By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Deborah Van Fleet for Nebraska News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
If you consider yourself a conscious consumer, grocery shopping can get very complicated very quickly, with countless different labels implying that the food inside was produced humanely. It's important to know what these labels mean, and that can be difficult with a term like "organic," which is often used loosely in casual conversation. But what does meat or dairy being organic really mean for animals, farmers and consumers? We break the latest rules down in this explainer.
To start, the answer is more complicated than you might think. Just six percent of all food sold in the U.S. is organic, but any meat or produce that's marketed as such has to be approved by the United States Department of Agriculture. Although the Trump administration had suspended any updates to the organic standards, the Biden Administration reversed that decision, and earlier this year, the USDA announced its updated rules for organically-produced livestock.
The change was the culmination of a years-long push by some organic farmers to improve how animals are treated on organic farms, and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack celebrated the changes as a win for animals, producers and consumers.
"This organic poultry and livestock standard establishes clear and strong standards that will increase the consistency of animal welfare practices in organic production and in how these practices are enforced," Vilsack said in a statement. "Competitive markets help deliver greater value to all producers, regardless of size."
Before looking at what "organic" means under these changes, however, it's important to know what it doesn't mean.
Does 'Organic' Mean Pesticide-Free?
No. Organic doesn't mean pesticide-free, and this is a common misconception. Although the standards for organically-produced livestock do place some limits on the use of medications, antibiotics, parasiticides, herbicides and other synthetic chemicals in livestock farming, they don't prohibit the use of all pesticides - just most of the synthetic ones, though even then, there are exceptions.
What Do the Current Organic Rules for Livestock Require?
The purpose of the USDA's new Organic Livestock and Poultry Standards is to ensure "clear, consistent and enforceable" animal welfare standards, according to the Organic Trade Association. The rules cover all types of livestock: non-aviary species like lamb and cattle have one set of requirements, while birds of all kinds have another. There are also some additional rules that apply to specific species, such as pigs.
It's long - over 100 pages in total. Some of the rules are fairly simple, like the bans on certain practices, including gestation crates for pregnant pigs; others, like those addressing how much space livestock must have in their living quarters, are much more lengthy and complex.
One thing to keep in mind is that these rules only apply to farms and companies that want their products to be certified organic. It's perfectly legal for producers to ignore all of these requirements, so long as they don't market or refer to their products as "organic." They might instead opt for one of the food labels with less or no regulation at all, like "natural."
Lastly, although these rules take effect in 2025, there's one big exception: Any farm that's certified as organic before 2025 will have until 2029 to abide by the new standards. This provision effectively gives existing producers, including the largest ones, more time to adapt to the new rules than any new farms.
With that said, let's take a look at what these standards are.
New Organic Rules for Livestock's Outdoor Access
The new rules require organically-produced livestock to have access to outdoor space, a privilege many livestock are not afforded. Under the new rules, non-avian livestock like cows and lamb must have year-round access to "the outdoors, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, clean water for drinking, and direct sunlight." If that outdoor area has soil, it must be maintained "as appropriate for the season, climate, geography, species of livestock." The previous rule required outdoor access, but didn't specify any maintenance requirements for outdoor areas.
Birds, meanwhile, need to have "year-round access to the outdoors, soil, shade, shelter, exercise areas, fresh air, direct sunlight, clean water for drinking, materials for dust bathing, and adequate space to escape aggressive behaviors."
The shelters must be constructed such that birds have "ready access" to the outdoors throughout the day. For every 360 birds, there must be "one (1) linear foot of exit area space;" this, according to the USDA's calculations, would ensure that no bird has to wait more than an hour to come inside or go outside.
Egg-laying chickens are required to have access to at least one square foot of outdoor space for every 2.25 pounds of bird at the facility; this requirement is calculated per pound, rather than per bird, to account for variations in size between different birds of the same species. Broiler chickens, on the other hand, are to be given a "flat rate" of at least two square feet per bird.
New Organic Requirements for Livestock's Indoor Space & Housing
The new organic standards also require farmers to give animals enough space to stretch their bodies, move around, and engage in their natural behaviors.
The indoor shelters for non-avian livestock state that the animals have to be given enough space "to lie down, stand up, and fully stretch their limbs and allow livestock to express their normal patterns of behavior over a 24-hour period." This is much more specific than the previous version, which only required enough space for "natural maintenance, comfort behaviors and exercise," and made no reference to how often the animals must have access to this space.
