The Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression Act would have prevented states from enforcing their own agricultural regulations, but has failed to advance in Congress this session.
While the measure was excluded from the most recent Farm Bill extension, food policy advocates warn that efforts to revive it remain a concern, particularly for Mississippi's agricultural industry.
Rebecca Wolf, senior food policy analyst with Food and Water Watch, called the legislation a direct attack on states' rights to regulate their own food systems.
"The EATS Act would preempt state regulation of the factory farm and agribusiness industry. This includes animal welfare, consumer protection, labeling and food-safety laws and regulations, and the bill is so broad that it could also jeopardize state laws that protect rural communities and preserve our environment," Wolf said.
The bill, introduced in response to California's Proposition 12, which bans the sale of pork products from pigs raised in tightly confined gestation crates, was backed by major agribusiness groups.
Supporters argue that it is essential for maintaining a unified national agricultural market and preventing individual states from imposing regulations that could disrupt interstate commerce. Critics argue that the measure would've gone far beyond its stated intent, effectively overriding state agricultural policies nationwide.
Wolf said Mississippi's agricultural sector, which plays a vital role in the state's economy, could face significant consequences if similar legislation is reintroduced. She raised concerns that eliminating local control over agricultural standards could hurt small farmers and expose consumers to products that do not meet higher state-enforced safety and welfare regulations.
"When it comes to food safety, it's a really big concern right now with the avian flu, the kinds of standards in which animals are raised and really big concern being overcrowding of animals," she continued.
Advocacy groups view the bill's exclusion from the latest Farm Bill as a victory, but Wolf warns the fight isn't over.
Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kan., a sponsor, argued, "Congress shouldn't allow any one state to single-handedly upend the country's agricultural economy and force the American people to bear the burden of higher food prices."
Wolf highlights the success of a bipartisan group of 171 lawmakers who opposed the EATS Act in the 2023 Farm Bill.
get more stories like this via email
More than 130 farmers, ranchers and advocates gathered on Capitol Hill last week, calling for action on the federal funding freeze and farm bill. Missouri, home to over 95,000, ranks second in the nation for the number of farms - with many relying on federal aid to survive. The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, or N-SAC, a nonprofit advocating for sustainable farming, organized the Capitol Hill gathering.
Mike Lavender, N-SAC policy director, says frozen conservation funds are hurting farmers nationwide by limiting support for things such as soil health and the protection of water resources.
"Farmers aren't receiving their payments despite lawfully signed contracts with USDA," he said. "If they have to use their savings to cover costs that their conservation contract can't cover, maybe they don't have enough in savings for their mortgage payment, or to pay off their loan."
Lavender said N-SAC is calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan farm bill that not only strengthens conservation, but also farm safety programs, and supports resilient food and farm systems.
He pointed out that the current farm bill, signed nearly seven years ago, was designed for a vastly different agricultural landscape - emphasizing the need for significant updates.
"We've of course lived through, collectively, the COVID-19 pandemic, and learned lessons from that. We're seeing the increasing impacts of climate change - and we know that there's a lot of work to improve equity and access to the Department of Agriculture, so that we're serving all farmers," he continued.
Lavender warned that the stalled funding has widespread consequences, and added that organizations are laying off workers, canceling programs and stopping critical services that help feed those in need and support farmers.
get more stories like this via email
Winter in Pennsylvania brings farmers not only snow and freezing temperatures but stricter manure-spreading regulations to minimize water pollution.
Putting manure on farm fields is discouraged during winter months or when the ground is snow-covered or frozen at least four inches deep.
Robert Meinen, assistant research professor and extension specialist at Pennsylvania State University, said manure can provide essential nutrients to crops and reduce fertilizer costs but the nutrients have to stay in the fields to maximize their value and not run off into waterways.
"One of the drawbacks is, and the trade-off is, that we have to be careful because we also have environmental risk -- in particular, nitrogen and phosphorus -- if they get into surface water or groundwater, can cause pollution," Meinen explained.
Meinen pointed out in Pennsylvania, farms fall into different categories, including concentrated animal feeding operations, which the Environmental Protection Agency defines based on animal numbers and manure output. The large-scale operations face stricter federal oversight but the state's winter manure laws apply to all farms.
Meinen noted farmers applying manure in winter must follow strict guidelines, including Manure Management Plan requirements. He added winter applications require more conservative measures than in warmer weather, from lower application rates to field slope limitations.
"Restrictions on the slope of the field that you can go on, so a steep slope is to be avoided," Meinen emphasized. "Ground cover requirements, meaning that we can't have a bare soil surface that manure's applied to in the wintertime. It must have some kind of cover crop, or thick ground cover from crop residue."
He stressed Pennsylvania and other states have tightened their rules for putting manure on farm fields in the winter. The state defines winter as mid-December through the end of February, although the rules also apply when the ground is frozen or snow-covered.
get more stories like this via email
Indiana farm leaders are pushing back against a bill that would increase inspections at large livestock farms.
Senate Bill 193, sponsored by Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, would require the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to double inspections at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations for permits.
Josh Trenary, executive director of the Indiana Pork Producers Association, said the department said it will not need more staff but a study suggested otherwise.
"The agency's ability to balance inspecting where the needs are, or the risks are, while still making sure they get around to enough operations every year to receive their grant funding from the federal government," Trenary contended.
Supporters said the bill strengthens oversight and protects water quality, while opponents argued it adds costs and unnecessary burdens on farmers. A Senate committee moved the bill to the full chamber despite concerns from industry leaders and no public testimony in favor of it.
Trenary stated livestock farmers carefully manage manure because they use it as fertilizer instead of costly commercial products. He wants the regulatory program to be efficient.
"We want the regulatory program to run well -- it makes our environmental record look good if IDEM is quickly responding and solving problems before they happen -- that's what we want," Trenary emphasized. "We want them to make those discretionary risk based inspections instead of a blanket statutory requirement."
Trenary argued the proposal creates more regulation without addressing a real problem. He wants lawmakers to focus on better environmental solutions.
get more stories like this via email