual, including producers and consumers, would be entitled to bring a legal action to invalidate any offending state or local laws and regulation, and seek damages for any economic loss resulting from the offending laws or regulations. If passed, the new legislation would once again level the playing field for the meat industry.

So, where do things currently stand? The EATS Act has been referred to committees in both the House and Senate for review, and potential inclusion in the next Farm Bill.

With that said, the current Farm Bill already expired on Sept. 30. As a result, Congress will be working in the coming weeks to finalize the new Farm Bill in order to prevent any disruption to various important and essential agricultural programs.

While similar legislation (to the EATS Act) has been unsuccessfully proposed in the past, I hope that this legislation can find approval. In my humble view, no individual state should be able to dictate what happens in a neighboring state. If additional animal welfare rules are truly needed and desired by consumers, Congress is likely best-suited to address those issues.

So, hopefully, we can report soon that California will be thwarted by Congress from the upheaval that Proposition 12 might cause. And, the citizens of California will be able to continue to enjoy safe, wholesome, and properly raised meat from any of the 49 other states. If not, it might just be yet another reason to bid farewell to the state of California.

EAT this, California

Join for free* to continue reading.