The new rules say that animals may be temporarily confined to spaces that don't meet these requirements - for instance, during milking - but only if they also have "complete freedom of movement during significant parts of the day for grazing, loafing, and exhibiting natural social behavior."
For birds, the indoor shelters must be "sufficiently spacious to allow all birds to move freely, stretch both wings simultaneously, stand normally, and engage in natural behaviors," including "dust bathing, scratching, and perching." In addition, although artificial lighting is allowed, birds must be given at least eight hours of continuous darkness every day.
The rules require that egg-laying chickens be given at least six inches of perch space per bird; chickens who are raised for meat, and non-chicken birds that also lay eggs, are exempt from this requirement.
Organic Rules for Livestock's Health Care
Under the new rules, all surgeries to treat disease in livestock must be carried out "in a manner that employs best management practices in order to minimize pain, stress, and suffering" of the animal. This is a significant addition, as the previous rules did not require farmers to do anything to minimize the pain of animals during surgery.
The USDA has a list of approved anesthetics that may be used on animals during surgery; however, if none of those anesthetics are available, producers are required to take alternative steps to ease the animal's pain - even if doing so results in the animals losing their "organic" status.
Banned Practices for Organic Livestock
The following procedures and devices are completely banned under the new rules for organic products:
- Tail docking (cows). This refers to the removal of most or all of a cow's tail.
- Gestation crates and farrowing cages (pigs). These are harshly-confining cages that mother pigs are kept in during pregnancy and after giving birth.
- Induced molting (chickens). Also known as forced molting, this is the practice of depriving chickens of food and/or daylight for up to two weeks in order to temporarily increase their egg output.
- Wattling (cows). This painful procedure involves slicing off chunks of the skin under a cow's neck for identification purposes.
- Toe clipping (chickens). This refers to cutting off a chicken's toes to prevent them from scratching themselves.
- Mulesing (sheep). Another painful procedure, this is when portions of a sheep's hindquarters are cut off in order to reduce the risk of infection.
The new regulations also contain partial bans on other common factory farm practices. They are:
- Debeaking (chickens). This is the practice of cutting off chickens' beaks to prevent them from pecking one another. The new regulations prohibit debeaking in many contexts, but still permit it so long as a) it takes place within the first 10 days of a chick's life, and b) it doesn't involve removing more than one-third of chick's upper beak.
- Tail docking (sheep). While tail docking of cattle is flatly prohibited, sheep's tails may still be docked under the new regulations, but only up to the distal end of the caudal fold.
- Teeth clipping (pigs). This refers to removing the top-third of a pig's needle teeth to prevent them from injuring each other. The new rules state that teeth clipping may not be performed on a routine basis, but is permitted when alternative attempts to reduce infighting have failed.
Do Organizations Other Than the USDA Offer Certification for Animal Products?
Yes. In addition to the USDA, several nonprofit organizations offer their own certifications for ostensibly "humane" food products. Here are a few of them; for a more thorough comparison of how their welfare standards compare to each other,
the Animal Welfare Institute has you covered.
Animal Welfare Approved
Animal Welfare Approved (AWA) is a certification granted by the nonprofit A Greener World. Its standards are quite rigorous: all animals must have continuous outdoor pasture access, tail-docking and beak-trimming are prohibited, no animals may be kept in cages and calves must be raised by their mothers, among other requirements.
Over the last century, the chicken industry has selectively
bred chickens to grow so abnormally large that many of them can't support their own weight. In an attempt to combat this, AWA standards place a limit on how quickly chickens can grow (no more than 40 grams a day, on average).
Certified Humane
The Certified Humane label is granted by the nonprofit organization Humane Farm Animal Care, which has
developed its own specific welfare standards for each of the most commonly farmed animals. Certified Humane standards require that cows have access to the outdoors (but not necessarily pasture), pigs have adequate bedding and access to rooting materials, egg-laying hens have at least one square foot of space per bird, and perhaps most significantly, no animals of any kind are kept in cages.
Note that Certified Humane is not the same as American Humane Certified, a different program that many animal rights activists believe is
insufficiently committed to animal welfare at best - and
actively deceptive at worst.
GAP-Certified
The Global Animal Partnership, another nonprofit, differs from the other organizations on this list in that it offers a ranked certification program, with products receiving different "grades" depending on which level of standards they adhere to.
Most of GAP's standards focus on what sort of access animals have to pastures, and the organization has
many different metrics for assessing this. It also addresses other areas of animal welfare; under GAP standards, cages are prohibited for both pigs and chickens, and beef cows may not be fed any growth hormones of any kind.
