Kansas Senator Dr. Roger Marshall introduced the Ending Agricultural Trade Suppression (EATS) Act to address state and local laws affecting agriculture products reliant on interstate commerce. The bill follows the Supreme Court's affirmation of California's Proposition 12, which sets animal welfare standards for hogs and egg-laying hens and restricts pork and egg sales in the state.
The EATS Act faces varying reactions among agricultural groups, with the Kansas Livestock Association supporting it as a way to reduce Prop 12 measures. CEO Matt Teagarden emphasizes allowing states and producers to determine best practices without extending regulations beyond their borders.
Some groups, like the Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), express reservations about the EATS Act. Cattle producer Mike Schultz from OCM believes that decisions like Prop 12 should be left to voters in the respective states rather than being decided at the federal level.
Schultz is concerned that the EATS Act could lead to increased competition from meat imported by overseas-owned producers, potentially placing domestic producers at a disadvantage.
Schultz cites Smithfield, owned by a Chinese company, as an example of a foreign-owned entity that could gain an advantage under the EATS Act, impacting independent hog producers in the U.S. He advocates for fair competition and believes that imports should meet or exceed U.S. standards.
The EATS Act's impact on animal health and food safety laws in states is a topic of debate. Harvard Law School suggests it may roll back laws, while Senator Marshall's office believes it will be minimal and evolve with stakeholder input during the legislative process.
The agriculture industry faces challenges with the EATS Act, affecting state autonomy, competition, and consumer costs. Stakeholders will advocate for their interests to shape the final outcome.