How Does 'Organic' Compare With Other Labels?
Animal products are often marketed as being "cage-free," "free-range" or "pasture-raised." All of these terms have different meanings, and some can have multiple meanings depending on the context.
Cage-Free
At least three different organizations offer "cage-free" certification:
The USDA,
Certified Humane and
United Egg Producers (UEP), a trade group. Naturally, all three of them define the term differently; in general, all three prohibit cages, but some are more stringent than others. For instance, the USDA has no minimum space requirements for cage-free chickens, while Certified Humane does.
Additionally,
all eggs produced in California are cage-free, thanks to the passage of Proposition 12.
In any event,
a lack of cages doesn't necessarily mean these chickens are living happy, healthy lives. There's no requirement that cage-free chickens be given access to the outdoors, for instance, and although the UEP discourages beak-trimming on cage-free farms, it doesn't prohibit it.
Despite these shortcomings, studies have shown that
cage-free systems significantly reduce the amount of pain that chickens experience on factory farms.
Free-Range
Under current USDA rules,
poultry products can use the label "free-range" if the flock in question was "provided shelter in a building, room, or area with unlimited access to food, fresh water, and continuous access to the outdoors during their production cycle," with the stipulation that outdoor areas can't be fenced in or covered with netting.
Certified Humane's Free-Range standards are more specific, with a requirement that the chickens get at least six hours outdoor access a day and two square feet of outdoor space per bird.
Pasture-Raised
Unlike "cage-free" and "free-range," "pasture-raised" labeling is not regulated by the government at all. If you see a product that's labeled "pasture-raised" without the mention of any third-party certification, it's essentially meaningless.
If a product is Certified Humane Pasture-Raised, however, it means quite a lot - specifically, that
every chicken had at least 108 square feet of outdoor space for at least six hours a day.
Meanwhile, all AWA-certified products are pasture-raised, regardless of whether those words appear on the label, as this is a core requirement of their certification.
The Bottom Line
The new USDA Organic regulations do hold organic meat companies to a higher level of animal welfare than non-organic products, and that includes large players like Tyson Foods and Perdue with organic product lines. The new standards aren't quite as high as those of some third-party certifiers, like AWA, and even for the best certifications, how animals are raised in reality depends on the quality of oversight and independent inspectors. Ultimately,
"humanewashing" has become a common enough marketing practice that it's easy for even the savviest shoppers to be fooled by unverified or deceptive labeling. The fact that a product is marketed as "humane" doesn't necessarily make it so, and likewise, the fact that a product is marketed as organic also doesn't necessarily mean it's humane.
Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
By Gabriella Sotelo for Sentient Climate.
Broadcast version by Danielle Smith for Keystone State News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
Farms across the U.S. are still struggling to contain the spread of avian flu. The virus has infected farms in all 50 states since the beginning of the outbreak, according to the CDC. Two states - Pennsylvania and Georgia - have recently declared themselves bird-flu free, after stepping up testing efforts and biosecurity protocols. Yet the ongoing spread nationwide - both on factory farms and from infectious migratory birds - raises questions about what a "bird-flu free" announcement really means for the U.S. food system.
Large confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) can house over 125,000 broiler chickens or 82,000 laying hens at a time, creating a perfect environment for diseases like bird flu to spread. Similarly, large cattle farms may house over 1,000 cattle while dairy CAFOs can house 700 or more dairy cattle.
Pennsylvania state officials announced that they reached "HPAI-Free," or bird-flu free status in their dairy industry in February. By March, Georgia Agriculture Commissioner had also announced poultry operations in the state were "HPAI-Free."
Achieving "free from bird flu" status requires strict biosecurity protocols and significant collaboration between local, state and federal authorities, according to industry researchers. The USDA sets national guidelines for monitoring and testing, which each state adapts to its specific needs. In other words, states can implement their own testing strategies, but these are based on USDA guidelines, and it's the USDA that confirms the findings.
No matter how thorough the protocol, Corinne Bromfield, a University of Missouri extension swine veterinarian with a background in biosecurity, says even the best biosecurity plan on paper is still very difficult to enact on an actual farm. "For something that is transmitted by wild birds, we can only take the steps that we can control," Bromfield tells Sentient.
State Bird Flu Containment Strategies, Explained
In January 2025, Georgia confirmed its first bird flu case in a commercial poultry flock. Georgia raises around 1.4 billion broiler chickens and 18 million layer hens at any given time, making it one of the nation's leading chicken producers. The state responded quickly to the outbreak, containing the virus within 48 hours (according to a press release from state officials) and suspending all in-state poultry activities, including exhibitions and sales.
Tom Tabler, extension poultry specialist at the University of Tennessee Extension Service, told Sentient by email that the steps for containment include "quarantine, depopulation, disposal, cleaning, disinfecting, testing and time," including both state and federal guidelines.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania, ranked 8th in total dairy production in the U.S, took a proactive testing approach to prevent the spread of bird flu in dairy herds. Since late November 2024, the state's Animal Diagnostic Laboratory System has tested over 22,000 bulk milk samples from nearly all of its dairy farms, according to the state's official press release. Pennsylvania has remained one of 33 states with no confirmed cases of bird flu in cattle, at least as of this publication date, according to USDA data.
When avian influenza is first detected in a flock, producers are supposed to report sick or dead birds to their state veterinarian or a state animal health official, according to USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) guidelines. If the virus is confirmed, the USDA steps in to assist with the inventory for indemnity, investigation and depopulation.
Here, the term depopulation means wiping out an entire flock at once, as quickly and cheaply as possible. Producers often rely on an inexpensive slaughter strategy called "ventilation shut down plus." Most birds die of heat stroke or suffocation during the process, with any surviving birds typically killed by hand. Producers also must create a flock plan, which should include steps for getting rid of the virus and getting the farm back into production.
To eliminate bird flu in U.S. dairy herds, the USDA has developed a National Milk Testing Strategy (NMTS) that includes a combination of silo monitoring at dairy processing plants and mandatory testing for interstate movement of lactating dairy cattle.
A state must complete at least four rounds of monthly testing with negative results in order to achieve official "unaffected" status. Pennsylvania is one of nine states that, as of this publication date, has been listed as "unaffected" on the NMTS page. If a state's dairy herd tests positive, the producer is supposed to quickly detect and respond to affected herds, including increasing biosecurity protocols and using contact tracing to pinpoint the spread.
These strategies help to mitigate the spread of bird flu, but maintaining bird-flu free status is an ongoing challenge that can be undone at any time.
Biosecurity Protocols Can Be Quickly Undone
Much like any other virus, bird flu won't be deterred by a border on a map. The virus is unpredictable, threatening to resurface at any time. Containing bird flu spread then requires constant vigilance, as experts tell Sentient that any lapse in biosecurity can undo years of efforts.
Even the best on-farm protocols can't control for wild birds entirely. "We're doing everything that we can to minimize the risk to the animals that are under our control," Bromfield says, "but we also have this added layer of animals that are not under our control."
Pennsylvania state officials are aware of the challenge, it seems. "We are not out of the woods yet, and the threat demands that we keep our guard up," Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Russell Redding said in the February 12 press release.
States must remain prepared to implement emergency control measures at a moment's notice - ready to establish control zones around affected farms and halt the movement of chickens and cows.
"We're always going to have migrating animals that happen to come through areas that we live in or our animals live in," Bromfield says.
Tabler, a poultry scientist, had a similar warning. "Migratory birds or a lapse in biosecurity could easily start the whole process over again," he wrote in an email to Sentient.
Factory Farms and Wild Birds Keep Threat Levels High
Biosecurity protocols do not address a persistent factor for disease spread - the conditions in which factory-farmed poultry are raised. With tens of thousands of birds confined in cramped, unsanitary spaces, factory farms are the ideal breeding grounds for diseases like bird flu.
Overcrowding combined with massive amounts of waste can make it nearly impossible to contain the spread of pathogens. On top of this, wild birds help to spread the disease, making confinement to any one farm exceptionally difficult.
Currently, the standard approach to outbreaks is depopulating - killing infected flocks en masse, often with methods that are cheaper and less humane than standard slaughter methods - and large-scale operations have received indemnity payments for their losses. A December 2024 report from the USDA found that the indemnity program was failing to incentivize producers to take increased biosecurity precautions. Changes to the program were subsequently instituted, though the payout scheme has already resulted in record profits for leading egg producer Cal-Maine.
For smaller farms or backyard poultry owners, maintaining biosecurity measures is also an ongoing challenge, thanks to increased exposure to wild birds and their droppings. Without the infrastructure or resources available to large-scale commercial operations, these smaller operations can be quickly wiped out.
The Bottom Line
While states like Georgia and Pennsylvania have declared themselves bird-flu free, the threat from avian flu is far from over in any part of the country. The virus continues to threaten the food system and public health, as risk of a larger pandemic - currently low - looms overhead. The process to contain the virus is ongoing, as any new outbreak can quickly undo progress, demonstrating the fragile nature of any bird-flu free announcement.
Gabriella Sotelo wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
By Seth Millstein for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration
In 2018, California voters passed the strongest animal protection law in the country, and it’s been under near-constant attack ever since. After surviving a Supreme Court challenge and multiple legislative assaults, Proposition 12 now faces a new threat: the Food Security & Farm Protection Act, a new piece of legislation that was announced last week.
The GOP-sponsored bill is explicitly aimed at undoing Proposition 12, which requires farmers to give certain livestock animals a specific amount of space on their facilities. However, experts say that it could also potentially threaten over 1,000 public health, safety and welfare laws across the country.
While the Food Security & Farm Protection Act itself is new, the approach to undoing Prop 12 isn’t. “This has been the Big Ag playbook for quite a while, and it’s taken various legislative forms,” Rebecca Wolf, senior food policy analyst at the nonprofit Food and Water Watch, tells Sentient. “Big Ag doesn’t want to be told what to do by states, and so it puts Republicans in a really interesting position that puts them between Big Ag and more of a states’ rights framework.”
But some Republicans strongly oppose this latest attempt to repeal Proposition 12, and so do a lot of farmers. Politics makes for strange bedfellows, and the fight over Proposition 12 is a perfect illustration of why.
Proposition 12, Explained
Initially passed by California voters in 2018, Proposition 12 is a state law that regulates the conditions in which certain livestock are reared, and additionally, the type of livestock products that can be sold in the state. Both components of the law are centered on how much room the animals are given to live.
Proposition 12 imposes minimum space requirements for breeding pigs, egg-laying hens and veal calves. Breeding pigs must be given at least 24 square feet of floor space, while egg-laying hens must be given between 1 and 1.5 square feet of space, depending on the type of housing system. Veal calves are required to be given 43 square feet of space.
In addition, Proposition 12 requires that all food sold in the state of California adheres to the above requirements, even if it was produced in another state. Because California is such an enormous market for eggs and pork, this second provision has resulted in many out-of-state producers, including some in other countries, adapting to Proposition 12’s requirements.
Although Proposition 12 is widely regarded as the strongest animal welfare law in the country, there’s a lot that it doesn’t do. The law’s protections don’t apply to chickens raised for meat, for instance, or cattle, nor does it place any restrictions on how the animals are slaughtered. In addition, Proposition 12 doesn’t regulate tail-docking, beak trimming and many other practices that are commonplace on factory farms but not strictly related to living space.
The Fight to Repeal Proposition 12
The Food Security and Farm Protection Act is the most recent attempt to scrap Proposition 12, but it’s definitely not the first.
The King Amendment
Way back in 2013, before Proposition 12 was even on the ballot, Rep. Steve King proposed an amendment to that year’s farm bill that would have banned states from imposing their own restrictions on the in-state sale of agricultural products produced out of state. This was in response to earlier state laws that enacted such restrictions, such as California’s Proposition 2.
Ultimately, Congress didn’t include the King Amendment in that year’s farm bill. But King resurrected his amendment five years later, as California voters were preparing to weigh in on Proposition 12. As with the previous attempt, it was initially approved in committee; months later, however, California voters approved Proposition 12, and one month after that, the King Amendment was defeated on the House floor.
The Supreme Court Case
The next year, several meat industry lobbying groups sued to overturn Proposition 12, including the North American Meat Institute and, in a separate lawsuit, the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation. The former suit was quickly defeated, but the latter made its way up to the Supreme Court.
These trade groups argued that Proposition 12 was unconstitutional on two grounds. First, they claimed that it violated a legal doctrine known as the dormant commerce clause. This is the idea that, because the Constitution allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce, states can’t pass laws that substantially encroach on this congressional duty.
The plaintiffs also argued that the purported benefits of Proposition 12 to Californians didn’t outweigh the economic burden that it placed on other states’ economic interests. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court rejected both arguments, and Proposition 12 went into full effect in 2024.
The EATS Act
Perhaps in anticipation of this, Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas then introduced the EATS Act. It was essentially the same as the King Amendment, and followed a similar path: Republicans included it in their 2024 farm bill proposal, but it never passed or became law. This is largely because the 2024 farm bill itself never passed, but that’s another story entirely.
Although the EATS Act is kaput, many supporters of Proposition 12 still use “the EATS Act” as a colloquial way of referring to the most recent piece of legislation that would repeal the California law.
This time, it’s the Food Security & Farm Protection Act.
The Complicated Coalitions Behind Proposition 12
It might be tempting to assume that liberals support Proposition 12, and conservatives oppose it. But in practice, opinions on the law haven’t mapped neatly on to traditional partisan lines, and it’s drawn both support and opposition from some surprising places.
Animal Welfare Groups
Generally speaking, supporters of animal welfare and opponents of factory farming support Prop 12. The Humane Society, Animal Legal Defense Fund, ASPCA, Animal Welfare Institute, The Humane League and many other animal rights organizations have all gone to bat for the law, and so have a good number of climate and environmental organizations, such as the Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the Earth and National Sustainable Agriculture commission.
“We want to see the standards raised for all animals on factory farms, and we want to see a roll away from factory farms,” Wolf says.
And yet one of the most well-known animal rights groups, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), has opposed Proposition 12 from the start, and so has the Humane Farming Association (HFA). PETA’s position is that the law doesn’t go far enough and would be misleading to consumers, while HFA essentially doubted that Proposition 12 would be properly implemented.
Agricultural Lobbies & Farmers
On the other side, major agricultural lobbies have long opposed Proposition 12. This includes the National Pork Board as well as the Meat Institute, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers’ Council. Smithfield Foods, the largest pork producer in America, has complained about Proposition 12 and suggested that it supports repeal, without stating so explicitly.
And yet despite this, many individual farmers support Proposition 12 for a variety of reasons. Some simply agree with the idea of giving farm animals a little bit more space, while others like that they can sell Proposition 12-compliant meat and eggs at a premium to welfare-minded customers. One farmer told Sentient last year that the law is “one of the best things, economically, that’s happened to us in a very long time.”
“Within the food and farm marketplace, there are places for producers to carve and make investments, and provide the product that the market is asking for,“ Wolf says. Proposition 12, she says, makes it easier for “independent producers [to] carve this niche, and form higher-welfare markets” for pork and eggs.
Why Republicans Are Divided on Attempts to Repeal Prop 12
All of the legislative attempts to repeal Proposition 12 have come from Republican lawmakers. And yet a surprising number of Republicans have come out in support of Proposition 12 — or at the very least, against the efforts to repeal it. This may sound like a small distinction, but it’s played a big role in shaping some folks’ opinion on the law, especially on the right.
In 2023, 16 House Republicans signed a letter declaring their opposition to the EATS Act and its inclusion in the farm bill. These lawmakers said that, while they didn’t necessarily support Proposition 12 itself, they very much did oppose the idea of the federal government overturning state laws, which is what the EATS Act, and now the Food Security & Farm Protection Act, would do.
“The EATS Act is a pretty draconian federal preemptive strategy that tells states how to regulate within their borders,” Wolf says. “That is pretty antithetical to a lot of the major talking points of the Republican Party.”
This is also the position of Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, a conservative Republican who opposes both Proposition 12 and the attempts to repeal it. In 2024, Miller wrote in an op-ed that, “while I don’t agree with Proposition 12, I’ll defend to my dying day California’s right to self-determination, and any state’s ability to use its constitutional authority as that state’s citizens best see fit.”
In addition to this reasoning, some conservative Republicans also support Proposition 12 because they see it as a bulwark against foreign influence over American farmland. This is largely because the biggest pork producer in America, Smithfield Foods, is owned by a Chinese company with strong ties to the Chinese government. China has scant animal welfare laws, but any meat that Smithfield’s parent company sells in California has to be Proposition 12-compliant.
Many conservatives oppose Smithfield’s Chinese ownership, seeing it as a threat to national security, the livelihood of American farmworkers, and animal welfare. These concerns vary in terms of their validity, but regardless, 10 House Republicans signed a letter stating that they oppose the EATS Act on these grounds.
The Bottom Line
It’s far too soon to say what will come of the Food Security & Farm Protection Act. While Republicans have the majority in Congress, they’re divided enough on Prop 12 that attempts to overturn it are anything but certain. But like the EATS Act and the King amendment before it, the legislation’s mere existence is evidence of Proposition 12’s enormous impact on the farming sector. So, too, is the fact that it’s supported by such a wide variety of people, for so many different reasons.
“There’s a ton of these different conversations about the kind of food and farm system that we’re building,” Wolf says. “It’s not just about animal welfare standards, but the infrastructure under which food production happens today.”
Seth Millstein wrote this article for Sentient.
get more stories like this via email
Contact
